(Collated) - STMA and Robbery

INTRODUCTION
As the country adopts high technological ways to cope with the damage brought by the
COVID-19, digital payment transactions as well as schemes to make business transactions easier
are being applied. However, along with their benefits are the proliferation of financial crimes. In
this paper, specific financial crimes will be discussed, with the laws penalizing them. Moreover,
the requisite acts to commit those crimes and qualifications for offenders will also be discussed.
This paper will mainly tackle matters involving crimes punished under AMLA and other
financial crimes punished under allied laws. Moreover, cases for each crime will be provided.
On the Rise: Crimes & Offenses Covered by AMLA (as amended) and Other Allied Laws
I. ECONOMIC CRIMES & THE LAWS GOVERNING THEM
Some Filipinos resort to unlawful activities for personal or professional gain at the expense
of innocent people. Some commit “economic crimes”, also known as “financial crimes” with the
element of fraud in the act. Below are some of the economic crimes in the Philippines with the
corresponding provisions and penalties therefor.
Economic Crimes Philippine Laws/Acts Penalties

Penalizing the Crime/Offence
Fraud: 1) Article 315 on The following penalties shall apply:
1) Swindling/Estafa Swindling/Estafa of the
2) Violation of Revised Penal Code (Penal 1) For acts committed which constitute estafa: penalty depends
Access Devices Code) on the amount involved and ranges from imprisonment of one
Law 2) Access Devices Law month and one day to 20 years.
3) Violation of (Republic Act No 8484). 2) For violations of the prohibited acts under the Access Devices
Cybercrime Act 3) Cybercrime Prevention Act Law: penalty depends on the actual act committed and ranges
related to fraud (Cybercrime Act). from a fine of PHP10,000 or twice the value obtained from
4) Violation of the 4) National Internal Revenue the offence (whichever is greater) and imprisonment of ten to
Tax Code in Code (Tax Code). 20 years.
connection with 3) For computer-related fraud under the Cybercrime Act: penalty
fraud is imprisonment of six to 12 years and/or fine of at least
PHP200,000.
For swindling committed through the use of information and

communications technologies under the Cybercrime Act:
penalty is one degree higher than the penalty prescribed under
the Penal Code (and will depends on the amount involved).
Under the Cybercrime Act, corporations are fined the
equivalent of at least double the amount of fine imposed on
individuals, up to a maximum of PHP10 million, if
 the act is knowingly committed on behalf of, or for
the benefit of, the corporation by an individual
who has a leading position within the corporation;
and
 the act falls within the scope of authority of such
individual.
4) For violations of the Tax Code in connection with fraud:
penalty depends on the actual act committed and ranges from
a fine of PHP10,000 to PHP100,000 and imprisonment of one
to ten years.
For corporations, the Tax Code provides that the penalties will apply to
the corporation's officers or employees who committed the offence.
Bribery and corruption: 1) Article 210 and 211 on 1. For violations of the Penal Code (direct or indebt bribery), the
Bribery of the Revised Penal private person who gave the gift or promise may be held liable
1) Direct bribery Code. for the crime of "corruption of public officials". The penalty
2) Indirect bribery 2) Anti-graft and Corrupt imposed, which is imprisonment ranging from two to 12
Practices Act (Republic Act years, depends on the gravity of the offence or the value of the
No 3019). gift.
3) Code of Conduct and Ethical 2. For violations of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the
Standards for Public Officials penalties are imprisonment of between one to ten years for
and Employees (Republic Act both the public officer and private individual, and a fine of
No 6713) (Ethical Standards between PHP100 to PHP1,000 for certain violations.
Act). 3. For violations of the Ethical Standards Act (disclosure and/or
4) Presidential Decree No. 46 misuse of confidential information/engaging in the private
(PD 46), which governs the practice of profession by certain public officials), the penalties
giving of gifts to public are either a fine not exceeding six months' salary of the public
officers. official or suspension not exceeding one year, or a fine not
5) Ease of Doing Business and exceeding PHP5,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding five
Efficient Government Service years.
Delivery Act (Republic Act 4. For violations of PD 46, the penalties are imprisonment of
No 11032) (Ease of Doing between one to five years for the private individual and the
2
Business Act). public officer, and perpetual disqualification from public

office, suspension and/or removal for the public officer.
5. For violations of the Ease of Doing Business Act, the
penalties are dismissal from service, perpetual disqualification
from holding public office and forfeiture of retirement
benefits, and imprisonment of one to six years, and fine of
PHP500,000 to PHP2 million.
Money laundering Anti-money Laundering Act (Republic The penalty for money laundering varies depending on the way in which
Act 9160 as amended by Republic Acts the offence is committed.
9194, 10167 and 10365) (AMLA) and its
2018 Implementing Rules and For a person convicted of money laundering under the AMLA, the
Regulations of AMLA (AMLA Rules) penalties are imprisonment ranging from six months to 14 years and fines
of PHP100,000 to PHP3 million.
Without prejudice to the filing of criminal charges, the AMLC can also
impose administrative sanctions, including monetary penalties (which
must not be more than PHP500,000), a warning or reprimand, upon any
covered person, its directors, officers, employees or any other person for
violations of the AMLA or for failure or refusal to comply with AMLC
orders, resolutions and other issuances.
Terrorist financing Terrorism Financing Prevention and The penalties for the financing of terrorism are imprisonment of 12 years
Suppression Act (Republic Act 10168) or more and fines PHP500,000 to PHP1 million.
(TF Suppression Act) and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the TF Suppression Act (TF Suppression
Rules)
Cartel offences Competition Act (Republic Act No With respect to criminal liability, an entity that enters into any anti-
10667) competitive agreement will be subject to imprisonment of two to seven
years, and a fine of PHP50 million to PHP250 million. The law imposes
the penalty of imprisonment on the company's officers, directors, or
employees holding managerial positions, who are knowingly and
willfully responsible for the violation when juridical entities are involved
(section 30, Competition Act).
II. THE AMENDMENT OF “ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001”
Last 29 January 2021, President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Republic Act No. 11521,
known as “An Act Further Strengthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law”, which amended the
Republic Act No. 9160, otherwise known as “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001”. The
purpose of these amendments is to give authorities more power to chase after those guilty of
money laundering. Also, it aims to expand the covered persons not just penalizing those who
committed the act of money laundering, but even the act of breaching the confidentiality of
information.
Below is the table that presents the summary of the amendments in the new law on Anti-
Money Laundering.
Anti-Money Laundering Act An Act Further Strengthening the

of 2001 Anti-Money Laundering Law
(RA No. 9160) (RA No. 11520)
3
Declaration of Policy It states that the State has to protect and Aside from the Declaration Policy from
preserve the integrity and confidentiality of the old AMLA, it added the
bank accounts; that the Philippines shall not implementation of financial sanctions to
be used as a money-laundering site for the those who will finance the proliferation of
proceeds of any unlawful activity; and the weapons for mass destructions, terrorism,
State shall be cooperative in the and financing of terrorism.
investigations and prosecutions of persons
involved in money laundering activities.
Covered Persons a. banks and institutions regulated It added the:

and supervised by the Bangko a. real estate developers,
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); b. offshore gaming operations, and
b. insurance companies and those regulated and supervised
institutions supervised by the by the Philippine Amusement
Insurance Commission; and Gaming Corporation
c. entities that manage and secure or (PAGCOR).
render services as investment
agents, advisors, or consultants;
d. those who are into mutual funds
and investment companies;
e. those who are into foreign
exchange, remittance, and transfer
companies; and
f. those who are into monetary or
property businesses supervised and
regulated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).
Covered Transactions More than P4,000,000.00 transaction or an More than P500,000.00 transaction or
equivalent amount in foreign currency other equivalent monetary instrument;
more than P5,000,000.00 or its equivalent
in other currency for a single casino cash
transaction; and more than P7,500,000.00
or its equivalent other currency for real
estate developers and brokers.
Unlawful Activities a. kidnapping for ransom It added the:

b. importation and sale of drugs, a. Violations of “Strategic Trade
maintaining a den for drugs, Management Act” in the
manufacture and possession of proliferation of weapons used
drugs, and cultivation of plants for for mass destruction and
the manufacture of drugs terrorism, and financing
c. corruption practices terrorists.
d. plunder b. Willful misrepresentation and
e. robbery and extortion fraud on the part of taxpayer.
f. illegal gambling c. United Nations Security
g. piracy on the high seas Council Res. Nos. 1718 of 2006
h. qualified theft and 2231 of 2015.
i. swindling d. Violation of Sec. 254 of Ch. II,
j. smuggling Title X of the National Internal
k. violations of E-Commerce Act Revenue Code of 1997.
2000
l. hijacking, arson and murder
m. violations of the Securities
Regulation Code of 2000
n. felonies or offenses of a similar
nature that are punishable under the
penal laws of other countries.
Creation of Anti-Money The functions of AMLC are: It added the:

Laundering Council a. To require and receive reports from a. The issuance of search and
4
(AMLC) covered institutions. seizure order with any

b. To issue orders to determine the competent court.
identity of suspected covered b. The issuance of subpoena.
person. c. To implement targeted financial
c. To institute civil forfeiture transactions in relation to
proceedings. proliferation of weapons of
d. To file complaints with the DOJ or mass destruction and for
Ombudsman. terrorism.
e. To initiate investigations of d. To preserve, manage or dispose
covered transactions. of assets.
f. To freeze any monetary
instruments covered by the
unlawful act.
g. To counteract money laundering.
h. To assist foreign states in their
anti-money laundering operations.
i. To develop educational programs
about money laundering.
j. To enlist the assistance of various
institutions in undertaking anti-
money laundering operations.
Information Security and 3-8 years of imprisonment and a fine not less It added the:
Confidentiality than P500,000.00 but not more than a. penalty for a public official or
P1,000,000.00 for breach of confidentiality. employee such as perpetual or
temporary absolute
disqualification from public
office.
b. Liability for the media who will
publish any related event which
falls under breach of
confidentiality.
Freezing Monetary Freeze order of the account for a period not Freeze order of the account for a period of
Instrument or Property exceeding 15 days. 20 days and not exceed 6 months.
Forfeiture Provisions This act explains the civil forfeiture, claim on It added that only the Court of Appeals
forfeiture assets, and payment in lieu of and the Supreme Court can issue a
forfeiture. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
against any provisional asset preservation
order.
Penal Provisions a. Sec. 4(a) violator: It added the penal provision for breach of
7-14 years of imprisonment and a security and confidentiality:
fine not less than P3,000,000.00 a. penalty for a public official or
but not more than twice the value employee such as perpetual or
of money or property involved in temporary absolute
the offense. disqualification from public
b. Sec. 4(b) violator: office.
4-7 years of imprisonment and a b. liability for the media who will
fine not less than P1,500,000.00 publish any related event which
but not more than P3,000,000.00 falls under breach of
c. Sec. 4(c) violator: confidentiality.
6 months to 4 years of
imprisonment and a fine not less
than P100,000.00 but not more
than P500,000.00.
d. Penalties to keep records:
6 months to 1 year of
imprisonment and a fine not less
than P100,000.00 but not more
5
than P500,000.00.
e. Malicious Reporting:
6 months to 4 years imprisonment
and a fine not less than
P100,000.00 but not more than
P500,000.00.
- Corporation: penalty is for the

officers involved
- Juridical person: suspension or
revocation of license.
- Alien: deportation without further
proceedings.
- Public official or employee:
perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office.
Section 20 of the Act The AMLC shall be provided with an initial The AMLC shall not be allowed to
appropriation of P25,000,000.00. participate in any operations of the BIR
on investigations related to violations of
Sec. 254 of NIRC.
The Comparison of the Old and New AMLA, as Amended
The amended law (R.A. No. 11521) added financial sanctions to those who will be
proven to support the proliferation of weapons used in terrorism financially. The offshore
gaming operations similar to those operated or regulated by the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) or other government agencies were added as covered persons
by R.A. No. 11521.The new law covers those who will have a transaction over a single
transaction of P500,000.00 in one banking day, from the P4,000,000.00 single, series or
combination of transactions as stated in R.A. No. 9160. The amount covered by this new law is
in excess of P5,000,000.00 for the casino transaction, and in excess of P75,000,000.00 for the
real estate developers and brokers’ single transaction. Also, “suspicious transactions”, regardless
of the amounts involved, were enumerated to the new law that may be investigated by the Anti-
Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
The amendment provides the additional unlawful activities, such as violations of

“Strategic Trade Management Act” in the proliferation of weapons used for mass destruction and
terrorism, and financing terrorists; willful misrepresentation and fraud on the part of taxpayer;
United Nations Security Council Resolution Numbers 1718 of 2006 and 2231 of 2015; and the
violation of Section 254 of Chapter II, Title X of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.
The AMLC will be given the power to apply for a search and seizure order and subpoena with
any competent court; to implement financial sanctions to those who will be proven in
6
proliferating weapons for mass destruction; and to manage assets from the freeze order, asset
preservation order, or judgment of forfeiture. The AMLC and its secretariat shall keep all the
obtained information confidential even though they are not affiliated with AMLC anymore. The
15-day freeze order from RA 9160 is then extended to 20 days and shall not exceed six (6)
months as stated in the new AMLA provision.
The R.A. No. 11521 added another paragraph stating that only the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court can issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of injunction against
any provisional asset preservation order. The new AMLA provided a penal provision for those
public officials or employees who will breach information security and confidentiality. The
penalty is perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification from the public office, and the media
shall be liable for the same breach of confidentiality. Section 20 was amended whereby from the
previous Act, the AMLC shall beprovided by the national government an amount of
P25,000,000.00 for its initial appropriation while the amended provision in R.A. No. 11521
states that the AMLC shall not be allowed to participate in the operation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR), but they are allowed to coordinate with the BIR for the investigations of
violations of Sec 254 of National Internal Revenue Code.
III. ALLIED LAWS OF AMLA
Money laundering is a component of different financial crimes wherein the perpetrator

conceals the identity of his illegally obtained monetary instruments or properties in order to
make them appear from legitimate sources. Below are some of the laws that cover financial
crimes as mentioned in the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001” and the law that amended it,
the “An Act Further Strengthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law”.
To recap, these are the predicate crimes/offenses under AMLA: a) kidnapping for
ransom, b) importation and sale of drugs, maintaining a den for drugs, manufacture and
possession of drugs, and cultivation of plants for the manufacture of drugs, c corruption
practices, d) plunder, e) robbery and extortion, f) illegal gambling, g) piracy on the high seas, h)
qualified theft, i) swindling, j) smuggling, k) violations of E-Commerce Act 2000, l) hijacking,
arson and murder, m) violations of the Securities Regulation Code of 2000, n) felonies or
7
offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal laws of other countries. It added
the: a) Violations of “Strategic Trade Management Act” in the proliferation of weapons used for
mass destruction and terrorism, and financing terrorists, b) Willful misrepresentation and fraud
on the part of taxpayer, c) United Nations Security Council Res. Nos. 1718 of 2006 and 2231 of
2015, d) Violation of Sec. 254 of Ch. II, Title X of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997.
Below are some of the laws that cover the abovementioned predicate crimes under the
“Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001” and the law that amended it, the “An Act Further
Strengthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law”.
1. United Nation Security Council Resolution 1373
Provisions of the Resolution in Connection with AMLA
(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
(b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in
their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to
carry out terrorist acts;
(c) Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to
commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled
directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons
and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such
persons and associated persons and entities;
(d) Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets or
economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who
commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or
controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of
such persons.
The Provisions of the UNSCR 1373
Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating
in any terrorist act in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory
directed towards the commission of such acts. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 calls upon
all states to find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information,
especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified
travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications
technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass
destruction by terrorist groups (Section 3 (a) of UN Security Council Resolution 1373).
8
Concerning the close connection between international terrorism and transnational

organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement
of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard
emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and
international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to
international security (Section 4 of UN Security Council Resolution 1373).
Provision of Penalty on the part of its Signatory states: The above-mentioned states must
ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of
terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any
other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in
their domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such
terrorist acts (Section 2(e) of UN Security Council Resolution 1373). Hence, the domestic laws
of the respective states must provide for the penalty to ensure the punishment against the
perpetrators.
2. The Securities Regulation Code of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8799)
Provisions Unlawful Acts Penalty
(i) By effecting any transaction in such security which

(a) To create a false or involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof;
misleading appearance of
active trading in any listed (ii) By entering an order or orders for the purchase or
security traded in an sale of such security with the knowledge that a
Exchange of any other simultaneous order or orders of substantially the same
trading market (hereafter size, time and price, for the sale or purchase of any such
referred to purposes of this security, has or will be entered by or for the same or
Chapter as "Exchange") different parties; or
(iii) By performing a similar act where there is no

change in beneficial ownership.
(i) Raises their price to induce the purchase of a Sec. 4(a) violator:
security, whether of the same or a different class of the 7-14 years of imprisonment
same issuer or of controlling, controlled, or commonly and a fine not less than
controlled company by others; P3,000,000.00 but not more
(b) To affect, alone or with than twice the value of
others, a securities or (ii) Creates active trading to induce such a purchase or money or property involved
transactions in securities sale through manipulative devices such as marking the in the offense.
that: close, painting the tape, squeezing the float, hype and
dump, boiler room operations and such other similar
devices. Sec. 4(b) violator:
9
(c) To circulate or 4-7 years of imprisonment

disseminate information and a fine not less than
that the price of any P1,500,000.00 but not more
security listed in an than P3,000,000.00
Exchange will or is likely to
rise or fall because of
manipulative market
operations of any one or
more persons conducted
for the purpose of raising
or depressing the price of
the security for the purpose
of inducing the purpose of
sale of such security.
(d) To make false or

misleading statement with
respect to any material
fact, which he knew or had
reasonable ground to
believe was so false or
misleading, for the purpose
of inducing the purchase or
sale of any security listed
or traded in an Exchange.
(e) To effect, either alone

or others, any series of
transactions for the
purchase and/or sale of any
security traded in an
Exchange for the purpose
of pegging, fixing or
stabilizing the price of such
security; unless otherwise
allowed by this Code or by
rules of the Commission.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under SRC of 2000, and Its Penalty under AMLA
This act provides that “The State shall establish a socially conscious, free market that
regulates itself, encourage the widest participation of ownership in enterprises, enhance the
democratization of wealth, promote the development of the capital market, protect investors,
ensure full and fair disclosure about securities, minimize if not totally eliminate insider trading
and other fraudulent or manipulative devices and practices which create distortions in the free
market. To achieve these ends, this Securities Regulation Code is hereby enacted.”
In the case of Security and Exchange Commission vs. Oudine Santos, G.R. No. 195542,
an investment scam was exposed with the disappearance of its primary perpetrator Liew, a self–
styled financial guru and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Performance Investment
Products Corporation (PIPC–BVI), a foreign corporation registered in the British Virgin Islands.
10
To do business in the Philippines, PIPC–BVI incorporated herein as Philippine International

Planning Center Corporation (PIPC Corporation). Because the head of PIPC Corporation had
gone missing and with it the monies and investment of a significant number of investors, the
SEC was flooded with complaints from 31 individuals against PIPC Corporation, its directors,
officers, employees, agents and brokers for alleged violation of certain provisions of the SRC,
including Section 28 thereof. Santos was charged in the complaints in her capacity as investment
consultant of PIPC Corporation, who supposedly induced private complainants Lorenzo and Sy,
to invest their monies in PIPC Corporation. On her defense, Santos alleged that she was merely
an employee of PIPC thus should not be personally liable.
The issue in the case at bar, was whether or not Santos violated Sec. 28 of SRC which
punishes unregistered brokers or dealers who engage in business of buying or selling securities.
Here, Supreme Court held that there was no question that Santos was in the employ of
PIPC Corporation and/or PIPC–BVI, a corporation which sold or offered for sale unregistered
securities in the Philippines. To escape probable culpability, Santos claims that she was a mere
clerical employee of PIPC Corporation and/or PIPC–BVI and was never an agent or salesman
who actually solicited the sale of or sold unregistered securities issued by PIPC Corporation
and/or PIPC–BVI. Solicitation is the act of seeking or asking for business or information; it is
not a commitment to an agreement. Santos, by the very nature of her function as what she now
unaffectedly calls an information provider, brought about the sale of securities made by PIPC
Corporation and/or PIPC–BVI to certain individuals, specifically private complainants Sy and
Lorenzo by providing information on the investment products of PIPC Corporation and/or PIPC–
BVI with the end in view of PIPC Corporation closing a sale. While Santos was not a signatory
to the contracts on Sy’s or Lorenzo’s investments, Santos procured the sale of these unregistered
securities to the 2 complainants by providing information on the investment products being
offered for sale by PIPC Corporation and/or PIPC–BVI and convincing them to invest therein.
3. Strategic Trade Management Act (Violation of Section 19 (a)(3) of Republic Act No. 10697)
Provision Unlawful Acts Penalty
Section 19 (a) (3) To engage in any activity prohibited by, Sec. 4(a) violator:
11
or in contravention of, any orders or 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
regulations issued by the NSC-STMCom less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
to implement the provisions of this Act. twice the value of money or property
involved in the offense.
Sec. 4(b) violator:

4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
less than P1,500,000.00 but not more than
P3,000,000.00.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Strategic Trade Management Act, and Its Penalty under AMLA
The Republic Act No. 10697 or known as the “Strategic Trade Management Act
(STMA)” is an act for the furtherance of the State to be free from Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) in its territory, consistent with the national interest, to fulfill its international
commitments and obligations, including United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR),
to take and enforce effective measures to establish domestic controls to prevent the proliferation
of WMDs and their means of delivery; and to maintain international peace and security, and
promote economic growth by facilitating trade and investment through the responsible
management of strategic goods and the provision of related services. In line with these, this shall
be implemented in accordance with international standards and best practices.1
Under Section 3 of R.A. No. 10697, this Act shall apply to: a) Any natural or juridical person
operating within the Philippines who engages or intends to engage in the export of strategic
goods from the Philippines, including designated special economic and freeport zones, the
import of strategic goods into the Philippines; or the transit or transshipment of strategic goods
through the territory of the Philippines and the provision of related services; and all Filipino
persons providing these services wherever located; and b) The re-export of strategic goods that
have been imported from the Philippines to a foreign country, and the reassignment of strategic
goods imported from the Philippines to a new end-user in the country of import subject to
authorization under this Act.2
4. Violation of Section 254 of Chapter II, Title X of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997
Provisions Unlawful Act Penalty
1
R.A. No. 10697 (2015)
2
Id.
12
Section 254. Any person who willfully attempts in any Sec. 4(a) violator:
Attempt to Evade or Defeat manner to evade or defeat any tax 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
Tax imposed under this Code or the payment less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
thereof. twice the value of money or property
Sec. 4(b) violator:

P3,000,000.00.
The Provision & Unlawful Act Under Section 254, Chapter II, Title X of NIRC of 1997, and Its Penalty under AMLA
The National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 took effect on January 1, 1998. Such Code
originated from R.A. No. 8424.
In Corona-Castillo v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 220094-95, the Bureau of Internal
Revenue filed in the Department of Justice, a complaint affidavit charging the petitioner with a
violation of Section 255, in relation to Section 254, of the National Internal Revenue Code. It
was alleged that petitioner Corona-Castillo, attempted to evade or defeat tax, as said accused did
not file her annual income tax return for taxable year 2010, which resulted to a basic deficiency
income tax of Five Million Eight Hundred Thirty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Pesos
(P5,830,280.00) for taxable year 2010, exclusive of surcharge and interest, to the damage and
prejudice of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines; and that the petitioner
subsequently failed to file her annual income tax for taxable year 2010, in violation of the
provisions of the same Code.
Petitioner contended that following: (1) contained allegations that were bare conclusions
of law for merely restating the provisions of the NIRC; (2) did not allege the specific facts that
had resulted in her supposed deficiency income tax; (3) failed to state that a prior assessment had
been made pursuant to a valid grant of authority; and (4) did not specify overt acts of fraud. She
claimed that the DOJ erred in filing separate informations for violation of Section 254 and
Section 255 of the NIRC considering that the allegations were based on her single act of
failing to file an income tax return for the taxable year 2010. She questioned the authority of the
BIR officers who filed the criminal complaint because they did not hold the rank equivalent to a
division chief or higher, contrary to Section 7 of the NIRC.
13
The issue in this case was whether or not Petitioner Corona-Castillo should be charged
with the violations of National Internal Revenue Code on the ground that she attempted to evade
or defeat tax.
Here, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting her demurrer. It held
that, without evidence on the likely source of income and the corresponding income derived
therefrom by the accused during the concerned taxable year, the Court casts a serious doubt
as to the veracity of the offenses charged against the accused. The acquisition made by accused
of the La Vista property in 2010 could not conclusively be presumed as arising from her receipts
of undeclared income in 2010 as the consideration involved therein may likewise be
presumed to have been sourced from donations, borrowings and/or from income
subjected to final tax consistent with an accused's right to the presumption of innocence.
It is basic truism that the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt
each element of the crime as its case will rise or fall on the strength of its own evidence, never on
the weakness or even absence of that of the defense. Failing to prove the required quantum of
evidence, the presumption of innocence must prevail and accused should be acquitted.
5. UN Security Council Resolution Number 1718 of 2006 and 2231 of 2015.
UN Security Council Resolution Number 1718 of 2006
All Member States are required to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer to the DPRK of all arms and
related materiel, including small arms and light weapons and their related material.
All Member States are required to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, of items relevant to
nuclear, ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes.
All Member States are required to expel DPRK diplomats, government representatives, other DPRK nationals acting in
a governmental or representative office capacity.
All Member States are required to reduce the number of staff at DPRK diplomatic missions and consular posts and to
restrict the entry into or transit through their territory of DPRK government members and officials
All Member States are required to limit the number of bank accounts (in their territory) to one per DPRK diplomatic
mission and consular post, and one per accredited DPRK diplomat and consular officer.
All Member States are required to inspect cargo destined to or originating from the DPRK or brokered by the DPRK
that is within or transiting their territories.
All Member States are prohibited from leasing, chartering their flagged vessels, aircraft or providing crew services to
the DPRK, designated persons and entities, or any persons or entities whom the Member State determines have assisted
in sanctions evasions or in violation of the resolutions
14
All Member States are prohibited from procuring vessel and aircraft crewing services from the DPRK.
All Member States are required to de-register any vessel that is owned or operated by the DPRK and not to register any
such vessel that is de-registered by another Member State.
All Member States are required to prohibit the provision of bunkering services, such as fuel, supplies, other servicing of
vessels to DPRK vessels if reasonable grounds and information exist that they are carrying prohibited items.
All Member States are required to freeze the assets, funds, and economic resources of the entities of the Government of
the DPRK and Korean Workers’ Party.
All Member States are required to seize and dispose (such as through destruction, rendering inoperable or unusable,
storage or transferring to a State other than originating or destination States for disposal) of prohibited items by the
relevant resolutions in a manner consistent with their international obligations
All Member States are required to prevent the provision of financial services, including bulk cash and gold, the opening
of banking subsidiaries, the provision of public financial support, new commitments for grants, and financial assistance
or concessional loans that could contribute to the DPRK’s prohibited programmes/activities, or to the evasion of
sanctions.
All Member States are prohibited from opening any new branches, subsidiaries and representative offices of DPRK
banks; must close existing branches, subsidiaries and representative offices; and terminate any joint ventures, ownership
interests or correspondent banking relationships with DPRK banks in their territory.
All Member States are required to prohibit public and private financial support from within their territories or by
persons/entities within their jurisdiction for trade with the DPRK, including granting of export credits, guarantees or
insurance to their nationals, or entities involved in such trade.
UN Security Council Resolution Number 2231 of 2015
The Security Council shall take any necessary action to support and improve implementation of the resolution
including: Monitoring implementation of the resolution;
Taking action, as appropriate, to improve its implementation;
Answering enquiries from Member States and international organizations;
Responding appropriately to information regarding alleged actions inconsistent with the resolution;
Undertaking outreach to promote proper implementation of the resolution;
Reviewing and deciding on proposals by States for nuclear-, ballistic missile-, or arms-related transfers to or activities
with Iran.
Granting exemptions to the restrictions.

The Resolutions in UNCSR No. 1718 of 2006 and No. 2231 of 2015
The United Nations Secretariat supports efforts aimed at the non-proliferation and total
elimination of nuclear weapons. The UN supports extending the norms against nuclear weapons,
and in that regard appeals to States that possess nuclear weapons to affirm that a nuclear war
cannot be won and must never be fought. To further the agenda, concrete actions are proposed.
Resolution 1718 (2006) was established on 14 October 2006 to oversee the relevant sanctions
15
measures relating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that it has conducted a
test of a nuclear weapon on 9 October 2006, and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to international efforts aimed at
strengthening the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the danger it poses
to peace and stability in the region and beyond.
Resolution 2231 also contains a list of time bound restrictions or transfers with Iran. The
restrictions in its “Annex B” will apply for various periods of time (listed below), or until the
IAEA concludes that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is
earlier:
- 5 years: restrictions on arms-related transfers and travel ban;
- 8 years: restrictions on ballistic missile-related transfers and activities and assets
freeze;
- 10 years: restrictions on nuclear-related transfers and activities (procurement
channel).
6. Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act No. 3815
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall

have lasted more than five days.
Article 267. 2. If it shall have been committed Sec. 4(a) violator:

Kidnapping and Serious simulating public authority. 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
Illegal Detention less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
Any private individual who 3. If any serious physical injuries shall twice the value of money or property
shall kidnap or detain have been inflicted upon the person involved in the offense.
another, or in any other kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill
manner deprive him of his him shall have been made. Sec. 4(b) violator:
liberty. 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
4. If the person kidnapped or detained less than P1,500,000.00 but not more than
shall be a minor, female or a public P3,000,000.00.
officer.
Where the kidnapping or detention was

committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances
above mentioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Article 267 of Act No. 3815, and Its Penalty under AMLA
16
Every parent’s nightmare is losing sight of its child. When someone finds out that their
child is abducted, everything will just be hanging by a thread and that every decision they make
will determine the victim’s fate. Kidnapping affects all countries over the world. It is considered
to be a global problem. Each countries’ government is working hard to ensure that every
perpetrator will be captured and that each case will bring justice. Kidnapping is defined as the
abduction and captivity of a person, typically to obtain a ransom. In kidnapping for ransom, the
kidnappers hold their captives longer in order for them to demand money from the victim's
family or associates and majority of the victims are wealthy people. Throughout the world,
kidnapping for ransom has dramatically increased for the reason that it has become an extremely
profitable form of business transaction to gain a large amount of money.
In the case of People vs. Jonathan Con-Ui and Ramil Maca, GR 205442, December. 11,
2013. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty,
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. Moreover, if the
victim is a minor, or the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting
ransom, the duration of his detention becomes inconsequential. Ransom is the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him
from captivity. A crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention were consummated when the
offender deprived the child victim of her liberty.
This would have the effect of increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph of
Article 267 of the RPC. However, be it noted that death penalty is suspended by the enactment of
Republic Act 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines). The
failure of the offender to receive the ransom money is immaterial. Hence, even though the victim
was released after a few hours from the time the child victim was deprived of liberty, the crime
of kidnapping for ransom was already committed.
In a case where Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima hailed the decision rendered by the
Quezon City Regional Trial Court (QC-RTC) sentencing a woman, who was previously
convicted of kidnap-for-ransom, for violation of Republic Act No. 9160, otherwise known as
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended, and commended Senior Assistant State
Prosecutor (SASP) Merba A. Waga for successfully securing the court's conviction. QC-RTC
Branch 93 Presiding Judge Arthur O. Malabaguio found the accused guilty beyond reasonable
17
doubt, and meted out the penalty of eight (8) years imprisonment and payment of a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Acuatin for violation of Sec. 4 par. (a) of RA 9160,
in relation to Sec. 3 par (i) sub-par. (1) of the same Act. The case stemmed from the filing of
Information on 26 November 2007 by then Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Merba Waga
against Acuatin and Joseph Randy Mendoza for violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act,
which was an offshoot of the kidnap-for-ransom case of a 15-year-old minor. Records showed
that, on or about 23 July 2002, and dates subsequent thereto, accused Acuatin and Mendoza,
knowing that the amount of P250,000.00 involves or relates to a portion of the proceeds of an
unlawful activity, i.e., the kidnapping of the minor, transacted the amount, whereby Acuatin,
upon the instruction of Mendoza, deposited the said amount to her ATM account with the
Philippine National Bank, making it appear that the same originated from legitimate sources, to
the damage and prejudice of the victim and her family.
For the victims, there are many negative consequences of kidnapping, the effects of it are
Psychological Trauma, it is the negative psychological effects of being abducted are huge,
especially for a child. Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) may last
a lifetime and Fear and Lack of Trust, in a society where the incidence of kidnapping is high,
fear limits people's lives and actions. They will always move with caution as they do not know
who might be the next target.
Kidnapping is one of the serious disorders of society today. Kidnapping is considered to

be a global problem with a number of root causes. In order to eliminate this terrible evil, each of
these root causes must be evaluated and addressed severely. There are solutions that may help
reduce the rate of kidnapping. Training Anti-Kidnapping Agents, any country that wants to fight
kidnapping successfully must hire and train capable agents to combat the issue. When law
enforcement agencies are actively involved, the incidence of this crime can be lessened.
Seriously punishments for offenders, Mild punishment for this kind of cases does nothing to
deter criminals. When the government treats kidnappers harshly, fewer abductions will occur.
Job Creation, in generating jobs for citizens, especially for the youth, it can have a huge impact
in the fight against crime. When people are gainfully employed, they do not need to commit
crimes.
7. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Article Two of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)
18
Section 3. Importation or bringing into the

Importation of Prohibited Philippines any prohibited drug.
Drugs
Section 4. Selling, administration, delivery, giving

Sale, Administration, away to another, distribution, dispatching
Delivery, Distribution, and in transit or transporting any prohibited
Transportation of drug, or shall act as a broker in any such Sec. 4(a) violator:
Prohibited Drugs. transactions. 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
twice the value of money or property
Section 5. Maintenance of a Maintaining a den, dive or resort where involved in the offense.
Den, Dive, or Resort for any prohibited drug is used in any form.
Prohibited Drug Users
Sec. 4(b) violator:
Section 7. Manufacturing of any prohibited drug. 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
Manufacture of Prohibited less than P1,500,000.00 but not more than
Drugs P3,000,000.00
Section 8. Possession or use any prohibited drug.

Possession or Use of
Prohibited Drugs
Section 9. Cultivation or culture of Indian hemp,

Cultivation of Plants opium poppy ( papaver somniferum) and
Which are Sources of other plants from which any prohibited
Prohibited Drugs drug may be manufactured.
.The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and Its Penalty under AMLA
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 2019 to cooperate to run after
money launderers who conceal their monetary proceeds from illegal drug activities. Then PDEA
Director General Aaron Aquino stressed that drug lords hide their profits from selling of drugs
and make them appear from legitimate sources. These proceeds are used by the drug lords to buy
their freedom from imprisonment. With that, PDEA and AMLC aim to freeze the assets of the
said drug lords so their operations will stop. In 2018, the PDEA Anti-Money Laundering Desk
(AMLD) referred 75 cases to AMLC for financial investigation. From 2011 to 2018, AMLC has
frozen more than P2 Billion assets due to drug-related cases referred by PDEA AMLD.
8. Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act)
19
officers and employees of offices or

government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
Entering, on behalf of the Government,

into any contract or transaction
Section 3 (g) manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby.
Section 3 (h) Director or indirectly having financing or

pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction in connection with
which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any
law from having any interest.
Section 3 (i) Directly or indirectly becoming

interested, for personal gain, or having a
material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel
or group of which he is a member, and
which exercises discretion in such
approval, even if he votes against the
same or does not participate in the action
of the board, committee, panel or group.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts underAnti-Graft and Corruption, and Its Penalty under AMLA
20
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
In line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of
public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may
lead thereto. Intimately, in Montilla v. Hilario, the Supreme Court described the "offense
committed in relation to the office" as: The relation between the crime and the office
contemplated by the Constitution is direct and not merely accidental. The offense cannot exist
without the office. Anti-graft and Corruption Law bars public officials and employees to make
money conceived from illicit acts and transactions seem innocuous and derived from legitimate
sources.
9. Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 (as amended by RA No. 7659)
Elements of Plunder Penalty
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;
(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or

malversation of public funds or raids on the public Sec. 4(a) violator:
treasury; 7-14 years of imprisonment
and a fine not less than
(b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, P3,000,000.00 but not more
gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of than twice the value of
pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in money or property involved
connection with any government contract or project or by in the offense.
reason of the office or position of the public officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition Sec. 4(b) violator:

of assets belonging to the National Government or any of 4-7 years of imprisonment
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of and a fine not less than
Government owned or controlled corporations or their P1,500,000.00 but not more
2. That he amassed, subsidiaries; than P3,000,000.00
accumulated or acquired
ill-gotten wealth through a (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
combination or series of the indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of
following overt or criminal interest or participation including the promise of future Public official or employee:
acts: employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; perpetual or temporary
21
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial absolute disqualification

monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation from office.
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;
3. That the aggregate

amount or total value of the
ill-gotten wealth amassed,
accumulated or acquired is
at least P50 million.
The Elements of Plunder and Its Penalty under AMLA
As early as 1988, graft and corruption in the Philippines had been considered as the
“biggest problem of all” as declared by Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin. In order to curb this
rampant acts on the part of those engaged in the public service, the R.A. No. 7080 or also known
as the “Plunder” law was enacted. The same was approved on July 12, 1991.
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 148560, it was held therein that Plunder, despite
being craft through a special law, is still considered as a malum in se which requires proof of
criminal intent. 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.
In the context of R.A. No. 7080, "combination" means that at least two of the enumerated
acts found in Section 1(d), i.e., one of any of the enumerated acts, combined with another act
falling under any other of the enumerated means may constitute the crime of plunder; while the
other hand, to constitute a series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling
under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation,
malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1),
as held in the same case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.
22
10. Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 294. Robbery with homicide, robbery with

Robbery with Violence rape, robbery with intentional mutilation,
Against or Intimidation of robbery with arson, robbery with serious
Persons physical injuries, robbery with
unnecessary violence and lastly, simple
robbery.
Article 295. Robbery in an uninhabited place or by a

Robbery with physical band, robbery in moving vehicles, taking
injuries, committed in an the passengers by surprise, robbery on a
uninhabited place and by a street and with firearm to intimidate.
band, or with the use of a Sec. 4(a) violator:
firearm on a street, road or 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
alley. less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
Article 296. The fact that it is committed by 4 armed involved in the offense.
Definition of a band and men is only an aggravating circumstance.
penalty incurred by the Under Art. 296, if a band committed
members thereof. robbery, it is only an aggravating Sec. 4(b) violator:
circumstance. 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
Article 299. With the use of force and taking of P3,000,000.00
Robbery in an inhabited property from dwelling, house, public
house or public building or building; opening not intended for
edifice devoted to worship entrance; by breaking wall, roof, floor,
door or window; by using false keys; by
using fictitious name.
Articles 300, 301, and 302 Robbery in an uninhabited house, public

building or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies; or in a
private building.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Robbery and Extortion, and Their Penalty under AMLA
There are two ways of committing robbery: a) Robbery with violence against or
intimidation against people (Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code); b) Robbery with the use of
force upon things (Article 299). The value of the property taken in robbery with violence against
or intimidation against people is immaterial because the penalty is dependent on the violence
used by the offender against the offended party. However, in Robbery with the use of force upon
things (Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code), the value of the property taken is material
because the penalty is dependent on the value of the property taken.3
In People v. Puno, Mrs. Socorro's time to go home came and so she got into the
Mercedes Benz of her husband with Isabelo, their temporary driver, on the wheel. After the car
3
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
23
turned right in a corner of, it stopped. A young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car
beside the driver. Once inside, Enrique clambered on top of the back side of the front seat and
went onto where Ma. Socorro was seated at the rear. He poked a gun at her. Isabelo, who earlier
told her that Enrique is his nephew announced, "ma'm, you know, I want to get money from
you." She said she has money inside her bag and they may get it just so they will let her go. The
bag contained P7,000.00 and was taken. Further on, the two told her they wanted P100,000.00
more. Ma. Enrique's gun was menacingly storing at her neck. He said he is an NPA and
threatened her. The accused further asked Ma. Socorro to issue a check for P100,000.00. Ma.
Socorro complied. She drafted 3 checks in denominations of two for P30 thousand and one for
P40 thousand. Enrique ordered her to swallow a pill but she refused. Ma. Socorro, according to
her, jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side of the superhighway and, after some
vehicles ignored her, she was finally able to flag down a fish vendors van.4 Accordingly:
The accused is guilty of robbery. It is sufficient that the elements of unlawful taking, with
intent to gain, of personal property through intimidation of the owner or possessor
thereof shall be, as it has been, proved in the case at bar. Furthermore, there must be
indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended
party of her liberty, and not where such restraint of her freedom of action was merely an
incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders. Hence,
the crime committed was robbery (neither highway robbery nor kidnapping for ransom).5
11. Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602
1) Any person other than those referred to

in the succeeding sub-sections who in any
manner, shall directly or indirectly take
part in any illegal or unauthorized
activities or games of cockfighting,
jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing to include
bookie operations and game
fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of
lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang and the
like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black
jack, lucky nine, poker and its
derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajo,
4
People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, 17 February 1993
5
Id.
24
pangguingue and other card games; paik

que, high and low, mahjong, domino and
other games using plastic tiles and the
like; slot machines, roulette, pinball and
other mechanical contraptions and
Section 1 (a) devices; dog racing, boat racing, car
racing and other forms of races,
basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling, Sec. 4(a) violator:
pingpong and other forms of individual or 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
team contests to include game fixing, less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
point shaving and other machinations; twice the value of money or property
banking or percentage game, or any other involved in the offense.
game or scheme, whether upon chance or
skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value or representative Sec. 4(b) violator:
of value are at stake or made. 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
2) Any person who shall knowingly P3,000,000.00
permit any form of gambling referred to
in the preceding subparagraph to be
carried on in inhabited or uninhabited
place or in any building, vessel or other
means of transportation owned or
controlled by him.
Any person who shall, knowingly and

without lawful purpose in any hour of any
day, possess any lottery list, paper or
other matter containing letters, figures,
Section 1 (d) signs or symbols pertaining to or in any
manner used in the games of jueteng, jai-
alai or horse racing bookies, and similar
games of lotteries and numbers which
have taken place or about to take place.
Any barangay official who, with

Section 1 (e) knowledge of the existence of a gambling
house or place in his jurisdiction fails to
abate the same or take action in
connection therewith.
Any security officer, security guard,

watchman, private or house detective of
hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and
Section 1 (f) the like which have the reputation of a
gambling place or where gambling
activities are being held.
Jueteng and Masiao Any person who participates in any

punished as illegal illegal numbers game.
gambling, as amended by
R.A. No. 9287
Section 3
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Jueteng and Masiao (PD No. 1602 & RA No. 9287)
And Its Penalty under AMLA
The Republic Act 9287 served as an amendment to Presidential Decree No. 1602 which
imposes penalties for individuals taking part in illegal gambling activities. RA 9287 increases
25
penalties set in PD 1602 and establishes the Anti-Illegal Gambling Board (AGB). This act also
defines what illegal gambling is and states the kind of games and illegal activities that the AGB
will be combating. RA 9287 will also list the functions and powers of the AGB and give them
authority and responsibility for implementing the new revisions and laws of this act.
Gambling refers to any game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers
consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are at stake or made.
Under RA 9287, Jueteng is an illegal numbers game that involves the combination of
thirty-seven (37) numbers against thirty-seven (37) numbers from number one (1) to thirty seven
(37) or the combination of thirty-eight (38) numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local
lottery where bets are placed and accepted per combination, and its variants; while Masiao is an
illegal numbers game where the winning combination is derived from the results of the last game
of Jai Alai or the Special Llave portion or any result thereof based on any fictitious Jai Alai game
consisting of ten (10) players pitted against one another, and its variants.
In Fernandez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 232735, accused Fernandez was
charged with violation of RA 9287, for openly engaging in the collection of jueteng bets. He
argued that the absence of photographs taken at the crime scene and the belated marking of the
seized items at the police station rendered the evidence vulnerable to manipulation and
tampering. He further averred that it would be unbelievable for him to openly engage in the
collection of jueteng bets specifically at the public market and in the presence of PO1 Jhordan B.
Sarzaba (PO1 Sarzaba), whom he knew as a policeman.|||However, the Supreme Court still
convicted Jessie Fernandez of the said violation, on the ground that he failed to show that the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38675 committed any reversible error in affirming||
the decision of the Trial Court.
Further, as held in Encarnacion v. People, G.R. No. 48227, the proof that the game took
place or is about to take place is not necessary.
26
12. Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No. 532
Attack or seize a vessel on the high seas

or in the Philippine waters Sec. 4(a) violator:
PD. No. 532 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
Seize the whole or part of the cargo of less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
said vehicles, its equipment or personal twice the value of money or property
belongings of its complement or involved in the offense.
passengers
Sec. 4(b) violator:

P3,000,000.00
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under PD No. 532, and Its Penalty under AMLA
Piracy according to Presidential Decree No. 532 is any attack upon or seizure of any
vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be
considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter
provided.
Under the amended article, piracy can only be committed by a person who is not a
passenger nor member of the complement of the vessel irrespective of venue. So if a passenger
or complement of the vessel commits acts of robbery in the high seas, the crime is robbery, not
piracy.
However, despite the amendment, P.D. No. 532 may still apply where the offender is not
stranger to the vessel since it provides: “Any attack upon or seize of any vessel, or the taking
away of the whole of part thereof or its cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value hereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy.
The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.” After all,
27
under the Revised Penal Code, for one to be called a pirate, the offender must be a stranger to the
vessel.
While the Article 122 limits the offenders to non-passengers or non-members of the crew,
P.D. 532 states that the attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or taking away the whole or part
thereof or its cargo, equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
committed by any person including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel
shall be considered Piracy.
13. Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code
The crime of theft, if committed by a

domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
Article 310. confidence, Sec. 4(a) violator:
Qualified Theft 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
mail matter twice the value of money or property
or large cattle
or consists of coconuts taken from the Sec. 4(b) violator:

premises of the plantation 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, P3,000,000.00
or if property is taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption,
or any other calamity, vehicular accident
or civil disturbance.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Art. 310, and Its Penalty under AMLA
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Delos Santos, GR 220685, November 29,
2017, it stated the following elements that must be present in order for qualified theft to exist:
The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310, in relation to Articles 308 and 309,
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows: (a) the taking of personal property (b) the said
property belongs to another (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain (d) it be done without
the owner’s consent (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, nor of force upon things and (j) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in
Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. It has been held that the gist of the
offense is the intent to deprive another of his property in a chattel, either for gain or out of
wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the thing taken. This cannot be where the
28
taker honestly believes the property is his own or that of another, and that he has a right to take
possession of it for himself or for another. Another case is the People of the Philippines vs
Belen Mejares y Valencia, GR 225735, January 10, 2018 wherein the court held that intent to
gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the
offender of the thing subject of asportation. Thus actual gain is irrelevant as the important
consideration is the intent to gain. It can be seen that the main difference between theft and
qualified theft is the element of abuse of confidence by the offender which if present, turns the
crime of a simple theft into qualified theft. In addition, the penalty for the latter is set to be
higher from a simple theft.
Theft may not be able to be totally prevented but it can definitely be reduced if
precautions are taken. Some ways to prevent simple and qualified theft. One of the most
common form of security are cameras. Using security cameras is not only one of the least costly
ways to prevent any type of theft but also one commonly used and often successful form of
security. Internal controls can prevent employee Theft. Internal controls are simple policies that
segregate duties and implement safeguards that make it harder for employees to steal. Often,
when strict internal controls are implemented and working properly, it takes collusion between
two or more employees to facilitate a theft scheme. Keeping a virtual eye on the people in the
household or the neighborhood. People will be less likely to steal if they know that they are
always being watched. Preventing theft by outsiders by installing alarm systems. This might
include sensors at doors, windows and other places of entry, as well as motion detectors.
Determine local regulations concerning alarms and options for a system tied to a monitoring
service. For preventing insider crimes. Implementing tight accounting controls that include
frequent audits and taking steps to ensure employees or people in the household are aware of
these practices. In addition, establish a policy that enables them to report thefts and other crimes
committed by co-workers without fear of exposure or reprisal. Modeling positive behavior by
emphasizing values and make sure those values are practiced. In taking precautions it can deter
criminals from such criminal acts.
14. Swindling under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
29
By altering the substance, quantity or quality or anything of value

which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do
so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another,

money, goods, or any other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission , or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of
With unfaithfulness or or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or
abuse of confidence: partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received
such money, goods, or other property.
By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party

in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in Sec. 4(a) violator:
blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any third 7-14 years of
person. imprisonment and a fine
not less than
By using fictitious name, or false pretending to possess power, P3,000,000.00 but not
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or more than twice the value
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. of money or property
By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining
to his art or business.
Sec. 4(b) violator:
By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without 4-7 years of
By means of false prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may imprisonment and a fine
pretenses or deem proper to bring against the offender. not less than
fraudulent acts P1,500,000.00 but not
executed prior to or By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an more than P3,000,000.00
simultaneously with obligation when the offender therein was not sufficient to cover
the commission of the the amount of the check.
fraud:
By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel
and the like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the
proprietor or manager thereof; or by obtaining credit at a hotel
and the like by the use of any false pretense; or by abandoning or
removing any part of his baggage from a hotel and the like after
obtaining credit and the like without paying for it.
By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a

Through any of the gambling game.
following fraudulent
means: By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any
court record, office files, document or any other papers.
Table 15.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under Swindling/Estafa, and Its Penalty under AMLA
The crime of Swindling or Estafa is punishable under the Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code. It can be committed through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts, and through fraudulent means. The AMLC investigated money
laundering cases related to estafa. In the case of Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation vs.
Manu Gidwani, only Gidwani was the beneficial owner of the 471 bank accounts of the 86
30
individual depositors. These individual owners were asked to use Gidwani’s office or business
address in their respective accounts, thus, was used as dummies for the respondent’s own
purpose in increasing his deposit. With that, the respondent Manu Gidwani was charged with
estafa through falsification under Art. 315 2(a) of the RPC and for money laundering according
to Sec. 4(a) of RA No. 9160.
15. Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and 1937
Any person who shall fraudulently or

RA Nos. 455 and 1937 knowingly import or bring into the Sec. 4(a) violator:
Philippines, or assist in so doing, any 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
merchandise, contrary to law, or shall less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any twice the value of money or property
manner facilitate the transportation, involved in the offense.
concealment, or sale of such merchandise
after importation, knowing the same to
have been imported contrary to law. Sec. 4(b) violator:
P3,000,000.00
Table 16.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under RA No. 455 and 1937, and Its Penalty under AMLA
Preventing smuggling reduces the quantity of Money Laundering incidents, because if

imported items or properties are legally assessed and documented in relation to their value and
origin nefarious persons will be in difficulty to inflate the worth or alter the same anyhow to their
malevolent advantage and to the prejudice of the hapless victim, in which most cases one of the
victims include the Government.
16. Violations under Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000
a) Hacking or cracking which refers to

unauthorized access into or interference
Section 33 (a) in a computer system/server or
information and communication system;
or any access in order to corrupt, alter,
Sec. 4(a) violator:
steal, or destroy using a computer or other
similar information and communication
devices, without the knowledge and
consent of the owner of the computer or
information and communication system,
including the introduction of computer
viruses and the like, resulting in the
31
corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or Sec. 4(b) violator:

loss of electronic data messages 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
or electronic documents. less than P1,500,000.00 but not more than
P3,000,000.00
b) Piracy or the unauthorized copying,
reproduction, dissemination, distribution,
Section 33 (b) importation, use, removal, alteration,
substitution, modification, storage,
uploading, downloading, communication,
making available to the public, or
broadcasting of protected
material, electronic signature or
copyrighted works including legally
protected sound recordings or
phonograms or information material on
protected works, through the
use of telecommunication networks, such
as, but not limited to, the internet, in a
manner that infringes intellectual property
rights.
Violations of the Consumer Act or
Republic Act No. 7394 and other relevant
Section 33 (c) or pertinent laws through transactions
covered by or using electronic data
messages or electronic documents.
.The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under E-Commerce Act of 2000, and Its Penalty under AMLA
President Joseph E. Estrada signed into law R.A. 8792 "An Act Providing For The
Recognition And Use of Electronic Commercial And Non-Commercial Transactions, Penalties
For Unlawful Use Thereof, And Other Purposes, also known as the "Electronic Commerce Act."
on June 14, 2000 and became effective on June 19, 2000.
The Supreme Court held in MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong

Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, that R.A. No. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act of
2000) considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional
equivalent of a written document for evidentiary purposes. The Rules on Electronic
Evidence regards an electronic document as admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules
on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws, and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by the said Rules. An electronic document is also the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule, if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic
data message or to be considered as the functional equivalent of an original document under the
32
Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an "electronic data message" or an "electronic
document."
Here, facsimile transmissions was held by the Supreme Court as not considered
"electronic data message" or "electronic document" despite respondent Ssangyong’s contention
that based on R.A. No. 8792 and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the original facsimile
transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic document
and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and the Rules; while the MCC contended that the
photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented by Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their
supposed contract of sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R.A.
No. 8792, because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal.
17. Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235
1) compel the pilot of an aircraft of

Philippine registry to change course or
destination;
2) Compel an aircraft of foreign registry

to land in Philippine territory
Section 1.
It shall be unlawful for any 3) Seize or usurp the control thereof,
person to: while it is in flight; and
An aircraft is in flight from the moment Sec. 4(a) violator:

all its external doors are closed following 7-14 years of imprisonment and a fine not
embarkation until any of such doors is less than P3,000,000.00 but not more than
opened for disembarkation. twice the value of money or property
It shall be unlawful for any person,
natural or juridical, to ship, load or carry
in any passenger aircraft operating as a Sec. 4(b) violator:
public utility within the Philippines, and 4-7 years of imprisonment and a fine not
explosive, flammable, corrosive or less than P1,500,000.00 but not more than
poisonous substance or material. P3,000,000.00
Section 3 🡪 the shipping, loading or carrying of any
substance or material mentioned in the
preceding in any cargo aircraft operating
as a public utility within the Philippines
shall be in accordance with regulations
issued by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration.
The shipping, loading or carrying of any

substance or material mentioned in the
33
preceding section in any cargo aircraft

operating as a public utility within the
Section 4 Philippines shall be in accordance with
regulations issued by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration.
The Provisions & Unlawful Acts under RA No. 6235,, and Its Penalties under AMLA
The act of the accused in People v. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil 475, who compelled the pilot
to change the course of the airplane from Laoag to Amoy insisted of directing it to Aparri, and in
not complying with such illegal recruitment, the accused discharged various revolver shots,
killing him, could have been punished under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6235 had this law been
already in effect, since the said incident transpired in 1952 and R.A. No. 6235 was approved on
June 19, 1971.
IV. CONCLUSION
The increasing number of financial crimes has been consistent in our country. The
Republic of the Philippines, as a parens patriae, our State, came up with penal laws in order to
eradicate those crimes. Whereby to protect its citizens from wrongful acts and from wrongdoers,
several laws were developed. From this, gradually, our country can achieve a more peaceful
environment. This, however, seems impossible for others, but as stated above, several laws
govern these financial crimes. Specifically, under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001
(AMLA, as amended), it created the Anti-money Laundering Council (AMLC). The act
mandated AMLC to investigate money laundering and other violations of the act in order to
protect the integrity and confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall
not be used as money laundering site for the proceeds of any unlawful activity. From these
simple steps, our country, in collaboration with our domestic laws and other international laws,
can provide a safer place for its people.
Under the utilitarian theory, the "protective theory" in criminal law, it affirms that “the
primary function of punishment is the protective of society against actual and potential
wrongdoers." It can be safely said that the actuations of those who commit crimes, specifically
financial crimes, amount to that of potential wrongdoers whose operations should be clipped at
34
some point in time in order that the unwary public will not be falling prey to such a vicious
transaction.
Reference:
An act defining the crime of money laundering, providing penalties therefore and for other purposes (n.d).. Republic
of the Philippines Anti-Money Laundering Council. Retrieved from http://www.amlc.gov.ph/laws/money-
laundering/2015-10-16-02-50-56/republic-act-9160#:~:text=Declaration%20of%20Policy.,proceeds%20of%20any
%20unlawful%20activity.
An Act Further Strengthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9160,
otherwise Known As the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001”, As Amended. The Lawphil Project. Retrieved
from https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11521_2021.html
ANTI MONEY-LAUNDERING COUNCIL. “Rationale for enacting the law” Retrieved April 3, 2021
https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Kidnapping-Overview-Causes-Effects-and-Solutions
Caliwan, C.L. (2019 March 5). PDEA, AMLC beef up drive vs. drug money launderers. Philippine News Agency.
Retrieved from
https://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php/articles/1063662
Duterte signs law strengthening anti-money laundering regulations. (2021 January 29). Businessworld. Retrieved
from
https://www.bworldonline.com/duterte-signs-law-strengthening-anti-money-laundering-regulations/
ENTREPRENEUR. “6 tips to reduce employee theft” Retrieved April 3, 2021

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/229816
https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/12/08/legal-advice/dearpao/qualified-theft/806448/
INSURANCE INFORMATION INSTITUTE. “Steps to reduce your vulnerability to theft” Retrieved April 3, 2021
https://www.iii.org/article/steps-to-reduce-your-vulnerability-to-theft
JCROGERSCPA. “Internal Protocols'' Retrieved April 3, 2021

https://jcrogerscpa.com/Internal%20Controls.html#:~:text=Internal%20controls%20are%20simple%20policies,to
%20facilitate%20a%20theft%20scheme.
MAJORTESTS. “Theft Essays” Retrieved April 3, 2021

https://www.majortests.com/essay/Theft-582750.html
MANILATIMES. “Qualified Theft” Retrieved April 3, 2021

https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/12/08/legal-advice/dearpao/qualified-theft/806448/
35
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, GOV’T PHILIPPINES. “Quezon City court convicts woman for money laundering
act” Retrieved April 2, 2021 https://www.doj.gov.ph/news_article.html?newsid=249
UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

https://lawphil.net/international/un/sres_1373_2001.html
OWLCATION. “Kidnapping: Overview, Causes, Effects, and Solutions” Retrieved April 2, 2021
https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Kidnapping-Overview-Causes-Effects-and-Solutions
THE MANILA TIMES. “Kidnapping for ransom” Retrieved April 2, 2021

https://www.manilatimes.net/business/forum/
36

(Collated) - STMA and Robbery

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

(Collated) - STMA and Robbery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION

I. ECONOMIC CRIMES & THE LAWS GOVERNING THEM

Economic Crimes Philippine Laws/Acts Penalties

For swindling committed through the use of information and

Business Act). public officer, and perpetual disqualification from public

II. THE AMENDMENT OF “ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001”

Anti-Money Laundering Act An Act Further Strengthening the

Covered Persons a. banks and institutions regulated It added the:

Unlawful Activities a. kidnapping for ransom It added the:

Creation of Anti-Money The functions of AMLC are: It added the:

(AMLC) covered institutions. seizure order with any

- Corporation: penalty is for the

The amendment provides the additional unlawful activities, such as violations of

III. ALLIED LAWS OF AMLA

Money laundering is a component of different financial crimes wherein the perpetrator

1. United Nation Security Council Resolution 1373

Provisions of the Resolution in Connection with AMLA

(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

Concerning the close connection between international terrorism and transnational

2. The Securities Regulation Code of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8799)

Provisions Unlawful Acts Penalty

(i) By effecting any transaction in such security which

(iii) By performing a similar act where there is no

(c) To circulate or 4-7 years of imprisonment

(d) To make false or

(e) To effect, either alone

To do business in the Philippines, PIPC–BVI incorporated herein as Philippine International

Provision Unlawful Acts Penalty

Sec. 4(b) violator:

Provisions Unlawful Act Penalty

Sec. 4(b) violator:

5. UN Security Council Resolution Number 1718 of 2006 and 2231 of 2015.

UN Security Council Resolution Number 1718 of 2006

UN Security Council Resolution Number 2231 of 2015

Taking action, as appropriate, to improve its implementation;

Answering enquiries from Member States and international organizations;

Undertaking outreach to promote proper implementation of the resolution;

Granting exemptions to the restrictions.

6. Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act No. 3815

Provisions Unlawful Acts Penalty

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall

Article 267. 2. If it shall have been committed Sec. 4(a) violator:

Where the kidnapping or detention was

Kidnapping is one of the serious disorders of society today. Kidnapping is considered to

Provisions Unlawful Acts Penalty

Section 3. Importation or bringing into the

Section 4. Selling, administration, delivery, giving

Section 8. Possession or use any prohibited drug.

Section 9. Cultivation or culture of Indian hemp,

officers and employees of offices or

Entering, on behalf of the Government,

Section 3 (h) Director or indirectly having financing or

Section 3 (i) Directly or indirectly becoming

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Elements of Plunder Penalty

1. That the offender is a

(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or

(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition Sec. 4(b) violator:

(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial absolute disqualification

(f) by taking advantage of official position, authority,

3. That the aggregate

The Elements of Plunder and Its Penalty under AMLA

Provisions Unlawful Acts Penalty