SPECIAL PENAL LAWS PRE-WEEK
THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT-
COMPANION
A foresight to the bar exam
By: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
Professor of Law, SSC-R
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN
GENERAL
1. PROBATION LAW- Presidential
Decree No. 968
2. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW-
Act No. 4103 as amended
3. THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT- Republic Act No.
3019
4. THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002- Republic Act No. 9165
5. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
ANDTHEIR CHILDREN ACT OF
2004- Republic Act No. 9262
6. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW- Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22
7. THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979-
Presidential Decree No. 1612
8. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
FIREARM- PD 1866 as amended
by R.A. 8294
9. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
OF 2001- R.A. NO. 9160 as
amended by R.A. 9194,
R.A. 10167, R.A. 10168 and R.A.
10365, also known as “An Act
Further Strengthening The Anti-
Money Laundering Law”
10. THE ANTI- HAZING LAW
11. HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
(THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAW) -
Republic Act No. 9372
12. THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW –
Republic Act No. 7610
13. THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT-Republic
Act No. 9745
14. THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT
ACT OF 1995- Republic Act No.
7877
15. THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS ACT OF 2003- Republic
Act No. 9208
16. PLUNDER as amended
17.
Republic Act No. 4200
18. THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
ACT OF 2009- Republic Act No.
9775
19. THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO
VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009-
Republic Act No. 9995
20. THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW-
Republic Act No. 9346
21. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
ACT OF 2006 - Republic Act No.
9344
22. HEINOUS CRIME LAW
23. THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-
HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF
1974- Presidential Decree No.
532
24. THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF
1972- Republic Act No. 6539
25. THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW-
Republic Act No. 6235
26. (Amending) THE LAW ON ARSON
-Presidential Decree No. 1613
27. THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW- Republic
Act No. 6085
28. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE-
Presidential Decree No. 1829
____________________________________________
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL
____________________________________________
1. When the crime is punished by a
special law, as a rule, intent to commit
the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the
intent to perpetrate the act prohibited
by the special law.
In intent to commit the crime,
there must be criminal intent; in intent
to perpetrate the act, it is enough that
the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously. (Elenita C. Fajardo vs.
People, G.R. No. 190889, January 10,
2011)
2. Although Republic Act No. 7610 is a
special law, the rules in the Revised
Penal Code for graduating penalties by
degrees or determining the proper
period should be applied. The penalty
for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision
mayor in its minimum period. Although
R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the rules
in the Revised Penal Code for Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560
graduating penalties by degrees or November 19, 2001. Hence, the
determining the proper period should application of mitigating and
be applied. extenuating circumstances in the
Revised Penal Code to prosecute under
3. MALA IN SE and MALA the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite
PROHIBITA. clearly that mens rea is an element of
plunder since the degree of
a. In mala in se, the act
responsibility of the offender is
committed in inherently
determined by his criminal intent. x x x
wrong or immoral; in
mala prohibita, the act
is merely prohibited by
law;
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, ACT
NO. 4103
b. In mala in se, good as amended
faith is a proper
defense; in mala [BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003,
prohibita, good faith is 2002, 1999, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1989,
not a defense; 1988]

c. In mala in se, the

stages of execution
under Article 6 of the -If a special law adopted penalties
Revised Penal Code is from the RPC, ISLAW will apply
considered in arriving at just as it would in felonies.
the proper penalty to be
imposed; in mala
prohibita, they are not; ex. RA 7610 although a special law,
adopted the penalty defined in RPC.
d. In mala in se, the
degree of participation -When ISLAW is not applicable?
1. Offenses punishable by death
of the offenders under
or life
Title Two of the Revised imprisonment.
Penal Code is taken into 2. Those convicted of treason,
consideration on the conspiracy or proposal to
imposition of penalty; in commit treason.
mala prohibita, it is not; 3. Those convicted of misprision
of treason, rebellion, sedition
e. In mala in se, the or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
modifying circumstances
5. Habitual delinquents.
are appreciated in 6. Those who escaped from
determining the penalty confinement or those who
imposable; in mala evaded sentence.
prohibita, they are not; 7. Those granted with
conditional pardon and who
f. In mala in se, violated the terms of the same.
generally, the crimes are 8. Those whose maximum period
punished under the of imprisonment does not
exceed one year.
Revised Penal Code; in
9. Those already serving final
mala prohibita, judgment upon the approval of
generally, the crimes are this Act.
punished under special
penal laws. -The imposition of indeterminate
sentence is mandatory in criminal
4. Special laws which are intended cases.
merely as amendments to certain
-The law is not applicable if the penalty
provisions of the Revised Penal Code
is destierro. Why? It does not involve
are mala in se and still subject to its imprisonment.
provision.
Rules:
5. Plunder is a malum in se which SPL RPC
requires proof of criminal intent as held
in the case of Estrada v
 Maximu -shall not -“That, in (a) promote the correction and
m term exceed view of the rehabilitation of an offender by
the max. attending providing him with individualized
fixed by circumstanc treatment; b) provide an opportunity
law es, could be
for the reformation of a penitent
properly
imposed offender which might be less probable
under the if he were to serve a prison sentence;
rules of the and (c) prevent the commission of
said Code offenses.
Minimum -shall not “with the
term be less range of the
CONSEQUENCE IF THE PROBATIONER
than penalty next
minimum lower to VIOLATES ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OF
fixed by that PROBATION (SEC. 15)
law” prescribed
by the Code. The court may order the arrest of
the probationer, hold an informal
*NOTE: summary hearing and may revoke his
-Rules of offsetting are not applicable probation. In which case, he has to
in crimes punished under a special law. serve the sentence originally imposed.
The presence of any generic
aggravating and ordinary mitigating
-Who are disqualified to avail of the
circumstances will not affect the proper
benefits of Probation?
imposition of the penalty.

-If the maximum term arrived and it 1. sentenced to serve a maximum

does not exceed 1 year, ISLAW will not
apply.
-If the sentence is imprisonment of 12
years and I day in violation of
Comprehensive Drugs Act, the same is
not correct as ISLAW mandates the
Court to set the minimum and
maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence.
May the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority be
appreciated in fixing the penalty
that should be imposed even if the
penalty imposed is originally an
indivisible penalty?
Yes. The ISLAW is applicable
because the penalty which has been
originally an indivisible penalty
(reclusion perpetua to death), where
ISLAW is inapplicable, became a
divisible penalty (reclusion temporal)
by virtue of the presence of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. (People vs. Allen Udtojan
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227: July 20,
2011)
_____________________________________________
PROBATION LAW
[BAR Q. 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2004,
2003, 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1994,
1993, 1992, 1990, 1986]
_____________________________________________
[BAR Q.1986,1989] The purposes of
probation are as follows:
term of imprisonment of more than
6 years.
2. convicted of any crime against
National Security or the Public
Order.
3. Who have previously been
convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment
of not less than one month and one
day and/or a fine of not less than
two hundred pesos.
4. Who have been once on probation
under the provisions of this Decree.
5. Who are already serving sentence
at the time the substantive
provisions of this Decree became
applicable pursuant to Sec. 33
hereof.
6. Who has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction. (Sec. 4)
7. Any person convicted of drug
trafficking or pushing regardless of
the penalty imposed by the Court.
(Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9165)
-If the convict had already perfected an
appeal, an application for probation
cannot be granted.
“No application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction”
-By perfecting an appeal, petitioners
ipso facto relinquished the alternative
remedy of probation.
-Under Sec.4, “the filing of the
application for probation shall be
deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal.”
-A waiver of the right to appeal from a
judgment of
 conviction is NOT a waiver of the civil
liability ex
delicto.
-Probation may be granted whether
the sentence
imposed a term of imprisonment or a
fine only (Sec.
4).
-An order granting or denying
probation shall not be
appealable.
-Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal
and probation
as mutually exclusive because the law
is unmistakable about it and, therefore,
petitioner cannot avail herself of both.
What is the legal effect of probation?
-A conviction becomes final when the
accused applies for probation.
REMINDERS ON DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1. Sentenced to serve more than 6
years –
Exceptions:
a. Under violation of Section 11 of
RA 9165,
accused FIRST-TIME OFFENDER
may avail of suspended sentence.
If there is a violation of any
conditions, the court shall
pronounce judgment of
conviction. The court, however,
may in its discretion:
place the accused on probation
(even if the
sentence provided for under
this Act is higher
than that provided under
existing law on
probation.
b. Principle in PP vs. Arnel Colinares
-Arnel did not appeal from a
judgment that would have
allowed him to apply fro
probation. He did not have a
choice between appeal and
probation.
-The Court, however, convicted
Arnel of the wrong crime,
frustrated homicide that carried
a penalty in excess of 6 years.
How can the Court expect him
to feel penitent over a crime,
which as the Court now finds,
he did not commit? He only
committed attempted homicide
with its maximum penalty of 2
years and 4 months.
-At any rate, what is clear is
that, had the RTC done what
was right and imposed on Arnel
the correct penalty of two (2)
years and four (4) months
maximum, he would have had
the right to apply for probation.
2. National Security and Public Order-
Probation is not applicable when
the accused is convicted of INDIRECT
ASSAULT (It is a crime against PUBLIC
ORDER).
3. Previous Conviction of not less than
one month and one day and/or a fine of
not less than two hundred pesos.
Ex. A person convicted for another
crime with a penalty of 30 days
imprisonment or not exceeding 1 month
does not disqualify him from applying
for probation
-What is the period of probation?
a. sentenced to a term of 1 year – shall
not exceed 2 years
b. sentenced to a term of more than 1
year imprisonment – shall not exceed
6 years
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
Republic Act No. 3019
[BAR Q. 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2003,
2000, 1999, 1997, 1991, 1990, 1988,
1985]
Who may be liable under Sec.3 of R.A.
No. 3019?
a. The law punishes not only public
officers who commit prohibited acts
enumerated under Sec. 3, but also
those who induce or cause the public
official to commit those offenses.
b. Private persons found acting in
conspiracy with public officers may be
held liable for the applicable offenses
found in Sec. 3 of the law
Sec. 3(b). Directly or Indirectly
Requesting or Receiving any Gift,
Present, Share, percentage, or Benefit,
for Himself or for any other Person, in
Connection with any Contract or
Transaction Between the Government
and any other Part, wherein the Public
Officer in his Official Capacity has to
Intervene under the Law
Elements under Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No.
3019
To be convicted of violation of Sec.
3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, the prosecution
has the burden of proving the following
elements:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. who requested or received a gift, a
present, a share, a percentage, or
benefit;
3. on behalf of the offender or any
other person;
4 in connection with a contract or
transaction with the government;
5. in which the public officer, in an
official capacity under the law, has
the right to intervene. (Cadiao-
Palacios v. People, 582 SCRA 713,
March 31, 2009)
-An accused may be charged for both
offenses of direct bribery and violation
of Sec.3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 because
they have different elements.
Sec.3(e). Causing Any Undue Injury To
Any Party, Including The Government,
Or Giving Any Private Party Any
Unwarranted Benefits, Advantage Or
Preference In The Discharge Of His
Official Administrative Or Judicial
Functions Through manifest Partiality,
Evident Bad Faith Or Gross Inexcusable
Negligence. This Provision Shall Apply
To Officers and Employees Of Offices Or
Government Corporations Charged With
The Grant Of Licenses Or Permits Or
Other concessions.
In order to hold a person liable under
Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, the
following elements must concur:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the act was done in the discharge of
the public officer’s official,
administrative or judicial functions;
3. the act was done through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
4. the public officer caused any undue
injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference. (Sison v. People, 614
SCRA 670, March 9, 2010)
-Proof of any of these three (manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence) in connection
with the prohibited acts mentioned in
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is enough to
convict a person with violation of Sec.
3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. (Sison v.
People, March 9, 2010)
-“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias”
which “excites a disposition to see and
report matters as they are wished for
rather than as they are.” (Sison v.
People, March 9, 2010)
-Manifest Partiality exists when the
accused has a clear, notorious, or plain
inclination or predilection to favor one
side or one person rather than another.
It is synonymous with bias, which
excites a disposition to see and report
matters as they are wished for rather
than as they are. (Reyes v. People,
August 4, 2010)
-Evident bad faith connotes a manifest
deliberate intent on the part of the
accused to do wrong or to cause
damage. It contemplates a breach of
sworn duty through some perverse
motive or ill will. (Reyes v. People,
August 4, 2010)
Gross inexcusable negligence does not
signify mere omission of duties nor
plainly the exercise of less than the
standard degree of prudence it refers
to negligence characterized by the
want of even the slightest case, acting
or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but willfully and intentionally, with
conscious indifference to consequences
in so far as other persons may be
affected. (Sistoza v. Desierto, 388 SCRA
307)
There are two ways by which Sec.3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019 may be violated –
a. the first mode: by causing undue
injury to any
party, including the government, or
b. the second mode: by giving any
private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference
In order to be found guilty under the
second mode, it suffices that the
accused has given unjustified favor or
benefit to another, in the exercise of his
official, administrative or judicial
functions.
Ex. The private suppliers, which
were all personally chosen by
respondent, were able to profit from
the transactions without showing
proof that their prices were the most
beneficial to the government.
To hold a person liable under this
section, the concurrence of the
following elements must be
established, viz:
1. that the accused is a public officer or
a private
person charged in conspiracy with
the former;
2. that said public officer commits the
prohibited acts
during the performance of his or her
official duties
or in relation to his or her public
positions;
3. that he or she causes undue injury to
any party,
whether the government or a private
party; and
4. that the public officer has acted with
manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable
 negligence.
Sec. 3(g). Entering, on behalf of the
government, into any contract or
transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether
or not the public officer profited or will
profit thereby.
Elements under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019:
To be indicted of the offense under
Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019, the following
elements must be present:
a. that the accused is a public officer;
b. that he entered into a contract or
transaction on behalf of the
government; and
c. that such contract or transaction is
grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government
(Guy v. People, 582 SCRA 108, March
20. 2009)
A private person shall be held liable
together with the public officer if there
is an allegation of conspiracy.
The lack of public bidding alone does
not automatically equate to a manifest
and gross disadvantage to the
government.
Sec. 3 (h). Directly or directly 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.
The essential elements of the
violation of said provision are as
follows:
1. That the accused is a public officer;
2. That he has a direct or indirect
financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction. He
either:
a. intervenes or takes part in his official
capacity in
connection with such interest; or
b. is prohibited from having such
interest by the Constitution or by
law. (Teves v. The Commission on
Elections, 587 SCRA 1, April 28, 2009)
_____________________________________________
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002
Republic Act No. 9165
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005,
2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, 1992]
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
(SEC. 5)
The presentation in evidence of the
“buy-bust” money is not
indispensable for the conviction of
an accused provided that the sale of
marijuana is adequately proven by
the prosecution. (People vs.
Pascual, 208 SCRA 393)
The elements necessary for the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and
consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment thereof.
-What is material to the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the
proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of
corpus delicti. (People vs. Macatingag,
G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009)
DIFFERENTIATE PROSECUTION FOR
ILLEGAL SALE FROM PROSECUTION FOR
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS.
In a prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must first be established: (1)
proof that the transaction or sale took
place and (2) the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug
as evidence.
In a prosecution for illegal
possession of a dangerous drug, it
must be shown that (1) the accused
was in possession of an item or an
object identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug, (2) such possession is
not authorized by law, and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of the
drug. People vs. Darisan, G.R. No.
176151, January 30, 2009
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS. (SEC.11)
R.A. No. 6425 does not
prescribe a single punishment for
illegal possession of shabu and
marijuana committed at the same
time and in the same place. The
prosecution would be correct in filing
two separate Informations for the
crimes of illegal possession of shabu
and illegal possession of marijuana.
a. The elements of the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs are as
follow:
 (a) the accused was in animus possidendi or intent to possess
possession of the regulated which is an element of the crime of
drugs; illegal possession of drugs. The
accused was not fully and consciously
(b) the accused was fully and aware of being in possession of the
consciously aware of being dangerous drug.
in possession of the
regulated drug; and ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.
(Sec.15)
(c) the accused had no legal
authority to possess the -Section 15 of R.A. 9165 expressly
regulated drug. Possession excludes penalties for the use of
may actual or constructive. dangerous drugs when the person is
(People vs. Eliza Buan, G.R. found to have in his possession
quantity of any dangerous drug under
No. 168773, OCT. 27, 2006)
Section 11. It states:
b. What is the concept of
“That this Section shall not be
“POSSESSION”?
applicable where the person tested is
also found to have in his/her
1. Since the crime charged is
possession such quantity of any
mala prohibita, criminal intent is not dangerous drug provided for under
an essential element. However, the Section 11 of this Act, in which case the
prosecution must prove that the provisions stated therein shall apply.”
accused had the intent to possess
(animus posidendi) the drugs. BAR Q. [2005] The charge of possession
of shabu under Section 11, Article II of
2. Possession, under the law, RA 9165 is proper. The entrapment
includes not only actual possession, operation yielded the discovery of 100
but also constructive possession. grams of the said dangerous drug in his
possession. However, the charge of
3. Constructive possession
use of marijuana is not proper. Section
exists when the drug is under the
15 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is explicit. It
dominion and control of the accused
excludes penalties for use of dangerous
or when he has the right to exercise
drugs when “the person tested is also
dominion and control over the place
found to have in possession such
where it is found. Exclusive
quantity of any dangerous drug”
possession or control is not
provided in Section 11 of such Act”.
necessary.
What does “CHAIN OF CUSTODY”
Mere possession of a regulated mean?
drug per se constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an “Chain of Custody” means the duly
accused absent a satisfactory recorded authorized movements and
explanation of such possession- the custody of seized drugs or controlled
onus probandi is shifted to the accused, chemicals or plant sources of
to explain the absence of knowledge or dangerous drugs or laboratory
animus possidendi”. (People vs. Gomez, equipment of each stage, from the time
G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010) of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
In order to establish presentation in court for destruction.
constructive possession, the People
must prove that petitioner has Such record of movements and custody
of seized item shall include the identity
dominion or control on either the
and signature of the person who held
substance or the premises where temporary custody of the seized item,
found. The burden of evidence is the date and time when such transfer
shifted to petitioner to explain the of custody were made in the course of
absence of animus possidendi. safekeeping and used in court as
(People vs .Buan, G.R. No. 168773, evidence, and the final disposition.
OCT. 27, 2006) (People vs. Ruiz Garcia, G.R. No.173480
February 25, 2009)
Illustrative case:
c. Is strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure essential?
BAR Q. [2002] B is not criminally liable.
The facts clearly show the absence of
 Strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is required. The
Court recognized the following links
that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation:
first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. People vs. Kamad, G.R. No.
174198, January 19, 2010
Mere lapses in procedures need not
invalidate a seizure if the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized
items can be shown to have been
preserved. However, the failure to
follow the procedure mandated
under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must
be adequately explained. The
justifiable ground for non-compliance
must be proven as a fact. The court
cannot presume what these grounds
are or that they even exist. (People
vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498,
March 26, 2010)
The presumption of regular
performance of duty is not conclusive
in chain of custody cases and cannot,
by itself, overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence.
Any person charged under any
provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed
to avail of the provision on plea-
bargaining. BAR Q. [2005]
A person convicted of either drug
trafficking or pushing cannot avail of
the benefits of probation.
If a positive finding for the use of
dangerous drugs is found in the
commission of a crime (Sec. 25), it shall
constitute as a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the
crime.
BAR Q. [2005] Candido is guilty of
homicide only. The act of stabbing was
not consciously adopted but only
accidental and therefore, negates
treachery. However, since the crime
was committed when he was under the
influence of dangerous drugs, such act
becomes a qualifying circumstance
pursuant to Section 25, R.A. 9165.
__________________________________________
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
ANDTHEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Republic Act No. 9262
[BAR 2011, 2010]
_____________________________________________
DEFINE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
AND THEIR CHILDREN.
“It refers to any act or a series
of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman with
whom the person has or had a sexual
or dating relationship, or with whom
he has a common child, or against her
child whether legitimate or
illegitimate, within or without the
family abode, which result in or is
likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of
such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty. Section 3 of R.A. 9262
Section 3 states that violence against
women and children includes, but is not
limited to, the following acts: a)
Physical Violence b) Sexual violence c)
Psychological violence d) Economic
abuse.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN?
The elements of the crime of
violence against women through
harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual
or dating relationship with the
offended woman;
 2. The offender, by himself or
through another, commits an act
or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes
substantial emotional or
psychological distress to her.
(Rustan Ang Y Pascua vs. Sagud,
G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010)
A TPO cannot be issued in favor of a
man against his wife under R.A. No.
9292, known as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004. In one case, the judge was
found guilty of gross ignorance of the
law for issuing a Temporary Protection
Order (TPO) in favor of a male
petitioner.
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF A BATTERED
WOMAN SYNDROME?
It refers to a scientifically defined
pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
IS BATTERED WOMEN SYNDROME A
PROPER DEFENSE? Section 26 of R.A.
9262 is explicit:
“Victim-survivors who are found
by the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur
any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under
the Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS. GENOSA
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
RULING:
More graphically, the battered
woman syndrome is characterized by
the so-called “cycle of violence,” which
has three phases: (1) the tension-
building phase; (2) the acute battering
incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving
(or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
During the tension-building
phase, minor battering occurs -- it
could be verbal or slight physical abuse
or another form of hostile behavior.
The woman usually tries to pacify the
batterer through a show of kind,
nurturing behavior; or by simply
staying out of his way. What actually
happens is that she allows herself to be
abused in ways that, to her, are
comparatively minor. All she wants is
to prevent the escalation of the
violence exhibited by the batterer.
The acute battering incident is
said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes,
death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also
inevitable. During this phase, she has
no control; only the batterer may put
an end to the violence. Its nature can
be as unpredictable as the time of its
explosion, and so are his reasons for
ending it. The battered woman usually
realizes that she cannot reason with
him, and that resistance would only
exacerbate her condition.
The final phase of the cycle of
violence begins when the acute
battering incident ends. During this
tranquil period, the couple experience
profound relief. On the one hand, the
batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his
partner. He knows that he has been
viciously cruel and tries to make up for
it, begging for her forgiveness and
promising never to beat her again. On
the other hand, the battered woman
also tries to convince herself that the
battery will never happen again; that
her partner will change for the better;
and that this “good, gentle and caring
man” is the real person whom she
loves.
A battered woman usually
believes that she is the sole anchor of
the emotional stability of the batterer.
Sensing his isolation and despair, she
feels responsible for his well-being.
Illustrative Cases:
BAR Q. [2010]
A. Define “Battered Woman
Syndrome.” It refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a
result of cumulative abuse.
B. What are the three phases of the
“Battered Woman Syndrome”?
The three phases are the following: a)
tension-building phase b) acute
battering incident c) tranquil and
loving phase.
C. Would the defense prosper despite
the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code?
Yes, R.A. 9262 expressly states
that victim-survivors who are found by
the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur
any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under
the Revised Penal Code.
ABUSES may BE COMMITTED BY
ANOTHER THRU CONSPIRACY. (SHARICA
MARI L. GO-TAN vs. SPOUSES TAN, G.R.
No. 168852: September 30, 2008).
THE CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND CHILDREN is considered
as 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.
Under express provision of Section 27
thereof, being under the influence of
alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other
mind-altering substance shall not be a
defense under this Act.
II. PROTECTION ORDERS
A protection order is an order
issued under this Act for the purpose of
preventing further acts of violence
against a woman or her child specified
in Section 5 of this Act and granting
other necessary relief. The protection
orders that may be issued are the
barangay protection order (BPO),
temporary protection order (TPO) and
permanent protection order (PPO).
_____________________________________________
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
[BAR 2010 ’03,’02. ’96, 1990, ‘88’,’86]
___________________________________________
BP.22 DOES NOT COVER MANAGER’S
CHECK AND CASHIER’S CHECK. It is as
good as the money it represents and is
therefore deemed as cash.
BP.22 COVERS ACCOMODATION OR
GUARANTEE CHECK.
BP.22 COVERS CROSSED CHECK since it
is a negotiable instrument. It falls
within the coverage of BP. 22.
The Supreme Court ruled that BP. 22
considers the mere act of issuing an
unfunded check as an offense not only
against property but also against public
order to stem the harm caused by these
bouncing checks to the community.
(Mitra vs. People, July 05, 2010)
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER
THE REVISED PENAL CODE IS
APPLICABLE IN BP.22 WHICH IS A
SPECIAL LAW.
A. WAYS BY WHICH VIOLATION OF BP.
22 ARE COMMITTED.
The gravamen of the offense punished
by Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 is the
act of making or issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored
upon its presentation for payment – It
is not the nonpayment of the obligation
which the law punishes. The mere act
of issuing a worthless check – whether
as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as
evidence of pre-existing debt – is
malum prohibitum.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF BP.22
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The accused makes, draws or
issues any check to apply to
account or for value;
2. The accused knows at the time
of the issuance that he or she
does not have sufficient funds in,
or credit with, the drawee bank
for the payment of the check in
full upon its presentment .
There is a prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds
when the check was presented within
90 days from the date appearing on the
check and was dishonored unless:
a. such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due
thereon within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that such check has
not been paid by the drawee , or
b. makes arrangements for payment in
full by the drawee of such check
within (5) banking days after
receiving notice of non-payment.
Is the 90 day-period to deposit the
check an element of BP 22?
No. That the check must be
deposited within ninety (90) days is
simply one of the conditions for the
prima facie presumption of knowledge
of lack of funds to arise, but it is not an
element of the offense, and neither
does it discharge the accused from his
duty to maintain sufficient funds in the
account within a reasonable time
thereof. (Nagrarnpa vs. People, 386
SCRA 412).
The notice of dishonor of a check may
be sent to the drawer or maker, by the
drawee bank, the holder of the check,
or the offended party. (Ambito vs.
People, 579 SCRA 68, February 13,
2009)
ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF BP.22.
This way of violating B.P.22
suggests that at the time the check was
issued, the issuer had sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank.
However, the check was dishonored
when presented for payment within 90
days from its date for failure to
maintain sufficient funds or credit to
cover the amount.
The elements are as follows:
a) any person, makes or draws and
issues a check;
b) such person has sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank;
c) failure 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;
d) for which reason it is dishonored by
the drawee bank.
COMPARISON OF VIOLATION OF BP 22
FROM ESTAFA UNDER PAR. 2 [D],
ARTICLE 315, OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE.
First, the elements of estafa
under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of
the RPC are (1) the postdating or
issuance of a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the
check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency
of funds to cover the check; and (3)
damage to the payee. (Cajigas vs.
People, 580 SCRA 54, February 23,
2009)
For violation of the “Bouncing
Check Law”, deceit and damage are not
essential or required. The essential
element of the offense is knowledge on
the part of the maker or drawer of the
check of the insufficiency of his funds.
The gravamen of the offense is the
issuance of a bad check, not the non-
payment of an obligation.
Second, Article 315, Par.2 (d) is a
crime against property because the
issuance of the check is used as a
means to obtain a valuable
consideration from the payee.
On the other hand, in BP. 22, the
mere act of issuing an unfunded check
is an offense against public order to
stem the harm caused by these
bouncing checks to the community.
(Mitra vs. People, July 05, 2010).
Third, in estafa, the failure of the
drawer to deposit the amount
necessary to secure payment of the
check within 3 days from receipt of
notice from the bank and or the payee
or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds is prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
In B.P. 22, the failure of the
drawer to pay in full the payee or
holder within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that the check has
been rejected by the drawee bank gives
rise to presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds or credit.
Fourth, in estafa, the check is
issued in payment of a simultaneous
obligation to defraud the creditor.
In B.P. 22, the check is issued in
payment of a pre-existing obligation.
Fifth, in estafa, an endorser who
is with knowledge that the check is
worthless and had acted with deceit is
liable.
In B.P. 22, the persons liable are
the maker, drawer and the issuer but
not an endorser.
Lastly, since estafa is mala in se,
good faith is a proper defense.
B.P. 22 is mala prohibitum, it is
punished by a special law and
therefore, good faith is not a defense.
“SIMULTANEOUS OBLIGATION” FROM
“PRE-EXISTING” OBLIGATION.
“Simultaneous obligation” as an
element of estafa connotes that the
issuance of a check is used as a means
to obtain valuable consideration from
the payee. Deceit is the efficient cause
for defraudation. To defraud is to
deprive some right, interest, or
property by deceitful devise. (People
vs.Quesada, 60 Phil. 515)
 In the issuance of a check in
payment of a “pre-existing obligation”,
the drawer derives no material benefit
in return as its consideration had long
been delivered to him before the check
was issued. Since an obligation has
already been contracted, the accused in
this case obtain nothing when he
issued the check, his debt for the
payment thereof had been contracted
prior to its issuance.
There is deceit when one is
misled -- by guile, trickery or by other
means - to believe as true what is really
false. (Dy vs. People, 571 SCRA 59,
November 14, 2008)
Damage as an element of estafa
may consist in (1) the offended party
being deprived of his money or property
as a result of the defraudation; (2)
disturbance in property right; or (3)
temporary prejudice. (Nagrampa vs.
People, 386 SCRA 412).
To constitute estafa, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in
payment of obligation must be the
efficient cause of defraudation and, as
such, it should be either prior to, or
simultaneous with, the act of fraud.
(Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412)
A PERSON MAY BE BOTH LIABLE FOR
VIOLATION OF B.P. 22 AND ANOTHER
PROVISION OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE
The filing of a criminal case
under B.P. 22 shall not prejudice any
liability arising from a felony
committed under the Revised Penal
Code.
B. DEFENSES IN BP. 22
3. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES
IN B.P. 22?
a. The presentation of the registry
card, with an unauthorized
signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable
doubt that the petitioner received
such noticed, especially considering
that he denied receiving it. (Suarez
v. People 555, SCRA 238, June 19,
2008)
b. Presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds is not
conclusive as it may be rebutted by
full payment. (Tan vs. Philippine
Commercial International Bank 552
SCRA 532, April 23, 2008)
c. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution
must prove not only that the accused
issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored. It must
also establish that the accused was
actually notified that the check was
dishonored, and that he or she
failed, within five (5) banking days
from receipt of the notice, to pay the
holder of the check the amount due
thereon or to make arrangement for
its payment.
d. Prescription is a proper defense. The
prescriptive period is 4 years
reckoned from the lapse of the five
(5) banking days from notice of
dishonor within which to make good
the check.
e. Forgery of the signature appearing
on the check (Ilusorio vs. Court of
Appeals, 353 SCRA 89)
An agreement surrounding the issuance
of dishonored checks is irrelevant to
the prosecution for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22. (Dreamwork
Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA
466, June 30, 2009)
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is
not A PROPER DEFENSE IN VIOLATION
OF B.P. 22. (Dreamwork Construction,
Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,
2009)
NOVATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN
B.P. 22.
IS “STOP PAYMENT” A PROPER
DEFENSE IN BP. 22?
It depends. Although the drawer
ordered a “STOP PAYMENT” or
countermand, yet if it was clear from
the statement of account that the
check bounced due to insufficiency of
funds, the drawer of the check is still
liable.Chang vs. IAC, 146 SCRA 46 BAR
Q.[2002]
C. CORPORATION IN RELATION TO BP.
22
Section 1 of the law provides: “Where
the check is drawn by a corporation,
company or entity, the person or
persons who actually signed the check
in behalf of such drawer shall be liable
The officer who is accused of signing
the check must receive the notice of
dishonor. Constructive notice to the
corporation, who has a separate
personality from its officer, is
enough.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000
refers to the imposition of penalties for
violation of B.P. 22. It provides:
Court has not decriminalized B.P.
22 violations, nor have removed
imprisonment as an alternative penalty.
Needless to say, the
determination of whether the
circumstances warrant the imposition of
a fine alone rests solely upon the judge.
Should the judge decide that
imprisonment is the more appropriate
penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-
2000 ought not to be deemed a
hindrance. (Lunaria vs. People, 5701
SCRA 572, November 11, 2008).
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-
2001 is a circular addressed to all
judges which clarifies Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 on the penalty for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It
provides:
The clear tenor and intention of
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is
not to remove imprisonment as an
alternative penalty, but to lay down a
rule of preference in the application of
the penalties provided for in B.P. Blg.
22.
The pursuit of this purpose
clearly does not foreclose the
possibility of imprisonment for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does
it defeat the legislative intent behind
the law.
Thus, Administrative Circular No.
12-2000 establishes a rule of
preference in the application of the
penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such
that where the circumstances of both
the offense and the offender clearly
indicate good faith or a clear mistake of
fact without taint of negligence, the
imposition of a fine alone should be
considered as the more appropriate
penalty.
It is, therefore, understood
that:
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000
does not remove imprisonment as an
alternative penalty for violations of
B.P. Blg. 22;
not 2. The Judges concerned may, in the
exercise of sound discretion, and
taking into consideration the
peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of
a fine alone would best serve the
interests of justice or whether
forbearing to impose imprisonment
would depreciate the seriousness of
the offense, work violence on the
social order, or otherwise be contrary
to the imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and
the accused be unable to pay the
fine, there is no legal obstacle to the
application of the Revised Penal
Code provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment.
THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
Presidential Decree No. 1612
[BAR 2010, 2009, ’95, 1993, 1990,
1987, 1985]
WHAT IS THE CRIME OF "FENCING".
(Sec. 2)
Section 2 of this Act defines fencing as:
“It is the act of any person
who, with intent to gain for himself
or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell
or dispose of, or shall buy and sell,
or in any other manner deal in any
article, item, object or anything of
value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.”
BAR Q. [1995] The
elements of fencing are:
(a) a crime of robbery or theft
has been committed;
(b) accused, who is not a
principal or accomplice in the crime,
buys, receives, possess, keeps,
acquires, conceals, or disposes or buys
and sells or in any manner deals in any
article, item object or anything of
value, which has been derived from
the proceeds of said crime;
(c) the accused knows or
should have known that said article,
item, object or anything of value has
been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft; and
(d) there is, on the part of the
accused, intent to gain for himself or
for another.
Illustrative Case:
BAR Q. [2010]. Yes, she is liable
provided the prosecution can prove
that Arlene knew or should have known
that said item had been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
DIFFERENTIATE A FENCE FROM AN
ACCESSORY TO THEFT OR ROBBERY.
a. A fence is punished as a
principal under P.D. No 1612 and the
penalty is higher, whereas an accessory
to robbery or theft under the Revised
Penal Code is punished two degrees
lower than the principal as a general
rule.
b. Fencing is a malum prohibitum
and therefore, there is no need to
prove criminal intent of the accused.
Good faith is not a defense. In
accessory to robbery or theft under the
Revised Penal Code, intent is an
element of the crime and therefore,
good faith is a proper defense.
c. All the acts of one who is an
accessory to the crimes of robbery or
theft are included in the acts defined as
fencing. Corollarily, the accessory in
the crimes of robbery or theft could be
prosecuted as such under the Revised
Penal Code or as a fence under PD No.
1612.
If the fence is a partnership, firm,
corporation or association, the
president or the manager or any officer
thereof who knows or should have
known the commission of the offense
shall be liable.
WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF
FENCING? (SEC. 5) Mere possession of
any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be
prima facie evidence of fencing
Section 6 underscores the importance
of securing a clearance or permit in
dealing with the buy and sell activities.
It thus mandates:
“All stores,
establishments or entities dealing in
the buy and sell of any good, article
item, object of anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or
supplier thereof, shall before offering
the same for sale to the public, secure
the necessary clearance or permit
from the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the town
or city where such store,
establishment or entity is located…”
_____________________________________________
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM
PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294
[BAR Q. 2011, 2002, 2000, 1998]
______________________________________________
In illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the twin elements of:
(1) the existence of the subject
firearm and ammunition, and
(2) the fact that the accused who
possessed or owned the same does
not have the corresponding license
for it. (Valeroso vs. People, 546
SCRA 450, February 22, 2008)
Ownership is not an essential element
of illegal possession of firearm. What
the law requires is merely possession
which includes not only physical
possession but also constructive
possession or the subjection of the
thing to one’s control and
management. (People vs.De Gracia,
233 SCRA 716)
The kind of possession punishable
under PD 1866 is one where the
accused possessed a firearm either
physically or constructively with
animus possidendi or intention to
possess. (People vs. Dela Rosa, 90
SCAD 143)
ASIDE FROM A FIREARM WITHOUT A
LICENSE, WHAT DOES UNLICENSED
FIREARM INCLUDE?
The term unlicensed firearm
shall include:
1) firearms with expired license;
or
2) unauthorized use of licensed
firearm in the commission of the
crime.
Unlicensed firearm no longer simply
means a firearm without a license duly
issued by lawful authority. The scope of
the term has been expanded in Section
5 of Republic Act No. 8294 as: (1)
firearm with expired license, or (2)
unauthorized use of licensed firearm in
the commission of the crime. (People
vs. Molina, 292 SCRA 742)
It is settled that the lack or absence of
a license is an essential ingredient of
the crime of illegal possession of
firearm. (Sasot vs. Yuson, 592 SCRA
368, July 13, 2009)
To establish the corpus delicti, the
prosecution has the burden of proving
that the firearm exists and that the
accused who owned or possessed it
does not have the corresponding
license or permit to possess or carry
the same. (Sayco vs. People, 547 SRA
368, March 3, 2008)
THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE
SUBJECT FIREARM is not FATAL TO THE
PROSECUTION’S CAUSE because the
existence of the firearm can be
established by testimony even without
the presentation of the said firearm.
(People vs. Narvasa, 100 SCAD 745)
“Loose firearm” refers to an
unregistered firearm, an obliterated or
altered firearm, firearm which has been
lost or stolen, illegally manufactured
firearms, registered firearms in the
possession of an individual other than
the licensee and those with revoked
licenses in accordance with the rules
and regulations. (R.A. No. 10591)
USE OF LOOSE FIREARM IN THE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME (Sec. 29 of
R.A. No. 10591)
-If the crime committed with the use of
loose firearm is penalized by the law
with a maximum penalty which is equal
to that imposed under Sec. 28 of R.A.
No. 10591, the penalty of prision mayor
in its minimum period shall be imposed
in addition to the penalty for the crime
punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws of which
he/she is found guilty.
_____________________________________________
ANTI- MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF
2001
R.A. No. 9160 as amended by R.A.
9194, R.A. 10167, R.A. 10168 and R.A.
10365, also known as An Act Further
Strengthening The Anti-Money
Laundering Law
[BAR 2010, 2009, 2005]
BAR Q. [2010] DEFINE MONEY
LAUNDERING. (Sec. 4) “It is a crime
whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are
transacted, thereby making them
appear to have originated from
legitimate sources.”
AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10365, WHAT
ARE THE WAYS OF COMMITTING MONEY
LAUNDERING?
Section 4 of R.A. 10365 provides
the ways by which money laundering is
committed:
“Money laundering is
committed by any person who,
knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents,
involves, or relates to the proceeds of
any unlawful activity:

The use of loose firearm, when inherent

in the commission of a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal (a) transacts said
Code or other special laws, shall be monetary instrument or
considered as an aggravating property;
circumstance. Provided that:

-If the crime committed with the use of (b) converts, transfers,
a loose firearm is penalized by the law disposes of, moves,
with a maximum penalty which is lower acquires, possesses or
than that prescribed in Sec. 28 of R.A. uses said monetary
No. 10591, the penalty for illegal instrument or property;
possession of firearm shall be imposed
in lieu of the penalty for the crime (c) conceals or
charged. disguises the true
nature, source,
 location, disposition, proceeding relating to the unlawful
movement or activity.
ownership of or rights
with respect to said
monetary instrument or
property; AS AMENDED BY RA 10167, HOW IS THE
FREEZE ORDER OF MONETARY
INSTRUMENT OR PROPERTY RELATED
(d) attempts or TO UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY MADE? (SEC.
conspires to commit 10)
money laundering
offenses referred to in Previously, RA 9194 amended
paragraphs (a), (b) or Section 10 of RA 9160 to read as
(c); follows:

“SEC.10. Freezing of Monetary

(e) aids, abets, assists
in or counsels the
commission of the
money laundering
offenses referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or
(c) above; and
(f) performs or fails to
perform any act as a
result of which he
facilitates the offense
of money laundering
referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or
(c) above.”
IS MONEY LAUNDERING COMMITTED
WHEN THERE IS FAILURE TO REPORT A
COVERED OR SUSPICIOUS
TRANSACTION?
Yes, money laundering is also
committed by any covered person who,
knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under this Act
to be reported to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do
so.
MAY A PERSON BE CHARGED OF BOTH
THE OFFENSE OF MONEY LAUNDERING
AND THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY?
Yes. As amended by RA 10365,
Section 6(a) provides that any person
may be charged with and convicted of
both the offense of money laundering
and the unlawful activity as herein
defined. In fact, under par (b), it is
stated that the prosecution of any
offense or violation under this Act shall
proceed independently of any
Instrument or Property. – The Court of
Appeals, upon application ex parte by
the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any
monetary instrument or property is in
any way related to an unlawful activity
as defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, may
issue a freeze order which shall be
effective immediately. The freeze
order shall be for a period of twenty
(20) days unless extended by the
court.”
R.A. No. 10167 further amended
Section 10 to read as follows:
“Upon a verified ex
parte petition by the AMLC and after
determination that probable cause
exists that any monetary instrument or
property is in any way related to an
unlawful activity as defined in Section
3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may
issue a freeze order which shall be
effective immediately, and which shall
not exceed six (6) months depending
upon the circumstances of the
case: Provided, That if there is no case
filed against a person whose account
has been frozen within the period
determined by the court, the freeze
order shall be deemed ipso
facto lifted: Provided, further, That this
new rule shall not apply to pending
cases in the courts. In any case, the
court should act on the petition to
freeze within twenty-four (24) hours
from filing of the petition. If the
application is filed a day before a
nonworking day, the computation of
the twenty-four (24)-hour period shall
exclude the nonworking days.”

-Pursuant to RA 9160 as amended, it is
solely the Court of Appeals which has
the authority to issue a freeze order.
BAR Q. [2010] .
-No court shall issue a temporary
restraining order or a writ of injunction
against any freeze order, except the
Supreme Court.
IS AMLC AUTHORIZED TO INQUIRE INTO
BANK DEPOSITS? (SEC. 11)
Yes, under Sec.11, the AMLC may
inquire into or examine any particular
deposit or investment with any banking
institution or non-bank financial
institution.
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS AMLC
AUTHORIZED TO INQUIRE INTO BANK
DEPOSITS?
Only upon order of any
competent court in cases of violation of
this Act, when it has been established
that there is probable cause that the
deposits or investments are related to
an unlawful activities as defined in
Section 3(I) hereof or a money
laundering offense under Section 4
hereof except:
That no court order shall be
required in cases involving unlawful
activities defined in Sections 3(I) 1, (2)
and (12).”
DOES SECTION 11 AUTHORIZE AN EX-
PARTE ISSUANCE OF A BANK INQUIRY
ORDER?
No. In instances where a court
order is required for the issuance of the
bank inquiry order, nothing in Section
11 specifically authorizes that such
order may be issued ex parte. Republic
vs. Eugenio, Jr., 545 SCRA 384(2008)
DIFFERENTIATE SECTION 10 FROM
SECTION 11.
Although oriented towards
different purposes, the freeze order
under Section 10 and the bank inquiry
order under Section 11 are similar in
that they are extraordinary provisional
reliefs which the AMLC may avail of to
effectively combat and prosecute
money laundering offenses. Crucially,
Section 10 uses specific language to
authorize an ex parte application for
the provisional relief therein, a and the related accounts
circumstance absent in Section 11. If
indeed the legislature had intended to
authorize ex parte proceedings for the
issuance of the bank inquiry order,
then it could have easily expressed
such intent in the law, as it did with
the freeze order under Section 10.
With respect to freeze orders
under Section 10, the implementing
rules do expressly provide that the
applications for freeze orders be filed
ex parte but no similar clearance is
granted in the case of inquiry orders
under Section 11. Republic vs.
Eugenio, Jr., 545 SCRA 384(2008)
A criminal conviction for an
unlawful activity is not a prerequisite
for the institution of a civil forfeiture
proceeding. Stated otherwise, a finding
of guilt for an unlawful activity is not
an essential element of civil forfeiture.
(Republic v. Glasgow Credit and
Collection Services, Inc., 542 SCRA 95,
January 18, 2008).
WHAT ARE THE TWO CONDITIONS WHEN
APPLYING FOR CIVIL FORFEITURE?
R.A. 9160, as amended, and its
implementing rules and regulations lay
down two conditions when applying for
civil forfeiture: (1) when there is a
suspicious transaction report or a
covered transaction report deemed
suspicious after investigation by the
AMLC and (2) the court has, in a
petition filed for the purpose, ordered
the seizure of any monetary instrument
or property, in whole or in part, directly
or indirectly, related to said report. It is
the preliminary seizure of the property
in question which brings it within the
reach of the judicial process. (Republic
v. Glasgow Credit and Collection
Services, Inc. , 542 SCRA 95, January
18, 2008)
WHAT ARE THE NEW PROVISIONS
INTRODUCED UNDER THE
AMENDMENTS?
1. The non-intervention of the
AMLC in the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR)
operations.
The authority to inquire into
or examine the main account
 shall comply with the A prior written notice to the
requirements of Article III, school authorities or head of
organization must be given seven (7)
Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987
days before the conduct of such
Constitution, which are
initiation.
hereby incorporated by
reference. Likewise, the
Section 2 of the law specifically
constitutional injunction
provides for the requisites:
against ex post facto laws
and bills of attainder shall be “There must be a prior written
respected in the notice to the school authorities or head
implementation of this Act. of organization seven (7) days before
the conduct of such initiation.

The written notice shall

2. Under the new law, pre-need
companies, money changers,
real estate agents, and
dealers of precious stones
and metal are required to
report financial transactions
to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC).
indicate:
1. the period of the
initiation activities which
shall not exceed three
( 3) days,
2. shall include the names
of those to be subjected
to such activities, and

Before, only banks, insurance 3. shall further contain an

undertaking that no
companies and securities
physical violence be
dealers were obliged to
employed by anybody
submit covered and
during such initiation
suspicious transaction rites.”
reports to AMLC.
Under Section 3, when there is
_____________________________________________
initiation rites:
ANTI-HAZING LAW
“The head of the school or
[BAR Q. 2002] organization or their representatives
____________________________________________ must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or
DEFINE HAZING (Sec.1)/ BAR Q. organization, as the case may be, to
[2002] What is hazing as defined by be present during the initiation.
law?
It is the duty of such
Section 1 defines “hazing” as representative to see to it that no
follows: “It is an initiation rite or physical harm of any kind shall be
practice as a prerequisite for admission inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or
into membership in a fraternity, applicant.”
sorority or organization by placing the
recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
THE OWNER OF THE PLACE IS LIABLE
embarrassing or humiliating situations
AS AN ACCOMPLICE (Sec.4) b when he
such as forcing him to do menial, silly,
has actual knowledge of the hazing
foolish and other similar tasks or
conducted therein but failed to take
activities or otherwise subjecting him
any action to prevent the same from
to physical or psychological suffering or
occurring.
injury.”

Parents may be liable as principals if:

WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES BEFORE
HAZING OR INITIATION RITES SHALL BE
a. The hazing is held in the home
ALLOWED? (Sec.2)
of one of the officers or members of the
fraternity, group, or organization;
 b. The parents have actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted
therein but failed to take any action to
prevent the same from occurring.
School authorities and faculty members
may be held liable as accomplices
when:
a. they consent to the hazing or
who have actual knowledge thereof;
b. they failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring.
-Section 4 clearly states when the
prima facie evidence of participation as
principal arise. It states:
“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 herein.”
MAY A PERSON CHARGED UNDER THIS
PROVISION BE ENTITLED TO THE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF NO
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A
WRONG? (Sec.4)
No. The express provision of the law
under Section 4 is explicit in the
inapplicability of the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit
so grave a wrong to a person charged
under this provision.
_____________________________________________
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF
2007
(THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAW) Republic
Act No. 9372
_____________________________________________
1. UNDER SECTION 3 THE ELEMENTS OF
THE CRIME OF TERRORISM ARE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. First, 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
the Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or
Insurrection);
c. Article 134-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);
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)
2. Second, the commission of the
predicate crime sows and creates a
condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace.
3. Third, the purpose is in order
to coerce the government to give in to
an unlawful demand.
Any person guilty of the crime of
terrorism 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.
From the definition of the crime of
terrorism in the earlier cited Section 3
of RA 9372, the following elements may
be culled:
(1) the offender commits an act
punishable under any of the
cited provisions of the Revised
Penal Code, or under any of the
enumerated special penal laws;
(2) the commission of the
predicate crime sows and
creates a condition of
widespread and extraordinary
fear and panic among the
populace; and
(3) the offender is actuated by
the desire to coerce the
government to give in to
an unlawful demand.
-Before a charge for terrorism may be
filed under R.A. 9372, there must first
be a predicate crime actually
committed to trigger the operation of
the key qualifying phrases in the other
elements of the crime, including the
coercion of the government to accede
to an “unlawful demand.” (Southern
Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc.
vs. Anti-Terrorism Council G.R.
No. 178552, October 5, 2010).
-Utterances not elemental but
inevitably incidental to the doing of the
criminal conduct alter neither the
intent of the law to punish socially
harmful conduct nor the essence of the
whole act as conduct and not speech.
(Southern Hemisphere Engagement
Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010).
There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of the crime
of terrorism as defined in Section 3 of
R.A.9372 and decide to commit the
same.
Under Section 4 thereof, mere
conspiracy to commit terrorism is
punishable.
Upon a written order of the Court of
Appeals, SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS
AND INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF
COMMUNICATIONS ARE ALLOWED.
(Section 7)
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE FOR
FAILURE TO DELIVER SUSPECT TO THE
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WITHIN
THREE DAYS? (Section 20)
Any police or law enforcement
personnel who has apprehended or
arrested, detained and taken custody
of a person charged with or suspected
of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy
to commit terrorism and fails to deliver
such charged or suspected person to
the proper judicial authority within the
period of three (3) days shall be
criminally liable.
DOES PROSECUTION UNDER THIS ACT
BAR ANOTHER PROSECUTION UNDER
THE REVISED PENAL CODE OR ANY
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS?
Yes, the acquittal of the accused
shall be a bar to another prosecution
for any offense or felony which is
necessarily included in the offense
charged. (Sec.49)
CAN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON,
ALTHOUGH PHYSICALLY OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE
PHILIPPINES BE HELD CRIMINALLY
LIABLE FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM?
Yes, the law has extra-territorial
application. Section 58 constitute as an
exception to the territoriality rule. It
provides:
“Extra-Territorial Application of this
Act. - Subject to the provision of an
existing treaty of which the
Philippines is a signatory and to any
contrary provision of any law of
preferential application, the provisions
of this Act shall apply:
(1) to individual persons who commit
any of the crimes defined and
punished in this Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters,
maritime zone, and airspace of the
Philippines;
(2) to individual persons who,
although physically outside the
territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit, conspire or plot to commit
any of the crimes defined and
punished in this Act inside the
territorial limits of the Philippines;
(3) to individual persons who,
although physically outside the
territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit any of the said crimes on
board Philippine ship or Philippine
airship;
(4) to individual persons who commit
any of said crimes within any embassy,
consulate, or diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the
Philippine government in an official
capacity;
(5) to individual persons who,
although physically outside the
territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit said crimes against Philippine
citizens or persons of Philippines
descent, where their citizenship or
ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of the crime; and
(6) to individual persons who,
although physically outside the
territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes
directly against the Philippine
government.”
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
Republic Act No. 7610
_____________________________________________
DEFINE CHILD ABUSE
Child abuse is defined under
Section 3 (b) of R. A. 7610 as:
"Child abuse" refers to the
maltreatment, whether habitual or not,
of the child which includes any of the
following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse,
neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which
debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as
a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his
basic needs for survival, such as food
and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical
treatment to an injured child resulting
in serious impairment of his growth
and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
- It is inconsequential that the sexual
abuse occurred only once.
-Child abuse includes physical abuse of
the child, whether the same is habitual
or not. (588 SCRA 747, June 5, 200)9
DEFINE CHILD PROSTITUTION AND
OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE.
Article III Section 5 defines Child
Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse as:
“Children, whether male
or female, who for money,
profit, or any other
consideration or due to
the coercion or influence
of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to
be children exploited in
prostitution and other
sexual abuse.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF
PARAGRAPH 5 (a) of R.Aa 7610?
The elements of paragraph 5 (a) of R.A.
7610 are the following:
1. The accused engages in, promotes,
facilitates or induces child prostitution;
2. The act is done through, but not
limited to, the following means:
a. acting as a procurer of a child
prostitute; b. inducing a person to be a
client of a child prostitute by means of
written or oral advertisements or other
similar means; c. taking advantage of
influence or relationship to procure a
child as a prostitute; d. threatening or
using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or e.
giving monetary consideration, goods
or other pecuniary benefit to a child
with intent to engage such child in
prostitution;
3. The child is exploited or intended to
be exploited in prostitution; and
4. The child, whether male or female, is
below 18 years of age. People vs.
Dulay, 681 SCRA 638(2012)
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF SEXUAL
ABUSE DEFINED UNDER SECTION 5(B)
OF THIS LAW?
The Court in Navarete v. People, 513
SCRA 509 (2007) held that sexual abuse
under Section 5(b) has three elements:
(1) the accused commits an act
of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; (2) the said act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse; and
(3) the child is below 18 years old.
-THE LAW USES THE TERM A CHILD
“SUBJECT TO SEXUAL ABUSE”. WHEN IS
A CHILD DEEMED SUBJECTED TO
“OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE”?
1. A child is deemed subjected
to other sexual abuse when
the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any
adult. R.A. 7610 covers not
only child prostitution but
also other forms of sexual
abuse. Olivarez vs. Court of
Appeals, 465 SCRA 465(2005)
2. In lascivious conduct under
the coercion or influence of
any adult, there must be
some form of compulsion
equivalent to intimidation
which subdues the free
exercise of the offended
party’s free will. Jojit
Garingarao vs. People, G.R.
No. 192760, July 20, 2011
-Each incident of sexual intercourse
and lascivious act with a child under
the circumstances mentioned in Art. III,
§5 of R.A. No. 7160 is a separate and
distinct offense. Lavides vs. Court of
Appeals, 324 SCRA 321 [2001]
-WHAT MUST BE PRESENT FOR
CONSENSUAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR
LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT WITH A MINOR,
WHO IS NOT EXPLOITED IN
PROSTITUTION, TO FALL WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF SECTION 5(B) OF R.A. NO.
7610?
In People v. Court of Appeals,
562 SCRA 619, August 20, 2008, the
Supreme Court held:
“For consensual se
xual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a
minor, who is not
exploited in prostitution,
to thus fall within the
purview of Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610,
“persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion”
of the child must be
present.”
CAN A PERSON BE CHARGED OF
COMMITTING AN ACT PUNISHED UNDER
SECTION 5(B) AND RAPE AT THE SAME
TIME?
Under Section 5(b), Article III of
Republic Act (RA) 7610 in relation to RA
8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is
below 12 years of age, the offender
should not be prosecuted for sexual
abuse but for statutory rape under
Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized with reclusion
perpetua.
On the other hand, if the victim
is 12 years or older, the offender should
be charged with either sexual abuse
under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape
under Article 266-A (except paragraph
1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act
because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person
cannot be subjected twice to criminal
liability for a single criminal act. People
vs. Abay, 580 SCRA 235(2009)
CAN RAPE INSTEAD BE COMPLEXED
WITH A VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B) OF
RA 7610?
Rape cannot be complexed with
a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal
Code (on complex crimes), a felony
under the Revised Penal Code (such as
rape) cannot be complexed with an
offense penalized by a special law.
(People v. Abay 580 SCRA 235,
February 24, 2009).
CAN AN ACCUSED BE CONVICTED OF
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS UNDER THE
REVISED PENAL CODE INSTEAD OF
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B) OF R.A.
7610?
Yes. The special circumstance
that the child is “subjected to other
sexual abuse” is not an element in the
crime of acts of lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
ARE THE RULES OF OFFSETTING THE
MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
APPLICABLE IN R.A. 7610, IT BEING A
SPECIAL LAW?
Notwithstanding that R.A. 7610
is a special law, appellant may enjoy
the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. Since the penalty
provided in R.A. 7610 is taken from the
range of penalties in the Revised Penal
Code, it is covered by the first clause of
Section 1 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINE.
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610
provides: The Court ruled that a child
is deemed subject to other sexual
abuse when the child is the victim of
lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult. In lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence
of any adult, there must be some form
of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free
exercise of the offended party’s free
will. In this case, Garingarao coerced
AAA into submitting to his lascivious
acts by pretending that he was
examining her. (GARINGARAO vs.
PEOPLE , G.R. No. 192760: July 20,
2011)
For consensual sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a minor, who is
not exploited in prostitution, to thus
fall within the purview of Section 5(b)
of R.A. No. 7610, "persuasion,
inducement, enticement or coercion" of
the child must be present. (PEOPLE vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and OLAYON, G.R.
No. 171863, August 20, 2008)
_______________________________________
THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT
Republic Act 9745
_____________________________________________
WHO ARE THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE UNDER SECTION 13?
The law adopted the
classification of persons criminally
liable under the Revised Penal Code, to
wit: principals, accomplices and
accessories. BAR Q. [2011]
CAN TORTURE AS A CRIME ABSORB OR
BE ABSORBED BY ANY OTHER CRIME?
No. Torture should be treated as
a separate and independent crime
under the law. (Sec.15)
WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF ANY OF THE
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR AGAINST
PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY IF
ATTENDED BY TORTURE AND SIMILAR
ACTS?
The penalty to be imposed shall
be in its maximum period.
MAY A PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO
HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
TORTURE BE BENEFITED FROM ANY
SUBSEQUENT SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW?
No. They are excluded from the
coverage of special amnesty law. (Sec.
16)
_______________________________________
THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF
1995
Republic Act No. 7877
WHO MAY COMMIT SEXUAL
HARASSMENT?
It is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent
of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other
person who, having authority, influence
or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor
from the other, regardless of whether
the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of
said act (Sec.3).
WHO ELSE MAY BE LIABLE?
Any person who directs or
induces another to commit any act of
sexual harassment as herein defined, or
who cooperates in the commission
thereof by another without which it
would not have been committed, shall
also be held liable under this Act
(Sec.3).
HOW IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMMITTED IN A WORK-RELATED OR
EMPLOYMENT ENVIRONMENT?
It is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a
condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or
continued employment of said
individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms of
conditions, promotions, or privileges;
or the refusal to grant the sexual favor
results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in any
way would discriminate, deprive
ordiminish employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect said
employee;
 (2) The above acts would impair
the employee's rights or privileges
under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result
in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
HOW IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT
COMMITTED IN AN EDUCATION OR
TRAINING ENVIRONMENT?
It is committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care,
custody or supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted
to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a
condition to the giving of a passing
grade, or the granting of honors and
scholarships, or the payment of a
stipend, allowance or other benefits,
privileges, or consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee or
apprentice (Sec.3).
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN vs. EDUARDO O.
WAHIMAN
G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008
Doctrine: It is not necessary that the
demand, request, or requirement of a
sexual favor be articulated in a
categorical oral or written statement. It
may be discerned, with equal certitude,
from the acts of the offender.
2TERESITA G. NARVASA vs. BENJAMIN A.
SANCHEZ, JR.
G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010
Doctrine: Assuming arguendo that
respondent never intended to violate
RA 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner
was a flagrant disregard of a customary
rule that had existed since time
immemorial – that intimate physical
contact between individuals must be
consensual. Respondent’s defiance of
custom and lack of respect for the
opposite sex were more appalling
because he was a married man.
Respondent’s act showed a low regard
for women and disrespect for
petitioner’s honor and dignity.
SHARON S. ALEGRIA vs. JUDGE MANUEL
N. DUQUE
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2019, 04 April 2007
Doctrine: Sexual harassment in the
workplace is not about a man taking
advantage of a woman by reason of
sexual desire – it is about power being
exercised by a superior over his women
subordinates. That power emanates
from the fact that he can remove them
if they refuse his amorous advances.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
ACT OF 2003
Republic Act No. 9208
_____________________________________________
WHAT ACTS CONSTITUTE “QUALIFIED
TRAFFICKING”?
The following are considered as
qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is
a child;
(b) 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;
BAR Q. [2012] When the adoption of a
child is effected under the Inter-
Country Adoption Act for the purpose
of prostitution, what is the proper
charge against the offender who is a
public officer in relation to the
exploitative purpose?
a. acts that promote
trafficking in persons;
b. trafficking in persons;
c. qualified trafficking in
persons;
d. use of trafficked person.
(c) When the crime is committed by a
syndicate, or in large scale.
c.1 When is Trafficking deemed
committed
by a syndicate?
If it carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with
one another.
c.2 When is Trafficking deemed
committed in large scale?
If it committed against three
(3) or more persons, individually
or as a group.
(d) 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;
(e) When the trafficked person is
recruited to engage in prostitution with
any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of
the military or law enforcement
agencies; and
(g) 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).(Sec.6).
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) 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”.
STATE THE RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR
PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THE
CRIME OF PLUNDER.

BAR Q.[2012] CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

Section 4 of R.A. 7080 provides:
FELONY IS PUNISHABLE ONLY IN CASES
“For purposes of establishing the crime
IN WHICH THE LAW SPECIFICALLY
of plunder, it shall not be necessary to
PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR.
prove each and every criminal act done
UNDER WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING
by the accused in furtherance of the
INSTANCES ARE THE CONSPIRATORS
scheme or conspiracy to amass,
NOT LIABLE?
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish
a. Conspiracy to commit beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of
arson. overt or criminal acts indicative of the
overall unlawful scheme or
b. Conspiracy to commit conspiracy.” BAR Q. [2011]
terrorism.
_____________________________________________
c. Conspiracy to commit
child pornography. THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT
Republic Act No. 4200
d. Conspiracy to commit _____________________________________________
trafficking in persons. WHAT ARE THE ACTS PUNISHED
UNDER THIS ACT?
_____________________________________________
It shall be unlawful for any
ANTI-PLUNDER LAW person, not being authorized by all the
Republic Act No. 7080 parties to any private communication
_______________________________________ or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or
DEFINE THE CRIME OF PLUNDER. arrangement, to secretly overhear,
(Section 2) intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by
Section 12 of R.A. 7659 using a device commonly known as a
amended Section 2 of R.A. 7080 to read dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone
as follows: or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described:
"Sec.2. Definition of the Crime of
Plunder - Any public officer who, by It shall also be unlawful for any
himself or in connivance with person, be he a participant or not in the
members of his family, relatives by act or acts penalized in the next
affinity or consanguinity, business preceding sentence, to knowingly
associates, subordinates or other possess any tape record, wire record,
persons, amasses, accumulates or disc record, or any other such record,
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a or copies thereof, of any
combination or series of overt criminal communication or spoken word secured
either before or after the effective date
of this Act in the manner prohibited by
this law; or to replay the same for any
other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof,
either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other
person: Provided, That the use of such
record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not
be covered by this prohibition (Sec. 1).
WHEN IS THE COMMISSION OF SUCH
ACTS DEEMED LAWFUL?
It is deemed lawful when
committed by any peace officer, who is
authorized by a written order of the
Court, to 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
(Sec.3).
The period of the authorization.
The authorization shall be effective for
the period specified in the order which
shall not exceed sixty (60) days from
the date of issuance of the order,
unless extended or renewed by the
court upon being satisfied that such
extension or renewal is in the public
interest (Sec.3).
THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF
2009
Republic Act No. 9775
_______________________________________
WHAT ARE THE UNLAWFUL OR
PROHIBITED ACTS ENUMERATED UNDER
THE LAW?
The following are the unlawful or
prohibited acts:
(a) To hire, employ, use,
persuade, induce or coerce a
child to perform in the creation
or production of any form of
child pornography;
(b) To produce, direct,
manufacture or create any form
of child pornography;
(c) To publish offer, transmit,
sell, distribute, broadcast,
advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child
pornography;
(d) To possess any form of child
pornography with the intent to
sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast: Provided. That
possession of three (3) or more
articles of child pornography of
the same form shall be prima
facie evidence of the intent to
sell, distribute, publish or
broadcast;
(e) To knowingly, willfully and
intentionally provide a venue for
the commission of prohibited
acts as, but not limited to, dens,
private rooms, cubicles, cinemas,
houses or in establishments
purporting to be a legitimate
business;
(f) For film distributors, theaters
and telecommunication
companies, by themselves or in
cooperation with other entities,
to distribute any form of child
pornography;
(g) For a parent, legal guardian
or person having custody or
control of a child to knowingly
permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form
of child pornography;
(h) To engage in the luring or
grooming of a child;
(i) To engage in pandering of any
form of child pornography;
(j) To willfully access any form of
child pornography;
(k) To conspire to commit any of
the prohibited acts stated in this
 section. Conspiracy to commit
any form of child pornography
shall be committed when two (2)
or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said
prohibited acts and decide to
commit it; and
(l) To possess any form of child
pornography (Sec.4).
BAR Q. [2011] Mr. P owns a boarding
house where he knowingly allowed
children to be videotaped while
simulating explicit sexual activities.
What is Mr. P's criminal liability, if any?
A. Corruption of minors under the Penal
Code
B. Violation of the Child
Pornography Act
C. Violation of the Child Abuse
Law
D. None
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO
VOYEURISM ACT
OF 2009
Republic Act No. 9995
PROHIBITED ACTS ENUMERATED UNDER
SECTION 4.
It is prohibited and declared
unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video
coverage of a person or group of
persons performing sexual act or
any similar activity or to capture
an image of the private area of a
person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals,
public area, buttocks or female
breast without the consent of
the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the
person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce,
or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video
or recording of sexual act or any
similar activity with or without
consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or
cause to be sold or distributed,
such photo or video or recording
of sexual act, whether it be the
original copy or reproduction
thereof; or
(d) To publish or
broadcast, or cause to be
published or broadcast, whether
in print or broadcast media, or
show or exhibit the photo or
video coverage or recordings of
such sexual act or any similar
activity through VCD/DVD,
internet, cellular phones and
other similar means or device.
IS CONSENT TO RECORD OR TAKE
PHOTO OR VIDEO COVERAGE
CONSTITUTES AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE
PROHIBITION UNDER PARAGRAPHS (B),
(C) AND (D)?
No. The prohibition shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record
or take photo or video coverage of the
same was given by such person/s. Any
person who violates this provision shall
be liable (Sec.4).
BAR Q. [2010] SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the acts committed by Canuto do
not fall under the definition of
voyeurism nor under the prohibited
acts enumerated under Section 4 of the
Anti- Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of
2009. There was no taking photo or
video coverage of a person performing
sexual act or any similar activity or of
capturing an image of the private area
of a person under circumstances in
which such person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, nor there was
an act of selling, copying, reproducing,
broadcasting, sharing, showing or
exhibiting the photo or video coverage
or recordings of sexual act or similar
activity through internet, cellular
phones and similar means or device. If
at all, he committed acts of
lasciviousness, as obviously, the
element of lewdness is present in this
case.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW
Republic Act No. 9346
_____________________________________________
The imposition of the penalty of death
is prohibited.
IN LIEU OF THE DEATH PENALTY, WHAT
SHOULD BE IMPOSED?
The following shall be imposed
in lieu of the death penalty-
(a) the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, when the law
violated makes use of the
 nomenclature of the penalties of liability and be subjected to an
the Revised Penal Code; or intervention program, unless he/she
has acted with discernment, in which
(b) the penalty of life case, such child shall be subjected to
imprisonment, when the law the appropriate proceedings in
violated does not make use of accordance with this Act.
the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal The exemption from criminal
Code.(Secs. 1 and 2) liability herein established does not
include exemption from civil liability,
which shall be enforced in accordance
Person convicted of offenses punished
with existing laws.
with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion -“Discernment” is that mental capacity
perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall of a minor to fully appreciate the
not be eligible for parole under Act No. consequences of his unlawful act. Such
4180, otherwise known as the capacity may be known and should be
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as determined by taking into
amended. (Sec.3) consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records
_____________________________________________ in each case. The surrounding
circumstances must demonstrate that
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF
the minor knew what he was doing and
2006, Republic Act No. 9344
that it was wrong. Such circumstance
____________________________________________ includes the gruesome nature of the
crime and the minor’s cunning and
WHAT IS A DIVERSION PROGRAM? BAR shrewdness.
Q.[2009]
-Discernment is again shown in the
case of Robert Remiendo vs. People,
It refers to the program that the G.R. No. 184874, 09 October 2009. In
child in conflict with the law is required this case, his act of waiting for the
to undergo after he/she is found victim’s parents to leave the house
responsible for an offense without before defiling the latter and
resorting to formal court proceedings. threatening to kick her if she should
shout prove that petitioner can
differentiate what is right and wrong.
WHAT IS INTERVENTION? BAR Q.[2009]
WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE
It refers to a series of activities PRESUMPTION OF MINORITY?
which are designed to address issues
that caused the child to commit an The child in conflict with the law
offense. It may take the form of an shall enjoy the presumption of minority.
individualized treatment program which He shall enjoy all the rights of a child in
may include counseling, skills training, conflict with the law until he is proven
education, and other activities that will to be eighteen (18) years old or older.
enhance his/her psychological, BAR Q. [2011]
emotional and psycho-social well-being.
In case of doubt as to the age of the
child, it shall be resolved in his favor.
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AGE OF
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDER R.A. WHEN IS AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF
9334? (Sec.6)/ BAR Q. [2012] SENTENCE APPLICABLE? (Sec.38)
A child fifteen (15) years of age
or under at the time of the commission The court shall place the child under
of the offense shall be exempt from suspended sentence instead of
criminal liability. However, the child pronouncement of judgment of
shall be subjected to an intervention conviction under the following
program pursuant to Section 20 of this circumstances:
Act.
“Once the child who is under
A child above fifteen (15) years eighteen (18) years of age at the time
but below eighteen (18) years of age of the commission of the offense is
shall likewise be exempt from criminal found guilty of the offense charged,
the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may
have resulted from the offense
committed.
However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of
conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of
application.”
That suspension of sentence shall still
be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen years (18) of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement
of his/her guilt.(Sec. 38)
WHEN MAY THE CHILD IN CONFLICT
WITH THE LAW BE RETURNED TO THE
COURT? (Sec. 40)
The law expressly provides:
“If the court finds that the
objective of the disposition measures
imposed upon the child in conflict with
the law have not been fulfilled, or if
the child in conflict with the law has
willfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program, the child in
conflict with the law shall be brought
before the court for execution of
judgment.”
MAY A PERSON, THEREFORE, WHO IS
NOW BEYOND THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE
(21) YEARS, STILL AVAIL OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 38 AND 40
OF RA 9344 AS TO HIS SUSPENSION OF
SENTENCE? BAR Q. [2012]
No. A person who is now beyond
the age of twenty-one (21) years
cannot avail of the provisions of
Sections 38 and 40 of R .A. 9344 as to
his suspension of sentence. Section 38
states:
However, while Section 38 of RA
9344 provides that suspension
sentence can still be applied even if the
child in conflict with the law is already
eighteen (18) years of age or more at
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court
held that the appellant shall be entitled
to appropriate disposition under
Section 51 of RA No. 9344, which
provides for the confinement of
convicted children as follows:
“SEC. 51. Confinement of
Convicted Children in
Agricultural Camps and other
Training Facilities.—A child in
conflict with the law may, after
conviction and upon order of
the court, be made to serve
his/her sentence, in lieu of
confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural
camp and other training
facilities that may be
established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by
the BUCOR, in coordination with
the DSWD.”
BAR Q. [2009] Suppose Joe’s motion
for intervention or diversion was
denied, and he was convicted two (2)
years later when Joe was already 21
years old, should the judge apply the
suspension of sentence? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A person who is
beyond the age of twenty-one (21)
years cannot avail of the provisions of
Sections 38 and 40 of R .A. 9344 on his
suspension of sentence.
MAY THE CHILD IN CONFLICT OF THE
LAW BE INSTEAD PLACED ON
PROBATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
IMPRISONMENT? (Sec.42)
Yes. “The court may, after it
shall have convicted and sentenced a
child in conflict with the law, and upon
application at any time, place the child
on probation in lieu of service of
his/her sentence taking into account
the best interest of the child. For this
purpose, Section 4 of Presidential
Decree No. 968, otherwise known as
the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby
amended accordingly.”
of
EXEMPTING PROVISIONS
CAN A MINOR BE REQUIRED TO SERVE

the time of the pronouncement of HIS SENTENCE IN AGRICULTURAL

his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same CAMPS AND OTHER TRAINING

law limits the said suspension of FACILITIES? (Sec. 51)

sentence until the child reaches the

Yes, R.A. 9344 is explicit:
maximum age of 21.
 “Sec. 51. Confinement of a. A child fifteen (15) years of age
Convicted Children in Agricultural
or under at the time of the
Camps and Other Training Facilities. - A
child in conflict with the law may, after commission of the offense shall
conviction and upon order of the court,
be exempt from criminal liability.
be made to serve his/her sentence, in
lieu of confinement in a regular penal However, the child shall be
institution, in an agricultural camp and
subjected to an intervention
other training facilities that may be
established, maintained, supervised program pursuant to Section 20
and controlled by the BUCOR, in
of the Act.
cooperation with the DSWD.”
b. A child above fifteen (15) years
ARE THE BENEFITS UNDER THIS but below eighteen (18) years of
PROVISION APPLICABLE WHEN THE
age shall likewise be exempt
MINOR HAD ALREADY REACHED 21
YEARS OF AGE OR OVER AT THE TIME from criminal liability and be
OF HIS CONVICTION?
subjected to an intervention
Yes. In PEOPLE vs. URBAN program, unless he/she has
SALCEDO ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL
acted with discernment, in which
DIOLAGRA, G.R. No. 186523, June 22,
2011,the Supreme Court reiterated , case, such child shall be
that if indeed, an accused was under
subjected to the appropriate
eighteen (18) years of age at the time
of the commission of the crime, such proceedings in accordance with
offenders, even if already over twenty-
this Act.
one (21) years old at the time of
c. The age of a child may be
conviction, may still avail of the
benefits accorded by Section 51 of R.A. determined from the child’s birth
No. 9344.
certificate, baptismal certificate
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF STATUS or any other pertinent
OFFENSES?
documents. In the absence of
(Sec. 57) Any conduct not considered these documents, age may be
an offense or not penalized if
based on information from the
committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be child himself/herself, testimonies
punished if committed by a child.
of other persons, the physical
WHAT CRIMINAL OFFENSES ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO MINORS? (Sec. 58) appearance of the child and
other relevant evidence. In case
Persons below eighteen (18) of doubt as to the age of the
years of age shall be exempt from
child, it shall be resolved in
prosecution for the following crimes:
his/her favor
a) vagrancy and prostitution d. Reduction of the criminal liability
under Section 202 of the by virtue of RA 9344 does not
Revised Penal Code; extend to the civil liability. The
civil liability is not affected by
b) mendicancy under
Presidential Decree No. 1563; the same.
and
e. If the court finds that the
c) sniffing of rugby under objective of the disposition
Presidential Decree No. 1619, measures imposed upon the
such prosecution being
child in conflict with the law
inconsistent with the United
Nations Convention on the have not been fulfilled, or if the
Rights of the Child: child in conflict with the law has
willfully failed to comply with the
Provided, that said persons shall
undergo appropriate counseling and conditions of his/her disposition
treatment program. or rehabilitation program, the
child in conflict with the law shall
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES:
 be brought before the court for the maximum age of twenty-one
execution of judgment. (21) years.

f. Once the child who is under

eighteen (18) years of age at the -The child in conflict with the law shall
time of the commission of the enjoy the presumption of minority.
offense is found guilty of the (People vs. Salvador Atizado and
offense charged, the court shall Salvador Monreal, G.R. No. 173822,
determine and ascertain any civil October 13, 2010)
liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. -The reckoning point in considering
However, instead of pronouncing minority is the time of the commission
the judgment of conviction, the of the crime. (Valcesar Estioca vs.
court shall place the child in People, G.R. 173876, 27 June 2008)
conflict with the law under
_____________________________________________
suspended sentence, without
need of application. Provided, THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY
however, That suspension of ROBBERY LAW PD No. 532

sentence shall still be applied _____________________________________________

even if the juvenile is already
eighteen (18) years of age or WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFY THE
more at the time of the PENALTY?
The law provides a higher
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
penalty if the following circumstances
g. A child in conflict with the law attended the commission of the crime,

may, after conviction and upon

a. In Piracy-
order of the court, be made to
serve his/her sentence, in lieu of 1; If physical injuries or other crimes
confinement in a regular penal are committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof. 2. If rape, murder or
institution, in an agricultural
homicide is committed as a result or on
camp and other training facilities the occasion of piracy, or when the
that may be established, offenders abandoned the victims
without means of saving themselves, or
maintained, supervised and
when the seizure is accomplished by
controlled by the Bureau of firing upon or boarding a vessel.BAR Q.
Corrections (BUCOR), in [2008]
coordination with the
b. In Highway Robbery/ Brigandage
Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD). 1. If physical injuries or other crimes
h. If said child in conflict with the are committed during or on the
law has reached eighteen (18) occasion of the commission of robbery
years of age while under or brigandage. 2. If kidnapping for
ransom or extortion, or murder or
suspended sentence, the court
homicide, or rape is committed as a
shall determine whether to result or on the occasion thereof.
discharge the child in
Ruling: This case falls squarely within
accordance with this Act, to
the purview of piracy and not grave
order, execution of sentence, or coercion. While it may be true that
Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to
to extend the suspended
go elsewhere other than their place of
sentence for a certain specified destination, such compulsion was
obviously part of the act of seizing their
period or until the child reaches
boat. The testimony of Eugene, one of
the victims, shows that the appellant
actually seized the vessel through force
and intimidation. (People vs. Emiliano
Catantan Y TayongG.R No. 118075,
September 5, 1997)
BAR Q. [2012] A postal van containing
mail matters, including checks and
treasury warrants, was hijacked along a
national highway by ten (10) men, two
(2) of whom were armed. They used
force, violence and intimidation against
three (3) postal employees who were
occupants of the van, resulting in the
unlawful taking and asportation of the
entire van and its contents.
a. If you were the public
prosecutor, would you charge
the ten (10) men who hijacked
the postal van with violation of
Presidential Decree No. 532,
otherwise known as the Anti-
Piracy and Anti -Highway
Robbery Law of 1974? Explain
your answer. SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Yes. There was indeed
taking away of the property of
another person by means of
violence against or intimidation
of persons committed on a
Philippine Highway for as long
as I can prove, further, the
element of indiscriminate
highway robbery.
The fact that there were
only two (2) persons who were
armed is of no moment. There is
no requirement under PD 532
that there should be at least
four armed persons forming a
band of robbers as the number
of perpetrators is not an
essential element of the crime.
(People of the
Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Vs.Romeo Mendoza Y Reyes And
Jaime Rejali Y Lina, Defendants-
Appellants. G.R. No. 104461,
February 23, 1996).
b. If you were the defense counsel,
what are the elements of the
crime of highway robbery that
the prosecution should prove to
sustain a conviction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER To
obtain a conviction for
highway robbery, the
prosecution should prove
the following:
1. There is taking away of the
property of another; 2. There is
violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things
or other unlawful means; 3.
The act is committed on any
Philippine Highway.; 4. All the
accused, in the instant case,
were organized for the purpose
of committing robbery
indiscriminately. Evidence of
any previous attempts at
similar robberies by the
accused must be presented to
show the "indiscriminate"
commission thereof and not
acts of robbery committed
against only a predetermined
or particular victim,. People Of
The Philippines, Plaintiff-
Appellee, Vs.Romeo Mendoza Y
Reyes And Jaime Rejali Y
Lina, Defendants-Appellants.
G.R. No. 104461, February 23,
1996.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
Republic Act No. 6235
_____________________________________________
WHAT ARE THE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER
THE LAW?
It shall be unlawful for any
person to compel a change in the
course or destination of an aircraft of
Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp
the control thereof, while it is in flight.
It shall likewise be unlawful for
any person to compel an aircraft of
foreign registry to land in Philippine
territory or to seize or usurp the control
thereof while it is within the said
territory (Sec.1).
An aircraft is in flight from the
moment all its external doors are
closed following embarkation until any
of such doors is opened for
disembarkation.
WHAT ARE THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIJACKING?
A higher penalty is imposed if
hijacking is committed under any of the
following circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon
the pilot, member of the crew or
passenger of the aircraft; 2.
Whenever he has exploded or
attempted to explode any bomb
 or explosive to destroy the
aircraft; 3. Whenever the crime
is accompanied by murder,
homicide, serious physical
injuries or rape (Sec.2).
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT
Republic Act No. 6539
_____________________________________________
DEFINE "CARNAPPING"
It is the taking, with intent to
gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to
another without the latter's consent, or
by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using
force upon things.
-The elements of carnapping are as
follows:
1. That there is an actual taking
of the vehicle; 2. That the
offender intends to gain from the
taking of the vehicle; 3. That the
vehicle belongs to a person
other than the offender himself;
4. That the taking is without the
consent of the owner thereof; or
that the taking was committed
by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things. People
Vs. Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et
al. G.R. No. 138470, April 1,
2003. BAR Q. [2008]
Unlawful taking is the taking of a
vehicle without the consent of the
owner, or by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, or by using
force upon things; it is deemed
complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing,
even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same. (People Vs.
Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R.
No. 138470, April 1, 2003.)
DOES THE ELEMENT OF TAKING ABSORB
THE LOSS OF CASH OR OTHER
PERSONAL PROPERTY?
No. Although carnapping and
robbery have the same element of
taking with intent to gain, the former
specifically refers to the unlawful
taking of a motor vehicle only. (People
vs. Dela Cruz, GR No. 174658,February
24, 2009).
DOES THE THIRD ELEMENT
REQUIRE THE PERSON DIVESTED OF
THE MOTOR VEHICLE BE THE OWBER
THEREOF?
No. What is simply required is
that the property taken does not
belong to the offender. Actual
possession of the property by the
person dispossessed suffices. (People
Vs. Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et al.
G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003).
BAR QUESTION [2012] What should be
the proper charge against an offender
who unlawfully took and carried away a
motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, killing the
driver in the process?
a. The proper charge against
the offender should be
murder with the use of motor
vehicle.
b. The proper charge against
the offender should be
qualified carnapping or
carnapping in an aggravated
form. (*The driver was killed
during the commission of
carnapping..A higher penalty
is thus to be imposed).
c. The proper charge against
the offender should be
carnapping and homicide.
d. The proper charge against
the offender should be
robbery with homicide.
_____________________________________________
THE LAW ON ARSON AS AMENDED
Presidential Decree No. 1613
WHAT IS ARSON?
It is a crime committed by any
person who burns or sets fire to the
property of another or when a person
sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger
the life or property of another. (Sec.1)
The following are the special
aggravating circumstances in Arson:
(Sec.4)
1. If committed with intent to gain; 2. If
committed for the benefit of another; 3.
If the offender is motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner or occupant
of the property burned; 4. If committed
by a syndicate.
-The offense is committed by a
syndicate if it is planned or carried out - Under R.A. No. 9372, otherwise known
by a group of three (3) or more as the Human Security Act of 2007, a
person who commits an act punishable
persons. (Sec.4)
under Art. 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction) and thereby sowing and
- If by reason of or on the occasion of creating condition of widespread and
the arson death results, a higher extraordinary fear and panic among the
penalty shall be imposed. populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful
demand shall be guilty of the crime of
- Mere conspiracy to commit arson is terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of
punishable. forty (40) years of imprisonment
without the benefit of parole.
- PRINCIPLES TO CONSIDER:
_____________________________________________
1. Suppose the offender set the house
THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW
of the victim on fire by way of
Republic 4ct No. 6085
revenge against the latter. He was
not aware that the victim was
[BAR 2006]
inside and consequently, the latter
_____________________________________________
died because of the fire. What
crime was committed?
The law provides that no persons
shall use any name different from the
The crime is mere arson. There
one with which he was registered at
is no complex crime of arson with
birth in the office of the local civil
homicide. The crime of homicide is
registry, or with which he was baptized
absorbed. The consequence, if by
for the first time, or, in case of an alien,
reason of or on the occasion of the
with which he was registered in the
arson death results, is the
bureau of immigration upon entry; or
imposition of a higher penalty.
such substitute name as may have been
authorized by a competent court.
2. Suppose the offender knew that
(Sec.1)
the victim was inside the house
before the house was set on fire,
The use of ‘alias’ is allowed as a
what crime was committed?
pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,
If the offender knew that the
television, radio or other entertainment
victim was in the house when it
purposes and in athletic events where
was set on fire, the crime
the use of pseudonym is a normally
committed, instead of arson, would
accepted practice. (Sec.1) BAR Q.[2006]
be murder. The fire constitutes as
a qualifying circumstance.
Any person desiring to use an
alias shall apply for authority in
3. Suppose before setting the house on
proceedings like those legally provided
fire, the offender entered in and
to obtain judicial authority for a change
killed the victim, then he set it on
of name, and no person shall be
fire to conceal the body of the latter,
allowed to secure such judicial
what crime was committed? BAR Q.
authority for more than one alias.
[2012]
(sec.2)
If the offender killed the victim
before the house was set on fire,
two crimes are committed, murder
and arson. The burning of the house
_____________________________________________
to hide the killing is a separate
crime. Arson was committed to
conceal the crime of murder. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Presidential Decree No. 1829 [BAR
BAR QUESTION [2011] Dagami 2010, 2005]
concealed Bugna’s body and the fact _____________________________________________
that he killed him by setting Bugna’s
house on fire. What crime or crimes did WHO MAY BE LIABLE FOR OBSTRUCTION
Dagami commit? OF JUSTICE?
( SEC.1)
A. Murder, the arson being absorbed Any person who knowingly or
already willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates
B. Separate crimes of murder and arson or delays the apprehension of suspects
C. Arson, the homicide being absorbed and the investigation and prosecution
already of criminal cases.
D. Arson with murder as a compound
crime
BAR Q. [2005] Suggested Answer:
Patrick is liable for obstruction of
justice under Section 1 (b) of PD 1829
because he destroyed the evidence
intended to be used in in the criminal
proceeding.
Even if a person is found not
criminally liable as an accessory under
Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code, he
may, however, be liable for acts
punished under P.D. 1829.
DIFFERENTIATE AN ACCESSORY FROM A
PRINCIPAL IN P.D. 1829.
An accessory under Article 20 of
the Revised Penal Code is exempt from
criminal liability when the principal is
his a) spouse b) ascendant c)
descendant d) legitimate, natural or
adopted brother sister or relative by
affinity within the same degree. These
benefits are not available in PD 1829.
-oooOOOooo-