Special Penal Laws (Summary of Provisions) (January 2019)

PERSONS INVOLVE
ACTS MEANS / PURPOSE/OTHERS PENALTY

LIABLE VICTIM
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
RA No. 8042
RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT What are the penalties for Illegal Recruitment? (sec. 7, R.A. 8042)
New Labor Code, (PD442) Simple Illegal Recruitment -
Defini t i on Imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one day but not more than
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring of workers which includes referrals, twelve (12) years, and a FINE o f not less TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Any person or entity which (P200,000.00) PESOS nor more than FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
in any manner, offers or promises, for a fee, employment to at least one person, shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and (P500,000.00) PESOS.
placement. Illegal Recruitment constituting economic sabotage (large scale and
What is Illegal Recruitment? syndicated)
(sec. 6, R.A. 8042) LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and FINE of not less than FIVE HUNDRED
For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS nor more than ONE M ILLION (P1m)
or procuring of workers which includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for PESOS. Where can ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT Cases be Filed? (sec. 9, RA
profit or not, when undertaken by a nonlicense or nonholder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree 8042)
No. 442, as amended , otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Pro vided, That any such nonlicense or non- Illegal Recruitment cases may be filed in places where:
holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad for two or more persons shall be deemed so a. the offense was committed; or
engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non licensee, nonholder, licensee b. the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the
or holder of authority: offense.
A. Excessive Collection of p lacement fee;
B. Misrepresentation in relation to recruitment or employment;
C. Misrepresentation for purposes of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code.
D. Inducement of a worker to quit his present employment for another unless the transfer
liberates a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
E. Influencing or attempting to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker
who ahs not app lied for employment through his agency;
F. Engagement in recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or
morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
G. Obstruction of inspection by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly
authorized representative;
H. Failure to submit reports required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
I. Contractsubstitution
J. For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to engage in the business
of travel agency or in the management thereof;
K. Withholding or denying worker’s travel documents before departure for monetary or
financial consideration other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations;
L. Failure to actually deploy workers without valid reasons;
APPLICABLE LAWS ON ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT R.A. 8042
Presented by Atty. Alejandre T. Diaz, Directo r II
AntiIllegal Recruitment Bran ch, POEA
edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I
Page 1 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
Courtesy of LACMMI – Lipa Archdiocesan Comm ission on Migrants an d Mission Page 2 of 5

Source: www.a rchlipa.org/commission/lacmmi June 2007
M. Failure to reimburse worker for processing and documentary expenses, in cases where
the dep loyment does not take without the worker’s fault.
What are the Classifications of Illegal Recruitment?
I. Simple IR – involves less than three (3) victims or recruiters
II. IR involving economic sabotage:
a. Large Scale – committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group
b. Syndicated – committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
What is the prescriptive period for prosecuting Illegal Recruitment cases?
(Sec. 12, R.A. 8042 Simple IR –five (5) years
IR involving economic sabotage (Large Scale and Syndicated) – twenty (20) years
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

“REFERRAL is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected
applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.” (People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780)
“There is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad though without authority or license to
do so” (Pp vs Villas, 277 SCRA 391)
“It is the lack of necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal.” (Pp vs Borromeo, 305
SCRA 180)
“An illegal recruiter need not present himself to the victim as duly licensed recruiter. It suffices that he gives an impression of his
ability to enlist the complainants for employment abroad, in order to include them to tender payment of fees.” (Pp vs. Peralta,
283 SCRA 81)
“Lack of receipts does not mean no transaction for recruitment for overseas job was made.” (People vs. Naparan, 225 SCRA 714)
“Failure of the complainants to ask for the receipts for the fees they paid, x x x, is not fatal to their case if they are able to duly
prove by their testimonies the involvement of the accused in the recruitment process.” (Peo ple vs. Comia, 136 SCRA 185)
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF IR

Administrative Remedy
A. Complaint for recruitment violation – against a licensed agency and filed with the Adjudication Office of the POEA
B. Complaint/Report requesting conduct of surveillance / entrapment and other special operations – filed with the Antiillegal Recruitment
Branch of the Licensing and Regulation Office, POEA
C. Complaints / reports – may also filed with the DOLE regional Offices and/ or the POEA Regional Extension Units/Centers nearest the
place where the offense was committed
Criminal Remedy
Complaints for Estafa and/or Illegal Recruitment against an illegal recruiter or a responsible officer of a licensed agency may be
filed with the assistance of the POEA Antiillegal Recruitment Branch (AIRB), NBI, PNPCIDG, or directly with the prosecutor’s office
or w ith law enforcement agencies.
Definition of TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

The RECRUITMENT, TRANSPORT, TRANSFER or HARBORING, or RECEIPT of persons WITH OR WITHOUT CONSENT OR
KNOWLEDGE, within or across national borders, by means of threat or use of force, or other fro ms of coercion, abduction,

Page 2 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the GIVING or
RECEIVING of PAYMENTS or BENEFITS to achieve the consent of the person having contro l over another person for the
purpose of EXPLOITATION or the PROSTITUTION of others or others for ms of SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, FORCED LABOR, or
SERVICES, SLAVERY, SERVITUDE or the REMOVAL or SALE of ORGANS.
ELEMENTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
ACTS MEANS PURPOSE

Threa t or use of Force,
Recruiting. Other forms of Coercion,
Exploitation
Transporting. Abduction,
Prostitution of others or other forms of Sexual
Transferring, or Fraud or
Exploitation,
Harboring, or Deception
Forced labor, or services,
Receipt of persons with Abuse of power or position,
Slavery,
or without consent or Taking Advantage of the vulnerability of the
Servitude or
knowledge within or across person, or
Removal or sa le of organs.
national borders The Giving or Re ceiving of payments or benefits
to achieve the consent
THREE (3) CATEGORIES OF TRAFFICKING:

a. Acts of Trafficking in Persons;
b. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons; and,
c. Qualified Trafficking in Persons.
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS DISTINGUISHED FROM HUMAN SMUGGLING
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
Usually involves coercion Characterized by subsequent exploitation after the illegal entry of a person into a foreign country Considered a
Human R ights issue
HUMAN SMUGGLING
Usually does not involve coercion Characterized by fa cilitating, for a fee, the illegal entry of a person into foreign country Considered a
migration concern
ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
a. Recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, providing or receiving a person by any means, including those under the pretext of
domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship for purposes of pro stitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
b. Introducing for money or other consideration, any consideration, any Filipina to a foreigner as a possible spouse or to offer any Filipina
to a foreigner as a prostitute;
c. Offering or contracting marriage for purposes of acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading a person to engage in prostitution, or o
ther acts of exploitation;
d. Undertaking or organizing tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages for purposes of utilizing or offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;
e. Maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;

Page 3 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
f. Adopting or facilitating the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
g. Recruiting, hiring, adopting, transporting or abducting a person, by means of threa tor use of force, fraud, deceit, violence or coercion.
AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER
RA No. 10022 IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
"SEC. 6. Illegal recruitment "(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of 1. non-holder, non- Migrant Workers and Section 6. Section 7 of
shall mean any act of: allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay or licensee or holder of Overseas Filipinos Republic Act No. 8042, as
canvassing, acknowledge any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance; authority. amended, is hereby
enlisting, amended to read as
contracting, "(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or follows:
transporting, employment; 2. "The persons
utilizing, criminally liable for the "SEC. 7. Penalties. -
hiring, or "(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of misrepresentation above offenses are the
procuring workers and for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code, or for the purpose of principals, accomplices "(a) Any person found
includes documenting hired workers with the POEA, which include the act of reprocessing workers through a job and accessories. guilty of illegal
referring, order that pertains to nonexistent work, work different from the actual overseas work, or work with a recruitment shall suffer
contract services, different employer whether registered or not with the POEA; the penalty of
promising or imprisonment of not less
advertising for employment "(d) To include or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to offer than twelve (12) years
3. In case of juridical
abroad, whether for profit or him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of and one (1) day but not
persons, the officers
not. employment; more than twenty (20)
having ownership,
control, management or years and a fine of not
"(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not less than One million
direction of their
applied for employment through his agency or who has formed, joined or supported, or has contacted or pesos (P1,000,000.00)
business who are
is supported by any union or workers' organization; nor more than Two
responsible for the
commission of the million pesos
"(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or (P2,000,000.00).
offense and the
to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
responsible
employees/agents "(b) The penalty of life
"(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance of foreign
thereof shall be liable. imprisonment and a fine
exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be
of not less than Two
required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
4. "If the offender is an million pesos
alien, he or she shall, in (P2,000,000.00) nor
"(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by
addition to the penalties more than Five million
the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to
herein prescribed, be pesos (P5,000,000.00)
and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor
deported without further shall be imposed if illegal
and Employment;
proceedings. recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage as
"(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or member of the
defined therein.
Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the
management of travel agency;
Page 4 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
"Provided, however,
That the maximum
penalty shall be imposed
if the person illegally
recruited is less than
eighteen (18) years of
age or committed by a
non-licensee or non-
holder of authority.
"(c) Any person found

guilty of any of the
"(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or prohibited acts shall
financial considerations, or for any other reasons, other than those authorized under the Labor Code suffer the penalty of
and its implementing rules and regulations; imprisonment of not less
than six (6) years and
"(l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason as determined by the Department one (1) day but not more
of Labor and Employment; than twelve (12) years
"(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and and a fine of not less
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place than Five hundred
without the worker's fault. thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) nor more
"(n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a licensed recruitment/manning agency. than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00).
"In every case, conviction

shall cause and carry the
automatic revocation of
the license or registration
of the
recruitment/manning
agency, lending
institutions, training
school or medical clinic."
Illegal recruitment when Additional unlawful acts:

committed by a SYNDICATE
or in large scale shall be "(1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino worker with interest exceeding eight percent (8%) per
considered an offense annum, which will be used for payment of legal and allowable placement fees and make the migrant
involving economic sabotage; worker issue, either personally or through a guarantor or accommodation party, postdated checks in
and

Page 5 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
relation to the said loan;
"(2) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is
required to avail of a loan only from specifically designated institutions, entities or persons;
"(3) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by an overseas Filipino worker after the latter's
employment contract has been prematurely terminated through no fault of his or her own;
"Illegal recruitment is deemed
committed by a syndicate if "(4) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is
carried out by a group of three required to undergo health examinations only from specifically designated medical clinics,
(3) or more persons conspiring institutions, entities or persons, except in the case of a seafarer whose medical examination cost is
or confederating with one shouldered by the principal/shipowner;
another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if "(5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an overseas Filipino worker is
committed against three (3) or required to undergo training, seminar, instruction or schooling of any kind only from specifically
more persons individually or as designated institutions, entities or persons, except fpr recommendatory trainings mandated by
a group principals/shipowners where the latter shoulder the cost of such trainings;
"(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning agency to engage in any kind of recruitment activity
including the processing of pending workers' applications; and
"(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign principal/employer to pass on the overseas

Filipino worker or deduct from his or her salary the payment of the cost of insurance fees, premium or
other insurance related charges, as provided under the compulsory worker's insurance coverage.
RA No. 6981
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A WITNESS PROTECTION, SECURITY AND BENEFIT PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
April 24, 1991
Who can be admitted into the Section 10. State Witness. - Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires
Program? to be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the
1. Any person who Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are present:
has knowledge of or
information on the (a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the
commission of a crime Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;
and has testified or is
testifying or is willing to (b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
testify.
(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed:
2. A witness in a
congressional
(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;
Page 6 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
investigation, upon the

recommendation of the (e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and
legislative committee
where his testimony is (f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.
needed and with the
approval of the Senate An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the court in order that he may be a
President or the State Witness pursuant to Section 9 and 10 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may upon his
Speaker of the House petition be admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of this Act. Nothing in this
of Representatives, as Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused, so that he can be used as a State Witness under Rule
the case may be. 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
3. A witness who
participated in the
commission of a crime
and who desires to be a
State witness.
4. An accused who is
discharged from an
information or criminal
complaint by the court
in order that he may be
a State witness.
Who are disqualified for

admission into the Program?
An applicant will not be

admitted into the program if:
1. the offense in which
his testimony will be
used is not a grave
felony;
2. his testimony
cannot be substantially
corroborated in its

Page 7 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
material points;
3. he or any member
of his family within the
second degree of
consanguinity or affinity
has not been
threatened with death
or bodily injury or there
is no likelihood that he
will be killed, forced,
intimidated, harassed or
corrupted to prevent
him from testifying or to
testify falsely or
evasively because or
on account of his
testimony; and
4. if the applicant is a
law enforcement officer
even if he will testify
against other law
enforcement officers.
The immediate
members of the
applicant may,
however, be admitted
into the program.
5.
What will happen to a witness

who refuses or fails to testify?
He may be arrested or
detained and prosecuted for
perjury or contempt.

Page 8 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
RA No. 4200 The Anti Wiretapping Law
Republic Act 4200 is probably the most quoted law nowadays. Thus, it is worthy to examine the said law and discuss its pertinent provisions.
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, ” An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes,” provides that it shall be unlawfull
for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described.
In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No. 93833 (Sept. 28, 1995)], petitioner Ramirez vigorously argues, that the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a
private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. She contends that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those
involved in the communication. In relation to this, petitioner avers that the substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in the Information, otherwise the facts charged would not
constitute a violation of R.A. 4200. Finally, petitioner agues that R.A. 4200 penalizes the taping of a “private communication,” not a “private conversation” and that consequently, her act of
secretly taping her conversation with private respondent was not illegal under the said act.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner. It stated that Section 1 of R.A. 4200 “clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private
communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a
party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statute’s intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the
qualifier “any”. Consequently, …….even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a “violator”
under this provision of R.A. 4200.”
The Supreme Court held further that the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. It held that:
“The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications
by means of the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to
constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court: “Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that before one
can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person should be professed.”
Curiously, in Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, [145 SCRA 112 (1986)], a case which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping, the Supreme Court held that the use of a telephone
extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension devise was neither among those “device(s) or
arrangement(s)” enumerated therein, following the principle that “penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.”
WHEN IS WIRETAPPING ALLOWED?
Under Section 3 of R.A. 4200, a peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, may execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases
involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage
and other offenses against national security. Such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the
witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is
about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2)
Page 9 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3)
that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
INADMISSIBILITY OF WIRETAPPED EVIDENCE
Section 4 of R.A. 4200 declares that any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information
therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.
Anti-Wiretapping Law and Related Issues What are the penalties for
violating the Anti-
Whatisthe anti-wiretappinglaw and why was it enacted? WireTapping Law?
The direct participants
Congress passed the Anti-Wiretapping Law, R.A. 4200, in 1965. The law seeks to punish wiretapping and other related violations of the right to privacy of communication. It also to the wiretapping,
intends to stop the practice by officers of the government of spying on one another—a "most obnoxious instrument of oppression or arbitrary power." and any one who
The law also declares inadmissible such illegally obtained recordings in civil, criminal, administrative and legislative hearings or investigations. aids, permits or causes
Does the Anti-Wiretapping Law prohibit the recording of all communications? the violation are, upon
No. The law prohibits the recording and interception only of private communications. The law does not prohibit the recording of public speeches by members of the conviction, punished by
audience, or other forms of "public" communication such as press conferences, interviews, and board meetings that are openly recorded. The law expressly punishes those who imprisonment of not less
secretly record or intercept private conversations and communications. By private conversations and communications, the law simply refers to communication between than six months nor more
persons privatelymade: than six years. If the
The Supreme Court, in Navarro v. Court of Appeals, offender is a public
distinguished between private and public communications. In this case, the tape recording captured a heated conversation between a policeman and a reporter which official at the time of
later led to the violent death of the reporter, and which took place at the police station in the the offense, he shall
presence of several people. The Court held that the conversation was not a private communication, and therefore was admissible in evidence in the homicide case suffer the accessory
filed against the policeman for the reporter's death, even if the policeman did not authorize the recording. "Indeed, Jalbuena’s testimony is confirmed by the voice recording penalty of perpetual
he had made. It may be asked whether the tape is admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in the affirmative. absolute disqualification
What is essential, however, is that ALL the parties to the private conversation expressly or impliedly consent to its being recorded. from public office. If
If one party to the communication authorizes the recording, but the other party does not, the party who recorded the conversation is liable for prosecution for the offender is a
violatingR.A. 4200: foreigner, he shall be
“’[E]ven a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualifyas a violator’under…R.A. subject to deportation.
4200.” Navarro v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No.121087,
Whatoffenses arepunishedby the Anti-Wiretapping Law? 26 August 1999.
Only law enforcement
The law punishes the following acts: agents may apply for a
1. Wiretapping or using any other device or arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or record a private communication or spoken word, except where the same court order to conduct a
is done pursuant to a court order and complies with all the conditionsimposed by section3 of R.A. 4200; wire tap or similar form of
2. Possessing any tape, wire, disc or other record, or copies, of an illegally obtained recording of a private communication, knowing that it was illegallyobtained; secretly over hearing and
3. Replaying an illegally obtained recording for another person, or communicating its contents, or furnishing transcripts of the communication,whether complete or partial. recording private

Page 10 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
4. Acts of peace officers (law enforcement agents) in violation of section 3 of R.A. 4200 on the proper procedure for securing and implementing a court orderauthorizingthewiretappingofa communications, but the
private communication. court may only issue such
The law also makes persons who "wilfully or knowingly aid, permit or cause to be done” the acts described above, equally liable as direct participants to the illegal wire an order in cases
tap or secret recording. involving--A. The
followingfelonies
What must be proven to sustain a charge of possessing a tape, wire, disc or other record, or copies of an illegally obtained recording of a privatecommunication? penalized
undertheRevisedPenal
R.A. 4200 requires that the accused knowingly possesses the illegally obtained recording. The Congressional Record indicates that the word knowingly refers to “knowing Code:
that [therecording] was secured by illegal means”:
xxi
Does a person who has, listens to, distributes or replays, a copy of the alleged “Gloria-Garci”recordingviolate R.A. 4200? 1. Treason;
To violate R.A. 4200, there must first be proof that
(1) an illegal wiretap actually occurred; 2. Espionage;
(2) that the recording listened to, replayed or distributed emanatesfrom that illegal wiretap; and
(3) that the person who listened to, replayed or distributed the recording knew (i.e., had personal knowledge) that the recording was illegally obtained. 3. Provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war;
Can a person be arrested without a warrant for possessing or playing or distributing the alleged“Gloria-Garci”recording? 4. Piracy and mutiny in
the high seas;
For a person to be validly arrested without a warrant, that person must be caught in the act of committing or attempting to commit a crime, or when a crime
has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge that that person probably committed that crime. 5. Rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, conspiracy and
Can the media be prohibited from airing voice recordings that are allegedly illegallyobtained? proposal to commit
rebellion;
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances are founded on the need to discuss
publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. That is why our courts have consistently rejected any prior restraint on the 6. Sedition,inciting to
communication of views and free exchange of information on matters of public concern. It is only when a clear and present danger exists that theState has sedition, conspiracy and
therighttopreventorlimitthesefreedoms: proposal to commit
sedition; and
In what kinds of proceedings are illegally obtained recordings of privatecommunications inadmissible?
7. Kidnapping;and
R.A. 4200 provides that illegally obtained recordings of private communications are inadmissible in civil, criminal, administrative and/or legislative hearings or investigations.
Not even the existence of such recordings may be admitted into evidence.
Are illegally obtained voice recordings admissible inimpeachment proceedings?
Section 4 of R.A. 4200 expressly declares that illegally obtained recordings are inadmissible “in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.”
Impeachment proceedings are, in the words of Justice Puno in his Separate Opinion in Francisco v. House of Representatives,
“sui generis” and possess both political and non-political aspects. In this case (a petition seeking to prevent the House of Representatives from transmitting to the Senate the
Articles of Impeachment against Chief Justice Hilario Davide for improper use of the Judiciary Development Fund), Justice Puno, after tracing the origin and nature of
impeachment in England and the United States, commented on the nature of impeachmentin thePhilippines, thus:
“The historiography of our impeachment provisions will show that they were liberally lifted from the U.S. Constitution. Following an originalist interpretation, there is

Page 11 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
much to commend to the thought that they are political in nature and character. The political character of impeachment hardly changed in our 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions. … All these provisions confirm the inherentnatureofimpeachment as political.
“Be that as it may, the purity of the political nature of impeachment has been lost. … “I therefore respectfully submit that there is now a commixture of political and
judicial components in our reengineered concept of impeachment. It is for this reason and more that impeachment proceedings are classifiedas sui generis. …“
xxix
Impeachment,being in a class of its own, is thereforeneithera judicial, norquasijudicial, nor legislative nor administrative proceeding. Hence, there appears to be no legal bar to
the admissibility of wiretapped recordings in impeachment proceedings. Since the law does not prohibit the use of illegally obtained recordings in impeachment
proceedings, following the canon of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius (that which is expressly mentioned implies the exclusion of all others, or, in
simple terms, that which is not expressly prohibited by law is allowed), it follows that these recordings may be used in impeachment proceedings if Congress, sitting as the
impeachment court, allows it under its rules.
xxx
Assuming that a voice recording is admissible in evidence under R.A. 4200, how is it duly authenticated in civil, criminal and administrativecases?
The Supreme Court requires that---“A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness (1) that he personally recorded the conversation; (2) that the tape played in
court was the one he recorded; and (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the persons such a reclaimed to belong.”
xxxi
This ruling is consistent with Rule 11, Section 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which provides that “audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions
shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording
or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.”
xxxii
Violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security.
TheAnti-Wiretapping Law also requires that a court order shall only be issued upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, and a
showing that
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated above has been, is being or is about to be committed;
(b) that in cases involving rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, there must be prior proof that a
rebellion or acts of sedition as the case maybe, have actually been orare being committed;
(c) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of any of such
crimes; and
(d) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence. [RA4200, sec. 1, 1st and 2nd paragraphs] Thelaw, therefore,providesfora verynarrowexceptionforlaw
enforcement agents to obtain court orders to conduct wiretapping or related acts.
Republic Act. No. 9262 ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Punishable Acts Section 8. Penalties – In relation to Sec. 7 hereof, the acts complained of are
punishable with the provisions set forth in this Section:
Section 6. Public Crime. – Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense, which may be prosecuted upon
the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime. a) Acts falling under Section 7(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or
consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance
with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. If these acts resulted in
Section 7. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. – The crime of violence against women and their children is committed mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code;
through any of the following acts: those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of prision
mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by
a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child; prision correctional; and those constituting slight physical injuries shall be
Page 12 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm; punished by arresto mayor.
e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist
from or to desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman’s Acts falling under Section 7 (b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two (2)
or her child’s freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as
intimidation directed against the woman or her child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto
effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct: mayor.
1. Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody or access to her/his family; b) Acts falling under Section 7(c) and 7(d) shall be punished by arresto mayor;
2. Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately
providing the woman’s children insufficient financial support; c) Acts falling under Section 7(e) shall be punished by prision correccional;
3. Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
4. Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, or controlling the victim’s d) Acts falling under Section 7(f) shall be punished by arresto mayor;
own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties;
e) Acts falling under Section 7(g) shall be punished by prision mayor;
f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;
f) Acts falling under Section 7(h) and Section 7(i) shall be punished by prision
g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or mayor.
threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in
h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum
psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to the following acts: period of penalty prescribed in this section.
1. Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places; In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of
2 Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child; not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than
3 Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will; Three hundred thousand pesos (P300, 000.00); and undergo mandatory
4 Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance
5 Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; and to the court.
i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or denial of access to the woman’s child/children.
Republic Act No. 9208 “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003“

What is the meaning of “trafficking in persons”?
It refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge,
within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of
power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

Page 13 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as
“trafficking in persons” even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.
What is “forced labor and slavery”?
It is the extraction of work or services from any person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion,
including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.
What is “debt bondage”?
It refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or labor or those of a person under his/her control as security or
payment for a debt, when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the value of the services as reasonably
assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt.
How does the law define sex exploitation, prostitution, pornography, and sex tourism?
“Sexual exploitation” refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the production of pornographic materials as a result of being
subjected to a threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or through abuse of a victim’s
vulnerability.
“Prostitution” refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration.
“Pornography” refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by
whatever means, of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a person
for primarily sexual purposes.
“Sex tourism” refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related establishments and individuals which consists of tourism
packages or activities, utilizing and offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This includes sexual services and
practices offered during rest and recreation periods for members of the military.
What are the prohibited acts of trafficking in persons and what is the penalty? The penalty is imprisonment for a period of 20 years and a fine of not less than
P1 Million but not more than P2 Million.
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
1. To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of
domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.

Page 14 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
2. To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided for under
Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering,
selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude
or debt bondage.
3. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading them to engage
in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.
4. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation.
5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography.
6. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage. (Conviction by final judgment of the adopter for any offense under this law shall
result in the immediate rescission of the decree of adoption).
7. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or
intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person.
To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad.
What are the punishable acts that promote trafficking in persons and what is the penalty? The penalty is imprisonment for 15 years and a fine of not less than P500,000,
but not more than P1 Million.
The following acts which promote or facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:
1. To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or establishment for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons.
2. To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration stickers and certificates
of any government agency which issues these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with government regulatory and
pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons.
3. To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the use of information technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any
propaganda material that promotes trafficking in persons.
4. To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of clearances and necessary
exit documents from government agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for departing
persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons.
5. To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at international and local airports, territorial
boundaries and seaports who are in possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons.

Page 15 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
6. To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal documents or belongings of trafficked persons in
furtherance of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate
agencies.
7. To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services of a person held to a condition of
involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.
What acts are considered as “qualified trafficking in persons” and what is the penalty?
The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
1. When the trafficked person is a child.
2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995”
and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage.
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by In these cases, the penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2
a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if Million, but not more than P5 Million.
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises authority over the trafficked person or
when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee.
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agencies.
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies.
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation
or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
 First offense: 6 months of community service as may be determined

by the court and a fine of P50,000.
What are the penalties for “use of trafficked persons”? Any person who buys or engages the services of trafficked persons for prostitution
shall be penalized as follows:
 Second and subsequent offenses: Imprisonment of 1 year and a
fine of P100,000.
What is the penalty for violations in case of confidential proceedings? In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted behind closed-doors,
it shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case of The penalty is imprisonment of 6 years and a fine of not less than P500,000,
television and radio, producer and director of a film in case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing tri-media facilities or information but not more than P1 Million.
technology to cause publicity of any case of trafficking in persons.
Who can prosecute the case? Any person who has personal knowledge of the commission of any offense under this law, the trafficked

Page 16 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
person, the parents, spouse, siblings, children or legal guardian may file a complaint for trafficking.
Where should the case be filed (venue)? A criminal action arising from violation of this law shall be filed where the offense was committed,
or where any of its elements occurred, or where the trafficked person actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, That the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
How about foreigners? If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be immediately deported after serving his sentence and be barred
permanently from entering the country.
On the other hand, the DOJ, in consultation with DFA, shall endeavor to include offenses of trafficking in persons among extraditable
offenses.
Trafficked persons in the Philippines who are foreign nationals shall, subject to the guidelines issued by the Council, shall also be entitled
to appropriate protection, assistance and services available to trafficked persons under this law. That they shall be permitted continued
presence in the Philippines for a length of time prescribed by the Council as necessary to effect the prosecution of offenders.
What is the prescriptive period for the offenses? Trafficking cases under this law shall prescribe in 10 years. Trafficking cases committed
by a syndicate or in a large scale shall prescribe in 20 years. The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the day on which the
trafficked person is delivered or released from the conditions of bondage and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused.
What are the mandatory services to trafficked persons? The concerned government agencies shall make available the following services
to trafficked persons:
1. Emergency shelter or appropriate housing.
2. Counseling.
3. Free legal services which shall include information about the victims’ rights and the procedure for filing complaints, claiming
compensation and such other legal remedies available to them, in a language understood by the trafficked person.
4. Medical or psychological services.
5. Livelihood and skills training.
6. Educational assistance to a trafficked child.
Repatriation of Trafficked Persons. The DFA, in coordination with DOLE and other appropriate agencies, shall have the primary
responsibility for the repatriation of trafficked persons, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented. If, however, the
repatriation of the trafficked persons shall expose the victims to greater risks, the DFA shall make representation with the host government

Page 17 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
for the extension of appropriate residency permits and protection, as may be legally permissible in the host country.
Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims of the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall
not be penalized for crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking enumerated in this law or in obedience to the order made by the
trafficker in relation thereto. In this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended exploitation set forth in this law shall be
irrelevant.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.

The Philippine Extradition Law
1069
Extradition" is the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or
government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law
of the requesting state or government. (Sec. 2).
Under Sec. 3, an extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty or convention, and with a view to:
(a) A criminal investigation instituted by authorities of the requesting state or government charging the accused with an offense punishable under the laws both of the
requesting state or government and the Republic of the Philippines by imprisonment or other form relevant extradition treaty or convention; or
(b) The execution of a prison sentence imposed by a court of the requesting state or government, with such duration as that stipulated in the relevant extradition treaty
or convention, to be served in the jurisdiction of and as a punishment for an offense committed by the accused within the territorial jurisdiction of the requesting state
or government.
Section 4 provides for the request procedures to be observed by the requesting state:
(1) Any foreign state or government with which the Republic of the Philippines has entered into extradition treaty or convention, only when the relevant treaty or
convention, remains in force, may request for the extradition of any accused who is or suspected of being in the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
(2) The request shall be made by the Foreign Diplomat of the requesting state or government, addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and shall be
accompanied by:
(a) The original or an authentic copy of either -
(1) the decision or sentence imposed upon the accused by the court of the requesting state or government; or
(2) the criminal charge and the warrant of arrest issued by the authority of the requesting state or government having jurisdiction of the matter or some other
instruments having the equivalent legal force.
(b) A recital of the acts for which extradition is requested, with the fullest particulars as to the name and identity of the
accused, his whereabouts in the Philippines, if known, the acts or omissions complained of, and the time and place of the commission of these acts;

Page 18 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
(c) The text of the applicable law or a statement of the contents of said law, and the designation or description of the offense by the law, sufficient for evaluation of the
request; and
(d) Such other documents or information in support of the request.
Section 5 states the procedural duties of the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs:
(1) Unless it appears to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that the request fails to meet the requirements of this law and the relevant treaty or convention, he shall
forward the request together with the related documents to the Secretary of Justice, who shall immediately designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take
charge of this case.
(2) The attorney so designated shall file a written petition with the proper Regional Trial Court of the province or city having jurisdiction of the place, with a prayer that
the court take the request under consideration and shall attach to the petition all related documents. The filing of the petition and the service of the summons to the
accused shall be free from the payment of docket and sheriff's fees.
(3) The Regional Trial Court with which the petition shall have been filed shall have and continue to have the exclusive power to hear and decide the case, regardless
of the subsequent whereabouts of the accused, or the change or changes of his place of residence.
Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the presiding judge of the court shall, as soon as practicable, summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on
the day and hour fixed in the order. He may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may be served anywhere within the Philippines if it appears
to the presiding judge that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice. Upon receipt of the answer, or should the
accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed, the presiding judge shall hear the ace or set another date for the hearing thereof. (Sec.
6).
Should the accused fail to appear on the date set for hearing, or if he is not under detention, the court shall forthwith issue a warrant for this arrest which may be
served upon the accused anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 8).
Under Sec. 9, in the hearing, the provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as practicable and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the proceedings, shall apply to
extradition cases, and the hearing shall be conducted in such a manner as to arrive as a fair and speedy disposition of the case.
Sworn statements offered in evidence at the hearing of any extradition case shall be received and admitted as evidence if properly and legally authenticated by the
principal diplomatic or consular officer of the Republic of the Philippines residing in the requesting state.
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court shall render a decision granting the extradition, and giving his reasons therefor upon showing of the existence of a prima
facie case. Otherwise, it shall dismiss the petition.
The decision of the court shall be promptly served on the accused if he was not present at the reading thereof, and the clerk of the court shall immediately forward two
copies thereof to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs through the Department of Justice. (Sec. 10 and Sec. 11).
The accused may, within 10 days from receipt of the decision of the Regional Trial Court appeal the decision, otherwise, it shall be final and immediately executory.
The appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Regional Trial Court. (Sec. 12).

Page 19 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
In case extradition of the same person has been requested by two or more states, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, after consultation with the Secretary of Justice,
shall decide which of the several requests shall be first considered, and copies of the former's decision thereon shall promptly be forwarded to the attorney having
charge of the case, if there be one, through the Department of Justice. (Sec. 15).
After the decision of the court in an extradition case has become final and executory, the accused shall be placed at the disposal of the authorities of the requesting
state or government, at a time and place to be determined by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, after consultation with the foreign diplomat of the requesting state or
government. (Sec. 16).
If extradition is granted, articles found in the possession of the accused who has been arrested may be seized upon order of the court at the instance of the requesting
state or government, and such articles shall be delivered to the foreign diplomat of the requesting state or government who shall issue the corresponding receipt
therefor. (Sec. 17).
Except when the relevant extradition treaty provides otherwise, all costs or expenses incurred in any extradition proceeding and in apprehending, securing and
transmitting an accused shall be paid by the requesting state or government. The Secretary of Justice shall certify to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs the amounts to be
paid by the requesting state or government on account of expenses and costs, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall cause the amounts to be collected and
transmitted to the Secretary of Justice for deposit in the National Treasury of the Philippines. (Sec. 18).
Section 20 provides for the procedures for provisional arrest:
(a) In case of urgency, the requesting state may, pursuant to the relevant treaty or convention and while the same remains in force; request for provisional arrest of the
accused pending receipt of the request for extradition made in accordance with Section 4 of this Decree.
(b) A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, Manila, either through the diplomatic channels or direct by post
or telegraph.
(c) The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation or any official acting on his behalf shall upon receipt of the request immediately secure a warrant for the
provisional arrest of the accused from the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of the province or city having jurisdiction of the place, who shall issue the warrant
for the provisional arrest of the accused. The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall inform the requesting of the
result of its request.
(d) If within a period of 20 days after the provisional arrest the Secretary of Foreign Affairs has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in
Section 4 of this Decree, the accused shall be released from custody.
(e) Release from provisional arrest shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently in accordance with
the relevant treaty of convention
RA 10591 COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

Page 20 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
SOME NOTABLE FEATURES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT (RA 10591)
Introduction
On May 29, 2013, the President of the Philippines approved into law Republic Act No. 10591 otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act.” The law recognizes the right of its qualified citizens to self-defense through the use of firearms and regulates the ownership, possession,
carrying, manufacture, dealing in and importation of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof, in order to provide legal support to law enforcement agencies in their
campaign against crime, stop the proliferation of illegal firearms or weapons and the illegal manufacture of firearms or weapons, ammunition and parts thereof.
The law did not entirely wipe off Presidential Decree No. 1866 as well as its amendatory law, Republic Act No. 8294. Only Sections 1, 2, 5, and 7 of PD 1866 and
Section 6 of RA 8294 were repealed. This means that the provisions of these laws pertaining to explosives were retained and, as such, the unlawful manufacture, sale,
acquisition, disposition or possession of explosives such as hand grenade, rifle grenade, and other explosives, continues to be punishable under the old law.
Some Notable Features of the New Law
Some of the notable features of the new firearms law are: (1) it classified the firearms according to power, and increased the penalties for offenses relative
thereto; (2) it provides separate and lighter penalties for offenses pertaining to ammunition; (3) it likewise provides a separate and lighter penalties for offenses
pertaining to major parts of firearms; (4) it defines and punishes new offenses relating to firearms and ammunition; (5) it provides for qualifying circumstances for the
offense of possession or acquisition of firearms, and aggravating circumstances for the use of loose firearms in the commission of a crime; (6) it regulates ownership
and possession of firearms and ammunition by qualified citizens; (7) it regulates the registration and licensing of firearms; (8) it treats use of an imitation firearm in the
commission of a crime as a real firearm; and (9) subject to an exception, it limits the registration of small arms only to licensed citizens or juridical entities for
ownership, possession and concealed carry.
Classification of firearms.
Under the new firearms law, firearms are classified into: (1) Small arms; (2) Class—A Light Weapons; and (3) Class—B Light Weapons. Parenthetically, under
the old law, firearms are classified as low-powered and high-powered, in addition to explosives, and providing single penalties for each.
Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use or that which is generally considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired
from the hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic bursts of discharge such as: (1) handgun, which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand,
and it includes a pistol and a revolver; (2) rifle, which is a shoulder firearm or designed to be fired from the shoulder that can discharge a bullet through a rifled barrel
by different actions of loading, which may be classified as lever, bolt, or self-loading; and (3) shotgun, which is a weapon designed, made or intended to fire a number
of ball shots or a single projectile through a smooth bore by the action or energy from burning gunpowder.
Class—A Light Weapons refer to self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns not exceeding calibre 7.62MM
which have fully automatic mode.
Class—B Light Weapons refer to weapons designed for use by two (2) or more persons serving as crew, or rifles and machine guns exceeding calibre 7.62MM
such as heavy machine guns, handheld underbarrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, prortable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable

Page 21 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
launchers of anti-tank missiles and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre of less than 100MM.
Offenses Punished.
While the old law punished basically two (2) offenses relating to firearms and explosives, without regard to the nature of the offense whether it be possession,
disposition, acquisition, manufacture or sale, the new law separated the offenses of acquisition or possession from the offenses of manufacture, importation, or sale of
firearms and ammunition and provides a higher penalty to the latter.
The following are the offenses punished under the new law:
A—Offenses relating to acquisition or possession:
(1) Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms;
(2) Unlawful acquisition or possession of ammunition;
(3) Unlawful acquisition or possession of major parts of a firearm;
(4) Buying or possession of stolen part or material from a company engaged in the manufacture and sell of firearms and ammunition, when the buyer or possessor is
aware that such part or material was stolen (Sec. 32, par. 3);
It must be noted that the offense of unlawful possession or acquisition of ammunition of Class—A Light Weapon punished under Sec. 28 (i) was repeated under
paragraph (g), which provide a lighter penalty therefor.
B—Offenses relating to manufacture, importation or sale:
(1) Unlawful manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of firearms, ammunition, major part of a firearm or ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or
intended to be used in the manufacture of a firearm, ammunition or major part thereof (Sec. 32);
(2) Arms smuggling (Sec. 33);
(3) Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by labourer, worker or employee of a licensed firearms dealer parts of firearms or ammunition which the company manufactures
and sells, and other materials used by the company in the manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition (Sec. 32);
It is worthy of note that the possession of any machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the manufacture of firearms, ammunition, or major parts thereof by
any person whose business, employment or activity does not lawfully deal with the possession of such article shall be prima facie evidence that such article is intended
to be used in the unlawful or illegal manufacture of firearms, ammunition or parts thereof. It is doubtful, however, whether possession of such machinery, tool or
instrument is punished by the first paragraph of Section 32. What is punished by said paragraph is the unlawful manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of
machinery, tool or instrument. It hardly includes as punishable intent to use machinery, tool or instruments intended to be used for the manufacture of firearms and
Page 22 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
ammunitions.
C—Other related offenses:
(1) Carrying of firearms outside of residence without legal authority (Sec. 31);
(2) Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of Firearms Identification (Sec. 34);
(3) Planting of firearms, ammunition or parts thereof as evidence (Sec. 38);
(4) Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm (Sec. 40);
(5) Illegal transfer or registration of firearm (Sec. 41); and
(6) Fraudulent facilitating the registration of a firearm by a public officer (Sec. 41, 2nd par.).
Qualifying or Aggravating Circumstances.
Circumstances relating to possession. — The offenses of acquisition or possession of short arms and/or Class—A Light Weapons may be qualified by the
possession of three or more short arms or Class—A Light Weapons, in which case the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Illegal possession of short arms or Class—A Light Weapons may also be qualified by any or combination of the following conditions namely:
(1) When the firearm is loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
(2) When the firearm is fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
(3) When it is fitted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
(4) When it is accompanied with an extra barrel; and
(5) When it is converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.
In such cases, the penalty shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for offense, and the offense may be called Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms.
Circumstances relating to use.—The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special
laws, such as, for example, murder or homicide, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. However, if the crime committed is penalized by law with a
maximum penalty lower than the penalty for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for the latter shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged. On the

Page 23 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
other hand, if the penalties are equal, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty imposed against the offender for
the crime committed (Sec. 29).
Notably, if the firearm used in the commission of a crime is licensed, the use of such firearm shall not be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If there be any
violation of the law, it shall be treated as a distinct and separate offense (Sec. 29), as, for instance, carrying of the firearm outside of residence without authority
therefor.
Penalties.
The penalties for the various offenses punished by the law are as follows:
A. As to simple possession or acquisition of:

Prision mayor in its medium period.
1. Small arms
2. Class—A light weapon Prision mayor in its maximum period.
3. Class—B light weapon Reclusion perpetua.
4. Major part of small arm Prision mayor in its minimum period.
5. Major part of Class—A light weapon Prision mayor in its medium period.
6. Major part of Class—B light weapon Prision mayor in its maximum period.
7. Ammunition of small arm Prision mayor in its minimum period.
8. Ammunition of Class—A light weapon Prision mayor in its medium period.
9. Ammunition of Class—B light weapon Prision mayor in its maximum period.
Note must be taken of the fact that possession or acquisition of ammunition of Class—A light weapon was twice mentioned in the law, that is, Sec. 28(g) and
Sec. 28(i). It is, however, believed that the insertion of the words “Class—A light weapon” in par. (g) is a clerical error.
Moreover, if the violation on possession or acquisition of ammunition is committed by the same person charged with unlawful possession or acquisition of
firearm, the possession of ammunition is absorbed in the unlawful possession of the firearm.
B. As to qualified possession or acquisition of:

Reclusion temporal to Reclusion perpetua.
1. Three or more small arms or Class—A light weapon

C. As to manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of firearms, etc.:

Reclusion temporal to Reclusion perpetua.
1. Unlawful manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of
firearm, ammunition, or major part of firearm or ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument intended to be used for in the
manufacture of firearm, ammunition or major part thereof
Page 24 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
2. Unlawful taking, sale, or disposal by labourer, worker, or Prision mayor in its minimum period to prision mayor in its
employee of licensed firearms dealer of parts of firearms or medium period.
ammunition which the company manufactures and sells, and
other materials used by the company in the manufacture and
sale of firearms and ammunition
3. Arms smuggling Reclusion perpetua.

D. As to other offenses:
Prision correccional and fine of P10,000.00
1. Carrying of firearms outside of residence without legal
authority
2. The buyer or possessor of such stolen part or material who is Prision mayor in its minimum period to prision mayor in its
aware of the fact of stealing medium period.
3. Tampering, obliterating or Altering of Firearms Identification Prision correccional to Prision mayor in its minimum period.
4. Planting of evidence by ordinary person Prision mayor in its maximum period.
5. Planting of evidence by public officer Reclusion perpetua.
6. Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light weapon 10,000.00 pesos fine.
7. Illegal transfer/registration of firearms Prision correccional.
8. Facilitating registration of firearm through fraud, deceit or Prision correccional.
misrepresentation or submission of falsified documents

Other Matters.
The other notable features of the new law are the following:
1. Use of imitation firearm. An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm and the offender shall be punished in
accordance with the new law. An imitation firearm refers to a replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially similar in coloration and overall
appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to believe that such imitation firearm is a real firearm (Sec. 3(q)).
2. Custodia legis. During the pendency of any case filed in violation of the Act, seized firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tool or instruments
shall remain in the custody of the court (Sec. 36). This provision runs afoul with ordinary criminal procedure in which object evidence shall remain under the
custody of the prosecution until it is offered in evidence after the termination of its presentation of testimonial evidence.
Registration of firearms.
Only small arms may be registered by licensed citizens or licensed juridical entities for ownership, possession and concealed carry. However, private individuals
who already have licenses to possess Class—A light weapons upon the effectivity of the Act shall not be deprived of the privilege to continue possessing the same
and renewing the licenses therefor (Sec. 10). The licensed citizen or juridical entity shall register his purchased firearms with the Firearms and Explosive Office of the
Philippine National Police (Sec. 11). The license granted shall include the license to possess ammunition with a maximum of fifty (50) rounds for each registered
Page 25 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
firearms (Sec. 12). Except a certified gun collector, the maximum number of registered firearms a qualified citizen may own and possession is fifteen (15) (Sec. 9).
Qualifications for the issuance of firearms license.
In order to qualify and acquire a license to own firearms and ammunition, the applicant must be: (1) Filipino citizen; (2) at least twenty-one (21) years old; and (3)
has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year.
In addition, the applicant shall submit various certifications from the appropriate authorities (see Sec. 4).
Conditions for the issuance of permit to carry firearms.
A permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP or his duly authorized representative to any qualified person whose life is
under actual threat or his life is in imminent danger due to the nature of her profession, occupation of business. The burden of proving actual threat lies with the
applicant by submitting a threat assessment certificate from the PNP.
For purposes of the Act, the following professionals are considered to be in imminent danger due to the nature of their profession, occupation or business: (a)
Members of the Philippine Bar; (b) CPAs; (c) Accredited Media Practitioners; (d) Cashiers, Bank Tellers; (e) Priests, Ministers, Rabbi, Imams; (f) Physicians and
Nurses; (g) Engineers; and (h) Businessmen, who by the nature of their business or undertaking are exposed to high risk of being targets of criminal elements.
Republic Act 9372 Human Security Act of 2007

Inside Republic Act 9372 ( Human Security Act of 2007)
Sec. 3 Terrorism – Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 143-A (Coup d’ Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction);
or under
(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
(3) Republic Act No. 5207 (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

Page 26 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974) and,
(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing
in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand, shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
Sec. 6 Accessory – Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, takes part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent discovery; (c) by
harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and
one day to twelve years of imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degree, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).
Sec. 7 Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire
Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order
of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism of conspiracy
to commit terrorism.
Provided, that surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists
and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.
Sec. 26 Restriction on Travel – In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right
of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security
and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the
authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided
under the Rules of Court.
He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence.
While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell phones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of
communication with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.
The restrictions above-mentioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or

Page 27 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
earlier upon the discussion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.
Sec. 39 Seizure and Sequestration – The deposits and their outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in any
bank or financial institution, moneys, businesses, transportation and communication equipment, supplies and other implements, and
property of whatever kind and nature belonging: (1) to any person suspected of or charged before a competent Regional Trial Court for the
crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) to a judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or
group of persons; or (3) to a member of such organization, association, or group of persons shall be seized, sequestered and frozen in
order to prevent their use, transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the safety and security of the people or injurious to the
interest of the State.
The accused or a person suspected of may withdraw such sums as may be reasonably needed by the monthly needs of his family,
including the services of his or her counsel and his or her family’s medical needs, upon approval of the court. He or she may also use any
of his property that is under seizure or sequestration or frozen because of his/her indictment as a terrorist upon permission of the court for
any legitimate reason.
Any person who unjustifiably refuses to follow the order of the proper division of the Court of Appeals to allow the person accused of the
crime of terrorism or of the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism to withdraw such sums from sequestered or frozen deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records as may be necessary for the regular sustenance of his/her family or to use any of his/her
property that has been seized, sequestered or frozen for legitimate purposes while his/her case is pending shall suffer the penalty of ten
(10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Jesse Young v. CA
G.R. No. 140425 . March 10, 2005
1. Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Section 1 of BP Blg. 22 penalizes two (2) distinct acts.-
A reading of the above-quoted provision of law shows that it penalizes two (2) distinct acts. First, the act of making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that the
drawer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and, second, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank the drawer shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the
full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
2. Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Essential Elements of the First Act.-
In the present case, petitioner was charged, tried and convicted under the first act, the essential elements of which are as follows: (1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2)
The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) The
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
3. Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Evidence; Absent the presumption that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds at the time he issued the check, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the person
who issued the check had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds when he issued the said check, otherwise, he cannot be held liable under the law.-
As a rule, the absence of proof that the person who issued the check received any notice informing him of the fact that his check was dishonored and giving him five banking days within which to make arrangements for
payment of the said check prevents the application of the disputable presumption that he had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds at the time he issued the check. Absent such presumption, the burden is on the
prosecution to prove that the person who issued the check had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds when he issued the said check; otherwise, he cannot be held liable under the law.
4. Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Evidence; The presumption of “knowledge” on the part of petitioner at the time he issued the subject checks has been established.-
A review of the prosecution evidence reveals that the prosecution had sufficiently established the prima facie presumption that petitioner had knowledge that he had no sufficient funds at the time he issued the subject
check. Private complainant testified that her lawyer sent petitioner a demand letter. Susan Cruz categorically testified that she personally delivered said letter to petitioner who refused to receive the same, thus constraining
Susan just to leave a copy thereof with him. However, it is unrefuted that petitioner failed to make good the checks within five banking days. Thus, the presumption of “knowledge” on the part of petitioner at the time he

Page 28 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
issued the subject checks has been established. Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption. In fact, it is significant to note that petitioner himself admitted that he did not have sufficient funds at the time he issued the subject
check. Moreover, petitioner likewise admitted that he ordered the bank to stop payment of said check for no apparent reason on August 3, 1981, or twenty-six days before its due date.
5. Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Evidence; Knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized
by BP Blg. 22.-
Petitioner is not exculpated from the offense he committed even if at the time of issuance of the check he informed the private complainant that he does not have sufficient funds to cover the amount of the check he issued.
We have held that knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized by BP Blg. 22.
6. Criminal Law; Bouncing Checks Law; Penalty; In lieu of imprisonment, petitioner Jesse Young is ordered to pay a FINE of P40,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months in case of insolvency.-
In lieu of imprisonment, petitioner Jesse Young is ordered to pay a FINE of P40,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months in case of insolvency, pursuant to paragraph 2, Article 39 of the Revised
Penal Code.
AN ACT PENALIZING THE PILFERAGE OF ELECTRICITY AND THEFT OF ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINES/MATERIALS, RATIONALIZING SYSTEM LOSSES BY
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7832
PHASING OUT PILFERAGE LOSSES AS A COMPONENT THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
RULE VI
Pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7832, the Energy Regulatory Board hereby adopts and promulgates the following Rules and
Regulations to implement the aforesaid law. PENALTIES

RULE II SECTION 1. Liability of the utility/cooperative. – If the court finds by final
judgment that the person has not committed illegal use of electricity, the
ILLEGAL USE OF ELECTRICITY AND THEFT OF ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINES AND MATERIALS amount deposited shall be credited against future billings, with legal interest
thereon chargeable against the utility or cooperative.
SECTION 1. Illegal Use of Electricity. – It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, private or public to:
Likewise, the utility or cooperative shall be made to immediately pay such
(a) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection with overhead lines, service drops, or other electric service wires, without previous person double the value of the payment or deposit with legal interest, which
authority or consent of the private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned; amount shall be creditable against immediate future billings.

(b) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection to the existing electric service facilities of any duly registered consumer without the The foregoing remedies are without prejudice to any criminal, civil or
latter’s or the electric utility’s consent or authority; administrative action that such person may be entitled to existing laws, rules
and regulations.
(c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter, jumper, current reversing transformer, shorting or shunting wire, loop connection
or any other device which interferes with the proper or accurate registry or metering of electric current or otherwise results in its SEC. 2. Liabilities Under Section 1, Rule II hereof. – If the person has been
diversion in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; found by final judgment to have violated Section 1, Rule II hereof, he shall be
made to pay the utility or cooperative concerned double the value of the
(d) Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment, wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to estimated electricity illegally used which is referred to in this Section has
interfered with the proper or accurate metering of electric current; and differential billing, in addition to the penalty of prision mayor or a fine of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00) to Twenty Thousand Pesos (P 20,000.00) or
(e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of electric service obtained through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c) both, at the discretion of the court.
and (d) above.
(a) If the offense is committed by, or in connivance with, an officer or
SEC. 2. Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials. – It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, public or employee of the power company, electric utility or rural electric
private to: cooperative concerned, such officer or employee shall, upon
conviction, be punished with a penalty one (1) degree higher than

Page 29 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
(a) Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, sever, smelt or remove any electric power transmission line/material or meter from a tower, pole, any the penalty provided herein, and forthwith be dismissed and
other installation or place of installation or any other place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept, perpetually disqualified from employment in any public or private
stocked, inventoried, situated or located, without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; utility or service company and from holding any public office.

(b) Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or without the use of a motor vehicle or other means of conveyance, any electric power (b) If, in committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 1, Rule II hereof,
transmission line/material or meter from a tower, pole, any other installation or place of installation, or any place or site where it any of the other acts enumerated is also committed, then the
may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried, situated or located, without the consent of the owner, penalty next higher in degree herein shall be imposed.
whether or not the act is done for profit or gain;
(c) If, in committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 1, Rule II hereof,
(c) Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises, custody or control, any electrical power transmission line/material or meter any of the other acts enumerated is also committed by, or in
without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; and connivance with an officer or employee of the power company, utility
or cooperative concerned, such officer or employee shall, upon
(d) Load, carry, ship or move from one place to another, whether by land, air or sea any electrical power transmission line/material, conviction, be punished with a penalty of one (1) degree higher that
whether or not the act is done for profit or gain, without first securing a clearance, permit for the said purpose from its owner or the penalty provided herein, and forthwith be dismissed and
the NPC or its regional office concerned, as the case may be. perpetually disqualified from employment in any public or private
utility or service company. Likewise, the electric utility concerned
RULE III which shall have knowingly permitted or having knowledge of its
commission shall have failed to prevent the same, or was otherwise
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE guilty of negligence in connection with the commission thereof, shall
be made to pay a fine not exceeding triple the amount of the
SECTION 1. Prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity. – The presence of any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima “differential billing”, subject to the discretion of the courts.
facie evidence of illegal use of electricity by the person benefited thereby:
(d) If the violation is committed by a partnership, firm, corporation,
(a) The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the electric meter or at the back of any part of said meter; association, or any other legal entity, including a government-owned
or –controlled corporation, the penalty shall be imposed on the
(b) The presence of salt, sugar and other elements inside the electric meter that could result in the inaccurate registration of the meter’s president, manager, and each of the officers thereof who shall have
internal parts to prevent its accurate registration of consumption of electricity; knowingly permitted, failed to prevent or was otherwise responsible
for the commission of the offense.
(c) The existence of any wiring connection which affects the normal operation or registration of the electric meter;
SEC. 3. Liabilities Under Section 2, Rule II hereof. – A person found by final
(d) The absence of an ERB/NEA seal or the presence of a tampered, broken or fake seal on the meter or mutilated, altered or judgment to have violated Section 2, Rule II hereof, shall be meted the penalty
tampered meter recording chart or graph or computerized chart, graph or log; of reclusion temporal or a fine ranging from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P
50,000.00) to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100,000.00) or both, at the
(e) The presence of a current reversing transformer, jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire and/or loop connection or other similar discretion of the court.
device in any part of the building or its premises which is subject to the control of the consumer or on the electric meter;
(a) If the offense is committed by, or in connivance with, an officer or
(f) The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, bypassing or tampering of instruments, transformers and accessories; employee of the power company, utility to cooperative concerned,
such officer or employee shall, upon conviction, be punished with a
(g) The destruction of or attempt to destroy any integral accessory of the metering device box which encases an electric meter or its penalty one (1) degree higher than the penalty provided herein, and
metering accessories; and forthwith be dismissed and perpetually disqualified form
employment in any public or private utility or service company and
(h) The acceptance of money and/or other valuable consideration by any officer or employee of the electric utility concerned or the from holding any public office.

Page 30 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
making of such an offer to any such officer or employee for not reporting the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated
in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) hereof. (b) If, in committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 2, Rule II hereof,
any of the other acts enumerated is also committed, then the
A prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity shall be the basis for: (a) immediate disconnection by the electric utility or cooperative to penalty next higher in degree as provided herein shall be imposed.
any such person after due notice; (b) the holding of preliminary investigation by the prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of the
pertinent information; and (c) the lifting of any temporary restraining order or injunction which may have been issued against a utility or (c) If, in committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 2, Rule II hereof,
cooperative. any of the other acts enumerated is also committed by, or in
connivance with an officer or employee of an electric utility
In order to constitute prima facie evidence the discovery of any of the circumstance enumerated in Section 1 hereof, must be personally concerned, such officer or employee shall, upon conviction, be
witnessed and attested to by the consumer concerned or a duly authorized ERB representative or any officer of the law, as the case may punished with a penalty of one (1) degree higher than the penalty
be. provided herein, and forthwith be dismissed and perpetually
disqualified from employment in any public or private utility or
An ERB authorized representative is one who is assigned to conduct testing of electric meters or inspection of electric lines and facilities of service company. Likewise, the utility concerned which shall have
any distribution entity or one who may be specifically authorized by the duly authorized head of the main or regional ERB offices. knowingly permitted or having knowledge of its commission shall
have failed to prevent the same, or was otherwise guilty of
An officer of the law is any person who, by direct provision of the law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged negligence in connection with the commission thereof, shall be
with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barangay captain, barangay chairman, made to pay a fine not exceeding triple the amount of the
barangay councilman, barangay leader, officer or member of Barangay Community Brigades, barangay policeman, PNP policeman, “differential billing”, subject to the discretion of the courts.
municipal councilor, municipal mayor, and provincial fiscal.
(d) If the violation is committed by a partnership, firm, corporation,
SEC. 2. Prima facie evidence of Theft of Power Transmission Lines and Materials. – The possession, control or custody of electric power association, or any legal entity, including a government-owned or –
transmission line/material by any person, natural or juridical, not engaged in the transformation, transmission or distribution of electric controlled corporation, the penalty shall be imposed on the
power, or in the manufacture of such electric power transmission line/material shall be prima facie evidence that such line/material is the president, manager and each of the officers thereof who shall have
fruit of the offense in Section 2, Rule II hereof, and such line/material may be confiscated from the person in possession, control or knowingly permitted, failed to prevent or was otherwise responsible
custody thereof. for the commission of the offense.

RULE V

DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE

SECTION 1. Right to Disconnect and its Requirements. – The utility or cooperative concerned shall have the right and authority to
disconnect immediately the electric service of any person, natural or juridical, without need of a court order or administrative order and
deny restoration of the same, in the following circumstances:

(a) When the owner/occupant of the house or establishment concerned or someone acting in his behalf shall have been caught in
flagrante delicto doing any of the acts enumerated in Section 1, Rule II hereof: Provided, That a written notice or warning to
that effect has been served by the utility or cooperative concerned to the owner of the house/establishment or his duly
authorized representative, prior to such disconnection.

(b) When any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 1, Rule II shall have been discovered for the second time: Provided, That a
written notice or warning shall have been issued upon the first discovery.

Page 31 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM

The written notice or warning referred to herein shall be served prior to each disconnection and shall indicate the name and address of the
consumer, consumer account number, date of apprehension, findings of fact, amount of energy pilfered in kilowatt-hour, the amount
representing the differential billing and the method used in computing the differential billing as determined herein, which shall indicate the
following:

(a) Computation of the unbilled consumption in kilowatt-hour.

(b) The period to be used in computing the differential billing.

(c) The latest Inspection Report prior to apprehension.

SEC. 2. Deposit. – The utility or cooperative concerned shall immediately restore the electric service upon deposit by the person denied
the service with the utility or cooperative concerned or with the competent court, as the case may be, of the amount representing the
differential billing.

Meralco v. Sps. Edito Felicidad

G.R. No. 160422 . July 5, 2010
1. Public Utilities; Electricity; Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994 (R.A. No. 7832); The discovery of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the meter shall only constitute prima facie
evidence of illegal use of electricity by the person who benefits from the illegal use if such discovery is personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB).-
—To reiterate, the discovery of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the meter shall only constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity by the person who benefits from the illegal use if such discovery is
personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). With such prima facie evidence, MERALCO is within its rights to immediately
disconnect the electric service of the consumer after due notice. Section 1, Rule III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7832 (IRR) defines an officer of the law as one “who, by direct supervision of law or by
election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barangay captain, barangay chairman, barangay councilman,
barangay leader, officer or member of Barangay Community Brigades, barangay policeman, PNP policeman, municipal councilor, municipal mayor and provincial fiscal.”
2. Damages; Moral Damages; Requisites.-

—Article 32 of the Civil Code provides that moral damages are proper when the rights of individuals, including the right against deprivation of property without due process of law, are violated. Jurisprudence has
established the following requisites for the award of moral damages: (1) there is an injury—whether physical, mental, or psychological—clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is a culpable act or omission factually
established; (3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code. Considering the manner MERALCO disconnected the Chuas’ electric service, we find the award of moral damages proper. Apart from the havoc wreaked on the Chuas’ daily lives when MERALCO abruptly and
without legal basis cut off their electricity, the removal of the electric meter also caused the Chuas extreme social humiliation and embarrassment as they were subjected to speculations in their neighborhood of being
“power thieves.” As Mrs. Felicidad Chua testified, she suffered sleepless nights and felt serious anxiety after the removal of their electric meter came to the attention of the barangay. In fact, she even had to consult a
doctor for this anxiety. Thus, even if the Chuas did subsequently obtain their electricity from another source, the damage to the Chuas’ reputation and social standing had already been done.
3. Same; Same; Same; Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure that they do not malfunction, and the due
diligence to discover and repair defects therein-
—failure to perform such duties constitutes negligence.—The production and distribution of electricity is a highly technical business undertaking. In conducting its operation, it is only logical for a public utility, such as

Page 32 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
MERALCO, to employ mechanical devices and equipment for the orderly pursuit of its business. MERALCO has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure
that they do not malfunction, and the due diligence to discover and repair defects therein. Failure to perform such duties constitutes negligence.
4. Same; Same; Same; Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) is duty bound to explain to its customers the basis for arriving at any given billing, particularly in cases of unregistered consumption-
—courts cannot and will not in any way blindly grant a public utility’s claim for differential billing if there is no sufficient evidence to prove entitlement.—MERALCO is duty bound to explain to its customers the basis for
arriving at any given billing, particularly in cases of unregistered consumptions. Otherwise, consumers will stand piteously at the public utility’s mercy. Courts cannot and will not in any way blindly grant a public utility’s
claim for differential billing if there is no sufficient evidence to prove entitlement. As MERALCOhas failed to substantiate its claim for the differential billing, we rule that the Chuas cannot be held to account for the billed
amount.
5. Same; Same; Same; Injunction; Mandatory Injunction; Requisites.-

—As to whether the Chuas are entitled to a writ of mandatory injunction, we rule in the affirmative. An injunctive writ issues only upon a showing that: a) the applicant possesses a clear and unmistakable right; b) there is a
material and substantial invasion of such right; and c) there is urgent and permanent necessity for an injunctive writ to prevent serious damage. In the present case, the Chuas have established that they are paying
MERALCO customers. In the absence of the prima facie evidence required by Section 4 and by the requirements of Section 6 of RA 7832 that the Chuas tampered with their electric meter, and in light as well of the merits
of the Chuas’ case as discussed below, the Chuas have an unmistakable right to be provided with continuous power supply—a right MERALCO obviously invaded when it cut off the Chuas’ electric service. Electricity being
what it is and has been in modern day living, an urgent and permanent need exists to prevent MERALCO from cutting off the Chuas’ electric service under the circumstances that gave rise to the present dispute.
Accordingly, we uphold the RTC and CA decisions ordering MERALCO to immediately restore the Chuas’ electric service.
6. Same; Same; Same; Police Power; While electricity is property whose enjoyment, as a general rule, the owner may extend or deny to others, electricity is not an ordinary kind of property that a service provider may
grant or withhold to consumers at will-
—electricity is a basic necessity whose generation and distribution is imbued with public interest, and its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of police power; Under the
circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) abused its superior and dominant position as well as the authority granted to it by law as a service provider when it persisted in
disconnecting the costumers’ electric service.—We have fully discussed above why MERALCO was not in the position under RA 7832 to immediately disconnect the Chuas’ electric service. We add that while electricity is
property whose enjoyment, as a general rule, the owner may extend or deny to others, electricity is not an ordinary kind of property that a service provider may grant or withhold to consumers at will. Electricity is a basic
necessity whose generation and distribution is imbued with public interest, and its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. In view of the serious consequences
resulting from immediate disconnection of electric service, the law provides strict requisites that MERALCO must follow before it can be granted authority to undertake instant disconnection of electric service due to its
consumers. In view of MERALCO’s dominance over its market and its customers and the latter’s relatively weak bargaining position as against MERALCO, and in view too of the serious consequences and hardships a
customer stands to suffer upon service disconnection, MERALCO’s failure to strictly observe these legal requirements can be equated to the bad faith or abuse of rightthat the law speaks of. Under the circumstances, we
cannot but conclude that MERALCO abused its superior and dominant position as well as the authority granted to it by law as a service provider when it persisted in disconnecting the Chuas’ electric service. Hence, the
general prohibition against the issuance of a restraining order or an injunction under Section 9 of RA 7832 cannot apply. Rather, what must prevail is the exception: an injunction can issue when a disconnection has been
attended by bad faith or grave abuse of authority.
7. Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; To be caught in flagrante delicto necessarily implies positive identification by an eyewitness or eyewitnesses to the act of tampering so that there is “direct evidence” of
culpability, or “that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.”-
—In other words, MERALCO is authorized to immediately disconnect the electricservice of its consumers without the need of a court or administrative order when: (a) the consumer, or someone acting in his behalf, is
caught in flagrante delicto in any of the acts enumerated in Section 4 of RA 7832; or (b) when any of the circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity is discovered for the second time. In
flagrante delicto means “[i]n the very act of committing the crime.” To be caught in flagrante delicto, therefore, necessarily implies positive identification by an eyewitness or eyewitnesses to the act of tampering so that
there is “direct evidence” of culpability, or “that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption.”
8. Same; Same; Same; Administrative Law; The inclusion of the phrase “by the consumer concerned” in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) is invalid because it is in excess of what the law being implemented
provides-
—as Republic Act (RA) 7832 stands, only the presence of an authorized government agent, either an officer of the law or an authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), during the Manila Electric
Company (MERALCO) inspection would allow any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 4 of RA 7832 to be considered prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity by the benefited party; An administrative
agency’s rule-making power is confined to filling in the gaps and the necessary details in carrying into effect the law as enacted—rule-making cannot extend, amend, or expand statutory requirements or embrace matters

Page 33 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
not covered by the law being implemented.—Rule III, Section 1 of the IRR provides: “In order to constitute prima facie evidence, the discovery of any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 1 hereof, must be
personally witnessed and attested to by the consumer concerned or a duly authorized ERB representative or any officer of the law, as the case may be.” We hold the view, however, that the inclusion of the phrase “by the
consumer concerned” in the IRR is invalid because it is in excess of what the law being implemented provides. As RA 7832 stands, only the presence of an authorized government agent, either an officer of the law or an
authorized representative of the ERB, during the MERALCO inspection would allow any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 4 of RA 7832 to be considered prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity by the
benefited party. The law does not include the consumer or the consumer’s representative in this enumeration. In legal contemplation, the ERB’s inclusion of the phrase “by the consumer concerned” in Rule III, Section 1 of
the IRR expanded the clear wording of the law and violated the recognized principle that an administrative agency’s rule-making power is confined to filling in the gaps and the necessary details in carrying into effect the
law as enacted; rule-making cannot extend, amend, or expand statutory requirements or embrace matters not covered by the law being implemented. Administrative regulations must always be in harmony with the
provisions of the law because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be resolved in favor of the basic law. In the present case, the consumer cannot in any way be considered to be in the same
classification as the named government representatives so that his or her presence can be a substitute for the presence of these representatives.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10630 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006” AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
"x x x.
SEC. 3. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility . – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
“A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
“A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
“The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.”
x x x.
“SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. – If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child, in
consultation with the local social welfare and development officer, has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child’s nearest relative. The child
shall be subjected to a community-based intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and development officer, unless the best interest of the child requires the referral of the child to a youth care facility or
‘Bahay Pag-asa’ managed by LGUs or licensed and/or accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD.
“The local social welfare and development officer shall determine the appropriate programs for the child who has been released, in consultation with the child and the person having custody over the child. If the parents,
guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following:
“(a) A duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization;
“(b) A barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC);
“(c) A local social welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD.
“If the child has been found by the local social welfare and development officer to be dependent, abandoned, neglected or abused by his/her parents and the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a
youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child: Provided, That if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse
or fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office (LSWDO)
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, otherwise known as ‘The Child and Youth Welfare Code’ and the Supreme Court rule on commitment of children: Provided, further, That the minimum age for children
committed to a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ shall be twelve (12) years old.”
“SEC. 20-A. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From Criminal Responsibility . – A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder,
infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under
Page 34 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and
shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC).
“In accordance with existing laws, rules, procedures and guidelines, the proper petition for involuntary commitment and placement under the IJISC shall be filed by the local social welfare and development officer of the
LGU where the offense was committed, or by the DSWD social worker in the local social welfare and development officer’s absence, within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the receipt of a report on the alleged
commission of said child. The court, where the petition for involuntary commitment has been filed shall decide on the petition within seventy-two (72) hours from the time the said petition has been filed by the
DSWD/LSWDO. The court will determine the initial period of placement of the child within the IJISC which shall not be less than one (1) year. The multi-disciplinary team of the IJISC will submit to the court a case study
and progress report, to include a psychiatric evaluation report and recommend the reintegration of the child to his/her family or the extension of the placement under the IJISC. The multi-disciplinary team will also submit a
report to the court on the services extended to the parents and family of the child and the compliance of the parents in the intervention program. The court will decide whether the child has successfully completed the
center-based intervention program and is already prepared to be reintegrated with his/her family or if there is a need for the continuation of the center-based rehabilitation of the child. The court will determine the next
period of assessment or hearing on the commitment of the child.”
“SEC. 20-B. Repetition of Offenses. – A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second time or oftener: Provided, That the child was previously
subjected to a community-based intervention program, shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive intervention program supervised by the local
social welfare and development officer: Provided, further, That, if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a
written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child: Provided, finally, That if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper
petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended.”
“SEC. 20-C. Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes. – Any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of children, including any person who abuses his/her
authority over the child or who, with abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce, threaten or instigate the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by
law for the crime committed in its maximum period.”
“SEC. 20-D. Joint Parental Responsibility. – Based on the recommendation of the multi-disciplinary team of the IJISC, the LSWDO or the DSWD, the court may require the parents of a child in conflict with the law to
undergo counseling or any other intervention that, in the opinion of the court, would advance the welfare and best interest of the child.
“As used in this Act, ‘parents’ shall mean any of the following:
“(a) Biological parents of the child; or
“(b) Adoptive parents of the child; or
“(c) Individuals who have custody of the child.
“A court exercising jurisdiction over a child in conflict with the law may require the attendance of one or both parents of the child at the place where the proceedings are to be conducted.
“The parents shall be liable for damages unless they prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that they were exercising reasonable supervision over the child at the time the child committed the offense and exerted reasonable
effort and utmost diligence to prevent or discourage the child from committing another offense.”
“SEC. 20-E. Assistance to Victims of Offenses Committed by Children. – The victim of the offense committed by a child and the victim’s family shall be provided the appropriate assistance and psychological intervention by
the LSWDO, the DSWD and other concerned agencies.”
“SEC. 22. Duties During Initial Investigation. – The law enforcement officer shall, in his/her investigation, determine where the case involving the child in conflict with the law should be referred.
“The taking of the statement of the child shall be conducted in the presence of the following: (1) child’s counsel of choice or in the absence thereof, a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office; (2) the child’s parents,
guardian, or nearest relative, as the case may be; and (3) the local social welfare and development officer. In the absence of the child’s parents, guardian, or nearest relative, and the local social welfare and development
officer, the investigation shall be conducted in the presence of a representative of an NGO, religious group, or member of the BCPC.
“The social worker shall conduct an initial assessment to determine the appropriate interventions and whether the child acted with discernment, using the discernment assessment tools developed by the DSWD. The initial
assessment shall be without prejudice to the preparation of a more comprehensive case study report. The local social worker shall do either of the following:

Page 35 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
“(a) Proceed in accordance with Section 20 if the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old, who acted without discernment; and
“(b) If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with discernment, proceed to diversion under the following chapter.”
“SEC. 33. Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information. – The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary investigation in the following instances: (a) when the child in conflict with the law does not qualify for diversion; (b)
when the child, his/her parents or guardian does not agree to diversion as specified in Sections 27 and 28; and (c) when considering the assessment and recommendation of the social worker, the prosecutor determines
that diversion is not appropriate for the child in conflict with the law.
“Upon serving the subpoena and the affidavit of complaint, the prosecutor shall notify the Public Attorney’s Office of such service, as well as the personal information, and place of detention of the child in conflict with the
law.
“Upon determination of probable cause by the prosecutor, the information against the child shall be filed before the Family Court within forty-five (45) days from the start of the preliminary investigation. The information must
allege that the child acted with discernment.
“SEC. 49. Establishment of ‘Bahay Pag-Asa’. – Each province and highly-urbanized city (the LGUs) shall be responsible for building, funding and operating a ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ within their jurisdiction following the standards
that will be set by the DSWD and adopted by the JJWC.
“Every ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ will have a special facility called the IJISC. This Center will be allocated for children in conflict with the law in accordance with Sections 20, 20-A and 20-B hereof. These children will be required to
undergo a more intensive multi-disciplinary intervention program. The JJWC in partnership with, but not limited to, the DSWD, the DOH, the DepED and the DILG, will develop and set the standards for the implementation
of the multi-disciplinary intervention program of the IJISC. Upon institutionalization of the IJISC program, the JJWC will continue to monitor and provide technical assistance to the multi-disciplinary teams operating the said
centers.”
“SEC. 50. Care and Maintenance of the Child in Conflict with the Law. – x x x
“The LGUs expected expenditures on the local juvenile intervention program for children at risk and children in conflict with the law shall be included in the LGUs annual budget. Highly-urbanized cities and provincial
governments should include a separate budget for the construction and maintenance of the ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ including the operation of the IJISC within the ‘Bahay Pag-asa’.”
“SEC. 57. Status Offenses. – Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child.”
“SEC. 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. – Ordinances enacted by local governments concerning juvenile status offenses such as, but not limited to, curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience, anti-smoking and
anti-drinking laws, as well as light offenses and misdemeanors against public order or safety such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal, harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal nuisance,
vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering, public urination, and trespassing, shall be for the protection of children. No penalty shall be imposed on children for said violations, and they shall instead be brought to their
residence or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to the custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention programs shall be provided for in such ordinances. The child shall also be recorded as a
‘child at risk’ and not as a ‘child in conflict with the law’. The ordinance shall also provide for intervention programs, such as counseling, attendance in group activities for children, and for the parents, attendance in
parenting education seminars.”
SEC. 12. Mandatory Registry of Children in Conflict with the Law. – All duty-bearers, including barangay/BCPC workers, law enforcers, teachers, guidance counselors, social workers and prosecutors who will receive
report, handle or refer cases of children in conflict with the law, shall ensure a faithful recordation of all pertinent information, such as age, residence, gender, crime committed or accused of and the details of the
intervention or diversion, as the case may be, under which they will undergo or has undergone, of all children in conflict with the law to guarantee the correct application of the provisions of this Act and other laws. The
JJWC shall lead in the establishment of a centralized information management system on children in conflict with the law. This provision is however without prejudice to Section 43 of this Act.

Page 36 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
AN ACT REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, SALE, IMPORTATION AND USE OF CHAINSAWS, PENALIZING VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9175
(CHAIN SAW ACT OF 2002)
Persons Authorized to Manufacture, Sell, and Import Chainsaws. - Chaisaws shall only be sold and/or imported by manufacturers, dealers and/or private owners who are duly authorized by the Department.
 Persons Authorized to Possess and Use a Chainsaw. - The Department is hereby authorized to issue permits to possess and/or use a chainsaw for the felling and/or cutting of trees, timber and other forest or agro-
forest products to any applicant who
 Registration of Chainsaws all persons who own or are otherwise in possession of chainsaws must register the same with the Department
Prohibitions and Penalties

 Selling, Purchasing, Re-selling, Transferring, Distributing or Possessing a Chainsaw Without a Proper Permit.
Any person who sells, purchases, transfers the ownership, distributes, or otherwise disposes or possesses a chainsaw without first securing the necessary permit from the Department shall be punished with
imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1 ) day to six years or a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (PhP 15,000.00) but not more than Thirty thousand pesos (PhP 30,000.00) or both at the
discretion of the court, and the chainsaw/s confiscated in favor of the government.
 Unlawful Importation or Manufacturing of Chainsaw.
Any person who imports or manufactures a chainsaw without obtaining prior authorization from the Department shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months and a
fine of not less than One thousand pesos (PhP 1,000.00) nor more than four thousand pesos (PhP 4,000.00)
 Actual Unlawful Use of Chainsaw.
Any person who is found to be in possession of a chainsaw and uses the same to cut trees and timber in forest land or elsewhere except as authorized by the Department shall be penalized with imprisonment of six
(6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years or a fine of not less than Thirty thousand pesos (PhP 30,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (PhP 50,000.00) or both at the discretion of the court without
prejudice to being prosecuted for a separate offense that may have been simultaneously committed. The chainsaw unlawfully used shall be likewise confiscated in favor of the government.
Reward
• Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery or confiscation of an unregistered chainsaw and the conviction of persons charged thereof shall be entitled to a reward equivalent to twenty
(20%) of the value of the chainsaw unit/s. The Department is authorized to include in its budget the amount necessary to carry out the purpose of this section.
Transcript of REPUBLIC ACT 9175
REPUBLIC ACT 9175

THE CHAINSAW ACT OF 2002
Declaration of State Policy
It is the policy of the State consistent with the Constitution, to conserve, develop and protect the forest resources under sustainable management. Toward this end, the State shall pursue an aggressive forest protection
program geared towards eliminating illegal logging and other forms of forest destruction which are being facilitated with the use of chain saws.
Salient Features
1. Regulation of ownership, possession, sale, transfer, importation and use of chainsaw
2. Penalizes illegal possession, sale and distribution without valid permit
3. Penalize Unlawful importation
4. Tampering of Engine Serial Number

Page 37 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
Persons Authorized to Manufacturer, Sell and Import Chain Saws

Chain saws shall only be sold and/or imported by manufacturers, dealers and/or private owners who are duly authorized by the Department.
Persons Authorized to Possess and Use a Chain Saw

(a) has a subsisting timber license agreement, production sharing agreement, or similar agreements, or a private land timber permit;
(b) is an orchard and fruit tree farmer;
(c) is an industrial tree farmer;
(d) is a licensed wood processor and the chain saw shall be used for the cutting of timber that has been legally sold to said applicant; or
(e) shall use the chain saw for a legal purpose.
** Agencies of the government that use chain saws in some aspects of their functions must likewise secure the necessary permit from the Department before operating the same.
Registration of Chain Saws.

Within a period of three (3) months from the effectivity hereof, all persons who own or are otherwise in possession of chain saws must register the same with the Department, through any of its Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office, which shall issue the corresponding registration certificate or permit if it finds such persons to be qualified hereunder.
Every permit to possess and/or use a chain saw for legitimate purpose shall be valid for two (2) years upon issuance: Provided, That permits to possess and use chainsaw issued to non-commercial orchard and fruit tree
farmers shall be valid for a period of five (5) years upon issuance. For this purpose, the Department shall be allowed to collect reasonable registration fees for the effective implementation of this Act.
Reward.
Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery or confiscation of an unregistered chain saw and the conviction of persons charged thereof shall be entitled to a reward equivalent to twenty person
(20%) of the value of the chain saw unit(s). The Department is authorized to include in its budget the amount necessary to carry out the purpose of this Section.
Revocation of Registration and Permit. -
The Secretary may revoke any Certificate of Registration or permit previously issued to a person found violating the provisions of this Act, or the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
Authority of the Secretary
He shall organize an office within the Department to ensure that requirements imposed by this Act may be complied with by qualified persons, within the shortest possible time, at the least possible expense.
RA 6235 THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
The crime of hijacking can be committed by any person (including an artificial one) in 3 ways: For violations 1 and 2, the penalties are:
1.) Changing the course or destination of a Philippine aircraft while in flight or to take control of the aircraft while it is in flight. An aircraft is 1.) 12 to 20 years imprisonment or (the text doesn't say "and") a fine of
considered "in flight" when its doors are closed after all passengers have boarded and ends when the doors are opened for disembarking. Php20,000 to 40,000
2.) Compelling a foreign aircraft to land in the Philippines or seizing control of it while it's in Philippine territory. 2.) 15 years to life imprisonment or (same as above) a fine of Php25,000 to
50,000 if any of the qualifying circumstances are present:
3.) Loading, shipping or carrying explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substances in a passenger aircraft within the Philippines. a.) If he fired on the pilot/s, crew and passengers
Loading such substances on cargo aircraft must follow the rules and regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board. b.) If he blew up, or tried to blow up, an explosive to try to destroy the aircraft
(assuming the aircraft survived, of course)
c.) If murder, homicide, rape or serious physical injuries were committed

Page 38 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
For violation 3, the penalty is 5 to 10 years imprisonment or a fine of

Php10,000 to 20,000. If the crime was committed in the interest of a foreign
corporation legally doing business in the Philippines, the penalty will be
imposed on its resident agent, manager, representative or director responsible
for the violation and its license to do business in the Philippines will be
revoked. Violations of CAB rules are punishable by the minimum penalty in
violation 3. Deaths due to violation 3 are also punishable with the pertinent
liabilities in the Revised Penal Code.
Aircraft companies are authorized to open and inspect suspicious-looking

packages in the presence of their owner (or his representative.) If the owner or
his representative refuses, he will be denied boarding/loading. The tickets are
consequently required to carry the following statement: "Holder thereof and his
hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited
materials and substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed
to board the aircraft."

Page 39 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (RA 6235)
The following are the punishable acts:

1. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling the pilots thereof to change the course or destination of the aircraft;
2. Usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign registry while within Philippine territory, compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of the Philippine territory;
3. Carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility passenger aircraft in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, substances; or poisonous
4. Loading, shipping or transporting on board a cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance if this was done in accordance with the rules and
regulations set and promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on this matter;
Aggravating circumstances to nos. 1 and 2:

a. When the offender has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew, or passenger of the aircraft;
b. When the offender has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft;
c. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape;
Before the Anti‐Hijacking Law or R.A. 6235 may apply, the aircraft must be of Philippine registry and it must be in flight.
An aircraft is considered in flight from the moment all exterior doors are closed following the embarkation until such time when the same doors are again opened for disembarkation. (Sec. 1). This means that there are
passengers that boarded. The aircraft shall be deemed to be already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started.
If the aircraft is of Philippine registry but it is not in flight and any of the four circumstances mentioned under R.A. 6235 is committed, the Anti‐Hijacking Law will not apply and the acts will be punished accordingly under the
RPC or the applicable special penal laws. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion or grave threat. If somebody is killed, the crime is homicide or murder, as the case may be.
If the aircraft is of foreign registry, it is not required that it is in flight before R.A. 6235 applies because aircrafts of foreign registry are considered in transit while they are in foreign countries.

There is no hijacking in the attempted stage. R.A. 6235 is a special law, where the attempted stage is not punishable.
Where in the course of the hijacking, a passenger or complement was shot and killed. The crime remains to be a violation of the AntiHijacking law, but the penalty thereof shall be higher because a passenger or
complement of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of homicide or murder per se is not punished.
RA 6539
ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972
The special law that penalizes carnapping is Republic Act No. 6539, also known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, signed into law on 26
August 1972.
Penalty for Carnapping
Elements of carnapping Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, irrespective of the value of
motor vehicle taken, be punished by:<ref>Republic Act No. 6539, Sec.
Carnapping is defined as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of 14</ref>
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.<ref>Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 2</ref> There is no arguing

Page 40 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
that the anti-carnapping law is a special law, different from the crimes of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. The anti-  When the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation
carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles.<ref>People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January of persons, or force upon things - imprisonment for not less than
2000</ref> The elements of the crime of carnapping are:<ref>People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, 17 August 2010</ref> fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and not more than
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. In Mercado vs.
 1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; People,<ref>G.R. No. 149375, 26 November 2002</ref> the
accused broke a quarter window of the Isuzu Trooper to gain
access to it, thus demonstrating that force was used upon the
 2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
vehicle. The Supreme Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence
Law and imposed an indeterminate prison term of seventeen (17)
 3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; years and four (4) months to twenty-two (22) years.
 4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or  When the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. intimidation of any person, or force upon things - by imprisonment
for not less than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months and not
A motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether the more than thirty (30) years.
taking was done with or without violence or intimidation of persons, or with or without the use of force upon things.<ref>Republic Act No.
6539, Sec. 2</ref> A careful comparison of this special law with the crimes of robbery and theft readily reveals their common features and In People vs. dela Cruz,<ref>G.R. Nos. 141162-63, 11 July 2002</ref> the
characteristics, to wit: unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that personal property belonging to another is taken without the latter's accused were charged separately with the crimes of carnapping and murder,
consent.<ref>People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000</ref> Without the anti-carnapping law, such unlawful taking of a motor which means that they cannot be convicted with qualified carnapping. As none
vehicle would fall within the purview of either theft or robbery which was certainly the case before the enactment of said of the qualifying circumstances were alleged in the information, the accused
statute.<ref>People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000</ref> could only be convicted with carnapping under the first clause of R.A. 6539,
Section 14, with a penalty of not less than fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
Unlawful taking
months and not more than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is an indeterminate
As an element common to theft, robbery and carnapping, unlawful taking — its import, intention and concept — should be considered as sentence of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as minimum, to
also common to these crimes.<ref>People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000</ref> A felonious taking may be defined as the act seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. As to the homicide,
of depriving another of the possession and dominion of movable property without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi. the penalty is reclusion temporal, the range of which is from twelve (12) years
Thus, an unlawful taking takes place when the owner or juridical possessor does not give his consent to the taking; or, if the consent was and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
given, it was vitiated; or where an act by the receiver soon after the actual transfer of possession constitutes unlawful taking.<ref>People Law, and there being no modifying circumstance, the accused was sentenced
vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, 21 January 2000</ref> to a prison term of eight (8) years, four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision
mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20)
When property stolen is found in the possession of a person who is unable to give a satisfactory explanation of his possession thereof, he days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
may be deemed to have committed the crime of theft of said property.<ref>People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001</ref> The
application of this presumption validly applies to a case of carnapping for, indeed, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and In People vs. Paramil,<ref>G.R. Nos. 128056-57, 31 March 2000</ref> the
carnapping is the same and, had it not been for the enactment of the Anti-Carnapping Act, the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle would accused were separately charged and convicted with carnapping under the
certainly fall within the purview of either theft or robbery.<ref>People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001</ref> See Disputable second clause of Section 14, with a penalty of not be more than seventeen
presumptions. years and four months and not more than thirty years. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty imposed on each of accused for
It involves a motor vehicle
carnapping is an indeterminate sentence of 17 years and 4 months, as
minimum, to 30 years, as maximum. With respect to the crime of murder, since
The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 defines a motor vehicle as any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the
Page 41 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not alleged in the
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction information, accused should be held liable only for the crime of homicide
engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be defined under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. However, considering
propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.<ref>Republic Act No. 6539, that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the
Sec. 2</ref> killing of the victim, the penalty of reclusion temporal provided under said
article was imposed in its maximum period. Applying again the Indeterminate
There is nothing in the law that requires a license to use a public highway to make the vehicle a "motor vehicle" within the definition given Sentence Law, the indeterminate sentence of prision mayor, as minimum, and
the anti-carnapping law.<ref>Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981</ref> Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets reclusion temporal in its maximum period, as maximum, was imposed.
which are public, not exclusively for private use, comes within the concept of motor vehicle.<ref>Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31
August 1981</ref> Highways are always public, free for the use of every person. If a vehicle uses the streets, with or without the required Qualified carnapping or aggravated form of carnapping
license, it comes within the protection of the law, for the severity of the offense is not to be measured by what kind of streets or highway
the same is used; but by the very nature of the vehicle itself and the use to which it is devoted. Otherwise, cars using the streets but still When the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or
unlicensed or unregistered as when they have just been bought from the company, or only on test runs, may be stolen without the penal raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
sanction of the anti-carnapping statute, but only as simple robbery punishable under the provision of the Revised Penal Code.<ref>Izon thereof - the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981</ref> imposed.<ref>Republic Act No. 6539, Sec. 14, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659, which took effect on 31 December 1993</ref> Three amendments
A motorized tricycle, even if not licensed to use a public highway, is a motor vehicle under the provision of the Anti-Carnapping were made by Republic Act No. 7659 on Section 14 of R.A. 6539, viz: (1) the
Act.<ref>Izon vs. People, G.R. No. L-51370, 31 August 1981</ref> change of the penalty of life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, (2) the
inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the phrase "in the commission of the
carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof." The latter makes clear the intention of the law to make the
offense a special complex crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4
of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons. As such, the killing (or the rape) merely qualifies the
crime of carnapping which for lack of specific nomenclature may be known as
qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form. In short, considering
the phraseology of the amended Section 14, the carnapping and the killing (or
the rape) may be considered as a single or indivisible crime or a special
complex crime which, however, is not covered by Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code.<ref>People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and G.R. No.
119407, 7 July 1997</ref> Since Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 uses the words
"IS KILLED," no distinction must be made between homicide and murder.
Whether it is one or the other which is committed "in the course of carnapping
or on the occasion thereof" makes no difference insofar as the penalty is
concerned.<ref>People vs. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 and G.R. No. 119407,
7 July 1997</ref>
However, this should be distinguished from People vs. Pavida, et al.,<ref>G.R.

Nos. 127125 & 138952, 6 July 1999</ref> and similar cases, wherein the
accused were charged with two separate informations with "Simple
Carnapping" and "Murder", and convicted of these two separate crimes, and
Page 42 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
not "Carnapping in the Aggravated Form," although the facts showed that the
accused-appellants killed the driver of the carnapped vehicle in the commission
of the carnapping.
In the 2001 case of People vs. Sia,<ref>G.R. No. 137457, 21 November

2001</ref> which involves the death of the driver, the Supreme Court applied
Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, relating to the application of
indivisible penalties when there neither mitigating or aggravating penalty. The
lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.
Separate crimes of carnapping and robbery with homicide

Carnapping does not necessarily absorb robbery with homicide. Carnapping
refers specifically to the taking of a motor vehicle. It does not cover the taking
of cash or personal property which is not a motor vehicle. The taking of the
tricycle constitutes a violation of the anti-carnapping law, while the taking of the
cash by hitting him with a stone and stabbing him in the chest constitutes the
crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code.<ref>People vs. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, 24 February 2009</ref>
RA 7080 PLUNDER LAW

Page 43 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
THE LAW ON PLUNDER
We all know that the case of plunder against former President Joseph Estrada was already submitted for decision. We obviously can’t discuss the merits of the case, as this is sub judice. We don’t want to add to the
controversy brought about by the “Erap: Guilty or not Guilty” ads realeased days ago. For everyone’s easy reference, however, let’s discuss plunder.
What is the applicable law on plunder? Plunder is covered by Republic Act No. 7080 (“An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder”), as amended.
Is the law unconstitutional? No. The Supreme Court already ruled in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001) that RA 7080 is not contrary to the Constitution.
What’s the definition of a “public officer”? A “public officer” means any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or contract.
What is included in the term “government” in the definition above? “Government” includes the National Government, and any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.
What is “ill-gotten wealth”? Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section 2 (defining the crime of plunder) of the law, acquired by him
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines.
What are the elements of the crime of plunder? As discussed in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001), the elements of the crime of plunder are:
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or
raids on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government
Page 44 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation
including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and
orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to
the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.
[Note: The threshhold amount is originally P75 Million under RA 7080. This was amended by RA 7659 (1993), which is an act imposing the death penalty on certain heinous crimes including plunder, decreasing the
threshhold amount to P50 Million. We all know, however, that the death penalty law (RA 7659) was “repealed or amended accordingly” by RA 9346 (2006), which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The
interesting point is this – does the repeal (or “amendment”) of RA 7659 mean that the threshhold amount is now back to P75 Million? Let’s discuss.]
What is the court that has jurisdiction over the crime of plunder? Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under the law is at the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan has no
jurisdiction over the crime of plunder unless committed by public officials and employees occupying the positions with Salary Grade “27” or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758) in relation to their office. This is pursuant to Republic Act No. 8429 (1997), which is the special law that provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan “otherwise” than that prescribed in Republic Act No.
7080.
What is the specific rule of evidence provided under this law? For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
What is the effect of a charge of plunder on a public officer still in office? Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this law in whatever stage of execution and mode of
participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office.
What is the applicable penalty upon conviction? The applicable penalty for the crime of Plunder, under R.A. 7080 (as amended by R.A. 7659), is reclusion perpetua to death. The death penalty, however, was already
abolished, which means that the applicable penalty is reclusion perpetua, without prejudice to other accessory penalties that may be imposed by the court.
Upon conviction, what is the other penalty in addition to imprisonment? In case of conviction by final judgment, the accused shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law. However, if the accused is acquitted,
he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime, administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
Is there a prescriptive period in prosecuting someone with plunder? Yes. The crime punishable under R.A. 7080 prescribes in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by
public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
B. Related Jurisprudence
1. Joseph E. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)
FACTS: On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan eight separate Informations against former President Joseph E. Estrada for violation of the Anti-Plunder Law, as amended, the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, for perjury under the Revised Penal Code and for illegal use of an alias under Commonwealth Act No. 142
as amended by Republic Act No. 6085.
On April 11, 2001, the petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to remand the case to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation, reconsideration and/or reinvestigation of the respective offenses charged and to give the
Page 45 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
accused the opportunity to file documents to prove lack of probable cause.
On June 14, 2001, the petitioner moved to quash the Information for the charge of violation of the Anti-Plunder Law on the grounds that: (a) the facts alleged did not constitute an indictable offense and (b) the said
amended Information charged more than one offense.
ISSUES: (a) Whether the Anti-Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague; (b) whether the Anti-Plunder Law violates the rights of an accused to due process by requiring less evidence to prove the predicate crimes of
plunder; and (c) whether plunder as defined in Republic Act No. 7080 is malum prohibitum and whether it is within the power of Congress to classify it as such.
HELD: As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its
description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and particularity.
As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must sufficiently guide the
judge in its application; the counsel, in defending one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the accused, in identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be understood with little difficulty that
what the assailed statute punishes is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or combination of acts enumerated in Section 1, paragraph (d) of the
Anti-Plunder Law.
Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in Section 1,
paragraph (d), and Section 2, and the word "pattern" in Section 4.
A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them. Besides, there is no positive constitutional or statutory command
requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Congress is not restricted in the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so define the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result
in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law.
Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended a
technical or special legal meaning to those words The intention of the lawmakers — who are, ordinarily, untrained philologists and lexicographers — to use statutory phraseology in such a manner is always presumed.
Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary contains the following commonly accepted definition of the words "combination" and "series:"
“Combination — the result or product of combining; the act or process of combining. To combine is to bring into such close relationship as to obscure individual characters.”
“Series — a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial and temporal succession.”
That Congress intended the words "combination" and "series" to be understood in their popular meanings is pristinely evident from the legislative deliberations on the bill, which eventually became Republic Act No. 7080 or
the Anti-Plunder Law.
Thus, when the Anti-Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Section 1, paragraph (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Section
1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Section 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (3).
On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Section 1, paragraph (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids
on the public treasury, all of which fall under Section 1, paragraph (d), subparagraph (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken greater
pains in specifically providing for it in the law.
As for "pattern," that this term is sufficiently defined in Section 4, in relation to Section 1, paragraph (d), and Section 2. A 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in

Page 46 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
subsections (1) to (6) of Section 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Section 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal that is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate
or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan
of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or
methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.
Hence, it cannot plausibly be contended that the law does not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Under the circumstances, petitioner's reliance on the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine is
manifestly misplaced. The doctrine has been formulated in various ways, but is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that
persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by
a saving clause or by construction.
The second issue that petitioner advances is that Section 4 of the Plunder Law circumvents the immutable obligation of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the crime of plunder
when it requires only proof of a pattern of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy, thus:
“SEC. 4. Rule of Evidence. — For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. “ (Emphasis supplied.)
In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused always has in his favor the presumption of innocence which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by
proof beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
Thus, in addition to proving the commission of the separate acts constitutive of plunder, the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would
constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000,000.00 (now P75,000,000.00 under RA 7080, as amended), viz.:
“To illustrate, supposing that the accused is charged in an Information for plunder with having committed fifty (50) raids on the public treasury. The prosecution need not prove all these fifty (50) raids, it being sufficient to
prove by pattern at least two (2) of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least P50,000,000.00 (now P75,000,000.00 under RA 7080, as amended).”
Thus, the court explained that Section 4 of the Anti-Plunder Law is intended to be purely a procedural measure and does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the accused and thus granting that it is
flawed it may simply be severed without necessarily affecting the validity of the remaining provisions of the Anti-Plunder Law, viz.:
“It purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural measure, Sec. 4 does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the
accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy. It is only a means to an end, an aid to substantive law. Indubitably, even without invoking Sec. 4, a conviction for plunder may be had, for what is crucial for the
prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to engender that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, even granting for the sake of argument that
Sec. 4 is flawed and vitiated for the reasons advanced by petitioner, it may simply be severed from the rest of the provisions without necessarily resulting in the demise of the law; after all, the existing rules on evidence can
supplant Sec. 4 more than enough.”
As regards the third issue, plunder is malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Thus, the ponente in Joseph E. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan quoted the concurring opinion of Justice Mendoza, viz.:
“… Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was
committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility
of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. Further, any doubt as to whether plunder is mala in se or merely mala in prohibita may be considered as to have been resolved in the affirmative when Congress included
it among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in 1993.

Page 47 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
“Finally, any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is a malum in se must be deemed to have been resolved in the affirmative by the decision of Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. Other heinous crimes are punished with death as a straight penalty in R.A. No. 7659. Referring to these groups of heinous crimes, this Court held in People v. Echegaray.”
“The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes that are, by their very nature, despicable, either because life was callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and utterly dehumanized as to
completely disrupt the normal course of his or her growth as a human being… Seen in this light, the capital crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom resulting in the death of the victim or the victim is
raped, tortured, or subjected to dehumanizing acts; destructive arson resulting in death; and drug offenses involving minors or resulting in the death of the victim in the case of other crimes; as well as murder, rape,
parricide, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, where the victim is detained for more than three days or serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim or threats to kill him were made or the victim is a
minor, robbery with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation, destructive arson, and carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped, which are penalized by reclusion perpetua to
death, are clearly heinous by their very nature.”
“There are crimes, however, in, which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to be
struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population, the Philippine Government
must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and the psyche of the populace. [With the
government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of
government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effect and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug
offenses involving government official, employees or officers, that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society." (Emphasis supplied.)
“The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not
matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere
prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.”
“… Our nation has been racked by scandals of corruption and obscene profligacy of officials in high places which have shaken its very foundation. The anatomy of graft and corruption has become more elaborate in the
corridors of time as unscrupulous people relentless]y contrive more and more ingenious ways to bilk the coffers of the government. Drastic and radical measures are imperative to fight the increasingly sophisticated,
extraordinarily methodical and economically catastrophic looting of the national treasury. Such is the Plunder Law, especially designed to disentangle those ghastly tissues of grand-scale corruption which, if left unchecked,
will spread like a malignant tumor and ultimately consume the moral and institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law, indeed, is a living testament to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this scourge and
thus secure society against the avarice and other venalities in public office.”
Thus, the Court clarified that plunder is inherently wrong and immoral. With the government in dire lack of money to provide even the most basic services to the people, any form of misappropriation or misapplication of
government funds translates to an actual threat to the very existence of government and the survival of the people and thus is no less heinous in effect than crimes such as destructive arson resulting in death. The
Congress in enacting the Anti-Plunder Law was simply mustering the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated criminality that has deeply entrenched itself in the structures of
society and the psyche of the populace.
2. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)
FACTS: In November 2000, as an offshoot of the impeachment proceedings against the former President of the Philippines Joseph Ejercito Estrada, five criminal complaints against the former President and members of
his family, his associates, friends and conspirators were filed with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman.
On April 4, 2001, the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal charges against the former President and the other respondents therein.
One of the charges was for the plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was the former’s president’s son the petitioner in this case Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila.
The charge was amended and filed on April 18, 2001. Docketed as Criminal Case No. 26558, the case was assigned to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The arraignment of the accused was set on July 10, 2001.

Page 48 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
No bail for petitioner's provisional liberty was fixed. On April 24, 2001, petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash or Suspend" the Amended Information on the ground that the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, is
unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. Respondent Ombudsman opposed the motion.
On April 25, 2001, the respondent court issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner and his co-accused. On its basis, petitioner and his co-accused were placed in custody of the law. On April 30, 2001, petitioner filed a "Very
Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of
overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
On July 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioner's "Motion to Quash and Suspend" and "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion." Petitioner's alternative prayer to post bail was set for hearing after
arraignment of all the accused.
The Amended Information is divided into three parts: (1) the first paragraph charges former President Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Charlie "Atong" Ang,
Edward Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and others; (2) the second paragraph spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder; and (3) the four sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in
detail the predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder pursuant to items (1) to (6) of R.A. No. 7080, and state the names of the accused who committed each act.
Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in subparagraph (a) of the Amended Information which is of "receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money in the aggregate amount of
P545,000,000.00 for illegal gambling in the form of gift, share, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit…" In this subparagraph (a), petitioner, in conspiracy with former President Estrada, is charged with the
act of receiving or collecting money from illegal gambling amounting to P545 million
ISSUES: (a) Whether the Anti-Plunder Law, Republic Act No. 7080, is unconstitutional; (b) whether petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada may be tried for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in one act or
offense that is illegal gambling and not in a "series or combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (c) whether the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
RULING: Regarding the first issue, the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7080 has already been settled in the case of Joseph Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.
With respect to the second issue, while it is clear that all the accused named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) thru their individual acts conspired with the former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17, as the Amended Information is worded, however, it is not certain whether the accused persons named in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) conspired with
each other to enable the former President to amass the subject ill-gotten wealth.
In view of the lack of clarity in the Information, the Court held petitioner Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada cannot be penalized for the conspiracy entered into by the other accused with the former President as related in the second
paragraph of the Amended Information in relation to its sub-paragraphs (b) to (d). Instead, the petitioner can be held accountable only for the predicate acts that he allegedly committed as related in sub-paragraph (a) of the
Amended Information which were allegedly done in conspiracy with the former President whose design was to amass ill-gotten wealth amounting to more than P4 billion.
However, if the allegation should be proven, the penalty of petitioner cannot be unclear. It. will be no different from that of the former President for in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of the other. The imposable penalty
is provided in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, viz.:
"Section 2. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with the members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires
ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) (now P75,000,000.00
under RA 7080, as amended) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the
Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court."
The Court added that it cannot fault the Ombudsman for including the predicate offenses alleged in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Amended information in one and not four separate Informations. The court explained the
history of the Anti-Plunder Law, thus:

Page 49 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
“A study of the history of R.A. No. 7080 will show that the law was crafted to avoid the mischief and folly of filing multiple informations. The Anti-Plunder Law was enacted in the aftermath of the Marcos regime where
charges of ill-gotten wealth were filed against former President Marcos and his alleged cronies. Government prosecutors found no appropriate law to deal with the multitude and magnitude of the acts allegedly committed'
by the former President to acquire illegal wealth. They also found that under the then existing laws such as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised Penal Code and other special laws, the acts involved
different transactions, different time and different personalities. Every transaction constituted a separate crime and required a separate case and the over-all conspiracy had to be broken down into several criminal and graft
charges. The preparation of multiple Informations was a legal nightmare but eventually, thirty-nine (39) separate and independent cases were filed against practically the same accused before the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No.
7080 or the Anti-Plunder Law was enacted precisely to address this procedural problem. This is pellucid in the Explanatory Note to Senate Bill No. 733, viz.:
"Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment, committed thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in
stealth and secrecy over a period of time, that may involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple
cases of malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy. The above-described crime does not yet exist in
Philippine statute books. Thus, the need to come up with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible recurrence of the depravities of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to succumb
to the corrupting influence of power.” “
Anent the third issue, on December 21, 2001, the Sandiganbayan submitted its Resolution (dated December 20, 2001) denying petitioner's motion for bail for "lack of factual basis." Basing its finding on the earlier testimony
of Dr. Anastacio, the Sandiganbayan found that petitioner "failed to submit sufficient evidence to convince the court that the medical condition of the accused requires that he be confined at home and for that purpose that
he be allowed to post bail."
The Court clarified that the crime of plunder is punished with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Under the Revised Rules of Court, offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are non-
bailable when the evidence of guilt is strong, to wit:
"Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution."
Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads:
"Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required."
Thus, the constitutional mandate makes the grant or denial of bail in capital offenses hinge on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. The trial court is required to conduct bail hearings
wherein both the prosecution and the defense will be afforded sufficient opportunity to present their respective evidence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt is strong.
The hearings on which respondent court based its Resolution of December 20, 2001 involved the reception of medical evidence only and which evidence was given five months earlier in September 2001. The records do
not show that evidence on petitioner's guilt was presented before the lower court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan was ordered to conduct hearings to ascertain whether evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong to determine
whether to grant bail to the latter.
3. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003)
FACTS: The case of Serapio v. Sandiganbayan is an offshoot of the case filed against former president Joseph E. Estrada as the petitioner is one of the accused charged with plunder together with the former president
and Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada. It is a consolidation of three cases filed by petitioner with the Supreme Court against the Sandiganbayan and other respondents.
ISSUE: As mentioned in the earlier cited case of Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, according to the accused Estradas and Edward Serapio the information charges more than one offense, namely, bribery (Article

Page 50 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
210 of the Revised Penal Code), malversation of public funds or property (Article 217, Revised Penal Code) and violations of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act (Republic Act No. 3019) and Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713.
RULING: As likewise earlier mentioned, the court found the contention to be unmeritorious. The acts alleged in the information are not charged as separate offenses but as predicate acts of the crime of plunder. Thus:
“It should be stressed that the Anti-Plunder law specifically Section 1(d) thereof does not make any express reference to any specific provision of laws, other than R.A. No. 7080, as amended, which coincidentally may
penalize as a separate crime any of the overt or criminal acts enumerated therein. The said acts which form part of the combination or series of act are described in their generic sense. Thus, aside from 'malversation' of
public funds, the law also uses the generic terms 'misappropriation', 'conversion' or 'misuse' of said fund. The fact that the acts involved may likewise be penalized under other laws is incidental. The said acts are
mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be taken or to be understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the Revised Penal
Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."
“… It is clear on the face of the amended Information that petitioner and his co-accused are charged only with one crime of plunder and not with the predicate acts or crimes of plunder. It bears stressing that the predicate
acts merely constitute acts of plunder and are not crimes separate and independent of the crime of plunder…”
Further, petitioner argues that his motion for reinvestigation is premised on the absolute lack of evidence to support a finding of probable cause for plunder as against him. Hence, he should be spared from the
inconvenience, burden and expense of a public trial.
The Court explained that the settled rule that the Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigations. Thus, in Raro v. Sandiganbayan (cf. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan), the
Court ruled:
"… In the performance of his task to determine probable cause, the Ombudsman's discretion is paramount. Thus, in Camanag vs. Guerrero, this Court said:
“… [S]uffice it to state that this Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and leaves to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of
determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as will establish 'probable cause' for filing of information against the supposed offender." “
Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution affirming the finding of probable cause against him by the Ombudsman. Petitioner failed to
discharge his burden and thus the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan.
The Court elucidated that preliminary investigation is conducted only for the purpose of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the person accused of the
crime is guilty thereof and should be held for trial. As the Court held in Webb v. De Leon (cf. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan):
"A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.''
OTHER ISSUES: In one of the petitions the issues for resolution were: (a) Whether or not the petitioner should first be arraigned before hearings of his petition for bail may be conducted; (b) whether the petitioner may file
a motion to quash the amended Information during the pendency of his petition for bail; (c) whether a joint hearing of the petition for bail of petitioner and those of the other accused is mandatory; (d) whether the People
waived their right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner and failed to adduce strong evidence of guilt of petitioner for the crime charged; and (e) whether the petitioner was deprived of his right
to due process and should thus be released from detention via a writ of habeas corpus.
RULING: Regarding the issue in (a) above, the arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty
by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a petition for bail. In Lavides vs. Court of Appeals (cf. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan) the Court held that "in cases where
it is authorized, bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion to quash."

Page 51 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
However, the foregoing pronouncement by the Court should not be taken to mean that the hearing on a petition for bail should at all times precede arraignment. The ruling in Lavides v. Court of Appeals should be
understood in light of the fact that the accused in said case filed a petition for bail as well as a motion to quash the informations filed against him. The Court elucidated thus:
“[T]o condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion
to quash can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. This would undermine his constitutional
right not to be put on trial except upon a valid complaint or Information sufficient to charge him with a crime and his right to bail.”
In fine, the Court found the Sandiganbayan to have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ordering the petitioner’s arraignment before proceeding with the hearing of his petition for bail.
With regard to the issue in (b) above, filing a motion to quash is the “mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or Information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for
defects which are apparent in the face of the Information.” Generally, an accused may file a motion to quash the Information against him before arraignment.
A motion to quash and a petition for bail do not preclude each other. Certainly, if a petition for bail is granted to an accused charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment on the
ground that the evidence of his guilt is not strong, the accused may still file a motion to quash to question the validity of the Information charging him with an offense. However, if a motion to quash a criminal complaint is
granted on the ground that the same does not charge an offense the petition for bail will become moot and academic.
Concerning the issue in (c) above, the Court noted that there is no provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan governing the hearings of two or more petitions for
bail filed by different accused or requiring that a petition for bail of an accused be heard simultaneously with the trial of the case against the other accused. Thus, the matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. The Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Sandiganbayan except in case proof of grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction of the latter can be shown.
The Court pointed out that in Ocampo vs. Bernabe (cf. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan) it held that the court is to conduct only a summary hearing in a petition for bail hearing. “Summary” means a “brief and speedy method of
receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is merely to determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail.” Thus, in a petition for bail hearing:
“The court does not try the merits or enter into any inquiry as to the weight that ought to be given to the evidence against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be
offered therein. It may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and reducing to a
reasonable minimum the amount of corroboration particularly on details that are not essential to the purpose of the hearing.”
A joint hearing of separate petitions for bail by several accused may be a way to avoid duplication of time and effort of the courts and the prosecution and minimize prejudice to accused persons, especially in cases where
the petitioners for bail are charged of having conspired in the commission of the same crime and the prosecution will present essentially the same evidence against them.
However, the Court explained that due to the complexity of the case involving former president Estrada to which the Sandiganbayan sought to join the petitioner’s petition for bail, the bail proceedings will no longer be
summary. As regards former president Estrada, the proceedings will involve a full-blown trial.
Further, in accordance the Court’s ruling in the case of Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan where it stated that Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada can only be charged with conspiracy to commit the acts alleged in sub-
paragraph (a) of the amended Information since it is not clear the accused persons conspired with each other to assist Joseph Estrada to amass ill-gotten wealth in committing all the acts alleged in in sub-paragraphs (a) to
(d) thereof, the Court held that Serapio may only be charged with having conspired with the other co-accused named in sub-paragraph (a) by "receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money…
from illegal gambling, … in consideration of toleration or protection of illegal gambling.
Thus, the Court found the Sandiganbayan to have gravely abused its discretion in ordering that the petition for bail of petitioner and the trial of former President Joseph E. Estrada be held jointly. Thus:
“In ordering that petitioner's petition for bail to be heard jointly with the trial of the case against his co-accused former President Joseph E. Estrada, the Sandiganbayan in effect allowed further and unnecessary delay in the
resolution thereof to the prejudice of petitioner. In fine then, the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion in ordering a simultaneous hearing of petitioner's petition for bail with the trial of the case against

Page 52 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
former President Joseph E. Estrada on its merits.”
Cooley in his treatise Constitutional Limitations (cf. Serapio v. Sandiganbayan) explained the rationale for the speedy resolution of an application for bail, thus:
"For, if there were any mode short of confinement which would with reasonable certainty insure the attendance of the accused to answer the accusation, it would not be justifiable to inflict upon him that indignity, when the
effect is to subject him in a greater or lesser degree, to the punishment of a guilty person, while as yet it is not determined that he has not committed any crime."
With respect to the issue in (d) above on whether the People waived their right to adduce evidence in opposition to the petition for bail of petitioner and failed to adduce strong evidence of guilt of petitioner for the crime
charged, the Court found the petitioner’s claim to be unsupported by the case’s records. The Sandiganbayan had already scheduled the hearing dates for the petitioner’s application for bail but the same had to be reset
due to incidents raised in several other motions filed by the parties.
Thus, the Court ruled that the petitioner cannot be released from detention until the Sandiganbayan has conducted a hearing of his application for bail and resolved the same in his favor. Prior thereto, there must first be a
finding that the evidence against petitioner is not strong before he may be granted bail.
Anent the last issue raised in (e) above as to whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to due process and should thus be released from detention via a writ of habeas corpus, the Court found no basis for the
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in favor of the petitioner.
The Court explained that, as a general rule, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty in custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which jurisdiction to do
so. However, in exceptional circumstances, the courts may grant a writ of habeas corpus even when the person concerned is detained pursuant to a valid arrest or his voluntary surrender.
The writ of liberty is recognized as "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" due to "its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes." Thus,
in previous cases, the Court issued the writ where the deprivation of liberty, while initially valid under the law, had later become invalid, and even though the persons praying for its issuance were not completely deprived of
their liberty.
The general rule that habeas corpus does not lie where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court which had jurisdiction to issue the same applies to the
petitioner because he is under detention pursuant to the order of arrest issued by the Sandiganbayan on April 25, 2001 after the filing by the Ombudsman of the amended information for plunder against petitioner and his
co-accused. In fact, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities on April 25, 2001 upon learning that a warrant for his arrest had been issued.
Moreover, the court stated that a petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for asserting one's right to bail. It cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not as a matter of right but on the discretion
of the court and the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to grant bail, or has not even exercised said discretion. The proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the court where the criminal case is
pending and to allow hearings thereon to proceed.
RA 7877 SEXUAL HARASSMENT

WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
It is an act or a series of acts involving any unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, committed by a government employee or official in a
work-related, training- or education- related environment.
WHAT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

Page 53 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
Sexual harassment, which has been declared unlawful in the workplace, training and education environments, will not be tolerated as it violates the dignity and human rights of a person.
WHAT IS THE PRESENT LAW ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
R.A. 7877, an “Act Declaring Sexual Harassment Unlawful in the Employment, Education or Training Environment, and for other purposes” was approved on February 14, 1995 and became effective on March 5, 1995,
fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Malaya and Times Journal on February 18, 1995. It is known as “The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.”
WHAT IS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) RESOLUTION NO. 01-0940?
It is known as the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 01-0940 TO PRIOR ISSUANCES OF THE CSC AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT?
It supersedes or repeals prior CSC issuances such as MC No. 19, s. 1994 and CSC Res. 95-6161. DOLE Administrative Order No. 250, s. 1995 has to be amended accordingly or replaced altogether, in consonance with
the changes made in the new CSC Rules on Sexual Harassment.
WHERE CAN SEXUAL HARASSMENT BE COMMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 01-0940?
Sexual harassment may take place:
1. in the premises of the workplace or office or of the school or training institution;
2. in any place where the parties were found, as a result of work or education or training responsibilities or relations;
3. at work or education- or training-related social functions;
4. while on official business outside the office or school or training institution or during work or school or training-related travel;
5. at official conferences, fora, symposia or training sessions; or
6. by telephone, cellular phone, fax machine or electronic mail.
WHEN IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN THE EMPLOYMENT OR WORK-RELATED ENVIRONMENT?
Work-related sexual harassment is committed when:
1. the submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts is used as basis for any employment decision (including but not limited to, matters related to hiring, promotion, raises in salary, job security, benefits and any other
personnel action) affecting the applicant/employee; or

Page 54 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
2. the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering with the complainant’s work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; or
3. the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant who may be a co-employee, applicant, customer, or ward of the person
complained of.
WHEN IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN AN EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT?
Education or training related sexual harassment is committed when:
1. the submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts is used as a basis for any decision affecting the complainant, including, but not limited to, the giving of a grade, the granting of honors or a scholarship, the
payment of a stipend or allowance, or the giving of any benefit, privilege or consideration; or
2. the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering with the performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive academic environment of the complainant; or
3. the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant who may be a trainee, apprentice, intern, tutee or ward of the person
complained of.
WHEN IS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL/EMPLOYEE LIABLE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
A government official or employee, regardless of sex, is liable for sexual harassment when he/she:
1. directly participates in the execution of any act of sexual harassment as defined by the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases;
2. induces or directs another or others to commit sexual harassment as defined by these Rules;
3. cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another through an act without which the sexual harassment would not have been accomplished; or
4. cooperates in the commission of sexual harassment by another through previous or simultaneous acts.
WHAT ARE THE FORMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
1. Physical
a. Malicious touching
b. Overt sexual advances
c. Gestures with lewd insinuation

Page 55 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
2. Verbal, such as but not limited to, requests or demands for sexual favors, and lurid remarks
3. Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or written notes with sexual underpinnings
4. Other forms analogous to the foregoing.
WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON DECORUM AND INVESTIGATION (CODI) IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES?
The CODI shall:
1. Receive complaints of sexual harassment;
2. Investigate sexual harassment complaints in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
3. Submit a report of its findings with the corresponding recommendation to the disciplining authority for decision; and
4. Lead in the conduct of discussions about sexual harassment within the agency or institution to increase understanding and prevent incidents of sexual harassment.
WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE CODI?
At least one (1) representative each from:
1. In a work-related environment:
i. the management
ii. the accredited union (if any)
iii. the first level employees iv. the second level employees
2. In an educational/training institution:
i. the administrator
ii. the trainers, teachers, instructors, professors or coaches
iii. the students or trainees

Page 56 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
The term of office of the members of the CODI shall not be more than two (2) years.
AT THE PRE-FILING STAGE, WHAT ASSISTANCE CAN THE AGENCY PROVIDE TO AN ALLEGED VICTIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
The agency may adopt mechanism to provide assistance to an alleged victim of sexual harassment which may include:
1. counseling;
2. referral to an agency offering professional help; and
3. advice or options available before the filing of the complaint.
WHAT ARE THE STANDARD PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN HANDLING A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE?
1. When can a complaint for sexual harassment be filed?
Anytime
2. With whom can a complaint file a complaint for sexual harassment be filed?
With the disciplining authority of the office/ agency; or with the Committee on Decorum and Investigation. Upon receipt of the complaint, the disciplining authority of the office/agency shall transmit the same to the CODI, if
there is any.
In the absence of a CODI, the head of office/agency shall cause the creation of a CODI in accordance with the law and rules and transmit the complaint to said Committee.
3. What are the requirements for a complaint?
It must be in writing, signed and sworn to by the complainant, and contains the following:
Full name and address of the complainant;
Full name, address, and position of the respondent;
A brief statement of the relevant facts;
Residence, in support of the complaint, if any; and
A certification of non-forum shopping.

Page 57 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements, the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice to its refilling.
4. Are complaints sent thru telegram, radiogram, electronic mail or similar means considered as filed?
Yes, if the requirements provided in Section 12 (b) of Resolution No. 01-0940 are complied with. In the absence of the said requirements, the complaint is considered non-filed. Complainant has to be notified to comply
within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice for compliance.
5. Shall the withdrawal of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings preclude the CODI from proceeding with the investigation?
When there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations in the complaint or where there is documentary or direct evidence that can prove the guilt of the person complained of, the CODI can proceed with the investigation.
WHAT WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE CODI ON THE COMPLAINT?
1. Counter-Affidavit/Comment of Person Complained of
Upon receipt of a complaint that is sufficient in form and substance, the CODI shall require the person complained of to submit a Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within three (3) days from receipt of the notice,
furnishing a copy to the complainant; otherwise, the Counter-Affidavit/ Comment shall be considered as not filed.
2. Preliminary Investigation
The CODI shall conduct a preliminary investigation which shall involve the ex parte examination of documents submitted by the complainant and the person complained of, as well as documents readily available from other
government offices.
During the preliminary investigation, the parties may submit affidavits and counter-affidavits.
3. Formal Charge
Upon receipt of the counter-affidavit/comment under oath, the Committee on Decorum and Investigation may now recommend whether a prima facie case exists to warrant the issuance of a formal charge.
Strict confidentiality of the proceedings during preliminary investigation by the CODI shall be exercised.
WHAT SHALL BE THE DURATION OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
The preliminary investigation shall commence not later than five (5) days from receipt of the complaint by the CODI. It shall be terminated within fifteen (15) working days thereafter.
WHEN WILL THE CODI SUBMIT ITS INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
The CODI shall submit the Investigation Report and the complete records of the case to the disciplining authority within five (5) working days from the termination of the preliminary investigation.

Page 58 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
WHAT WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE DISCIPLINING AUTHORITY AFTER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
Within three (3) working days from receipt of the investigation report, the disciplining authority shall issue a formal charge if a prima facie case is established during the investigation. If a prima facie case is not established
during the investigation, the complaint shall be dismissed within three (3) working days from receipt of the investigation report.
WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE FORMAL CHARGE?
1. A specification of the charge/s;
2. A brief statement of material or relevant facts;
3. Certified true copies of the documentary evidence, if any;
4. Sworn statement covering the testimony of witness/es;
5. A directive to answer the charge/s in writing under oath in not less than seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof;
6. An advice for the respondent to indicate in his/her answer whether or not he/she elects a formal investigation of the charges; and
7. A notice that he/she is entitled to be assisted by a counsel of his/her choice.
CAN THE RESPONDENT SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S AFTER THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
Yes, even if he has already submitted his/her comment/s and counter affidavits during the preliminary investigation.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONTENT OF THE ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT?
The answer, which must be in writing and under oath, shall be specific and shall contain material facts and applicable laws, if any, including documentary evidence/s, sworn statements covering testimonies of witnesses, if
any, in support of respondent's case. It shall also include a statement indicating whether he/she elects a formal investigation. The answer must be filed within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt thereof.
WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT IF RESPONDENT FAILS OR REFUSES TO ANSWER WITHIN THE 72 HOURS REQUIREMENT?
It shall be considered a waiver of respondent’s right to answer and a formal investigation may commence.
WHEN CAN PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION BE APPLIED?
Preventive suspension can be applied upon petition of the complainant or motu propio upon the recommendation of the CODI after the service of the Formal Charge to the respondent.

Page 59 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
The proper disciplining authority may order the preventive suspension during the formal investigation, if there are reasons to believe that the person complained of is probably guilty of the charges which would warrant
his/her removal from the service.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION?
An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove the respondent from the scene of his/her malfeasance or misfeasance and to preclude the possibility of his/her exerting undue influence or pressure
on the witnesses against his/her tampering of documentary evidence on file with this Office.
HOW LONG IS THE PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION?
Preventive suspension for an administrative case shall not be more than ninety (90) days unless otherwise provided by a special law.
WHAT REMEDIES FROM THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION CAN BE AVAILED OF BY THE RESPONDENT?
Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of order, respondent may:
1. file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority; or
2. elevate the same to the Civil Service Commission by way of an appeal.
WHEN CAN A FORMAL INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED? BY WHOM?
If the CODI deems that a formal investigation is necessary to decide the case judiciously, it shall conduct an investigation not earlier than five (5) days nor later than ten (10) days from receipt of the respondent’s answer. It
shall be finished within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the formal charge or the receipt of the answer unless the disciplining authority extends the period.
WHAT IS THE PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE?
The pre-hearing conference may be conducted by the CODI at the commencement of the formal investigation to agree on matter/s that would expedite the hearing.
The hearing proper and the order of presentation of evidence/s is governed by Sections 26 to 35 of the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases of the CSC.
WHEN IS THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT SUBMITTED? TO WHOM?
Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the formal investigation, a report containing a narration of the material facts established during the investigation, the findings and the evidence supporting said findings, as well
as the recommendations, shall be submitted by the CODI to the disciplining authority together with the complete records of the case.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the investigation report, the disciplining authority shall render his/her decision on the case.

Page 60 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
WHEN IS A DECISION ON A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE BY THE DISCIPLINING AUTHORITY FINAL AND EXECUTORY?
The decision of the disciplining authority is final and executory when the penalty of suspension is not more than thirty (30) days or a fine of not more than the equivalent of thirty (30) days salary is imposed.
WHEN IS A PENALTY OF SUSPENSION APPEALABLE TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION?
A penalty of suspension exceeding thirty (30) days or a fine exceeding the equivalent of thirty (30) days salary of the respondent shall be appealable to the ommission after the lapse of the reglamentary period for filing a
motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading has been filed.
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AFTER A DECISION?
1. Motion for reconsideration by the adversed party
2. Appeal to the Civil Service Commission if penalty imposed exceeds thirty (30) days suspension or fine exceeding the equivalent of thirty (30) days salary. The appeal may be initially appealed to the department head (for
decisions rendered by the bureau or office head that are appealable to the CSC)
3. Petition for review with the CSC by a complainant for a decision of a disciplining authority dismissing a complaint for lack of prima facie case
4. Petition for review with the Court of Appeals on a decision made by the CSC
5. Petition for certiorari in the proper court by the aggrieved party
WHEN CAN A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE FILED BY THE ADVERSED PARTY?
The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority who rendered the decision within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
Such is deemed filed on the date stamped on the official copy by the proper receiving authority, and if sent by mail, on the date shown by the postmark on the envelope, which shall be attached to the records of the case.
The filing of the motion for reconsideration within the reglamentary period shall stay the execution of the decision sought to be reconsidered.
WHAT CAN BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?
1. New evidence has been discovered which materially affects the decision rendered; or
2. The decision is not supported by the evidence on record; or
3. Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant.

Page 61 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
CAN THERE BE MORE THAN ONE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?
No, only one motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.
WHEN CAN AN APPEAL FOR DECISIONS OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS, PROVINCES, CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTALITIES BE APPEALED TO THE CSC?
For a decision where the penalty imposed is more than thirty (30) days suspension or a fine exceeding the equivalent of thirty (30) days salary, it may be appealed to the CSC within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt
thereof.
A notice of appeal, including the appeal memorandum, shall be filed with the appellate authority with a copy furnished to the disciplining office. The latter shall submit the records of the case, which shall be automatically
and chronologically arranged, paged and securely bound to prevent loss with its comment within fifteen (15) days, to the appellate authority.
WHEN IS THE APPEAL DEEMED FILED? HOW MUCH IS THE APPEAL FEE?
An appeal sent by mail shall be deemed filed on the date shown by the postmark on the envelope, which shall be attached to the records of the case and in case of personal delivery, the date stamped thereon by the
proper office.
The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of three hundred pesos (P300.00) and a copy of the receipt shall be attached to the appeal.
WHEN IS AN APPEAL PERFECTED?
The appeal is perfected when the appellant shall have submitted within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision the following:
1. Notice of appeal which shall specifically state the date of the decision appealed from and the date of receipt thereof;
2. Three copies of appeal memorandum containing the grounds relied upon for the appeal, together with the certified true copy of the decision, resolution or order appealed from, and certified copies of the document or
evidence;
3. Proof of service of a copy of the appeal memorandum to the disciplining office;
4. Proof of payment of the appeal fee; and
5. A statement or certification of non-forum shopping
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE REGLAMENTARY PERIOD?
It shall be construed as failure to perfect an appeal and shall cause its dismissal.

Page 62 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
WILL AN APPEAL FILED STOP THE DECISION FROM BEING EXECUTORY?
The appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory.
In case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the period of the appeal, in the event he wins the appeal.
WHAT IS THE CLASSIFICATION OF ACTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
Sexual Harassment is classified as:
1. Grave Offenses
a. unwanted touching of private parts of the body (genitalia, buttocks, and breast);
b. sexual assault;
c. malicious touching;
d. requesting for sexual favor in exchange for employment, promotion, local or foreign travels, favorable working conditions or assignments, a passing grade, the granting of honors or scholarship, or the grant of benefits or
payment of a stipend or allowance; and
e. other analogous cases.
2. Less Grave Offenses
a. unwanted touching or brushing against a victim’s body;
b. pinching not falling under grave offenses;
c. derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward the members of one sex or one’s sexual orientation or used to describe a person;
d. verbal abuse or threats with sexual overtones; and
e. other analogous cases.
3. Light Offenses
a. surreptitiously looking or stealing a look at a person’s private part or worn undergarments;

Page 63 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
b. telling sexist/smutty jokes or sending these through text, electronic mail or other similar means, causing embarrassment or offense and carried out after the offender has been advised that they are offensive or
embarrassing or, even without such advise, when they are by their nature clearly embarrassing, offensive or vulgar;
c. malicious leering or ogling;
d. the display of sexually offensive pictures, materials or graffiti;
e. unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person’s sex life;
f. unwelcome sexual flirtation, advances, propositions;
g. making offensive hand or body gestures at an employee;
h. persistent unwanted attention with sexual overtones;
i. unwelcome phone calls with sexual overtones causing discomfort, embarrassment, offense or insult to the receiver; and
j. other analogous cases.
The head of the agency who fails to act on the complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt of any complaint for sexual harassment properly filed against any employee in that office shall be charged with neglect of duty.
Any person found guilty of sexual harassment shall, after the investigation, be meted the penalty corresponding to the gravity of the offense.
WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
1. Grave offenses - Dismissal
2. Less grave offenses
1 st offense - Fine or suspension for thirty (30) days but not exceeding six (6) months
2 nd offense - Dismissal
3. Light offenses
1 st offense - Reprimand
2 nd offense - Fine or suspension not exceeding thirty (30) days

Page 64 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
3 rd offense - Dismissal
WHAT PENALTY SHALL BE APPLIED IF THE RESPONDENT IS FOUND GUILTY OF TWO (2) OR MORE CHARGES OR COUNTS?
The penalty to be imposed shall be that corresponding to the most serious charges or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF THE AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCORDING TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY RULES ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES?
All national and local government agencies, state colleges and universities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter, shall promulgate or modify their own rules and regulations in
conformity with these Rules, in consultation with their employees, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Resolution.
All agencies of the government shall submit an authenticated copy of their rules and regulations on sexual harassment to the Commission for approval within one (1) month from the date of their promulgation. It shall
likewise submit to the Commission a list of the members of their Committee on Decorum and Investigation immediately after its composition.
All agencies of the government shall develop an education and training program for their officials and employees and the members of their Committee on Decorum and Investigation to increase understanding about sexual
harassment, prevent its occurrence, and ensure proper investigation, prosecution and resolution of sexual harassment cases.
The head of office who, after six (6) months from the affectivity of this resolution, fails to cause the promulgation or modification of the agency’s rules and regulations on sexual harassment in conformity with these rules,
shall be charged with neglect of duty.
WHAT SHALL APPLY TO A CASE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT WHEN THE AGENCY IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF PROMULGATING OR MODIFYING ITS OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS?
During the period when the agency is still in the process of promulgating or modifying its own rules and regulations on sexual harassment, a complaint alleging acts constituting sexual harassment shall be administratively
prosecuted, resolved and adjudicated based on these Rules.
Source: Civil Service Commission (CSC), Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases.
Resolution No. 01-0940, May 21, 2001
ANTI‐HAZING LAW (R.A. 8049)
Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such
as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
The following are the allowed initiation rites?

1. Those conducted by “organizations” which shall include any club or the AFP, PNP, PMA, or officer and cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training and CAT. The physical, mental and psychological testing and training

Page 65 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP as approved by the Secretary of National Defense and the
National Police Commission duly recommended by the Chief of Staff, AFP and the Director General of the PNP.
2. Those conducted by any fraternity, sorority or organization with prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization 7 days before the conduct of such initiation.
The following are liable as PRINCIPAL:

a. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm.
b. The parents of one of the officer or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization, when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their home but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring.
c. The officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed.
It should be noted that the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal, UNLESS he prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein.
The following are also liable as ACCOMPLICE:
a. The owner of the place where the hazing is conducted, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
b. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
These are the punishable acts:

1. Hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization without prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization 7 days before the conduct of such initiation.
2. Infliction of any physical violence during initiation rites
The maximum penalty will be imposed in any of the following:

1. When the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join,
2. When the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is prevented from quitting.
3. When the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force,
violence, threat or intimidation,
4. When the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution
5. When the victim is below 12 years of age at the time of the hazing.
Worst, Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
The fraternal contract should not be signed in blood, celebrated with pain, marred by injuries, and perpetrated through suffering. That is the essence of Republic Act ( R.A.) No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.
xxx
In our contemporary society, hazing has been a nightmare of parents who send their children to college or university. News of deaths and horrible beatings primarily among college students due to hazing injuries continue
to haunt us. Horrid images of eggplant-like buttocks and thighs and pounded arms and shoulders ofyoung men are depicted as a fervent warning to those who dare undergo the hazing rites. The meaningless death of
these promising students, and the agony, cries and ordeal of their families, resonate through the very core of our beings. But no matter how modem and sophisticated our society becomes, these barbaric acts of initiation
of fraternities, sororities and other organizations continue to thrive, even within the elite grounds of the academe. (DUNGO v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 209464, July 01, 2015)

Page 66 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (PD 1829): BASIC DISCUSSION

What is “Obstruction of Justice”?
The term i used to refer to the acts punished under Presidential Decree No. 1829 (“Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders”). Full text here.
What is the stated purpose of PD 1829?
As stated in the law, its purpose is to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct
or frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.
What is the penalty for “Obstruction of Justice”?
The penalty is imprisonment, fine or both. Imprisonment ranges from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years (prision correccional in its maximum period). The fine ranges from P1,000 – P6,000.
Who may be charged under PD 1829?
Any person — whether private or public — who commits the acts enumerated below may be charged with violating PD 1829. In case a public officer is found guilty, he shall also suffer perpetual disqualification from holding
public office.
What are the acts punishable under this law?
The law covers the following acts of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases:
a. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
threats.
b. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official
proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases.
c. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest,
prosecution and conviction.
d. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or
purposes.
e. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals’ offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts.
f. Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases.

Page 67 of 68
PERSONS INVOLVE
LIABLE VICTIM
g. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discontinuing, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender.
h. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent a person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in criminal cases.
i. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data
gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or the court.
What are some of the instances when questions against charges under PD 1829 reached the Supreme Court?
In Posadas vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000), certain officials of the University of the Philippines (UP) were charged for violating PD 1829 (paragraph c above). The UP officers objected to the
warrantless arrest of certain students by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme Court, the police had no ground for the warrantless arrest. The UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent
the arrest of the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The “need to enforce the law cannot be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.”
In another case, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was charged under PD 1829, for allegedly accommodating Col. Gregorio Honasan by giving him food and comfort on 1 December 1989 in his house. “Knowing that Colonel
Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended.” The Supreme Court ruled that Sen. Enrile could not be separately charged under PD 1829, as this is
absorbed in the charge of rebellion already filed against Sen. Enrile.
Roger Posadas v. Ombudsman
G.R. No. 131492 September 29, 2000
Arrests; Presidential Decree 1829; Obstruction of Justice; Third persons have a right to prevent the arrest of suspects where such arrest is illegal, and the same cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, §l(c).-
In this case, petitioners’ objection to the arrest of the students cannot be construed as a violation of P.D. No. 1829, §l(c) without rendering it unconstitutional. Petitioners had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and
Narag at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. Indeed, they could not have interfered with the prosecution of the guilty parties because in fact petitioner Posadas had asked the NBI for assistance in
investigating the death of Venturina. On the other hand, just because petitioners had asked for assistance from the NBI did not authorize respondent Dizon and his men to disregard constitutional requirements.

Page 68 of 68

Special Penal Laws (Summary of Provisions) (January 2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Penal Laws (Summary of Provisions) (January 2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONS INVOLVE

ACTS MEANS / PURPOSE/OTHERS PENALTY

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Courtesy of LACMMI – Lipa Archdiocesan Comm ission on Migrants an d Mission Page 2 of 5

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF IR

Definition of TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

ELEMENTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

ACTS MEANS PURPOSE

THREE (3) CATEGORIES OF TRAFFICKING:

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

"(c) Any person found

"In every case, conviction

Illegal recruitment when Additional unlawful acts:

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

relation to the said loan;

"(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign principal/employer to pass on the overseas

investigation, upon the

Who are disqualified for

An applicant will not be

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

What will happen to a witness

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

RA No. 4200 The Anti Wiretapping Law

WHEN IS WIRETAPPING ALLOWED?

INADMISSIBILITY OF WIRETAPPED EVIDENCE

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

Are illegally obtained voice recordings admissible inimpeachment proceedings?

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

Republic Act No. 9208 “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003“

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

What is “forced labor and slavery”?

What is “debt bondage”?

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography.

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

The following are considered as qualified trafficking:

1. When the trafficked person is a child.

6. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies.

 First offense: 6 months of community service as may be determined

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

1. Emergency shelter or appropriate housing.

4. Medical or psychological services.

5. Livelihood and skills training.

6. Educational assistance to a trafficked child.

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.

(a) The original or an authentic copy of either -

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

(d) Such other documents or information in support of the request.

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

Section 20 provides for the procedures for provisional arrest:

RA 10591 COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

Some Notable Features of the New Law

edmund b. pagharion @no rights reserved I

A—Offenses relating to acquisition or possession:

(1) Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms;

(2) Unlawful acquisition or possession of ammunition;

(3) Unlawful acquisition or possession of major parts of a firearm;

B—Offenses relating to manufacture, importation or sale: