ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 JORGE ALFONSO C. MELO Bar Review Coordinator LEILA S. LIM Bar Review Secretaiat ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS PATRICK EDWARD BALISONG Chairman KATRINA Y. COSCOLLUELA JONATHAN VICTOR NOEL CZARINA CHER CUERPO GENICA THERESE ENDALUZ JOHN STEPHEN PANGILINAN BENIGNO ENCISO ‘Adminstration Committee Heads Academies Committee Heads Hotel Operations Commitee Heads. JUDGE OSCAR PIMENTEL (RET.) ASSOCIATE DEAN GIOVANNI VALLENTE ATTY. RONALD C. CHUA, (CRIMINAL LAW Faculty Advisers ALELI JOYCE BUCU BERNADETTE ENCARNACION PATRICIA THERESE MIRADOR ‘CRIMINAL LAW Subject Heads. EUNICE A. MALAYO FRANCES CHRISTINE F. SAYSON Central Bar Operations Academics Understudies ELLAINE QUIZON PATRICIA SORIANO MIKA MONSALUD ANGELIE PAMIE LEE CRIMINAL LAW Volunteers KALI NAVEA-HUFF RICHELA PUNO DROTOTHY HELENA DULNOAN FRICELA KIM CARREON CHRISTINA BALTAZAR CARMINA LOISE ARAGONATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW 1, REVISED PENAL CODE — BOOK A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 4. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Q: Distinguish matum in se from malum prohibitum. a Temes ‘Acrime where the act done is inherently bad, evil and wrong in nature, such that it is generally condemned. The moral traits of the offender are taken into account in punishing the crime. Good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is a defense. (Garcia v. CA, GR. No. 187171, 2006, citing Reyes, Book 1, p. 55 LE ‘Acrime where the act done isnot inherently bad, evil | or wrong | but prohibited by law for public good and welfare. Anyone who voluntarily commits the prohibited act | incurs criminal | liability. Good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense. (U.S. v. Go Chico, GR. No. 4963, 1909) 2. APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE PENAL CODE a. GENERALITY :: What is the Generality principle of Criminal Law? A: Penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live (r sojourn in the Philippine territory. (Art 14, CC) What are the exceptions to the Generality principle of Criminal Law? A 1) Treaty stipulations and agreements; 2) Law of preferential application; and 3) Principles of Public International Law. (Reyes, Book 1, p. 10) international b. TERRITORIALITY Q: What is the Territoriality principle of Criminal Law? A: Penal laws have the force and effect only within its territory. (Art 2, RPC) What are the exceptions to the Territoriality principle of Criminal Law? & 1) Treaties; and 2) Laws of preferential application. (Art. 2, RPC) Q: What are the exceptions to the rule that penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable ‘only within its territory? B 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 obligations and securities issued by the Goverment of the Philippine Istands; 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 an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5) Should commit’ any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations. (Art. 2, RPC) Q: Must a ship be registered in the Philippines for the exception to territoriality under Art. 2 of the RPC apply? A: Yes. Registration of the vessel or aircraft makes it a Philippine ship/airship within the purview of Art. 2. (Sec. 1, RA 6235) Otherwise, the rule on territoriality applies, subject to the English Rule. Note: this exception only applies if the crime is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of another country. (People v. Cheng, G.R. No. L- 18924, 1922) Q: What is the English Rule? Differentiate from the French Rule. A; The English Rule, which Philippine law follows, punishes a crime committed on board a foreign merchant vessel if within the territorial jurisdiction Page 1 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW of the Philippines; unless the offense affects or refers only to the internal management of the vessel ‘The French Rule punishes a crime committed on board a foreign merchant vessel only if it affects oF refers to the peace and security of the country where committed. (Reyes, Book 1, p. 29) Q: A and B, Filipino citizens, went to Hong Kong on a pleasure trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the Philippines, B discovered that A stole her diamond ring worth Php2,000 while they were in Hong Kong. May our Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your answer. ‘A: No, because the crime was committed in Hong Kong. This is not one of the cases where the provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines 4s provided in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 2, RPC; and Estrada, 2008) c. PROSPECTIVITY Q: What is the Prospectivity principle of Criminal Law? ‘A: Crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission. Thus, a penal law cannot punish an act done before its effectivity. (Art. 366, RPC) Q: What is the exception to the Prospectivity principle of Criminal Law? ‘A: When the new law is favorable to the accused (Art. 22, RPC) such as wh lighter penalty for the crime committed. What are the exceptions to the exception to. the Prospectivity principle of Criminal Law? A 1) The new law is expressly inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 1-922, 1902); and 2) The offender is 2 habitual criminal. (Art 22, RPC) Q: Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder. A EIRETTe ‘A law which inflicts punishment on a named individual or a group of individuals without judicial trial Sree ‘Any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act was committed, Itis Latin. phrase which means “trom | (People v. Ferrer, something done | G.R. No, L-32613-14, afterwards.” It could | 1972) also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than when it was committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts greater penalty |than the law | governing the crime | when committed (US. v Conde, GR. No. L-18208, 1922) 3. PRO REO PRINCIPLE B. FELONIES 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES a. GRAVE vs. LESS GRAVE vs. LIGHT FELONIES GRAVE FELONIES Punishable by reclusion perpetua, reclusion disqualification, perpetual or temporary special disqualification and prision mayor. LESS GRAVE FELONIES Punishable by prision correccional, arresto ‘mayor, suspension and destierro. LIGHT FELONIES are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto ‘menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos or both, is provided. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. They produce such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries Page 2 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW that public conscience is satisfied with providing alight penalty for their consummation. EXCEPTION: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Rationale: The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity. b. ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE, AND PRAETER INTENTIONEM Era Aberratio _Praeter Pei orem a Mistake in| Mistake in| The injurious. Identity theBlow — [result is, greater than that intended ihe intended | it is a | Article 49 wall crime and | compound _| not apply. crime actually | crime when This is a committed are | the single | mitigating punished with | act results in | circumstance different two or more | . (Art. 13 par. penalties: The | crimes (Art | 3) lesser penalty | 48) for the crime | otherwise, intended or | the offenses committed is | shall be imposed. (Art. | separately 49) punished, @: The conduct of wife (W) aroused the ire of her husband (H). Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, H could not help but inflict physical injuries on W. Moments after H started hitting W with his fists, W suddenly complained of severe chest pains. H, realizing that W was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate W's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she had been. suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could W be held guilty of? AH could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows, and therewith inflicting physical injuries, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended. (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC) Although W died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by H's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and hastened W's death Even though H may have acted without intent to Kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, H may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC; and People v. Reyes, GR. No. L-42117, 1935) Q: A and B were fighting on a sidewalk of a street. When A hit B on the face, the latter fell ‘on the street at the moment a passing automobile was just a meter from where B fell. As a result, B was run over and was killed. At the time he boxed B, A did not see the automobile. Is a liable for the death of B? ‘A: No, because the blow given by A on the face of B was not the proximate cause of B's death. Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. In this case, there was an efficient intervening cause that broke the relation of cause and effect, and that is, the running over of B by the passing automobile. (People v. Villacorta, GR. No. 186412, 2011) c. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME What are the elements of an impossible crime? & 1) Act would have been an offense against persons or property; 2) There was criminal intent; 3) Accomplishment is inherently impossible (legal impossibility or physical impossibility), or inadequate or ineffectual means are employed; and 4) Act Is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of special law. (Art 4, RPC) Page 3 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What is the difference between legal impossibility and factual impossibility? A eres gy rrr tes Refers to. intended | Refers to Extraneous: acts even _ if circumstances Completed would not | unknown to the actor amountto a.crime. | or beyond his contol | prevent the consummation of the intended crime. such as a man who puts his hand in. another's | pocket with intent to Steal and finds. the | pocket empty. (Into |v ca, GR. No | 103119, 1992) @: Are there attempted or frustrated impossible crimes? ‘A; There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. The offender intending to commit an offense has already performed all the acts of execution but does not produce the crime by reason of the fact that it's nature is one of impossible accomplishment or that the means employed are essentially inadequate or ineffectual. Since all the acts of execution have already been performed, there could be no attempted impossible crime. The acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense. (Art. 4, RPC; Estrada, 2008; and Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 1992) 4d. STAGES OF EXECUTION @: Distinguish the three stages of committing a felony. A CT Offender Offender | Offender commences | performs all | performs all the the the acts of | acts of execution of | execution of | execution and the felony by | the felony | produces the overt acts | but does not | felony. but does not | produce it | perform all | by reason of | the acts of | causes | execution by | independent | reason of | of the will of | some cause | the offender. | [or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 4 (Art. 6, RPC) Q: What are overt acts? A: An overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular rime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by extemal obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. Itis possible that an overt act may not be by physical activity but by mere communication or proposal. (People v. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, citing Reyes, Book 1, p. 99) Q: When is spontaneous desistance exculpatory? a 1) When made during the attempted stage: AND 2) The acts already committed do not constitute any other offense. (People v. Vilacorte, GR. No. L-21860, 1974) Note: Cause for desistance is immaterial, (People v. Villacorte, G.R. No. L-21860, 1974) : Define preparatory acts and distinguish them from attempted stage of the acts of execution. Are preparatory acts pul & ences ‘Those initial acts of a| Acts which are person who has | directly connected conceived the idea of | to the intended committing a crime but| crime. They are which cannot by | overt acts with a themselves logically and | logical relation to a necessarily ripen into a | particular concrete | concrete offense. They | offense. are not overt acts and, hence, they do not constitute the attempted stage of the acts of execution (Estrada, 2008) Page 4 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable, because the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible, except in rare and exceptional cases. (Estrada, 2008) Preparatory acts consisting in conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable in treason, rebellion and sedition, and proposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason and rebellion. (Art 115, 136, RPC) Preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as independent crimes are punishable, like possession of picklocks which is preparatory to the commission of robbery with force upon things. (Arts. 229 and 302, RPC) Q: What are the manners of committing a crime? A 1) Formal crimes - these crimes are consummated in one instant. There are no attempted or frustrated stages. 2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or overt act. 3) Felony by omission there is no attempted stage in these crimes since the offender does not execute act, but rather fails or omits to perform an act. 4) Crimes consummated by mere agreement (requires the intervention of two persons). 5) Material crimes — crimes which have three stages of execution (attempted, frustrated ‘and consummated). (Reyes, Book 1, page 121-123) Q: A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B’s wallet. Once in possession of the wallet, A opened it, but fi it empty he threw away the wallet. Is A guilty of an impossible crime? ‘A: No, because the wallet has some value and the crime of theft is consummated from the moment the offender has taken possession of the wallet with intent to gain. Hence, that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime, but of theft. In impossible crime, the act performed should not, constitute another offense, specifically punished by law. (Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, 1992) Q: A went to a grocery store and bought two boxes of Magic Flakes worth P1,423.00. B, the manager, upon inspection, found that the contents of the two boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits, but 14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth P28,627.20. ‘Awas caught and was charged with frustrated theft. Can A be held guilty of this crime? ‘A: No. There is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information can never be read to charge A of consummated Theft because the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced Instead, the Information should be construed to mean that A was being charged with theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, A may only be Convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Ther (Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442, 2015) Q Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’ etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape? A: No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, itis required that all the acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent ofthe will ofthe offender. Inthe said felonies, however, ‘one cannot perform all the acts of ‘execution without consummating the felony. In coup d’ etat the mere attack directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power would consummate the crime. (Art. 134-A, RPC) ‘There is likewise no such thing a frustrated rape. Cleary, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has camal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the ‘crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. (People Vv. Orta, G.R. No. 88724, 1990). ‘The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. (Art. 6, RPC) Page 5 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW e. CONTINUING CRIMES Q Define plurality of crimes. A: Pluralty of crimes consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared. It is either formal or ideal plurality (only one criminal liability) or real or ‘material plurality (each act is a separate crime). (Reyes, Book 1, page 701) Q: What is a continuing crime? A: Itis a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only ‘one crime committed; thus, only one penalty shall be imposed. (Mallari v. People, G.R. No. L- 58886, 1988) {. COMPLEX CRIMES AND COMPOSITE CRIMES @: Distinguish between compound and complex crime proper. A Coen ey Results when the offender commits only | a single felonious act, | from which two or more grove oF iss | penalty forthe more grave felonies are i imposed. (Peopie v. Pineda, GR. No. L- 26222, 1967) Cems Results when the offender commits an offense which is a necessary means for commiting another offense. (Art. 48, RPC) Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the produced. : Distinguish the following from each other: 1) Complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; 2) Special complex crime; and 3) Delito continuado. Delito Corer) CIT Crime (Art ns is made up of Special Complex crime eis made up| Kis the term two or more | offwoor more | used to crimes being | crimes. which | denote as only punished in | ere distinct, considered | provisions of | only as the Revised | components Penal Code | of a single but alleged in | indivisible one offense being information | punished in either Because | one. provision they were | of the Revised brought about | Penal » Code; by 2. single | hence, only felonious. act | one penalty is or because | special’ | and. violating one offense is | reserbed. | one and. the a | same penal | series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same _ time, means for | component | provision. It Commiting the | crimes are not | involves a other offense | regarded as | concurrence or offenses; | distinct crimes | of felonious hence, only | and so the | acts violating ‘one "penalty | penelty forthe | 2 common shall be | most “serious | right, a imposed. As to | crime is not | common penalties in an | the penalty to | penal ordinary be imposed | provision, and complex nor in its | Impelled by @ crime, the | maximum | single criminal | Penalty for the impulse most (People v. Ledesma, GR. No. L- 41522 1976), period (People v. Laraaga, GR 138874- 75, 2004) crime shall be imposed and | No, inits maximum period. (Art 48, RPC) Page 6 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: A, a collector of a commercial firm, misappropriates for personal use, on different dates, several amounts collected from different persons. A was charged with multiple counts of estafa. A raises the defense that all the counts of estafa constituted only one crime and was impelled by a single criminal intention. Is A correct? A: It depends. The foreknowledge rule applies. ‘The rule states that when the accused, at the time he committed the first felonious act, already intended to commit the succeeding felonious acts, thereby showing that a single intention determined the commission of all the acts, there is a continuing crime. (People v. Cid, G.R. No. L- 45649-45652, 1938) Q: Is there a complex crime of estafa through. falsification of private document? A: No. Ifthe falsification of a private document is, committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa. (Batulanon v. People, G-R. No. 139857, 2006) Q: Does Article 48 (Complex Crimes) apply to acts penalized under Article 365 (Reckless Imprudence)? ‘A: No. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. Itis conceptually impossible for a quasi-ffense 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 committing another. (Iver v San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716. November 17, 2010) Q: How should “homicide” be understood in the special complex crime of rape with homicide? ‘A: Homicide is to be understood in its generic sense, and include murder and slight physical injuries by reason or on occasion of the rape. (People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, Aug. 21, 2001) Q: X poked AAA, a house help, with a gun at her throat while the latter’ was buying pandesal and later forced her into the backseat of a parked car. X along with two other men, Y and Z, blindfolded her while in transit. When they reached their destination, X undressed her and began kissing her body from the neck downwards and thereafter raped her. Y and Z also took turns in raping her. X, Y and Z are charged for forcible abduction with rape. Is this correct? A: No, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction. The principal objective of X, Y and Zin abducting AAA was to rape and ravish her. This became evident when after reaching their destination; X immediately undressed her and kissed her body from the neck down. They cannot be held liable for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape when the objective of the abduction was to commit the rape. (People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, 2012) 2. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL, LIABILITY a. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Q: What is the difference between retaliation and self-defense? a Ee The aggression thal was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, (Peopie v. Decena, GR. No. 107874, 1994) Senos The aggression stil existed when the ‘aggressor was injured by the person defending. : What is the effect of claiming self-defense? ‘A: By invoking self-defense, the accused, in fact, admitted that he inflicted injuries on the victim. 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, G.R. No. 150648, 2007) X went to a taho factory looking for a certain person but failed to locate the latter. Frustrated, X stuck a knife into a taho pail. A who saw this, confronted X, and invited X toa fistfight on the condition that he put the knife down. X complied and they engaged in a fistfight. In the middle of the fight, X reached for the knife and stabbed A. A ran away and attempted to escape. B attempted to help A with a bamboo stick. Unfortunately, B slipped and fell face flat. X stabbed B, resulting to the death of B. X was charged for the murder of B Page 7 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW as attended by treachery, and the attempted homicide of A. X counters that with respect to 4, X only acted to defend himself. Did X act in self-defense? ‘A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. X did not act in self- defense. A did not exhibit unlawful aggression to justify X's actions as X was the aggressor. ‘Assuming arguendo that A exhibited unlawful aggression when he participated in the fistfight with X, the moment he ran away from the fight, the unlawful aggression ceased to exist. Thus, X did not actin self-defense, (People v. Casas, G.R. No. 212565, 2015) Q: A came from a meeting and was on his way home. X, who had issues to be settled with A, confronted the latter. A tried to walk away from the confrontation, but X punched him in the face. X then took out his gun and shot A. X was charged with the murder of A as attended by treachery. X claimed he was acting in defense of his person, as A supposedly attempted to take a gun out first. (1) Is treachery present? (2) Did X act in self- defense? A; [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. The existence of treachery negates the claim of self-defense. (People v. Matibag, G.R. No. 206381, 2015) Q: X was having a drinking spree with his friends in a carinderia. Sometime thereafter, the victim crossed the street going to the carinderia, where he encountered X who suddenly poked him with an iron pipe, which turned out to be a homemade firearm or sumpak. While the victim was on his way to the hospital, he died as a result of the gunshot wound and traumatic head injuries. X was then charged with Murder with qualifying circumstance of Treachery, among others. However, X claims that he did it out of self- defense, claiming that it was the victim who approached and threatened to kill him. Was self-defense present in this case? ‘A: No, the act of X was not out of self-defense. Unlawful aggression from the victim is patently absent. The life of X was not in danger during the encounter. (People of the Philippines v. Erie Inciong y Orense, G.R. No. 213383, 2015) Q: X stabbed Y. Y was able to grapple the knife away from X and Y ran away. X chased Y where they once again grappled over the weapon. In the middle of grappling for the weapon Y stabbed X which caused X's death. Y was charged with murder. Y claims self- defese. Will his defense prosper? ‘A: No, although X initiated the attack against Y, the unlawful aggression ceased when X was able to take possession of the weapon. The subsequent grappling over the weapon is not considered unlawful aggression on the part of X since Y still had possession of the weapon. Y's, next move of stabbing X is retaliation, not self- defense. (People v. Dulin, G.R. No. 171284, 2018). @: What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression? A or ey er rs frre) Jit is an attack with | It is an attack that is | physical force or with | impending or at the a weapon, an | point of happening; it offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. (People v. Dulin, GR. No. 771 must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor mustit be merely imaginary, but | must be offensive and | posively strong 14, 2075). 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 ving in battering relationships as a result cumulative abuse. (R.A. 9262, Sec. 3(c)) ‘The three phases are: (1) tension-building phase, (2) acute battering incident, and the (3) tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135987, 2004) Q: Is the Battered Woman Syndrome a defense against criminal liability? A: Yes, Women suffering from BWS do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (RA 9262, Sec. 26) Page 8 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: Can BWS be invoked during the tranquil stage? A: Yes, as long as it is proven that the three phases of the cycle of violence have occurred twice, and the syndrome is established (People v. Genosa, G.R. No, 135981), further evidence of actual physical assault (unlawful aggression) at the time of the killing is not required. (R.A. 9262, Sec. 26) Q: When is obedience to an order of a ‘superior a justifying circumstance? ‘A; When the order is lawful. Also, if the accused ‘complied with an unlawful order under a mistake of fact, he should not incur criminal liability However, where the act which accused was ordered to do was clearly unlawful even to an ordinary person, the justifying circumstance is unavailing. (People v. Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445, 1955) Q: A was standing on the road near his house when B, who appeared to be drunk, boxed him. in the stomach. A tried to talk to B and calm him down but B continued to attack A, hitting him. A picked up a stone and hit the side of B's head several times. B fell to the ground. A then left the scene. Records show that A sustained no injury. A claims self-defense, will A's defense prosper? ‘A: No, the plea of self-defense was belied, by the weapons used by A and the location and number of wounds he inflicted on B revealed his intent to Kill, not merely an effort to prevent or repel an attack from B. Significant is the gravity of the wounds manifested which determines effort of the accused to kill his victim, not just to defend himself. (People v. Fontanilla, GR. No. 177743, 2012) Q: Is a barangay captain, who is also the caretaker of the vacant lot, exempted from criminal liability when he tore down the nipa hut of one who believed her grandparents ‘owned the lot when in fact they were not? ‘A: No, he is not. Such an acti not a fulfilment of duty when he took the law into his own hands and summarily demolished the hut for he had no authority. (Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 149718, 2003) ): A patrolman, with his armalite, shot a drunk student who was rowdy, hence the latter died. Is the patrolman liable? A Yes. The kiling cannot be a necessary consequence of the performance of his duty. (People v. Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, 2000) Q: What if the order is illegal, yet it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, is the subordinate liable? ‘A: No, the subordinate is not liable, for then there. ‘would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith. (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103501-03, 1997) b. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES : What are the tests for exemption on the grounds of insanity? & 1) Cognition, where the accused acted with complete deprivation of intelligence in ‘committing said crime. OR 2) Volition, where the accused acted with total deprivation of freedom of will. (People v. Rafaman, Jr, G.R. No, L-54135, 1991); : What happens when the minor acts with discernment? ‘A; When the child is 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the crime, he shall be exempted from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of the Juvinile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA), When a child above 15 years but below 18 and he has acted with discernment, the child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with the JJWA. (Sec. 6, JJWA) A girl 15 % years of age pushed her playmate into a deep place of the river, with intent to kill her. The intent to kill was proven by the prosecution. Is she criminally liable for causing the death of her playmate who died of drowning? Explain. A: Yes. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age who acted with discernment is NOT exempt from criminal lability and will be subjected to a court-ordered diversion program (Sec. 6, JJWA). Page 9 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What is the scope of minority? (a) A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal ability (Sec. 6, R.A. 9344). NOTE: Shall be subject to an intervention progranr, ot (b)A child above 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability, provided he acted without discernment. NOTE: The child is subject to an (a) intervention 4 series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit the offense, taking the form of an individualized treatment program i. counseling, skils training, education etc. to enhance psychological emotional and psycho-social well-being, or (b) diversion program, program that the child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after being found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings. (R.A. 9344, Sec. 4) Q: Who is a child in conflict with the law (cicLy? A: Achild alleged as, accused of or adjudged as, having committed an offense under PH laws (Sec. 4(e), RA. 9344), BUT only if such child is 45 years old or below at the time of the ‘commission of the crime, This is conclusive presumption that CICL are incapable of performing the criminal act due to complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent. (Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, 2008), Q: How do you determine the child's age? 1) Through the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or any other _ pertinent documents; 2) Based on information from the child himseltiterseif, testimonies of other persons, physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence; (Sec. 7, RA 9344) ANDIOR 3) Lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accused's or his relative's testimonies are untrue. (Sierra v. People, G.R. No. 182941, 2009) Q: What offenses are not applicable to children? re 41) Prostitution under Art, 202 of the RPC; 2) Mendicancy under P.D. No. 1563; and 3) Sniffing of rugby under P.D. 1619 (Sec. 58, RA 9344) : May a child apply for Probation? A: Yes. The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a CICL, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of histher sentence taking into account the best interest of the child (Sec. 42, RA. 9344) Q: X attacked Z, shooting several times. The bullets also hit Z's friend, Y, causing his instantaneous death. During trial, X claims that it was an accident because Z was his enemy, not Y. Will his defense prosper? A: X cannot use accident as a defense. An accident contemplates a situation where a person is in the act of doing something legal, with due care, then accidentally harms or injures another. Ithappens outside the will of the accused, with no intention to do wrong. Here, X initiated the attack, intentionally fred the bullets directed to Y, hitting both Y and Z. (Talampas vs. People, G'R. No. 180219, 2011) @: When a member of the PNP was instructed to fetch the victim in his cell for investigation, the latter tried to remove the former's weapon from its holster, to which a struggle ensued. in the course of said struggle, the gun fired, hitting and killing the victim. Is the PNP member exempted? A: Yes, all the requisites of accident concurred. The act of fetching the victim from his cell and the act of defending himself are lawful acts. Next, he exercised due care when he kept his weapon's safely locked when he left his house and kept it in his holster when in the premises of his work area. He had no intent to harm the victim. Also, the fatal shot occurred by mete accident in the course of the struggle against the victim. (Pomoy \. Philippines, G.R. No. 150647, 2004) Page 10 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW c. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Q: When is voluntary surrender appreciated? ‘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, G.R. No, 137370-71, 2003) Q: A,B, C and D attacked Z. Z died. A then went to the Barangay Chairman but he did so to seek protection from retaliation of Z's relatives. A claims that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for surrendering to the Barangay Chairman. Should the circumstance be considered? A: No, The third requisite of voluntary surrender, that the surrender is voluntary is absent inthis case. The third requisite requires the surrender to be ‘spontaneous, indicating the intent of the accused to unconditionally submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and ‘expenses necessary for his search and capture. In this case although A went to Barangay Chairman after the killing, he did so to seek protection against the retaliation of the victims! relatives, not to admit his participation in the killing of the viclims. Even then, A denied any involvement in the killings when the police went to take him from Chairman's house. As such, A didnot unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in order to acknowledge his participation in the kings or in order to save the authorties the trouble and expense for his arrest. (People v. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, 2012) d. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES a special aggravating ‘A: They arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period but not increase the penalty to the next higher degree. Examples are quasirecidivism and complex crimes. It does not change the character of the offense charged and cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. (Palaganas v. People, G.R.No. 165483, 2006) Q: What is the effect of pardon on the appreciation of recidivism? ‘A pardon should not be an impediment to the consideration of recidivism as an aggravating circumstance for a pardon only produces the ‘extinction of the penalty, but not personal effects of the record of the conviction. (U.S. v. Sotelo, GR. No. L-9791, 1914) Q: How far apart must the two crimes be for recidivism to be considered? A: There is no limit. Recidivism must be taken into account a8 an aggravating circumstance no matter how many years have intervened between, the first and second felonies. (People v. Jaranilla, GR. No. L-28547, 1974) Q: When is evident premeditati 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 fulfilment dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences. (People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 88752, 1992) in not 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, G.R. Nos. 10107-08, 1995) Q: What differentiates cruelty from ignominy? A: [Ir ‘adds insult to the | ignominy refers to the injury, pertaining to| moral effects of a the physical suffering | crime, pertaining to of the victim. the "moral order, whether or not. the victim is dead or alive. (Reyes, Book T, p. 485) Q: Is dwelling aggravating in robbery? ‘A: It depends. It is aggravating in robbery committed through violence or intimidation of persons only (People v. Cabato, G.R. No. L- 37400, 1988); itis inherent in robbery through force upon things, even if committed inside an inhabited house. (U.S. v. Cas, 14 Phil 21) Page 11 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What is the difference between the aggravating circumstances of by a band and aid of armed men or persons who afford impunity? A Serr) En Peer) fs ‘Two or more armed: men. The armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or | indirect Four ‘armed | malefactors take part in its commission. They are principals by direct participation. (Reyes, Book f, p. 391) Q: A attacked X, 7 years old and Y, 14-month old baby. Is treachery present? A: Yes. When an adult illegally attacks a child, treachery exists even if the mode of attack is not proved by the prosecution because the child of tender years could not be expected to put up a defense. (People v. Malolot, G.R. No. 174063, 2008) : Is treachery aggravating in robbery with homicide, considering that the circumstance is applicable only in crimes against persons? ‘A: Yes, treachery is applied to the constituent crime of “homicide” and not to the constituent crime of “robbery.” (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, 2003) Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of by a band applicable to crimes against persons? A: Yes. Despite what has been said in some cases io the effect that itis to be appiied only to crimes against property, itis equally applicable to crimes against persons, such as murder. (People vs. Alcaraz, et. al, G.R. No. L-9064-67, 1958) Q: A, B,C and D, all armed with pistols, forcibly abducted a woman. What aggravating circumstance, if any, do you find in this case? Explai A: The abuse of superior strength may be present in the commission of the crime of coercion or forcible abduction, if the strength availed of is clearly in excess of that required for the realization of the offense. (People vs. Femando, et.al, CA, 48 0.G. 1717) Q: When is “aid of armed men” absorbed in “by a band,” and when can it be taken separately ' as another aggravating circumstance? ‘A: When the offenders are more than three, all armed, and they actively cooperated in the commission ofthe crime, “The aid of armed men” is absorbed in “by the band.” (People vs. Piring 63 Phil 548) But when the offender secured the services of armed men to commit the crime, that offender ‘committed the crime with the aid of armed men, (People vs. llane, G.R. No. 45902, 1938) Q: A committed rape against B twice on occasion of robbery. A was charged of robbery with rape. The judge convicted A of robbery with rape and considered the second count of rape as an aggravating circumstance. A appealed the decision contending the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance. Who is correct? A A, because the law does not provide that ‘additional rape or homicide should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under the RPC is exclusive as opposed to mitigating circumstances which provide for analogous circumstances. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, 2000) Q: A went to B and encouraged the latter to Kill X in exchange for a reward. Later that night, B carried a gun and proceeded to the house of X. B, while on top of a tree, aimed at, and shot X through the window of X's house. X died. What crime/s, if any, did A and B commit? A: A committed homicide and B committed murder. While they are co-principals in the killing, of X, treachery will only serve to aggravate the liability of B because such circumstance consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish the’ crime. As such, it shall only serve to aggravate the liability of B since A had no knowledge of it at the time of, the execution of the act. (Art. 62/4], RPC, U.S. v. Gamao, G.R. No. L-6942, 1912) Q: Against whom can the aggravating circumstance of price reward or promise appreciated? A: This circumstance aggravates not only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price, reward Page 12 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW or promise but also the criminal liability of the one giving the offer. As all the defendants contributed toward the attendance of this circumstance, it should affect each and all of them. (People v. Maharaja, G.R. No. 13312, 1918) Q: X was found guilty for Qualified Rape, considering: (1) the state of mental retardation of victim AAA was completely established on account of the testimony and psychiatric evaluation of a psychiatrist; and (2) X failed to dispute AAA’s mental retardation during trial. The psychiatrist revealed that AAA was suffering from a mild mental retardation with an 1Q equivalent to a S-year old child, Should the conviction be upheld? ‘A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the commission of the crime of rape is a special qualifying circumstance. However, such must be sufficiently alleged in the indictment and proved during trial to be properly appreciated. Moreover, mere relationship by affinity between X and_AAA does not_suffciently_create_moral certainly that the former_knew of the latter's disablity. (People v. Rico Niebres y Reginaldo, G.R. No. 230975, 2017) Q: X suddenly pulled a knife from the right side of his back, held the victim's shirt with his left hand, and stabbed the victim with a knife using his right hand. X was able to stab the victim once before the latter managed to run away. X ran after the victim and thereafter hold the latter's shirt again, pulled him to the ground, and stabbed him repeatedly, resulting in the latter's death. Are the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attendant here to properly qualify the crime to murder? A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Treachery is present in the commission of the crime. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without waming, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording’ the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting viclim no chance to resist or escape. The attack of X was sudden, deliberate and unexpected. The victim was ‘completely unaware of any threat to his life as he was merely walking with X. However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated because there is no evidence that X had previously planned the killing of the victim. (People v. Crisanto Giray, G.R. No. 231359, 2018) Q: X suddenly entered into the person’s house and began attacking the residents thereof, resulting to the death of one person ‘who is a minor. X then entered another house nearby, where his 15-year old nephew was sleeping, and delivered hacking blows towards ‘the latter, stopping only when the victim (who was pretending to be dead) was Ieaning on the wall, blood-stained. Was there treachery in this case? A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] (1) Yes. Treachery was attendant in the killing of the two minors, The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists. (People v. Umawid, G.R. No, 208719, 2014) :: X went to a taho factory looking for a certain person but failed to locate the latter. Frustrated, X stuck a knife into a taho pail. A who saw this, confronted X, and invited X to a fistfight on the condition that he put the knife down. X complied and they engaged in a fistfight. In the middle of the fight, X reached for the knife and stabbed A. A ran away and attempted to escape. B attempted to help A a bamboo stick. Unfortunately, B slipped and fell face flat. X stabbed 8, resulting to the death of B. X was charged for the murder of B as attended by treachery, and the attempted homicide of A. Was the commission of the crime attended by treachery? ‘A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] No. To appreciate treachery, it must be shown that: (a) the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; (b) the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. Applied in this case, there is no treachery. Before engaging X, B knew that A and X were ina fight. B was aware of the existence of danger, thereby negating the first element of giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. Moreover, X lacked deliberation of kiling A, negating the second element. The act of kiling was immediate as X did not expect B to interfere. Absent these elements, treachery Page 13 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 cannot be appreciated. (People v. Casas, GR. No. 212565, 2015) Q: A came from a meeting and was on his way home. X, who had issues to be settled with A, confronted the latter. A tried to walk away from the confrontation, but X punched him in the face. X then took out his gun and shot A. X was charged with the murder of A as attended by treachery. X claimed he was acting in defense of his person, as A supposedly attempted to take a gun out first. Is treachery present? A; [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes. There is treachery When the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense Which the offended party might make. Here, treachery is present. X is shown to have deliberately adopted the means based from the fact that X had issues to be settled with A and X confronted A with a loaded gun. More so, X's act of punching and shooting A was sudden and unexpected, leaving A without recourse to defend himself. Thus, treachery is present. (People v. Matibag, G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015) @: X was having a drinking spree with his friends in a carinderia, Sometime thereafter, the victim crossed the street going to the carinderia, where he encountered X who suddenly poked him with an iron pipe, which turned out to be a homemade firearm or sumpak. While the victim was on his way to the hospital, he died as a result ofthe gunshot wound and traumatic head injuries. X was then charged with Murder with qualifying circumstance of Treachery, among others. However, X claims that he did it out of self- defense, claiming that it was the victim who approached and threatened to kill him. Was treachery correctly appreciated? A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes, treachery is correctly appreciated. Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, X suddenly fred 2 ‘sumpak against the victim, leaving him unable to CRIMINAL LAW defend himself or evade the attack. (People v. Emmi Inciong y Orense, G.R. No. 213383, 2015 ¢. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES @: What are the three circumstances? A 1). Relationship; 2), Intoxication; and 3) Degree of instruction and education of the offender. (Art 15, RPC) alternative @: When ai aggravating/mi A considered as ‘crimes agai property (Reyes, Book 1, p 489, Art 332, RPC by analogy) level. (Reyes, Book 1, In serious physical circumstance. (Art. physical injuries, relationship is mitigating. (Art. 265, | Note: Relationship is not considered if it is an element of the | | 266 RPC) | mH (1) the intonation is nothabivaor 2) | ie hatituelor2) ts intorcaton "is nat | mterttnal subsequent to the | (subsequent tothe | Page 14 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW a] plan to commit a felony). (People v. Camano, G.R. No. L- 3662-63, 1962) Note: There isa presumption that intoxication is accidental, re teers offender plan to commit felony. to High degree of instruction and | ‘education is aggravating when the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime. (Reyes, Book | 1, p. 503 degree of instruction and ‘education or lack of it is generally mitigating. (People v. Baltazar, G.R. No. L- 30557, 1980) {, ABSOLUTORY CAUSE What are absolutory causes? A: Absolutory Causes ~ those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no. penalty imposed, 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 (Anz); 3) Accessory is not liable in light felonies (An. 16) 4) Accessory is relative of the principal (Art.20) unless crime became a means to gain (Art. 19, par. 1) 5) Legal grounds for arbitrary detention (Art 124): 6) Slight oF less serious physical injuries inflicted by person who surprised his spouse of daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another person (Art. 247); 7) Legal grounds for trespass (Art 260) 8) Mischief is committed against a relative (At. 332); 9) Marriage of the offender with offended parly when the crime commited is rape (Art. 266-C), abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness (Art. 344); and 410) Instigation. (Reyes, Book 7, p. 254) 3. PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION a. PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES Q: Differentiate a conspirator from an Caicos ree Both know and agree with the criminal design Know the criminal | Came to know about it intention because | after the principals they themselves | have reached the have decided upon | decision, and only then it; do they agree to cooperate in its execution; | Decide that a crime | Merely concurin it; and should be committed; and [Authors of a crime, | Merely instruments who perform previous | or simultaneous acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense, (People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, 1999) @: When is an accused considered an accomplice? re 41) The accused knows the criminal design of the principal and he concurs with the purpose; 2) The accused cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, with intent to supply material or moral aid in the execution; and 3) There is a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. (People v. Yao, G.R. No. 208170, 2014) Q: A and B were policemen. B ordered C, a private individual, to enter the police car, driven by A. While inside the car, B intimidated C to give all his belongings to him. A did not do anything but continued to drive the car and kept silent. Is A liable for the robbery with intimidation? A: Yes. His silence during the crime did not negate his criminal liability. As a police officer, it is his primary duly to avert by all means the Page 15 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 204 CRIMINAL LAW commission of an offense. He should not have kept his silence but should have protected C from B. His silence can be viewed as a form of moral support to B. (Fortuna v. People, GR. No, 135784, 2000) Q: For the third means of becoming an accessory (harbors, conceals or assists in escape of principal), what is the distinction between a public officer and a private person who assists in the escape or concealment of the principal? A [SUEIN(CLO aCe eS SON ‘Acts with abuse of | Principal committed ublicfunctions (crime | treason, paride, committed by principal | murder, an attempt is immaterial). (Art. | against life of 19, par. 3, RPC) President, or is known as_ habitually guilty ‘of another crime. (Art. 19, par. 3 RPC) _ @: 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: When is an accessory not exempt from liability despite such relation with the principal? ‘A; If such accessory profited by the effects of the crime, or assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. (Art. 20, RPC) Q: Can a person be tried as an accomplice or accessory while the principals of the crime remain at large? Az Yes. As long as the commission of the offense can be established, the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of the principal. (People v. Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, 2000) b. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL, Q: Can conspiracy be implied? A: Yes. Conspiracy is implied when 2 or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. It may be deduced from the acts of the malefactors before, during and after the commission of the crime. (People v. Alawan, G.R. No. 149867, 2004) Q: What is the effect of failing to prove ‘conspiracy among the alleged conspirators? A: The acquittal of a conspirator does not necessarily absolve a co-conspirator from ‘criminal liability. if the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be held individually responsible for their own respective acts (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, 2012) @: Can there be conspiracy in violating a special law, such as BP 22? ‘A. Yes. BP. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the RPC. Thus, RPC may apply. (Ladonga v. People, G.R. No. 141066, 2005) Q: A dropped his brother B in a gym. Minutes after, B was forcibly abducted by three persons. A received a text message, instructing A to pay a sum of money for B's safety. A complied, but the abductors did not release B. Later, through the help of the police, B’s dead body was found. An employee of the gym testified that he participated in the plan to abduct B and that he was the one who tipped the abductors on the condition that he will get.a share of the money. Was the commission of the crime attended by conspiracy? A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes. To establish ‘conspiracy, direct proof is not essential as it can be presumed from and proven by the acts of the ‘accused pointing to a joint purpose, design, ‘concerted action, and community of interests. In this case, the gym employee testified that prior to abduction, he, together with the abductors, hatched a'plan to abduct B with the sole purpose of extorting money from B's brother. The gym employee and abductors committed the abduction with the joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interest to Page 16 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW obtain money from the vietim’s relative. Thus, the commission of the crime was attended by conspiracy. (People v. Dionaldo et al, G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014.) c. MULTIPLE OFFENDERS (DIFFERENCES, RULES, EFFECTS) Q: Distinguish Recidivists from Quasi- Recidivists, Habitual Delinquency and iteracion. © Recidivist - one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime ‘embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 14, par. 9, RPC) * Quasi-recidivist — one who commits 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 the law for the new felony (Art. 760, RPC) © Habitual Delinquent — one who, within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62, RPC) d. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (P.D. NO. 1829) Q: Who can be held liable for obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders (PD 1829)? ‘A: Any person who knowingly or wilfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. (Sec. 1, P.D. 1829) (C. PENALTIES 1, PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED AND RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS General Rule: A felony shall be punishable only by the penalty prescribed by law at the time of its commission. Note: Art. 21 implements the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. It reflects the maxim that there is no crime without a penalty and that there is no penalty without a law (nullum crimen sine poena; nulla poena sine lege). But as provided in Art. 22, ex post facto laws are allowed if favorable to the accused. General Rule: Penal laws are applied prospectively. Exception: When retrospective application will be favorable to the person guilty of a felony, provided that: 1) The offender is NOT a habitual criminal (delinquent) under Art. 62(5); and 2) The new or amendatory law does NOT provide against its retrospective application. Rationale for the exception in art. 22: Basis: Strict justice and not on political considerations. The sovereign, in enacting subsequent penal law more favorable to the accused, has recognized that the greater severity, Of the former law is unjust. ‘The sovereign would be inconsistent if it would siill enforce its right under the conditions of the former law, which has already been regarded by conscientious public opinion as. juridically burdensome. Note: No retroactive effect even when favorable to the accused ~ if the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. (Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil 468, 1902) HABITUAL DELINQUENT person who within a petiod of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of setious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener. Page 17 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 Notes: If retroactive effect of a new law is justified, it shall apply to the defendant even if he is: Presently on trial for the offense: Has already been sentenced but service of which has not begun; or Already serving sentence. The retroactive effect of criminal statutes does NOT apply to the culprits civil liability. Reason: The rights of offended persons or innocent third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of the State. ‘The provisions of Art, 22 are applicable even to special laws, which provide more favorable conditions to the accused. Criminal liability under the repealed law subsists: When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; The right to punish offenses committed under an old penal law_is not extinguished if the offenses are stil punishable in the repealing penal law; When the repeal is by implication; or when a penal law, which impliedly repealed an old law, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior penal law, Unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise. If the repeal is absolute criminal lability is obliterated; and When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal. (People v. Tamayo, GR. No. L-41423, 1938). When there is 2 saving clause. Notes: No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards jurisdiction of court Jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the action, not at the time of the commission of the crime. © Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information, and not by the findings the court may make after trial. (People v. Romualdo, GR. No, L- 3686, 1952) CRIMINAL LAW According to L.B. Reyes, Art. 22 is NOT applicable to the provisions of the RPC. Its application to the RPC can only be invoked where some former or subsequent law is under consideration. BILL OF ATTAINDER - A legislative act ‘which inflicts punishment without a tral 2. CLASSIFICATION Q: How are penalties classified? A: They are classified into principal and accessory penalties Principal Penalties 4. Capital punishment: 2. ASflctive penalties © Reclusion perpetua; © Reclusion temporal: © Perpetual or absolute temporary disqualification; © Perpetual or temporary special disqualification; and © Prision mayor, 3. Correctional penalties: © Prision correccional: © Aresto mayor: © Suspension: and © Destierro: 4, Light penalties: © Arresto menor, and © Public censure; 5. Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Fine: and Bond to keep the peace. Accessory Penalties 1. Perpetual or disqualification; 2. Perpetual or disqualiication; 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling; 4. Civil interdiction; 5. Indemnification; 6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense; and 7. Payment of costs. (Art, 25, RPC) temporary absolute temporary special Page 18 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: When shall a fine be considered an afflictive penalty, a correctional, and a light penalty? ie ‘Afictive Ifit exceeds P6,000. Coreccional | Does not exceed 6,000 but is not less than P200 Tight ifitbe less than P200 | (Ait. 26, RPC) Note: This has been amended by R.A. 10951 (Aug. 2017) re corn Afflictive it exceeds P1.2M Coreccional Does not exceed P1.2M but is not less than P4OK Light Iitbe less than P40K (RA 10957, for easier reference) 3. DURATION AND EFFECT Q: What is the difference between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua? aw Corer) Ithas no definite | It entails imprisonment for duration and at least 30 years and does not carry | carries with it accessory any accessory | penalties of perpetual penalty. absolute disqualification and civil interdiction. (People v. Dolar, G.R. No. 100805, 1994) 4, APPLICATION a. RPC PROVISIONS b. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO. 4103 AS AMENDED) Q: When is the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? & 1) Persons convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment, 2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason: 3) Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage 4) Those convicted of piracy: 5) Those who are habitual delinquents; 6) Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence, 7) Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive; 8) Those whose maximum term of, imprisonment does not exceed one year; 9) Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been sentenced by final judgment; and 10) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. (Act. No. 4403, Sec. 2) c. THREE-FOLD RULE What is the three-fold rule? A: It provides that the convict shall not serve ‘more than three times the most severe of the penalties imposed on him, but in no case more than 40 years. Hence, there must at least be four sentences, which he is supposed to serve. The rule is applicable only to principal penalties and applies to all penalties imposed in all proceedings or on different dates. It is covered by the juridical accumulation system. (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 will so. permit. Otherwise, the order of their respective severity shall be followed. However, the maximum, duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than three times the length of the most severe penalty (three-fold rule) nor exceed 40 years. (Art. 70, RPC) ‘A was convicted of different crimes with the following penalties: arresto mayor, prision correccional and prision mayor, should the three-fold rule apply? ‘A; No, the three-fold rule applies only when convict has to serve at least four sentences. (Art. 70, RPC) Page 19 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW 4d. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT Q: Distinguish preventive imprisonment from subsidiary imprisonment. A ‘+ Preventive Imprisonment ~ Accused is not allowed to enjoy provisional liberty while the case is undergoing trial when the offense charged is nonbailable, or even if bailable, accused cannot furnish the required bail. (Art 29, RPC) ‘+ Subsidiary Imprisonment — Imposed after final judgment when accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon the crime. (Art. 39, RPC) 5. GRADUATION OF PENALTIES Q: What are the rules for the graduation of penalties? Aw Penalty Bry Lower ‘A. Single and | That immediately indivisible following __the indivisible penalty D. Composed of | Period | several periods, | immediately | corresponding to | following the different divisible | minimum penalties prescribed and of the two next following, taken from the penalty | prescribed if | possible, | otherwise from the penalty immediately following ‘Consists in 3/3 periods down the Periods (of divisible | scale penatties) | 2 periods 2 periods down the L scale period Next period down the scale [reclusion perpetua reclusion temporal B. (1) Composed of | That immediately two indivisible | following the | penalties, lesser of the Or (2) 1 or more | penalties divisible penalties | prescribed in the imposed in full extent _| graduated scale 1. reclusion perpetua | reclusion temporal to death 2. reclusion temporal_| prision mayor 3. prision correccional | aresto mayor to prision mayor . Composed of one | Medium and or two indivisible | minimum periods penalties, and the | of the proper maximum period of | divisible penalty another divisible | and the maximum penalty period of that immediately following in the graduated scale ile, reclusion temporal| i.e. prision mayor maximum to death ‘maximum to reclusion temporal ‘minimum, to | ‘medium Lo Ont 67, RPG) Q: What penalty is 2 degrees higher than reclusion temporal? ‘A: Two degrees higher than rectusion temporal is death (Art. 25, RPC). But, Art. 74. prohibits imposition of ‘death penalty resulting from ‘raduation of penalty. Thus, the penalty shail be reclusion perpetua but with the accessory penalties of death under Art. 40. (People v. Caffales, G.R. No. 126319, 1998) Page 20 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What are the rules when there are aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances present? &: oo hee ae cee AY ‘When ‘Apply it] Same as penalty is a | regardless _ of | imposable single any mitigating | penalty | indivisible | or aggravating | penalty | circumstance Penalty is | One Impose composed | aggravating | greater of 2 penalty indivisible [No aggravating | Impose lesser penalties | or mitigating | penalty ‘One mitigating | Impose lesser penalty ‘One mitigating | Offset one aggravating 2 or more | Impose lesser mitigating penalty (do not lower by | ___| one degree) | Privileged May lower by mitigating degree Penalty | No aggravating | Medium has three | or mitigating | period periods [ T mitigating | Minimum period T aggravating | Maximum _ period ‘Aggravating | Offset and mitigating present | 2 or more | Penalty next mitigating and | lower in the no aggravating | period applicable according to | no.nature of circumstance 2 or more | Maximum, aggravating | period (do not go higher) (Art. 62, RPC) 6, ACCESSORY PENALTIES Q: What are accessory penalties? ‘A: Those that are deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalties, namely: 1) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification; 2) Perpetual or disqualification; 3) Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling; 4) Civil interdiction; 5) Indemnification; and 6) Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense. (Art. 25, RPC) temporary special 7. EXECUTION AND SERVICE Q: What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? A The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonmentidestierro AND: 1) Perpetual Absolute Disqualification; 2) Perpetual Special Disqualification; 3) Temporary Absolute Disqualification 4) Temporary Special Disqualification; 5) Suspension from public ofice, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a profession or calling; and 6) Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties. (Reyes, Book 1, p. 767) Q: Can probation be granted after perfecting an appeal? A: The GENERAL RULE is even if a person may be eligible for probation, the moment he perfects an appeal from the judgment of conviction, he cannot avail of probation anymore. EXCEPTIONS: 1) The court, may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. (Sec. 42, RA 9344) 2) 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 penally, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified Page 21 of 130,ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW decision before such decision becomes final. (Colinares vs. People, G.R. No 182748, Dec. 13, 2011; and Sec. 4, PD 968 as amended) Q: Enumerate at least 5 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for andior be granted a suspended sentence. A 1) Where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated (Art. 79, RPC); 2) Where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, fled an application for probation Which has been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia, G.R. No. L-59298, 1984); 3) Where the crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of age and he is. found guilty thereof in accordance with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, but the trial court subjects him to appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the ‘Supreme Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, 4) The death sentence shall be suspended upon a woman while she is pregnant or within 4 year after delivery (Art. 83, RPC); and 5) Section 66 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Q: A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve ajail term, he sought a suspension of the sentence ‘on the ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. A: No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he was already 23 years old at the time of his conviction. The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to A. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, 2011) Q: When A committed theft he was 14 years old. During his trial for the crime he was 19 years old. Is A criminally liable? If so, can he bbe given suspended sentence? Explain. ‘A: No, it appearing that at the time of the ‘commission of the crime A was under 15 years of age, A is therefore exempt from criminal liability. It is the age of the minor at the time of the ‘commission of the crime, not his age at the time of the trial, which determines whether or not he is exempt from criminal liability. Being exempt from criminal liability, A should be acquitted and the case against him dismissed. ‘The suspended sentence contemplated in Art 80, RPC, presupposes that the minor is not ‘exempt from criminal liability However, A can still be given a suspended sentence because Sec. 38 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provides that the child in conflict with the law is entitled to an automatic suspension of sentence even if he is already 18 years old or ‘more at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt (Sec. 38, JJWA) D. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Q@: When is criminal liability totally extinguished? A: P?ADAMS 1) By Prescription of the crime; 2) By Prescription of the penalty: (Art. 89, RPC) 3) By Amnesty which completely extinguishes the penalty and aii its effects; 4) the Death of the convict (as to the personal Penalties; as to the pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment) 5) By Absolute pardon; 6) By the Marriage of the offended woman (Ar. 344, RPC); and by 7) Service of the sentence. Q: What is the effect of offender's death to criminal and civil liabilities? * Before final judgment: His death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. (People v. Alison, No. L-20612, 1972) Page 22 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW ‘+ While the case is on appeal: Death of the accused pending appeal of his. conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. (People v. Bayotas, GR No. 102007, 1994) + After final judgment: Criminal liability is totally extinguished, but pecuniary penalties are not extinguished. (Art. 89, RPC) Q: X was convicted of murder. Prior to the Court declaration of the finality of the Resolution affirming the conviction of X and issuance of an Entry of Judgment, X died. What is the effect of such death on the criminal action and civil action? A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] The criminal action, as ‘well as the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto, is ipso facto extinguished. Article 89(1) of the RPC provides that the criminal liablity is totally extinguished by the death of the accused. X's civil liability based on sources other than the subject delict survives and the victim may file a separate civil action. (People v. Agapito dimaala y Arela, G.R. No. 225054, 2017) Q: One of the accused died pending appeal and before promulgation of the final judgment. Is the personal _ liability extinguished both as to criminal liability and civil liability? ‘A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] Yes, the personel liability both as criminal and civil liability are both extinguished since the death occurred before final judgment. The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Accordingly, the criminal case against should be dismissed. (People v. Alvin Cenido y Picones and Remedios Contreras y Cruz, G.R. No. 210801, 2016) Q: What are the effects of death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities? A: [PERLAS-BERNABE] The effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities are as follows: 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 accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict (ie. laws, contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts); 3) where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action enforced either against the executorladministrator 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, G.R. No. 214875, 2016) Q: X and Y received jewelry and gold items from A under the obligation of selling the items. X and Y made partial payments but failed to pay the rest of the obligation, and they failed to return the jewelries. X and Y were charged with estafa. X claims that the partial payments to A novated the contract from agency to loan and converted his liability from criminal to civil. Is novation a mode of extinguishing criminal liability? A: No. Novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the RPC for the extinguishment of Criminal liability. Art 89 (on total extinguishment) and Art 94 (on partial extinguishment) list down the various grounds for extinguishment of criminal liability. Not being included in the list, novation is limited in its effect only to the ci liability, hence, not an efficient defense in estafa The criminal liability for estafa already committed is not affected by the subsequent novation of the contract. Novation is relevant only to determine if the parties have altered the nature of the obligation prior to the commencement of the criminal prosecution in order to prevent the incipient criminal liability of the accused. (Degarios v. People, G.R. No. 162826, 2013) @: Mayor X served for two terms. On his second term he was charged with plunder for acts committed during his first term of office. Mayor X insists that due to his re-election, the offense has been condoned by the people and so he cannot be held criminally liable. Is Mayor X's contention correct? Mayor X has likewise been removed from office due to the acts committed during his first term. Mayor X alleges that under the doctrine of condonation, he cannot be removed from office based on acts committed during a previous term. Is Mayor X's contention correct? Page 23 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW ‘A: No, condonation does not apply to a criminal case. (Insco v. Sanchez, et al, 1967) In any case, the doctrine ‘of condonation as a mode of extinguishment of administrative lability has been overtumed. (Carpio Morales vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, 2015) @ When is cri extinguished? & 1) By conditional pardon; 2) By commutation of the sentence; and 3) For good conduct allowances which the culprit may eam while he is serving his sentence. (Art. 94, RPC) inal liability partially In what cases are criminal liability extinguished by marriage of the offended woman? ‘A: In Seduction, Abduction, Rape and Acts of lasciviousness (SARA). Such marriage benefits the co-principals, accomplices or accessories (Art. 344); except for rape since Art. 266-C does not have the same provision. (People v. De la Coma, G.R. No, 136899-904, 2002) : Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. Name at least 5 of these crimes. A 41). Rebellion or insurrection; 2) Coup detat; 3) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup deta, 4) Disloyalty of public officers or employees: 4 be 6) Sedition 7), Conspiracy to commit sedition; 8) Inciting to sedition; 9) legal assembly; 10) Illegal association; 411) Direct assault; 42) Indirect assault; 13) Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such persons; 14) Tumults and other disturbances of public order; 15) Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances; 16) Alarms and scandals; 17) Iilegal possession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in furtherance of, incident to, orn connection with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection; and 18) Violations of Articles of War ‘a. Desertion; b. Absence without leave; . Mutiny oF sedition; d. Failure to suppress mutiny or sedition; Various crimes; and Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemen, : Distinguish preset from prescription of the penalty. Forfeiture or loss of | Loss or forfeiture of | offender after the | execute the final lea nea | ge Q: When is constructive discovery sufficient for prescriptive period for crimes to commence to run? aw I is sufficient in the | Constructive rime of falsification of | discovery is not public document. | applicable to Thus, from | registration of registration of the | bigamous marriage in public document, the | the Office of the Civil | Period commences to | Registrar because it | run, This is favorable | is ordinarily entered fe the accused. | into in a place where (People v. Reyes, | the offender is not GR. No. 74226. | known tobe a 27,1989) married person. Thus, the period ‘commences to run on the date of actual _ discovery. (Sermonia v. CA, G.R. No. 109454, 1994) Page 24 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What are the prescriptive periods of felonies? ‘A: According to Art. 90, crimes punished by the following penalties have a prescriptive period of: re ccc ‘Affictive penalties 15 years, Correctional | 10 years penalties (except arresto mayor) Arresto mayor | S years Libel and similar T year crimes. Oral defamation 6 months Slander by deed 6 months Light offenses ‘2 months (Art 90, RPC) Q: What are the prescriptive periods for violations of special laws? A: Ifthe offense is punishable by Penalty eee Fine or imprisonment year for not more than 1 month, or both Imprisonment for 4 years more than 1 month, butless than 2 years Imprisonment for 2 B years years or more, but jess than 6 years ‘Any other offense 12 years punished by imprisonment for 6 /ears or more Treason 20 years if violation of 2 months municipal ordinances | (Act. No. 3326, Sec. I 1) Q: What is the basis for prescription in a compound penalty? ‘A: When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall, according to the last paragraph of Art. 90, be the basis of the application of prescription (Art. 90, RPC). For example, the penalty for perjury is compound, arresto mayor minimum to prision correccional minimum, the higher penalty which is. prision correccional shall be the basis for prescription Thus, the crime of perjury prescribes in 10 years. (People v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-15132, 1960) Q: What are the rules on the computation of prescription of offenses? (FTA) A: According to Article 90: 1) Petiod of prescription shall be interrupted by the Filing of the complaint or information. 2) It commences to run again when such proceedings Terminate wio the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him, 3) The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is Absent from the country. @: When is prescription of penalty interrupted? (FACS) A: According to Art. 93 of the RPC: 41) fhe should go to some Foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty; 2) If he should commit Another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription 3) Ifhe is Captured; and 4) If the defendant should give himself up (Surrender) aylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 1 year as minimum to 3 years. as maximum. The decision became final and executory. Taylor failed to appear when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor left for the US. 15 years later, Taylor returned to the Philippines and argues that the penalty imposed against him has already prescribed. Has the penalty prescribed? (2015 BAR) ‘A: No. The RPC provides that penalties of prescription commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. 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. In this case, Taylor never served a single minute of his sentence. (Art. 93, RPC; and Del Castilo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, 2002) Q: What is amnesty? A: It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion, or a general pardon for the past offense, and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of single individuals. It is usually exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons who are subject to trial Page 25 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW but have not yet been convicted. (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 59) Q: What is the effect of amnesty? A: It completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. (Art. 89, par. 3, RPC) Q: What is absolute pardon? ‘A: Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual from the punishment the law inflicts fora crime committed. (Monsato v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, 1989) Pardon is the total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it is granted without any condition. It restores to the individual his civil and political rights and remits the penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted, (Sec. 2 (g), Revised Rules and Regulations of Board of Pardons and Parole) Q: What is the effect of absolute pardon? ‘A: It does not ipso fact entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office forfeited by reason of his conviction. It restores his eligibility for appointment to the office, but the pardoned convict must still reapply for a new appointment. (Monsato v. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, 1989) : What is conditional pardon? ‘A: Itis the exemption of an individual, with certain limits or conditions, from the punishment which the law inflicts for the offense he had committed resulting in the partial extinction of his criminal liability. (Sec. 2, IRR Board of Pardons) contract between the sovereign power or the executive and the criminal that said criminal will be released upon compliance with the conditions. (In Re: Infante, G.R_ No. L-4164, 1952) Q: What are the constitutional limitations on pardon? B 1) No pardon may be granted in impeachment cases (Art. Vil, Sec. 19, PH Const): 2) May only be granted after conviction by final judgment (Sec. 19, Art. Vil); and 3) No pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations. shall be granted by the resident without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC. (Sec. 5, Art. IX-C) @: How is Allowance for Good Conduct computed (Art. 97, as amended by RA. 10592), What is the special time allowance for loyalty? A First TWO YEARS of | 20 DAYS for each imprisonment month of | good behavior During THIRD to | 23 days for each FIFTH YEAR | month of | good {inclusive of _ his | behavior imprisonment) During FOLLOWING | 25 days foreach YEARS until TENTH | month of | good YEAR (inclusive of his | behavior imprisonment) [During ELEVENTH |30 days foreach | and SUCCESSIVE | month of good | YEARS (inclusive of | behavior | his imprisonment SrCnmnree ene rae Under Art. 158 after] 1/5 the period of having evaded | sentence service of sentence, | prisoner gives himself | | up to the authorities | within 48 hours after | | proclamation | | announcing the | | passing of _— the | calamity | Prisoner chose say | TE ol pened of in place | sentence | contrerment | natwinstanding | existence of calamity Note: At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to the abovementioned, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered (as amended by RA 10592), Page 26 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW D. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES Q: Distinguish between pecuniary penalty from pecuniary liability. aw SMa [Refers to fine| Refers to the civil (money) liability (Art. 100, RPC). Includes Includes: 1. Fine 1.Restition | 2. Cost of 2.Reparation of the proceedings damage caused 3. Indemnification of the consequential damages [Failure to pay| Failure to pay pecuniary — penalty | pecuniary liability will subjects the accused | NOT subject the. to subsidiary | accused to subsidiary imprisonment if | imprisonment (No provided in the | imprisonment for non- sentence. (Art. 39, | payment of debt.) RPC) Q: Who are liable for the criminal acts of a child? rd fea MINOR | Civil Liability | Primanly Liable sriminal Act | None OF ivi Liability | Subsidiary LecaL | ExDelto | lable AGE | Criminal Act None The parents are primarily liable for the civil liability arising from the criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control or who live in their company UNLESS it is proven that they acted with diligence of a good father to a family. (Libi v. IAC, G.R. No. 70890, 1992) When a minor child was subject of an adoption proceeding but he was still in the custody of the natural parents and under their parental authority when said child committed a crime, retroactive effect may not be given to the decree of adoption to impose a liability upon the adopting parents. (Tamargo v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, 1992) Q: What damages are granted in a case of homicide? ‘A: Moral damages and civil indemnity are always granted in homicide, it being assumed by the law that the loss of human lfe absolutely brings moral and spiritual losses as well as a definite loss. Moral damages and civil indemnity require neither pleading nor evidence simply because death through crime always occasions. moral sufferings on the part of the victim's heirs. As explained in People v. Panad, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the parr ofthe victim's family Itis inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. The civil indemnity and moral damages are fixed at 75,000.00 each. (Ladines v People, G.R. No. 167333, 2016) Il. REVISED PENAL CODE — BOOK II ‘AND LAWS OF NATIONS. Q: What are the elements of treason? A; FRAP LAW (3) 4) Offender is’a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in Philippines 2) There is a war in which the Philippines is involved 3) Offender either levies war against the government or adheres to the enemies by giving them aid or comfort (Art. 114, RPC) : The Abu Sayyaf declared war. There was actual assembly of men. If the commanders were arrested, can they be prosecuted for treason by levying war against the government? ‘A: NO. Levying war must be in collaboration with, a foreign enemy. The first means of committing treason still requires adherence to enemies. If there is only civil uprising without intention of delivering the country in whole or in part to the enemy, the crime is rebellion and not treason. (REYES, p. 6, 2012) Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People's Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Y, a Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between him and a certain Page 27 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW General of China. Later on, Y discovered that her boyfriend had sent an e-mail to the General, in which he agreed to provide vital information on the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese government i exchange for P1M and his safe return to Italy. ‘Two weeks later, Y decided to report the matter to the proper authorities. Did Y commit a crime? Explain. (2010 BAR) AYES. Y committed Misprision of Treason, since she did not inform the governor of provincial fiscal (or mayor of her city as soon as possible of the activities of her Italian boyfriend. Misprision is committed by not informing immediately about any conspiracy to commit treason which is known, to her, during a time of war. (Art. 116, RPC) Q: What are the modes of committing espionage? 1) By entering, without authority, a warshipffort/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. (Art. 117, RPC) Q: What are the punishable acts in piracy? 1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on high seas or in PH waters; and 2) Seizing the whole or part of its cargo, ‘complement or passengers while vessel is on high seas or PH waters (Ail. 122, RPC). Q: While a ship was still 300 miles from the shores of Aparri, its engines malfunctioned. The repairs took 15 hours. The crew fell asleep due to exhaustion. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags cut the ship's engine and took away crates of equipment. There was no violence and they hurriedly left. The robbery was discovered by the crew. What crime was committed? (2006 BAR) A; Piracy in the high seas was committed. The elements of piracy are as follows: VON ASSE 1) That a Vessel is on the high seas or in Philippine waters: 2) That the Offenders are Not members of its. complement or passengers of the vessel; and 3) That the offenders {a) attack or seize that vessel, or (b) seize the whole or part of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. (Art. 122, RPC). Q: What are the circumstances which qualify piracy? A: BF A&A 1) Seizure of vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; 2) Abandonment of victims without any means of saving themselves; and 3) When crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape (Art 123, RPC). B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE @ What are the elements of arbitrary detention? A: PWD 1) Offender is a public officer or employee; 2) He detains a person; and 3) Detention is without legal grounds. (Article 124, RPC) @: 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. (Aslorga v. People, G.R. No 154130, October 1, 2003) Q: When is detention without legal grounds? Aw 1) When person detained has not committed any crime or at least, there is no reasonable {ground for suspicion that he has committed (Le. valid warrantless arrest). (US v. Gellada, GR No. §151, 1910) 2) Heis not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in any hospital. (REYES, p. 44, 2012) Page 28 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. (2006 BAR) A: The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are: 1) Arbitrary detention by detaining @ person without legal ground committed by any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person. (Art. 124, RPC) 2). Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities which is committed by a public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: 12 hours, for crimes or offense punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; 18 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional facilities, or their equivalent; and 36 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by affictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. (Art. 125, RPC). 3) Delaying release is committed by any public. officer or employee who delays the release for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition forthe liberation of such person. (Art 126, RPC) Q: What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (BAR 2002) A Io Piet neared Violation of domicile Offender is a private person or a public officer acting. in private capacity Committed only by entering the dwelling of, another against the express or implied will of the latter. (Offender in violation of domicile isa public officer acting under color of authority Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) entering dwelling of another against the will of the latter, (2) searching papers and other effects in a dwelling without of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the . CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER What are the elements of rebellion or A: PUTA RAG D There must be a) public uprising and b)_ taking arms against the government; For the purpose either to: a) To remove trom the allegiance to government or laws: (i) tertitory of Philippines (in whole or in par); (i) body of land, or armyinavaliother forces; b) Deprive Chief Executive or Congress wholly or partially of powers or prerogatives. (Art. 134, RPC) Q: Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common crimes? A: None. Hermandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as. an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. (Enrile_v. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163, 92164, June 5, 1990) istinguish rebellion from treason A orig RPC) Requires taking up of | Does not require arms taking up of arms Giving of comfort and | Giving of comfort and moral aid alone isnot | moral aid is | punishable punishable No foreign enemy | Foreign ‘enemy required Committed during | Committed only time of peace only ‘time c during time of war (REYES, p. 87, 2012) What are the elements of coup d'etat? A: OMPP 1) Offender: member of the military, police force, or any public officer or employee; 2) Means: swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; 3) Possible targets: duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, any military campfinstallation, communication networks, public utlities, or other facilities needed fo: Page 29 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW the exercise and continued possession of ower; and, 4) Purpose: to seize or diminish state power (Art. 134-A, RPC) Q: Distinguish Rebel (BAR 2004) n from Coup d'etat. rrr RPC) Caried out by a | May be committed by multitude of people. —_| many or only one ‘No qualifications as to | Principal offenders offenders are members of the military, Philippine National Police, or public officer, acting a principal offenders Purpose is 10 | Purpose isto overthrow the | destabilize the government | government or diminish state power_| [There is public | There is a swift attack Uprising and taking up | thru strategy, stealth, of arms | threat, violence or | | intimidation against | duly constituted | authorities of the | Republic of _ the | Philippines, military camp or installation, communication | networks, public | facilities or utilities needed for the | exercise and | continued possession [of governmental | powers Q: What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (BAR 2007, 2011) A 4) Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and other media of representation to ‘commit acts which constitute sedition 2) Uttering seditious words, speeches or Circulating scurrilous. libels against the Government of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities, which tend to disturb or obstruct the performance of official functions, or which tend to incite others to cabal and meet for unlawful purposes; 3) Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies or riots 4) Stirring people to go against tawful authorities, or disturb the peace and public order of the community or the Goverment; 5) Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, RPC). Q: What are the 2 rules relative to seditious words? A 4) Clear and present danger rule (Primicias v. Fugoso, G.R. No, L-1800, 1948); and 2) Dangerous tendency rule (REYES, p. 113- 114, 2012) Q: Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (BAR 2000) ‘A: Persons in authority are persons directly vested 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. 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 (Art. 152, RPC); In applying the provisions of Articles 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. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873). Q: What are the ways to commit direct assault? & 1) By 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 Page 30 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW 2) By 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. (Art. 148, RPC) Q: When is direct assault qualified? A: WPP (3) 1) When the assault is committed with a weapon; 2) When the offender is a public officer or ‘employee; or 3) When the offender lays hand upon a person in authority. (Art. 148, RPC) Q: Can indirect assault exist assault? ‘A: No. Indirect assault can only be committed “on. ‘occasion of the commission of any of the crimes. defined in the next preceding article.” Hence, indirect assault can exist only when the offense of Direct Assault was being committed. (Art. 149, RPC, REYES, p. 147, 2012) jout direct : When is there resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person? ‘A: When the offended party, who is a person in authority orhis agent, isin the actual performance of his official functions, and when the offender, who may be a private person or a public officer, resists or seriously disobeys him. The act of resistance or serious disobedience must not constitute direct assault or indirect assault. (Art 151, RPC) X gate-crashed the 71* birthday party of Judge B. Armed with dos por dos, X hit Judge B on the back, causing the latter's hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that X had a grudge against Judge B who, two years earlier, had cited X in contempt and ordered’ his imprisonment for three (3) days. Is X guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (BAR 2009) A: No. Judge B was no longer a person in authority when X hit him having retired from being ‘judge. Direct assault is committed against a person in authority. While B may have been considered a person in authority because of his position as a judge, he ceased to be so when he Feached 71 years old — past the age of retirement of judges. (Art. 152, RPC) Q: A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and’ that resistance would endanger the lives of other patients, decided to allow the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A's followers? Why? (BAR 2002) A: They committed the ctime of Delivery of Prisoner from Jail (Art. 156, RPC). The felony is committed not only by removing from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape of such person. outside of said establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other means. This applies even if the prisoner is in a hospital or an asylum. (REYES, p. 166, 2012) D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST : The baptism of A was solemnized by B, an ecclesiastical minister, in the absence of C, ‘one of the godparents. Upon request of the mother of A, B caused the inclusion of the name of C in the baptismal certificate of A as one of the godparents and allowed a proxy for C during the baptismal ceremony. What is the criminal liability, if any, of the ecclesiastical minister? A; The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because the insertion of the name of C in the baptismal certificate will not affect the civil status of A, which is a pre-requisite before he can be charged with falsification under Art. 171. (Art. 171, RPC) Q: What is the difference between falsification of public or official documents and that of private documents? A; The essential difference between falsification of private documents and that of public or official documents les inthe fact that while in the former, the prejudice to a third party is primarily taken in to account so thatif such damage isnot apparent or there is at least no intention cause i, the falsification is not punishable; inthe latter, that is, in the falsification of public or oficial documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the perversion of truth which the document solemnly proclaims, and for this reason itis immaterial whether or not some prejudice has Page 31 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW been caused to third persons. (REYES, p. 240, 2012, People v. Pacana, G.R. No. L-22642, 1924) Q: X, a Chinese national, filed a petition under ‘oath for naturalization, with RTC Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married and living with Y in Manila; that he is of good moral character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Y was already living in Cebu, while X was living with Z in Manila, with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, X withdrew his petition for naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any, did X commit? Explain. (2005 BAR) ‘A: X committed perjury. His declaration under cath for naturalization that he is of good moral character and residing with Y are false. This information is material to his petition for naturalization. He committed perjury for this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood, which is contained in a verified petition made for a legal purpose. (Choa v. People, GR. No. 142011, March 14, 2003) Q: When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. (2006 BAR) A: a) As a pseudonym in cinema and other entertainment field; b) As a pen name in literary composition or work; and ©) As @ pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting (R.A. No. 6085, Secs. 1 & 2) Q: X leased his apartment to Y for P10,000 a month. Y failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Z, the son of X, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Y paid the unpaid rentals to Z who kept the payment. What crime/s did Z commit? Can Z invoke his relationship with X to avoid criminal liability? (2008 BAR) A: Z committed either the crime of falsification of a private document (if damage or atleast intent to cause damage could be proved) or the crime of, swindling only. It could not be both falsification and swindling or a complex crime of estafa through falsification since the document falsified was a private document. The two crimes cannot go together. Hf Z would be made criminally tiable for falsification of a private document, he cannot invoke his relationship with X, his father, to avoid criminal liability because Art. 332 of the RPC provides exemption from criminal liability in crimes against property only, specifically for theft, swindling or malicious mischief. If he would be criminally liable for swindling, the exemption in Art. 332 will obtain. (Art. 332; Art. 172, par. 2; Art 315, par. 2fa], RPC) Q: X submitted a photocopy of a Deed of Sale to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination of the signatures found thereon. The Document Examiner confirmed that the subject deed was falsified. However, under the Document Report submitted, it was said that no definite conclusion can be rendered due to the fact the questioned signatures are Photocopies wherein minute details are not clearly manifested. Y is then charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172(1) of the RPC. Can Y be convicted of the crime? A; (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty: only moral certainty is, required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The prosecution must establish the fact of falsification or forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, as the same is never presumed. In this case, the genuineness and due execution of a photocopy could not be competently established without @ copy of the original. The declaration of the Document Examiner is unreliable and inconsistent. Thus, it cannot support a finding of ‘uit beyond reasonable doubt against Lamsen. (Lamsen v. People, G.R. No. 227069. November 22, 2017) Q: X, a VP of a company, instructed Y to withdraw money from her account via ATM. As the ATMs were offline, Y got the amount through the petty cash custodian of the company instead. The company's finance manager Z informed X of the situation and the petty cash report and X immediately rectified the situation. Z instructed the petty cash Page 32 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW custodian to reverse the report but informed the president of the company of the situation. Z then instructed the petty cash custodian to retrieve the report, print it on a scratch paper, and make it look old. X was administratively charged for using office funds for personal use on the basis of such report. X sued Z and the petty cash custodian for Falsification of Private Documents. The petty cash custodian argued that she was just following Z's instructions. 1s the petty cash custodian guilty of Falsification of Private Documents? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. The elements of Falsification of Private Documents under Article 172 (2) of the RPC are: (a) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171 (7) of the same Code; (b) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and (c) that the falsification caused ‘damage to a third party or at least the falsification ‘was committed with intent to cause such damage. On the other hand the elements of Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC are as follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document Untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. In the instant case, the MeTC, RTC, and CA all correctly found Manansala quilty beyond reasonable doubt of the aforesaid crime, considering that: (a) as UMC’s Petty Cash Custodian, she is legally obligated to disclose only truthful statements in the documents she prepares in connection with her work, such as the subject report; (6) she knew all along that Siy never made any cash advance nor utlized the proceeds thereof for her personal use; (c) despite such knowledge, she stil proceeded in revising the subject report by inserting therein a statement that Siy made such a cash advance; and (d) she caused great prejudice to Siy as the latter was terminated from her job on account of the falsified report that she prepared. (Manansala v. People, G.R. No. 215424. December 9, 2015) Q: X filed a case against Y and others, accusing them, as public officers, of the crimes of Falsification of Public Documents, False Certification, and Slander by Deed. X alleged that their statements in 2 separate blotter entries were false, and made to dishonoridiscredit him. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) dismissed both the complaint and the MR, and the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) did the same. X later filed a petition for review before the CA, who dismissed it holding the ORSP is not the final authority in the hierarchy of the National Prosecution Service. Whether or not there was probable cause for the crimes of Slander by deed and False Certification? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) There is no probable cause for crimes of Slander by Deed and False Certification. As apily found by the ORSP, there was no improper motive on the part of respondents in making the blotter entries as they were made in good faith; in the performance of their official duties as barangay officials; and without any intention to malign, dishonor, or defame Cariaga. Moreover, the statements contained in the blotter entries were confirmed by disinterested parties who likewise witnessed the incidents recorded therein. On the other hand, Cariaga's insistence that the blotter entries were completely false essentially rests on mere self serving assertions that deserve no weight in law. Thus, respondents cannot be said to have committed the crime of Slander by Deed. Furthermore, suffice it to say that the mere act of authenticating photocopies of the blotter entries cannot be equated to committing the crime of False Certification under the law. (Cariaga v. Sapigao, G.R. No. 223844, June 28, 2017) E. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS Q: A succeeded in having sexual intercourse with B in consideration of 3000 pesos given by A. That was the first time she had sexual intercourse. Is B considered a prostitute? ‘A. No. One sexual intercourse with a man for money or profit does not make a woman a prostitute. A woman is a prostitute when she 41) habitually indulges in a. sexval intercourse or . lascivious conduct 2) for money or profit. (Art. 202, RPC) Page 33 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 £. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Q: Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. (2016 BAR) ie DIE | Performance of some act which ought not to be CT Improper | Omission of performance | some act | Of some act | which ought | which might | to be | Tawully "be | performed | done (REYES, p. 374-375, 2013). Q: What are the elements of direct bribery? A: PARE 1) The offender is public office 2). The offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another, 3) Such offer or promise be accepted and the gift or present be received by the public officer with a view of committing some crime, or consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; and 4) The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties. (Art. 210, RPC) : Distinguish direct bribery from indirect bribery 7s Agreement between | No such agreement | the public officer and | exists the giver of the gift — Offender agrees to| Not necessary that perform or performs | the officer should do an act, or refrains | any particular act or from doing something | even promise to do an | because of the gift or | act, as it is enough | promise that he accepts gits | offered to him by reason of his office (Art. 210, 211, RPC) CRIMINAL LAW Q: What are the elements of Qualified Bribery? ACERI 1) Offender is @ public officer entrusted with law enforcement; 2) He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua andior death; and 3) He refrains from arresting or persecuting the offender in consideration of any promise, Gift, or present, (Art. 211-A, RPC) Q: May a judge, public prosecutor and police officer be charged and prosecuted for qualified bribery? Explain. (2010 BAR) ‘A: A judge cannot be prosecuted. A judge's duly is neither to arrest nor prosecute, but to hear cases involving accused persons. A public prosecutor may be charged with this crime, since itis his duty to prosecute such offenders. A police officer may be charged with the crime, since itis his duty to arrest offenders, as he is a person entrusted with law enforcement. (Art. 211-A, RPC) Q: A, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff's favor. In consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave A, P20,000.00. A was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act. No, 3019. While the case was being tried, the ‘Ombudsman filed another _ information against A for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. A demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code-having-been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is A correct? (2009 BAR) A: No, Ais not correct. Although the charges for violation of Sec. 3, RA 3019 and indirect bribery arose from the same act, the elements constituting the two are different. The crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other with different penalties. Hence, the second charge cannot be the subject of motion to dismiss ‘or motion to quash, as there is no double jeopardy against the accused. Moreover, Sec. 3, RA 3019 provides for punishable acts “In addition to acts ‘oF omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law.’ (Art. 211, RPC; Sec. 3[b], RA Page 34 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW 3019, Mejia v. Pamaran, G.R. No. L-86741-42, 1986).) Q: What is the consequence if the public officer does not accept the gift? A: Only the person making the offer or promise will be held liable for attempted corruption of public officer. (Art. 212 in relation to Art. 6, RPC) @: What are the punishable acts in malversation of public funds or property? 1) By appropriating public funds or property; 2) By taking or misappropriating the same; 3) By consenting or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; or 4) By being otherwise guilty’ of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. (Art. 217, RPC) Q: May a private individual be charged with malversation? A: Yes, a private individual may be liable for malversation if 1) he is charged with public funds ‘of the government or 2) acts in conspiracy with a public officer. (People v. Sendaydiego, G.R. No. 1-33254 & G-R. No. L-33253, 1978) But see Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 116033, Feb. 26, 1997] where the Sandiganayan ruled it had no jurisdiction over a person who was given custody of distrained property. The Court Said, “tis evident that the petitioner did not cease to be a private individual when he agreed to act as a depositary of the gamished dump truck. When the information charged Azarcon and Ancla were charged before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds, or property, the prosecution was in fact charging two private individuals without any public officer being similarly charged as a co-conspirator. Q: Petitioner X is a Local Treasurer Officer assigned to collect and remit the “Patubig” (local water system) collection. His supervisor, Ms. Y, received a call that the Patubig was collected but was not remitted. X denied having collected the Patubig. Upon investigation, cash money was found inside X's vault. X'then denied misappropriating, misapplying, and embezzling the patubig collection, and explained that he deliberately kept the collection in his vault upon learning that his wife had suffered a heart attack, and that he did not yet need to remit the amount to the OIC of the Cash Receipt Division because it was still to be re-counted. Is misappropriation, as one of the elements of malversation, present in this case? ‘A: (BERSAMIN) Yes. Conformably with Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of the petitioner to have the Patubig collection duly forthcoming upon demand by the duly authorized, officer was prima facie evidence that he had put such missing fund to personal use. Although the showing was merely prima facie, and, therefore, rebuttable, he did not rebut it, considering that he not only did not account for the collection upon. demand but even steadfastly denied having received it up to the time of the inspection of the sealed vault. Under the circumstances, he was guilty of the misappropriation of the collection, (Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, 2015) Q: What evidence is necessary for a conviction of malversation? ‘A: (BERSAMIN) 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 or any shortage in his accounts. (Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, 2015) Q: What are the requisites of technical malversation or illegal use of public funds or property? A: PP-AA (4) 1) That the offender is a public officer; 2) That there is public fund or property under his administration 3) That such public fund or property has been. appropriated by law or ordinance; and 4) That he applies the same to a public use other than that for which such fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance. (Art. 220, RPC) Page 35 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW Q: What are the principal distinctions of malversation and estafa? A Ca Estafa. with ao) pony of Cee usvally | Fundsiproperty are always | rivate ‘Offender is usually a public | Ofender isa officer who is accountable | private individual forthe public | or even a public | | Fundsiproperty | public fundsiproperty officer who is not accountable for public funds/property Crime is committed by | Crime is appropriating, taking, or | committed by misappropriating/consentin | misappropriatin g or through abandonment | g, converting or or negligence, permitting | denying having any other person to take | received money, public funds/property goods or other Personal property Q: What is the difference between illegal use of public funds or property and malversation? A TST mec mea) rt, 220, RPC) Offender does not | Offender in certain derive any personal | cases profits from the ain oF profit roceeds of the crime Public fund _or| Public fund or property | property is applied to | is applied to the | another public use | personal use and benefit of the offender or of anather person typhoon destroyed the house of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality. The municipality operated a shelter assistance program but the beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they needed to earn income to provide food for their families. Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget. May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food? Explain. (2015 BAR) A: No. Criminal intent is not an element in technical malversation. The law punishes the act, of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. Itis the commission of an. act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not, the provision has been violated. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 2012) Q: X filed in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a complaint for ejectment and collection of rents against tenants. The petitioner Y, as Provincial Adjudicator, dismissed "X's complaint for ejectment and collection of rents, and affirming the respective TCTs of the tenants, thereby ignoring and disregarding the earlier final and executory decision of the CA. Is Y guilty of usurpation of judicial functions under Art 241 of the RPC? A: (BERSAMIN) No. To be liable under Art 244 the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to perform an act for which the law has vested only in a judge. Y's task as Provincial Adjudicator in the DARAB Case relates only to quasi-judicial functions. Thus, he could not be held liable under Art 241 of the RPC, considering that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were lacking therein. (Reyes v. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, 2010} Q: Six separate Informations have been filed against X, a government employee entrusted with the collection of parking fees from various establishments and its remittance of such with receipt to the City Treasurer of Manila, for forging Official Receipts with intent to defraud and gravely abuse the trust and confidence granted to him. Is he guilty of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of Public Documents? A: The Court was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged, given that: (a) X, being Clerk i! and then Special Collecting Officer, was a public officer; (b) the funds involved are public. funds for which he was accountable as they were Page 36 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW due to and paid to the City of Manila; (c) he has custody and control over the said funds by reason, of his office, since he was officially designated to collect the monthly parking fees from various establishments; and (d) he has appropriated, taken, or misappropriated the said public funds when he failed to discharge his duty of remitting the same in full. (Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 227577. January 24, 2018) : What are the elements of Malversation? A Ariicle 217: Malversation of public funds or property — presumption of malversation, states that the elements are: 41) Offender is a public officer; 2) He had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3). Those funds or property were public funds for wiich he was accountable; and 4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them: Q: What are the elements of Falsification by a Public Officer? ‘A: Under Article 171: Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister, the elements are’ 1) That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) That he takes advantage of his official position; 3) That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts: a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; b. Causing it to appear that persons have Participated in any act or proceeding ‘when they did not in fact so participate; c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; d. Making | untruthful statements in a narration of facts; e. Altering true dates; ‘Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning g._ Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including such copy a statement contrary to, or different from that of the original; or bh. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book; and 4) In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS : Is the killing of an eleven-year old boy murder? A: Yes. Itis murder qualified by treachery under ‘Art, 248, It is not so much as to put emphasis on the age of the victim rather it is more of a description of the young victim's state of helplessness. Minor children, by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists. (People v Fallorina, GR No. 137347, 2004) If the main objective of the offender is to l_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? (2012 BAR) 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 GR No. 182061, 2010; People v. Cedenio Gr No. 93485, 1994) Is intent to kill presumed in cases where the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors? A: Yes. Intent to kil is conclusively presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to kil, the crime is homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law books particularly to the material results following the Unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof. (Yapyuco v Sandiganbayan GR No, 120744-46 2012) Q: What are the instances embraced in “death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances”? A Page 37 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW 1) Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall ill any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury; and 2) a parent who having surprised his daughter Under eighteen (18) years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with her seducer, shall kill any or both of them in the act of immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury (Art. 247, RPC). He should not have promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. (People v Puedan, GR No, 139576, 2002) Q: When does Art. 247 operate as a mitigating circumstance? When does it operate as an absolutory cause? A Art. 247 does not define a crime but grants a mitigating circumstance for parricide, homicide and serious physical injuries committed under the exceptional situation. Ifonly less or slight physical injuries were inflicted, Art. 247 shall operate as an absolutory cause. (People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, 1987). Q: Wkicked A’s stomach twice, after which, W picked up a rock to throw at A but was restrained from doing so. As A stood up, Q punched him on the stomach, causing him to collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, A was, taken to the hospital. A was diagnosed to bt suffering from "blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the jejunum" and was set for operation. A suffered cardiac arrest during the operation, and while he was revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he lapsed into a coma after the operation. Due to financial constraints, A was taken out of the hospital against the doctor's orders and eventually, died the next day. While A’s death certificate indicated that the cause of his death was “cardiopulmonary —_ arrest. antecedent to a perforated ileum and generalized peritonitis secondary to mauling,” an autopsy performed on his remains revealed that the cause of his death was "rupture of the aorta secondary to blunt traumatic injuries. The RTC found W and Q ty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray. The CA modified W and Q's conviction to that of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. With the attending facts, are Q and C guilty of Homicide or Tumultuous Affray? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) The SC agreed with the modification of the CA. The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray are as follows: (a) that there be several persons; (b) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; (c) that these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (d) that someone was killed in the course of the affray; (e) that it cannot be ascertained who actually Killed the deceased; and () that the person or persons \Who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified. Based on case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel ‘occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained In the instant case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of which A died. On the contrary, the evidence clearly established that there were only two (2) persons, W and Q, who picked on one defenseless individual, A, and attacked him repeatedly, taking tums in inflicting punches and kicks on the poor victim. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression in that fateful incident. Since W and Q were even identified as the ones. who assaulted, the latter's death cannot be said to have been caused in a tumultuous affray. ‘Therefore, W and Q’'s act of mauling A was the proximate cause of the latter's death; and as such, they must be held criminally liable therefore, specifically for the crime of Homicide. (Wacoy y Bitol v. People, G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2018) Q: X, who was seated beside a vendor, suddenly shot Y at the back of his head as the latter was helping his daughter disembark from a motorcycle. X fled but was chased by Z, a security guard of the nearby school. X ‘was caught by the police the next day and was Page 38 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW subjected to a paraffin test, where X was positive for gun residue. X denied the allegations and said that he was sleeping in his house all morning and that a police officer offered him to test his gun, and after firing the gun, he was invited to the police station as suspect. RTC convicted X with murder, saying that X failed to present his wife or his brother to corroborate his testimony and to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place of the incident. In fact, the short distance of 100 meters between the crime scene and X's house, where he said he was, did not foreclose the possibility of his presence at the crime scene since it would only take around 20 minutes to get to the place. Is X correctly convicted for Murder? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. In order to convict a person charged with the crime of Murder, the prosecution must establish the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:(a) that a person was killed; (b) the accused Killed him or her, (c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (d) the killing does not constitute Parricide or Infanticide, One of the circumstances which qualifies the kiling to Murder is the existence of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case. the prosecution was able to prove that X's attack on Y was so sudden and executed in such a manner that Y was caught off-guard on what X intended to do. (People v. Parba y Solon, G.R. No. 214506 (Resolution). October 19, 2015) ‘An eyewitness testified that X fired four (4) gunshots towards Y, resulting to the latter's death. To ensure Y's demise, X approached Y and shot him again. Thereafter, accused: appellants fled the scene. The next day, Y's body was found near the duhat tree, prompting police officers to conduct an investigation from which were gathered the following evidence and information: (a) a plece of bamboo was recovered three (3) meters away from Y's corpse; (b) Y purportedly had a previous misunderstanding with X sometime in 1997, yet the same was settled before the barangay; and (c) Y allegedly had a drinking spree with his friends at the time of the incident. An autopsy was likewise conducted on Y's body, revealing that there were four (4) incised wounds on his left hand, a stab wound on his left chest, and five (5) gunshot wounds on his body; that based on the nature and sizes of his wounds, it was possible that the firearm used was of the same caliber; and that his injuries could not have been inflicted by a single person. RTC and CA convicted the accused with the ‘crime of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm. Are the lower courts correct? A. (PERLAS-BERNABE) No. The accused should only be held liable for simple Murder, and not Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm. To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The prosecution, through the testimony of an eyewitness had established beyond reasonable doubt that: X chased, ganged up, and eventually, killed Y, and likewise, it was shown that they deliberately used weapons (i.e. gun and bamboo stick), which rendered Y defenseless from their fatal attacks. Kiling was attended with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which perforce warrants Y's conviction for Murder. It is undisputed that Y sustained five (5) gunshot wounds which led to his demise, itis 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. The Court notes that the disquisitions of the courts a quo were silent regarding this matter. Having falled in this respect, the Court cannot simply appreciate the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance. (Manny Ramos, Roberto Salonga and Servilano Nacional v. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 218466. January 23, 2017) @: One evening, several other people were sitting outside F's house when R arrived and looking for a certain N. When A replied that N wasn't there, R approached A and cocked a gun at him. At that point, accused-appellant S Page 39 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW arrived and, without any warning, shot G in the chest. G was able to run away, and as S was chasing him, F heard another gunshot. Moments later, S returned alone and left together with R. F tried to contact G and when the latter did not respond, F went to look for him. Eventually, G was found dead in a kangkong swamp. RTC found $ guilty and appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The CA affirmed the ruling and agreed with the findings of the RTC that the killing of G was attended with treachery. The accused-appellant S claimed that such were acts of self-defense. With the foregoing facts, was treachery present? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE ) YES. Among the qualifying circumstances found in Article 248 of the RPC is treachery. Under Article 14 of the same Code, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in. the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In People v. Tan, the Court held that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that S attack on Gabriel was so swift and sudden, and without any waming. Eyewitnesses. testified that immediately upon his arrival and without any exchange of words, $ pulled out his ‘gun and shot G. As the RTC and CA aptly pointed ‘ut, although the attack was frontal, it was so sudden and unexpected which made it impossible for G to defend himself. The gunshot chest caused massive bleeding Which led to his death not long after. Thus, in view of the long-standing principle that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect, the Court concludes that treachery was "correctly appreciated. (People v. Samuya, GR. No. 213214, April 20, 2015) Q: Z who slept at at B's residence heard 4 successive gunshots. Z looked through the ‘open door of B’s house and saw two (2) men. armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a meter away from B. He saw P deliver the fourth shot to B, but he could not identify the other shooter. Thereafter, the two (2) assailants fled on a motorcycle. Z brought B to a Hospital. On the way to the hospital, 8 told Z that it was P who shot him. At around 11 o'clock in the morning of even date, B died due to gunshot wounds on his head and trunk. RTC convicted P of the crime of murder and opined that it was attended with treachery. The RTC, however did not appreciate evident premeditation. The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Was the murder attended with treachery? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE ) There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against a person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. There are two (2) conditions therefore that must be met for treachery to be appreciated: (a) the employment ‘of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. The essence of treachery is that the altack comes without warning in a swif, deliberate, and unexpected manner, granting the victim no chance to resist or escape. The attack must be sudden and unexpected rendering the victim unable and unprepared to put up a defense. The Court agreed with the findings of the RTC and the CA that P killed B, and that the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the same. ‘The records show that B was outside when two (2) assailants shot him. During the attack, B had ‘no opportunity to raise any meaningful defense against his assailants; and consequently, he suffered multiple gunshot wounds on his head ausing his death. (People v. Palanas, GR. No. 214453, June 17, 2015) Q: X was walking with Y towards the mall, when suddenly X stabbed Y repeatedly until the latter died. X tried to flee but was caught by the police and was charged with the crime of Murder. Z, a witness, testified against X. X denied the allegations by saying that he di not know Y and that he was assisting a car parked in the area where he was arrested. RTC. convicted him of Murder with qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, which it inferred from the act of X in bringing with a knife and waiting for the perfect moment to consummate the plan to kill Y. CA sustained the findings along with the Page 40 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW qualifying circumstance of treachery, as Y was caught off-guard and had no way of defending himself, and thus, the mode of attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by X to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself. Is CA correct to affirm the conviction of Murder? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE ) NO. To successfully prosecute the crime of Murder, the following elements must be established: (1) that a person ‘was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; () that the killing was attended by any of the Qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248, of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In this case, and as correctly found by the courts a quo, the prosecution was able to establish a confluence of the foregoing elements, considering the following: (1) Y was killed; (2) X was positively identified as the one who killed him: (3) Y's killing was attended by treachery, a uaiifying circumstance; and (4) the killing’ is neither parricide nor infanticide. However, there is no evident premeditation as there has been nothing offered to establish when and how he planned and prepared for the same, nor was there a showing that sufficient time had lapsed between his determination and execution. (People v. Cirbeto y Giray, GR. No, 231358. February 7, 2018) Q: What is treachery? ‘A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Treachery is the direct ‘employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tends directly and specially to insure its ‘execution, without risk tothe offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift ‘and unexpected way, affording the hapless, Unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim ‘was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. (People v. Cirbeto y Giray, G.R. No. 231359, February 7, 2018) @: What are the elements of evident premeditation? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) For _ evident premeditation to be considered as a qualifying or an aggravating circumstance, the prosecution must prove: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act ‘manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to avercome the resolution of his will. (People v. Cirbeto y Giray, G.R. No. 231359. February 7, 2018) Q: At 3am, the witness saw: A killing V by hitting the latter with a rolling pin while he was asleep. As to, W, X, who were both women, and Y (baby), they were stabbed by A and B with the use of knives, while they were sleeping. As to Z, he was stabbed by B. What crimels is/are A guilty of? A; (PERLAS-BERNABE) 4 counts of Murder and 1 count of Homicide. The elements of Murder are a) a person was Killed; (b) the accused killed him or her, (c) the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide; and (4) the killing was accompanied with any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 of the RPC. If the accused killed the victim without the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide, a conviction for the crime of Homicide will be sustained, It was established that the killings of V, W, X, Y, and Z were attended with treachery. The circumstances that they were sleeping, at the middle of the night, left the victims with no ‘opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate and thus, ensuring the execution of the criminal act. Although, A and B used deadly weapons against, defenseless women, abuse of superior strength cannot be considered as the qualifying Gircumstance since it does not appear that A and B specifically sought the use of weapons as to take advantage of their superior strength against the victims. Their criminal design to raid the house and use deadly weapons in killing whomever they encounter. was applied indiscriminately, regardless of whether their victims were male or female. Thus, since the killings were attended with treachery A, is liable for 4 counts of Murder. The killing of Z, was not qualified with any circumstance, thus it was appropriate that A should be guilty of 1 count of Homicide. (People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 239137. December 5, 2018.) Page 41 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW What cr committed in firing a gun? A Alarms ‘and | Tf the gun was fired in Scandals (Art. 155, | a public place and not | RPC) | aimed at anybody | Megal Discharge of | If the firearm was | Firearm (Art. 254, | directed at somebody | RPC) else, fired, without | intent to kill and not hit Frustrated illegal |if directed at, Discharge (Art. 254, | somebody without RPC) intent to Kill and bullet | jams | Impossible Crime | If accused fired the (Art. 4, RPC) gun without knowing that there were no __| bullets Grave Threats (Art| If gun was pointed to 282, RPC) victim and discharged, but the victim was not hit and the offender desisted | ‘Attempted Murder | if gun is directed at or Homicide (Art| somebody else with 248, 249, RPC). intent to kill but was not hit or the wound was not mortal — Frustrated Murder [If gun was aimed at or Homicide (Art | somebody with intent 248, 249, RPC) to il, fired and hit the target and the wound | was mortal = Q: Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed in crimes of rape? Explain, (2002 BAR) A Yes. By express provision of law, subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of a crime against persons. (Art. 266-C, RPC) Q; Y, a 5-year old minor, was found dead in a sack and after the autopsy conducted by the PNP, it was found out that the child was raped. After two witnesses made corroborated statements pointing to X as the perpetrator of the crime, the latter was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. Was the State able to discharge its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt every fact. and circumstance charged? A: (BERSAMIN) Yes, When the crime is rape with homicide, there may usually be no. living witnesses ifthe rape victim is herselkiled. Yet. the Rules of Court allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would utimately lead to setting a felon free. (People v.Vilaflores y Olano, G.R. No. 184926, 2012) constituting the crime @ What are the necessary elements of statutory rape? A: (BERSAMIN) The elements of statutory rape are that: a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented: and b) the offender has camal knowledge of the victim: Considering that the essence of statutory rape is camal knowledge of a female without her consent, neither the use of force, threat or intimidation on the female, nor the female's deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious, nor the employment on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit statutory rape Full penile penetration of the female's genitalia is not likewise required, because carnal knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. (People v. Teodoro, GR. No. 175876, 2013), Q: X was convicted of statutory rape by the RTC. While the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not proven, the victim's testimony showed that her age was only 11 years at the time of the rape. X failed to object to the said testimony regarding the victim's age. Should X be held guilty only of simple rape given that during the trial, the victim's th certificate was not submitted as evidence? A: Yes. The Pruna guidelines provides that in proving the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that itis expressly and clearly admitted by the accused and that the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall nt be taken against him. Since the only evidence offered to prove the victim’s age was her own testimony, it was Page 42 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW necessary for X to clearly admit to the victim's alleged age for the testimony to be admitted. X's mere failure to object to the testimony regarding the victim’s age cannot be taken against him. (People v. Lupac, G.R. 182230, 2012). What is the rule on sweet heart defense as an affirmative defense in the crime of rape? ‘A: The "sweetheart defense" is a much abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence by some documentary andlor other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the lke Likewise, the “sweetheart theory’ is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence. (People vs. Grande, G.R. No. 170476, 2009) Q: Ais a 29-year-old woman with a mental age of a six to seven-year-old. One evening, B, her neighbor, lured A to his house and succeeded to have carnal knowledge with her. Can B be found guilty of rape? A; (BERSAMIN) Yes. B can be found guilty of rape. Camal knowledge with a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the RPC because a mental retardate is not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act. It is sufficient for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and, two, the mental retardation of the victim. The Court has consistently held that carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with a mental age below 12 years of age, as rape of a woman deprived of reason. (People v. Butiong, GR. No. 168932, 2011) Q: Awas sleeping when she was awakened by someone who was touching her feet. She saw that it was B, who was poking her neck with a knife. She resisted but B threatened to hurt A. B dragged A outside the house and brought A to a nearby tree, where he injected an unknown substance into A’s stomach. A fell unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked, and her vagina was aching and soaked with white and red substance. A alleges that B raped her but B interposes that there is no proof that it was him due to the fact that A was said to be unconscious and therefore could not be sure that she was in fact raped or that it was B who did such. Was B sufficiently proven guilty of raping A? ‘A; (BERSAMIN) Yes. The commission of the rape was competently established although A. had been unconscious during the commission of the act. Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot, testify on the actual commission of the rape as she was rendered unconscious when the act was, committed, provided that more than one circumstance is duly proved and that the totality, or the unbroken chain of the circumstances, proven lead to no other logical conclusion than the appellant's guilt of the crime charged. (People v, Belgar, G.R. No. 182794, 2014) KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her husband raped her at their residence and then boxed her shoulder days after the rape incident for refusing to have sex him. The accused posits that consent to copulation is presumed between cohabiting husband and wife unless the contrary is proved and that the standards for determining the presence of consent or lack thereof must be adjusted on the ground that sexual community is a mutual right and ol between husband and wife. Can rape exist within a marriage? A: Yes. R.A. No 8353 is one of the measures that eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute proprietary rights over his wife's body and thus her consent to every act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed. Rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon her. He cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353. (People v. Jumawan, G.R. No, 187495, 2014) Q: X was on her way home when Y arrived and. offered to take her home. However, Y took X Page 43 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW to a motel and allegedly raped her. Y then dropped her off at a public market where X proceeded to buy groceries before going home. Y was then charged with Rape. In hi defense, Y claimed that they were sweethearts and that the sexual act was consensual. Witnesses, including two of X's friends, supported the claim that the two were in arelationship. Can Y be convicted of Rape? A. (PERLAS-BERNABE) NO. To be convicted of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt: (a) offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. In rape cases, the victim's sole testimony must still stand the test of credibility. In this case, Y's allegation of relationship with X was, overwhelmingly corroborated by his other witnesses. The finding of a then subsisting relationship between the parties _raises suspicions on the truthfulness of X's testimony, wherein she vehemently denied having a relationship with the accused. Furthermore, the conduct of X immediately following the alleged sexual assault is significant in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. The value of a witness's testimony should be compatible with human knowledge, observation, and common experience, such that whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and must lic outside judicial cognizance. Considering the totality of the evidence presented in this case, there is doubt whether Y employed force or intimidation upon X during their sexual encounter. Thus, Y should be acquitted for failure of proving ‘guilt’ beyond reasonable doubt. (People v. Rubillar Je. y Gaberon, G.R. No, 224631. August 23, 2017) Q: X pointed a gun at Y, a 15-year-old girl, and threatened to kill her and her parents. X then dragged Y to a bam and raped her. ¥ told the incident to Z but wished for the latter to remain silent, Z obliged. Y was unable to focus on her studies so she moved to the city to continue her studies. X was able to track her down and made Y his sex slave by forcing her to take shabu and then sexually abusing her. Eventually, Y got hooked on drugs and Portrayed herself as X's paramour and decided to live together. The _ illicit relationship was reported to the barangay by X's wife and Y's parents. Y eventually underwent rehabilitation and, along with her parents, filed Rape against X. RTC charged him with the crime of rape, which the CA affirmed saying that assuming arguendo that he indeed eventually had a relationship with Y, their first sexual encounter was without the latter's consent and was attended with force and intimidation as he pointed a gun at her while satisfying his lustful desires. Shall the conviction for the crime of Rape be upheld? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) YES. For a charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and () he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, ¢.g., through force, threat or intimidation.” The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her wil. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all the elements of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353. Through Y's positive testimony, it was indeed established that on their first sexual encounter, X threatened Y, removed her lower garments, covered her mouth, and proceeded to have camal knowledge of her without her consent. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found Y's testimony to be credible, noting further that X failed to establish any ill motive on her part which could have compelled her to falsely accuse him of the aforesaid act. In this relation, case law states that the trial court isin the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties, and hence, due deference should be accorded to the same. (People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861. July 2 2018) Q: What are the elements of Rape? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Article 266-A of the RPC states that Rape is committed 1) By a man who shall have camal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; ©) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority: and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even Page 44 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of ‘another person. (People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861. July 2, 2018) Q. What should be the charge when both the elements of Rape under Article 266-A and Section 5(b) of RA 7610 are present? A; (PERLAS-BERNABE) Between Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 and Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the Court deems it apt to clarity that Y should be convicted under the Article 266- A. Verily, penal laws are crafted by legislature to punish certain acts, and when two (2) penal laws may both theoretically apply to the same case, then the law which is more special in nature, regardless of the time of enactment, should prevail. RA 8353 is not only the more recent statutory enactment but more importantly, the more comprehensive law on rape; therefore, the Court herein clarifies that in cases where a minor is raped through sexual intercourse, the provisions of RA 8353 amending the RPC ought to prevail over Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 although the latter also penalizes the act of sexual intercourse against a minor. (People v. Ejercito, G.R. No. 229861. July 2, 2018) Q: One evening, AAA, who was sleeping beside her brother BBB, suddenly woke up with X, her father, already on top of her, and the latter's penis’ already inside her vagina. Startled by the pain she feltin her vagina, AAA pushed X and scampered away from hi order to move closer to BBB. This left X with no choice but to leave the room. The incident was repeated twice. After the 3rd incident, ‘AAA finally had the courage to report the foregoing incidents to the police. AAA was then examined by a physician who found her to have sustained lacerations in her hymen which could have been caused by the penetration of a hard object, such as an erect penis. X interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. What is the criminal liability of X? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) X is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Qualified Rape and one (1) count of Attempted Qualified Rape. The elements of Rape under Article 266-A (1) (a) are: (1) The offender had camal knowledge of a woman; and (2) aid camal knowledge was accomplished through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will Statutory Rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) is committed by having sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve (12) years of age regardless of her consent, or lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, threat, or intimidation, or consent of the offended party is unnecessary as these are ‘not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively resumed when the victim is below the age of twelve (12). The law presumes that the offended party does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to sustain a conviction for statutory rape, the prosecution must establish the following: (1) the age of the complainant; (2) the identity of the accused; and (3) the’ sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. The foregoing acts of Rape shall be qualified pursuant to Article 266-8 (1) of the RPC if (1) the Victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and (2) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law ‘spouse of the parent of the victim. In the case at bar, the Court agrees with the finding of the courts a quo that the prosecution was able to prove that X: (a) had camal knowledge of her without her consent on two (2) ‘separate occasions, the first occurring sometime. in 2006 and the second in February 2008; and (b) attempted to have camal knowledge of her on May 17, 2009, but was stopped by a reason other than his own desistance, i.e, BBB's intervention. Suffice it to say that X's flimsy defense of denial ‘and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of AAA identifying him as the perpetrator of the crimes. (People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Comboy Y Cronico: GR. No, 218399. March 2, 2016) @: AAA, her mother and sister, and her sister's common-law spouse, X, lived at the same house. One afternoon, AAA was in the house of a neighbor, when suddenly, X, who was drunk at the time, pulled her into their Page 45 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 20 CRIMINAL LAW house while AAA's mother and sister were not around. Once inside, X ordered AAA to take off her clothes, covered her mouth, and then proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. Later that day, AAA's mother noticed that ‘AAA was pale, bruised, limping, and her dress. soiled, making her ‘suspect that X had something to do with AAA's disheveled appearance. Such suspicion was later confirmed when AAA admitted to her sister that X raped her, prompting AAA's mother and sister to bring her to the hospital for medical examination. They also went to the police station to report the matter. During the trial, a psychiatric consultant testified that: (a) while AAA is already 20 years old, she has a mild to moderate mental retardation, with a mental age of 6-7 years old; (b) children of this mental age can recall and narrate events if coupled with subtle prodding; and (c) AAA has difficulty in answering questions and can only respond in phrases; (d) AAA had no overtures. or distortions in her perceptions or memory; and (e) AAA was not suffering from psychosis, which meant that she was in touch with reality and not hallucinating strangely. What is the criminal liability of X? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) X is quilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 266-A (1) of the RPC. Fora charge of Rape by sexual intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the RPC to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender had camal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished this act through force, threat or intimidation, when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, by means of authority, or when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. The gravamen of Rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her wil. The Court agrees with the findings of both the RTC and the CA that the prosecution established, ‘among others, that: (a) on May 1, 2006, AAA was in her neighbor's house when X pulled her into their own house; (b) once inside, X covered her mouth then had carnal knowledge of her; (c) AAA confessed to her sister that X took advantage of her; and (4) a medical examination confirmed that AAA was indeed raped. ion of grave abuse of ‘AAA's mental retardation cannot be taken into. account. It must be stressed that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him to ensure that his due process rights are observed. Thus, every indictment must embody the essential elements of the crime charged with reasonable particularity as to the name of the accused, the time and place of commission of the offense, and the circumstances thereof. In this, case, suffice it to say that AAA's mental retardation, while proven during trial, cannot be considered in view of the fact that it was not specifically alleged in the Information charging X of Rape. (People of the Philippines v. Mario Galia Bagamano; G.R. No. 222658. August 17, 2016) Q: Respondent X is charged with the crime of Statutory Rape. It is alleged that, on two separate instances, he forced himself upon his 9-year-old niece. Should the conviction be upheld? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Yes. There is no plausible reason for X's niece to testify against her own relative. Additionally, itis noted that, for Statutory Rape, proof of threat or force are not necessary elements of the crime, considering that the absence of consent is presumed when the victim is below 12 years. Furthermore, the Court found that the acts must be upgraded to Qualified Statutory Rape, because Xis a relative by affinity within the third civil degree. (People v. De Guzman y Buhay, G.R. No. 234190, October 1, 2018) Q: Accused-appellants A and C intercepted AAA, threatened her with a bladed weapon, dragged her to a cottage at a nearby beach resort, and bound her hands and feet. Thereafter, they removed her clothes and placed her on the floor. A then mounted AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. After A satisfied his lust, C took over and raped her. Thereafter, accused-appellants left AAA at the cottage. An hour later, C returned and dragged AAA to a store owned by a certain Lino Ostero (Ostero). There C undressed her again, mounted her, and inserted his penis into ‘her vagina. ‘Afterwards, AAA was returned to the cottage. The next day, AAA'S father found her crying at the cottage. The RTC found accused appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape which was affirmed by the CA. Accused-appellants, appealed. Whether or not the presence of either circumstance - “use of a deadly Page 46 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW weapon” or "by two or more persons” - qualifies the crime. A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Given that the rape occurred during the effectivity of the old rape provision, it shall be controlling in the case. Under Art 335, “Rape is committed by having camal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman. is under twelve years of age or is demented. Either circumstance is qualifying’. When the two circumstances are present, there is no legal basis to consider the remaining circumstance as a generic aggravating circumstance for either is not considered as such under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code enumerating what are aggravating circumstances. (People of the Philippines v. Arugta, G.R. No. 213216, April 20, 2015) Q: Whether or not force employed in the commission of the crime of rape must be irresistible? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) In this case, records reveal that accused-appellants threatened AAA with a bladed instrument and tied her up before having camal knowledge of her without her consent. Jurisprudence holds that force or intimidation, as an element of Rape, need not be itresistible; as long as the assailant’s objective is accomplished, any question of whether the force employed was irresistible or not becomes irrelevant. Intimidation must be viewed from the lens of the victim's perception and judgment and itis enough that the victim fears that something will happen to her should she resist her assallant’s advances. In this regard, case law provides that the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into submission. (People of the Philippines v. Arugta, GR. No. 213216, April 20, 2015) @: C, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and’ there willfully, unlawfully ‘and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his common-lawewife’s daughter, [AAA], a minor who was then about 8 years and 5 months old and with whom accused has moral ascendancy as she considered him as her father and carries his surname although she is not his daughter but a daughter of another man having previous relationship with his common-law-wife, which sexual act was against the will and consent of said [AAA]. The first two (2) rape incidents ‘occurred prior to the passage of Republic Act No. (RA) 8353, otherwise known as the "Anti- Rape Law of 1997," hence, C was charged under the old rape provi , Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). On the other hand, the third rape incident occurred in June 2000, or after the passage of RA 8353, hence, the accused was charged under the amended rape provision, i.e, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended. The RTC convicted C of three (3) counts of statutory rape and noted the qualifying circumstance of relationship. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Were all the elements of statutory rape present? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of i, to the sexual act. Proof of force, inlimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving inteligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. The elements of statutory rape were present. First, the presentation of AAA's Cerificate of Live Birth showing that she was born Con July 25, 1998 has proven that she was below 412 years of age when the three (3) rape incidents happened on December 26 and 27, 1996, and in June 2000, respectively. Second ,the prosecution proved that C indeed had camal knowledge of ‘AAA on three (3) separate occasions through the latter's positive, categorical, and spontaneous testimony, as corroborated by the medico-legal report. (People v. Cadano, G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014) : One evening, AAA joined her co-worker for a vacation in the province of Nueva Ecija as they were both laid off from work, and they stayed at the one-storey house of the latter's 62-year old mother, BBB. Thereat, AAA would sleep at the papag while BBB slept on a Page 47 of 130ATENEO CENTRAL, BAR OPERATIONS 2019 CRIMINAL LAW mattress on the floor. At around 2:30 in the morning of January 5, 1996, AAA awoke to the ‘sound of BBB's pleas for mercy. Aided by the kerosene lamp placed on the floor, AAA saw BBB being mauled and stabbed to death by X and Y. Thereafter, X approached AAA and restrained her arms, while Y pulled AAA's pants and underwear down and started having carnal knowledge of her. After Y was done, he switched places with X and the latter took his tun ravishing AAA. As AAA was able to fight back by scratching X's back, X punched her on the left side of her face while Y hit her left jaw with a piece of wood. AAA then lost consciousness and woke up in a hospital, while BBB succumbed to her injuries. What is the criminal liability of X and Y? A, (PERLAS-BERNABE) X should be convicted of one (1) count of Qualified Rape and one (1) count of Homicide. This wil no longer affect Y as he had already withdrawn his appeal prior to the promulgation of this decision. To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the kiling was not attended by any of the ualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without ‘medical intervention or attendance. On the other hand, under Art. 395 of the RPG, the elements of Rape are:(1) the offender had camal knowledge. of the_ victim: and_(2) said_camal, knowledge was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation; or the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim was under twelve (12) years of age or demented. The provision also states that ifthe act i's committed either with the use of a deadly weapon or by two (2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the imposition of a higher penalty The Court deems it proper to upgrade the conviction in said case from Simple Rape to Qualified Rape. Article 335 of the RPC states that if the rape is committed under certain circumstances, such as when it was committed by two (2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, asin this instance. (People of the Philippines v. Alberto Alejandro Y Rigor And Joe! Angeles Y De Jesus; G.R. No. 225608 March 13, 2017.) : AAA was playing with C, her cousin and the daughter of her uncle, herein appellant, at the second floor of the latter's house. At the time, appellant, M, happened to also be at the second floor of the house. When C went to the ground floor to urinate, M approached AAA and began to remove his shorts. Thereafter, he laid AAA, raised her skirt and pulled down her underwear. Then, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, causing AAA to feel pain and to shout for help from C. When appellant realized that his daughter C might be returning anytime, he let AAA go. AAA did not recount her ordeal to anyone until she complained to her mother, CCC, of the pain in her vagina. AAA then confessed that her uncle, appellant herein, inserted his penis into her vagina. While M's other niece, BBB, was with him in his house, he inserted his penis into her mouth and threatened her not to tell anyone what he had done. BBB did not report the incident immediately because she feared M. M was convicted for Simple Rape and for Rape by Sexual Assault. RTC gave full weight and credence to the testimonies of the private complainants, which it found to be straightforward, candid, and bearing the earmarks of truth and sincerity. It considered as inconsequential the finding of the doctor that there was “[no laceration nor discharge” ‘on AAA's hymen, explaining that the slightest penetration of the woman's private organ is considered as rape. Should the testimonies of AAA and BBB be given weight? A: (PERLAS-BERNABE) Testimonies of child- Victims are normally given full weight and crecit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. A young gir’s revelation that she had Page 48 of 130,