Civil Liability

-Exempt- person who has authority or control over the child will be civilly liable
-Not exempt- child’s parents are liable

Credit in Service of Sentence

-full time spent in actual commitment and detention not ⅘

*Record of CICL is confidential

*After conviction, may serve in an agricultural camp and other training facilities (for
reintegration)

Violation of a LOCAL ORDINANCE

CAR- Child at Risk (DANA- Dependent, Abused, Neglected, Abandoned) - undergo intervention
programs
Truancy- stays out of school for 5 consecutive school days. May be confined in a rehabilitation center
of reformatory
Parental Disobedience- recourse of parents to court, minor may be liable
Curfew Violation- served as warnings, reprimand
Vagrancy- cannot be held liable; Intervention
Prostitution- cannot be held liable; intervention
Sniffing of Rugby- cannot be held liable; intervention
Mendicancy (alms giving, beggar) - cannot be held liable; intervention; THOSE WHO GIVE MAY BE
HELD LIABLE

*There is a provision against labelling and shaming a CICL

*RA 9344 WAS APPLIED RETROACTIVELY

SPL no. 5

R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

Who are covered:

1. Public officers either employed in (National government, Local government, GOCCs, Other
instrumentalities or agencies, their branches)

a. Career service
 b. Non-career service, such as elective officials, Cabinet secretaries or equivalent
rank, Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office (inc. their
personal or confidential staff); and Contractual personnel

2. Private individuals
General Rule: Private individuals alone cannot be charged; they need to be in conspiracy with a
public officer for them to fall under the law.

Exception: When the public official they conspired or induced was already dead upon the filing of the
charges.

Note: If the public officer is acquitted, so must the private individual. The reasoning being is
that the accused being a public officer is an indispensable element of RA 3019.

Nature:
1. Partakes of the nature of malum prohibitum (Luciano v. Estrella)
Note: violation of R.A. 3019 must be committed with criminal intent, because bad faith or
evident impartiality is an element thereof
2. Continuing crime or delito continuado – every violation is construed as one (1) count
3. Based on Spanish text – in interpreting the law, the Spanish text is controlling because it was
originally written in Spanish
4. Independent crime – Sec. 3 of the act provides that crimes punished by other laws, may be filed
concomitantly with violations of R.A. 3019

Defenses, explained:
a. Inordinate delay – In order for the accused to invoke this defense, the delay must be in
violation of his Constitutional rights to a) due process; and b) speedy disposition of
cases. The period from which it should be based starts from the filing of the complaint,
and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation. However, the delay shall
be based “not through mere mathematical reckoning, but through the examination of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the case” (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan).
* The concept of inordinate delay was introduced in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan where the SC was
constrained to apply the “radical relief” of dismissing the criminal complaint against an accused due to
delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation.

The burden of proving delay depends on whether delay is alleged within the periods provided y law or
procedural rules.

B. Reelection – Otherwise known as the Aguinaldo Doctrine. It is no longer a valid defense for
officials reelected on or after November 10, 2015 (Morales v. CA and Binay).
Why? Reelection to office operates as a condonation of his misconduct to the extent of cutting off the
right to remove him therefor.

Section 3 (open the codal while reading this)

Punishable acts under Sec. 3 of RA 3019
3(A). A public officer:
a. Persuading, inducing, or influencing another public officer to:
i. Perform an act constituting a violation of the Rules and Regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority, or
ii. An offense in connection with the official duties of the latter.

Example: The act of Former Comelec Chaiman Benjamin Abalos in bribing

Romulo Neri with the amount of 200 Million Pesos in exchange for the approval
of the NBN Project (Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountablility of Public
Officers and Investigation, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008).

b. Allowing himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit such violation or offense (Sec 3
(a), RA 3019).

Section 3(a), explained:

Elements:
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing (PII) a public officer (PO), by another Public officer;
2. Such Persuading, inducing or influencing must be to violate rules and regulations issued by
competent authority or an offense in connection with his official functions; or allowing himself to be
PII-ed to commit such violation or offense;and
3. The PII must be by means of consideration, reward, payment or remuneration (Baviera v. Zoleta);

Inducer and induced

To commit this crime, a public officer must induce, persuade or influence another public officer. The
inducer is criminally liable, the second public officer will only be held liable if he allowed himself to be
induced.

The commission of this crime presupposes that there are two public officials, one is the inducer while
the other is the official induced or being induced.

By means of Consideration or Payment

The mode of committing section 3(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing (PII) a public officer
(PO), by another Public officer to commit an offense or to violate rules and regulations by means of
consideration, reward, payment or remuneration

Section 3(a) requires a deliberate intent on the part of the public official to violate those rules and
regulations duly promulgated by the competent authority.

Direct bribery (DB) under RPC vs. Section 3(a)

1. Direct bribery: Public officer agreed to commit the crime or act not constituting a crime;
3019: must be Persuaded, induced, or influence

2. DB: any person may commit the crime 3019: another public officer
3. DB: only PO is guilty of DB; other person is liable for corruption of public officer
3019: both inducer and PO are guilty

4. DB: attempted stage is possible

3019: no attempted stage

Persuading, inducing or influencing (PII) a public officer (PO), by another Public officer;

3(B). Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or
for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other
party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law (Sec. 3 (b), RA
3019).

Note: The word “includes” indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The terms “classified, unclassified or
exempt service which have been reclassified into career service and non career service