Criminal Law Review

ADDENDUM TO CRIMINAL LAW
REVIEWER
BASED ON THE BOOK OF JUDGE CAMPANILLA
ADDENDUM TO BOOK 1
CRIMINAL GENERAL PRINCIPLES
LAW GENERALITY
Difference between generality and
REVIEWER OF territoriality: In the former, the principle
relates to the personal characteristic of the
PROSECUTOR accused (such as his status of being immune
from prosecution) whereas, the principle of
VICTORIA territoriality relates to the defense of locality

where the crime was committed.
GARCIA Immunity of consuls: as long as there is a

treaty between states, the immunity of a
consul may be defined as limited to his
Based from the book of official functions or expanded to include
Judge Campanilla, 2018 non-official functions.
TERRITORIAL
Embassy situation: when a crime has been
committed inside an embassy of a foreign
Caveat: This is merely to supplement
state situated in the Philippines, our penal
any missing information from the laws still applies to them.
transcribed lecture and review of
Prosecutor Victoria Garcia. The premise of an embassy is not an
extension of territory of that foreign country.
Use at own risk. It is better to use
However, jurisdiction of the PH over the
your own review materials that you embassy is limited or restricted by the
are comfortable reading. principles of inviolability of diplomatic
premises (a generally accepted principle of
international law) where for example, arrest
cannot be made inside the premises without
;JC
a waiver of that foreign state.
International spaces/water in relation to

territorial areas: crimes committed on
AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

REVIEWER
board a vessel or a craft over international Trafficking: The following are the
waters and international airspace shall be rules to take into consider in relation
prosecuted by the flag bearing country. to prosecution of trafficking;
Should the craft or vessel be located inside 1. It has commenced in the

the territorial waters of a foreign state, it Philippines despite the fact that
shall be subject to the penal laws of the host some of its elements was
country qualified by the flag rules followed executed abroad;
by the host country. 2. The suspect is a Filipino citizen
Example: A Malaysian ship while or a permanent resident hereto;
traversing international waters, a 3. The victim is a Filipino citizen
crime was committed. It shall be 4. The foreign government has not
prosecuted by Malaysian courts yet initiated the prosecution for
trafficking except when there is
However, should the Malaysian ship an approval of the Secretary of
be found within the waters of the Justice
Philippines, it shall follow the penal Terrorism: This law shall apply to
laws of our country unless the individuals despite being outside the
dispute committed merely refers to territorial limits of the Philippines;
internal management of the ship.
1. There is a conspiracy or plot to
Universality of a crime: crimes against commit terrorism inside the
laws of nation are not crimes directed Philippines;
against any particular state but against all 2. Commit any of the crimes
mankind. Hence, it may be punished in any involving terrorism on board a
tribunal where the offender may be found or PH ship or airship
carried into. 3. Commit any of the crimes
Territoriality of an SPL: it follows the involving terrorism within any
territorial principle of criminal laws with the embassy, consulate, or
exception that suppose the law itself diplomatic premises belonging to
provides a specific rule otherwise. or occupied by the Philippine
government in an official
Trafficking and terrorism are SPL that has capacity
particular rules relating to its prosecution 4. Commit any of the crimes against
when committed abroad. Common to both is Philippine citizens or persons of
the “PH Element” Philippine descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a

REVIEWER
factor in the commission of the offense for which they were

crime; convicted and are serving sentence,
5. It is directed against the shall likewise benefit from the
Philippine government retroactive application of this Act.
They shall be entitled to appropriate
PROSPECTIVITY dispositions provided under this Act
Favourable and non-habitual delinquent: and their sentences shall be adjusted
based on Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code, accordingly. They shall be
a penal law can be given retroactive immediately released if they are so
application notwithstanding the fact that qualified under this Act or other
such law is silent for that matter provided it applicable law.
is favourable to the accused and the accused
is not considered as a habitual delinquent There is no condition whatsoever
(regardless whether his case is still pending imposed by law, hence despite the
or there is already a judgment by final fact that the juvenile offender is a
conviction). habitual delinquent, the benefits of
Decriminalization: when a criminal act has this law shall apply retroactively.
been decriminalized, the criminal case shall This is because RA 9344 is a special
be dismissed without any precondition law whereas Art. 22 of the RPC is a
regardless whether the accused is a habitual general law, by rules of statutory
delinquent or not. construction and doctrine of pro-reo,
a favourable application shall be
This is on the basis of nullum crimen nulla applied.
poena sine lege.
With condition: RA 101951 which
Express provision of the law: if the law so
adjusts the penalties found under
provides that the penal law shall be given
RPC shall have retroactive effect to
retroactive effect. It may or may not also
the extent that it is favorable to the
state any condition for its application.
accused or person serving sentence
Subject to the proscription of ex post facto
by final judgment.
law and bill of attainder
Hernan doctrine (Hernan v. Sandiganbayan,
Without any condition: Juvenile
2017): changing the penalty imposed against
Justice Act, Sec. 68 states: Persons
the accused by final judgment to a lenient
who have been convicted and are
punishment brought about RA 101951
serving sentence at the time of the
despite the fact that the case was settled
effectivity of this Act, and who were
before the effectivity of the law.
below the age of eighteen (18) years
at the time the commission of the

REVIEWER
Court finds that it is still necessary to reopen FELONIES

the instant case and recall the Entry of
Judgment dated June 26, 2013 of the MISTAKE OF FACT
Sandiganbayan, not for further reception of As a means to negate criminal intent: had
evidence, however, as petitioner prays for, the facts as the accused believes them to be
but in order to modify the penalty imposed were true, the accused is lawfully motivated
by said court. The general rule is that a to thwart such supposition without any
judgment that has acquired finality becomes negligence on his part.
immutable and unalterable, and may no
longer be modified in any respect even if the Correlated with other defenses: mere
modification is meant to correct erroneous mistake of fact is not enough to exculpate
conclusions of fact or law and whether it the accused; it must be shown that the
will be made by the court that rendered it or defense he had employed applicable to the
by the highest court of the land.54 When, supposed fact is still compliant with the
however, circumstances transpire after the rules on criminal law.
finality of the decision rendering its
Example: The accused was browsing
execution unjust and inequitable, the Court
his phone while waiting for the bus
may sit en bane and give due regard to such
and felt something sharp behind his
exceptional circumstance warranting the
back. Believing that his life is in
relaxation of the doctrine of immutability.
imminent danger when he felt
Indeed, when exceptional circumstances something sharp he suddenly shoved
exist, such as the passage of the instant the person behind his back which
amendatory law imposing penalties more caused the latter to fall and had a big
lenient and favorable to the accused, the impact causing his death.
Court shall not hesitate to direct the
reopening of a final and immutable It was found out later on that it was
judgment, the objective of which is to merely a stick and the person who
correct not so much the findings of guilt but was poking the accused was his
the applicable penalties to be imposed. friend playing a joke.
Effect of partial repeal: Unlike in absolute Had the facts as the accused believe
repeal where a criminal act is no longer them to be were true, particularly if
punished, ultimately benefitting the accused the stick was a knife and was pointed
or convict, a partial appeal shall be subject to him, the accused had every right
to the general rule that it must be favourable to defend his life from any imminent
to the accused and he is not a habitual danger; his act of shoving the person
delinquent is a reasonable means necessary to
thwart the danger; and there was no

REVIEWER
provocation on the accused as he is Example: X and Z engaged in

merely waiting for the bus. fisticuffs. Immediately thereafter, Z
was hit by a bus causing his death.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Felonies only: the wordings of the law “any X cannot be held liable for the death
person performing a felony (dolo) x x x” of Z because the latter’s death is
presupposes that the PCD is only applicable caused by an EIC.
when the act of the person amounts to a
felony or a crime punished by the RPC It would be different if Z (after the
(intentional or culpable felony) fisticuffs) suffered serious injury and
Exception would be any crime that is in need of medical attention. The
punished by a SPL but has the same nature attending physician on Z was grossly
of the crimes mentioned and punished under negligent which made the injuries of
the RPC. An example would be carnapping, Z worse leading to Z’s death.
though punished by under a SPL, the
essence is similar to that of theft and X is liable because the cause of Z’s
robbery. death is brought by assaulting Z. Had
he not engaged in fisticuffs, Z would
Producing fear: if a person in committing not need medical attention from a
an intentional felony creates in the mind of negligent physician.
the victim an immediate sense of danger
which causes such person to try to escape APPLICABLE RULES ON THE THREE
and in doing so he injures himself, the MODES FACILITATING PCD
person who creates such state of mind is Abberatio ictus: Since there are two
reasonable for the resulting injuries. victims, the intended and the actual victim
who suffers an injury from a felonious act
Efficient intervening cause: that cause that arising from one act, Article 48 of the RPC
completely separates and breaks the chain of applies.
events from the proximate cause of the
injury. Error Personae: Article 49 of the RPC
applies;
To be considered as an efficient intervening
cause, this cause must be independent and 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
separate from the chain such that it is committed be higher than that corresponding
sourced from somewhere else, a third party to the offense which the accused intended to
cause. commit, the penalty corresponding to the
latter shall be imposed in its maximum
period.

REVIEWER
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony Example: in robbery, grave coercion
committed be lower than that corresponding is necessarily included therein.
to the one which the accused intended to Hence, the person is not liable for
commit, the penalty for the former shall be committing impossible crime of
imposed in its maximum period. robbery but grave coercion
3. The rule established by the next preceding

paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts STAGES OF CRIMINAL
committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of EXECUTION
another crime, if the law prescribes a higher
ATTEMPTED
penalty for either of the latter offenses, in
How to be liable for the attempted stage
which case the penalty provided for the
of the crime intended: the overt act
attempted or the frustrated crime shall be
performed must not only be indicative of the
imposed in its maximum period.
intended felony but must show that it would
Praeter intentionem: it shall be considered inevitably result to that intended. Otherwise,
as a mitigating circumstance; Art. 13(3). the accused may be liable for an
indeterminate offense.
Applicable to all: the act that causes into
motion other causes leading to the injury Example: The act of the accused
(without such act the injury would not come trying to force himself to penetrate
into fruition) must be felonious in nature. the victim is indicative of rape, hence
he may be held liable for attempted
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME rape.
Crime of last resort: the act that could have
been considered as a crime against person Should the accused (instead of
and property shall not fall under any forcing himself) simply put a
classification or provision of RPC otherwise chemical soaked cloth at the victim’s
impossible crime is not committed but the nose cannot be liable of attempted
crime that has been actually committed. rape as his overt act is not indicative
of rape.
Just because an act does not amount to a
crime against a person and property does not Spontaneous desistance as a defense: the
necessarily mean it will already amount to desistance must not only be voluntary but
impossible crime, one must take into must be free from any external or internal
consider whether it has crimes which are restraint. It must be instantaneous and
necessarily included therein. automatic.

REVIEWER
Example: In attempting to have the acts of execution, he will not be absolved

sexual congress against the will of from criminal liability from any crime
the woman, the malefactor did not already consummated. However, he shall not
proceed with his desire because he be held liable for the frustrated felony he
saw someone watching his action. intended to commit.
Although accused-appellant desisted Spontaneous desistance is a defense for

from performing all the acts of attempted stage of a felony only, not in
execution however his desistance frustrated stage.
was not spontaneous as he was
impelled to do so only because of the
sudden and unexpected observation
CONSPIRACY
of a third person. (People v. Lizada, DIRECT CONSPIRACY vis-à-vis
2003) IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
Not a defense for the crime actually We have to take into consider whether there
committed: It must be borne in mind, is a direct conspiracy or implied conspiracy
however, that the spontaneous desistance of because of the following rules;
a malefactor exempts him from criminal As to operation of theory of
liability for the intended crime but it does imputation: in direct conspiracy, the
not exempt him from the crime committed degree of actions of the malefactors
by him before his desistance. (People v. are not considered because the act of
Lizada, supra) one is the act of all. They are all
Example: suppose that the accused bound by the agreement made.
intends to rape the victim, prior to
his actions indicative of intent to In implied conspiracy, mere passive
penetrate, he performed acts of ascendancy during the commission
lasciviousness. of the crime is not indicative of
implied conspiracy. The malefactors’
Should he later on desist from his actions must be simultaneous, active,
criminal intention, he is not liable for synchronized towards a common
attempted rape because of criminal design. Upon proof of the
spontaneous desistance but he is synchronized acts, the theory of
liable for acts of lasciviousness. imputation (act of one is the act of
all) operates.
FRUSTRATED
“Independent of the will of the
As to being an accomplice or
perpetrator”: If the offender performed all
principal: what separates a principal

REVIEWER
from an accomplice is conspiracy. A CONSPIRACY vis-à-vis DEGREE OF

principal is one who drafts and PARTICIPATION
agrees to commit a crime, whereas There is no need to determine the degree of
an accomplice merely concurs to an participation when conspiracy is established,
already existing plan. the act of one is the act of all.
In relation to implied conspiracy

(because there is no agreement), If conspiracy does not exist, one must
what separates an accomplice from determine the degree of participation in
the principal is the degree of their order to determine whether he acted as a
participation, whether the act is principal, accomplice, or accessory.
indispensable or not. An accomplice
act may be necessary but not RULES TO TAKE INTO CONSIDER
indispensable whereas the act of the As a crime vis-à-vis as a means:
principal must be indispensable. Conspiracy as a crime can only be possible
if the law provides a penalty for it.
Example: in kidnapping
However, when the offenders actually
and serious illegal
pushed through with the crimes they had
detention with ransom. X
agreed upon, conspiracy is considered as a
abducted Z, Y
mode of committing the crime and will
simultaneously demanded
trigger the operation of “act of one is the act
from Z’s parent ransom
of all”. Offenders in this instance will be
money.
liable for the crime actually committed.
X and Y shall be Mastermind need not be present at the
considered as principals scene of the crime: generally, to be held
for the crime liable as a co-conspirator for a crime the
malefactors must be present in drafting the
Should X detain and criminal design and must be present at the
demanded ransom for Z’s scene of the crime.
liberty. Y’s act of
collecting the ransom An exception is when one of the co-
money can only be conspirators is considered as a mastermind
considered as an act of or a principal by inducement. For the
the accomplice. X already mastermind to be liable (notwithstanding the
executed all the act fact that he is not present at the scene of the
needed to commit the crime) the inducement must be so influential
crime. in producing the criminal act that without it,

REVIEWER
the act would not have been performed. in the actual act of
(People v. Janjalani, 2011). assaulting X with intent
to kill and X is trying to
Theory of detachment: to be free from parry the attack, A
conspiracy, a malefactor may offer the reported to the
defense of detachment or disassociation. commotion to the nearest
Detachment or disassociation shall depend law enforcers.
when the accused detached himself from the
conspiracy. After commission: In legal
contemplation, there was no longer a
Before the commission: If the conspiracy to be repudiated since it
accused made efforts to dissuade or had already materialized
prevents his co-accused from
committing the crime agreed upon he Exception of “Act of one is the act of all”:
is not considered as a co-conspirator. When a particular qualifying circumstance is
Even the act of not showing up at the innate or pertains to a moral character,
agreed date of execution will already personal to an accused, the doctrine of “act
be enough. of one is the act of all” cannot apply. Each
will be liable to separate crimes.
Example: A, B, C agreed Example: A wanting to kill his wife
and decided to kill X. Z for purposes of marrying another
Prior to the day of the person, hired a contract killer X.
intended crime, A tried to
dissuade B and C from X was successful in killing Z. A is
killing X. He even went liable for parricide while X is liable
to the extent of informing for murder. Personal relationship
X of the impending between A and Z is innate and
danger. cannot reach X.
During the commission of the crime: Exception to the exception: when the law
mere persuasion and/or itself considers the co-accused as a co-
disassociation is not enough to conspirator despite the qualifying
exculpate and free him in the circumstance being personal to one of them.
conspiracy. He must have reported to
the authorities the crime. Example: Art. 222 of the RPC
explicitly provides that private
Example: In the example individuals may be held liable for the
above, should B and C be crime of malversation despite the

REVIEWER
fact that the crime of malversation is victim. Should the accused entertain or
a crime committed by a public consented to the invitation of aggression, the
officer. accused had expressly or impliedly assumed
the consequences of his actions.
JUSTIFYING Disarming the victim: generally, whatever

inceptive unlawful aggression shown by the
CIRCUMSTANCE victim will already be ceased if the accused
was able to wrest with the weapon.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Nature of the aggression: either actual or However, there are certain instances that
imminent, what is important is that it despite the accused being able to wrest the
positively determines the intent of the weapon, the victim still shows sign of
aggressor to cause injury. unlawful aggression, the accused is in the
right to exercise self-defense.
Imminent: must not be a mere threatening
attitude of the victim, it must be offensive People v. Rabandan: And appellant, we
and positively strong where the threatened think, was justified in believing that his wife
act is capable of fruition. wanted to finish him off because, according
to the evidence, she struggled to regain
Lawful from unlawful: aggression must be
possession of the bolo after he had
unlawful in order for self-defense to amount.
succeeded in wrestling it from her. With the
However, the lawfulness of such aggression
aggressor still unsubdued and showing
must be continuing until the very end
determination to fight to the finish, it would
thereof, otherwise when the aggression
have been folly on the part of appellant, who
which was lawful at its inception becomes
must already have been losing strength due
unlawful warrants the employment of self-
to loss of blood, to throw away the bolo and
defense
thus give his adversary a chance to pick it up
Example: in cases of valid arrest, law and again use it against him.
enforcers are required to use
Ceased aggression; still a circumstance:
reasonable means to subdue the
should the unlawful aggression cease, the
person. However, if the means
accused no longer has the right to inflict any
employed is unlawful, despite being
type of injury.
motivated by lawful reasons, the
person can exercise self-defense. It If he pursues in assaulting the victim, it is
will not make him liable. already retaliation. There can never be a
valid claim of self-defense. However, it can
Non-mutual aggression: unlawful
be treated as a mitigating circumstance of
aggression must emanate only from the
immediate vindication of a grave offense.

REVIEWER
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE disturbed therein he shall be protected in or

“Relatives by affinity of the same restored to said possession by the means
degree”: this includes step-parents; step established by the laws and the Rules of
brothers and sisters; step-children. Court (Articles 536 and 539, Civil Code of
the Philippines).
Beyond the enumerations provided by
law: the defense can now be considered as Conformably to the foregoing provisions,
defense of strangers the deceased had no right to destroy or cause
damage to appellant's house, nor to close his
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY accessibility to the highway while he was
(DOUBTFUL DUE TO CONFLICTING pleading with them to stop and talk things
IDEAS) over with him. The assault on appellant's
No need of attack on the person: In the property, therefore, amounts to unlawful
case of People v. Narvaez, 1983: the accused aggression as contemplated by law.
was being prosecuted for the killing of the
two victims who were building a fence BATTERED WOMEN SYNDROME
around the house of the accused which in the BWS: refers to a scientifically defined
process thereof, the wall of the house of the pattern of psychological and behavioral
accused was being chiseled. symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of
Prior to the criminal case, a civil case was cumulative abuse.
existing between the parties herein in
relation to the ownership of the land. Offender: it is not limited to a male
offenders, it can be a female offender
Accused initially pleaded the victims to stop provided that the latter’s relationship with
but went unheeded, this prompted to shoot the battered woman are those provided
the victims which ultimately prevented the under the law.
operations from being pursued.
Elements to give rise to BWS: the
SC: Art. 536. In no case may possession be following elements are needed to develop
acquired through force or intimidation as BWS;
long as there is a possessor who objects
thereto. He who believes that he has an 1. That the offender must have a
action or a right to deprive another of the relationship with the battered woman
holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the defined under this law;
competent court, if the holder should refuse 2. Battery or infliction of physical harm
to deliver the thing. upon the woman must be cumulative
(at least twice) and not only an
Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be isolated or single event;
respected in his possession; and should he be

REVIEWER
3. Cumulative abuse results to physical INSANITY

and psychological or emotional Insanity: a mental affliction that completely
distress to the woman. deprives a person of intelligence in the
performance of his actions.
Cumulative abuse: a single act of battery or
physical harm resulting into distress is not To claim this exempting circumstance, the
sufficient to avail of the benefit of justifying defense must be able to prove by clear and
circumstance of BWS. It must amount to at convincing evidence that the accused is
least twice. completely deprive of intelligence and
understanding at the time of the commission
Distress: the battered woman who suffers of the crime.
from this distress is acting under an
irresistible impulse to defend herself Presumption of the law: Under the civil
although at the time of commission of the code, sanity is presumed. Hence, the burden
crime the batterer has not yet committed the is on the defense to overthrow the
act of unlawful aggression. presumption.
The woman must have actually feared No total deprivation: no total deprivation
imminent harm from her batterer and of intelligence, there is no exempting
honestly believed in the need to kill him in circumstance of insanity.
order to save her life.
However, this may be appreciated as a
AVOIDANCE mitigating circumstance of suffering illness
Saving one’s life: to save himself is based that diminishes his will-power.
on man’s natural instinct of survival. This is
far greater than that of the life of another or MINORITY
the properties damaged. Determination of age: it depends whether a
criminal case has already been filed or not.
Prior to the institution of the criminal

EXEMPTING case: Any person contesting the age
CIRCUMSTANCE of the child may appear before any
family court and file a summary
IMBECILITY proceeding for the determination of
Imbecile: a person with a mental age 7 the age of the child. Such proceeding
years old and below. Hence, in offering the shall be decided within 24 hrs. from
defense of imbecility, the defense must be receipt of the appropriate pleadings
able to prove by clear and convincing of all interested parties
evidence the mental age of the accused to be
exempt from criminal liability.

REVIEWER
Pending criminal case: if a case has subdue the will of another

been filed against the child, the another
person shall file a motion to Injury feared of Evil feared of must
determine the age of the child in the may be of a lesser be greater or at
degree than that least equal to the
same court where the case is
damage caused by damage caused to
pending. The main case shall be the accused avoid it.
suspended.
In both instance, the person

contesting the age of the child must MITIGATING
be able to prove by evidence that the
child was below 18 at the time of the
CIRCUMSTANCE
commission of the crime. APPLICABILITY (RULE APPLICABLE
Proving discernment: it shall be culled AS WELL TO AGGRAVATING
from the whole factual milieu of the case. CIRCUMSTANCE)
The prosecution in proving discernment Mitigating and aggravating circumstance
must be able to adduce evidence that the shall not be considered in the imposition of
accused knew the nature, extent and or penalty in the following cases;
consequences of his actions. 1. Criminal negligence
Example: If the prosecution was able 2. If the penalty imposed is single and
to prove that the accused utilize an indivisible
uninhabited place to commit the 3. Conviction of SPL which does not
crime, this is an evidence of apply the technical nomenclature of
discernment. the penalties of the RPC
Burden of proof of claiming the Personal and non-personal circumstance:

exempting circumstance: If the accused is based on Article 62 (3) and (4), certain
claiming the exemption, the defense has the circumstance is considered personal and
burden of proving the conclusive non-personal. It is important to know this for
presumption or no discernment (in cases of purposes of appreciating them.
above 15 but below 18) Personal: Aggravating or mitigating
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE vis-à-vis circumstances which arise from the
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR moral attributes of the offender, or
I.F. U.F from his private relations with the
Violence or Intimidation or offended party, or from any other
physical force as threat is used to personal cause, shall only serve to
the means to subdue the will of aggravate or mitigate the liability of

REVIEWER
the principals, accomplices and DISREGARD OF AGE

accessories as to whom such RA 7610 vis-à-vis disregard of age of a
circumstances are attendant. minor (Special Aggravating): For purposes
of this Act, the penalty for the commission
Non-personal: The circumstances of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249,
which consist in the material 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of
execution of the act, or in the means Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
employed to accomplish it, shall Penal Code, for the crimes of murder,
serve to aggravate or mitigate the homicide, other intentional mutilation, and
liability of those persons only who serious physical injuries, respectively, shall
had knowledge of them at the time of be reclusion perpetua when the victim is
the execution of the act or their under twelve (12) years of age.
cooperation therein.
The penalty for the commission of acts
INCOMPLETE DEFENSES punishable under Article 337, 339, 340 and
Treatment as privilege mitigating 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
circumstance (Article 69): if majority of Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of
the elements (but not all) is present in a case, qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness
it shall be treated as privilege mitigating with the consent of the offended party,
circumstance with the effect of lowering the corruption of minors, and white slave trade,
criminal liability either one degree or two respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher
degrees (The courts shall impose the penalty than that imposed by law when the victim is
in the period which may be deemed proper, under twelve (12) years age.
in view of the number and nature of the
conditions of exemption present or lacking).  Note: The qualifying circumstance of
minority for the crimes of qualified
seduction and consented acts of
AGGRAVATING lasciviousness cannot be appreciated
because these crimes can only be
CIRCUMSTANCE committed when the victim is above
12 yrs. old.
COMMON ELEMENT
In appreciating most of the aggravating DWELLING
circumstances found under this article, the Dwelling in this concept: it includes any
element of deliberate or intentional adoption place where the person reasonably expects
of the accused of the aggravating privacy, comfort and rest regardless whether
circumstance is necessary. it is not the conventional dwelling. Neither
does it require that the victim be the owner
thereof.

REVIEWER
Multiple dwelling in one roof: this is usual Material elements are conspiracy and the
in cases of apartments and/or organization is for the purpose of gain via
condominiums. Each rooms are considered commission of any crime.
as a dwelling of the lessee thereof.
BAND
Common areas cannot be considered as Band: a group of at least four men; and such
dwelling because there is no reasonable band must have four persons armed with any
expectation of privacy. weapon capable of inflicting serious injury
or mortal wound; and all of them directly
Provocation: unlike in self-defense and participates in the commission of the crime.
mitigating defense of sufficient provocation,
provocation in the concept of aggravating This is different from aid or armed men to
circumstance in re: dwelling, it need not be facilitate or afford impunity because in that
sufficient. Any degree of provocation made circumstance, numbers do not matter and
by the victim will already deny the their performance is not direct in the
application of dwelling as an aggravating execution of the crime.
circumstance.
DISGUISE
The reason being is that the victim losses his No need of successful disguise: What is
right to expect privacy and comfort. important in disguise to operate as an
aggravating circumstance is that there was a
Should provocation in this situation be deliberate concealment of identity by the
sufficient, it may be considered as mitigating accused.
circumstance.
TREACHERY
ORGANIZED/SYNDICATED CRIME Applicability to other crimes: Generally,
GROUP treachery is a specific aggravating
Syndicate: The maximum penalty shall be circumstance only applicable to crimes
imposed if the offense was committed by against person.
any person who belongs to an organized/
syndicated crime group (two or more However, in the cases decided by the SC,
persons confederating with each other) for treachery was appreciated in crimes not
purposes of profit in the commission of any categorized as against person. The reason
crime where gain is the moving factor. If being, the crime committed has a composite
gain is merely incidental, it cannot be said crime categorized as crimes against persons.
that there is a syndicate, it may only be
considered as the existence of conspiracy. Hence, in cases of special complex crime
(such as but not limited to) robbery with
homicide, treachery can be appreciated to

REVIEWER
aggravate the penalty because of the penalty (than the penalty imposed by law for
composite crime of homicide. possession of a loose firearm), the accused
shall be prosecuted for the crime committed
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION but the court shall apply the penalty imposed
Specific victim: In appreciation of evident in its maximum period.
premeditation, it is indispensable that the
person actually intended by the accused to Example: if the accused is found
be the victim of the crime must be achieved. guilty of homicide through the use of
Otherwise, this aggravating circumstance a loose firearm, he shall be liable of
cannot be appreciated. (People v. Trinidad, reclusion temporal in its maximum
1988). The rationale being is that one of the
elements of evident premeditation is the Qualifying circumstance (lesser penalty):
accused must have determined to commit That if the crime committed with the use of
the crime. a loose firearm is penalized by the law with
a maximum penalty which is lower than that
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE vis-à-vis prescribed for illegal possession of firearm,
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS the penalty for illegal possession of firearm
Difference: abuse of confidence shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for
presupposes that the accused broke the trust the crime charged.
reposed whereas, obvious ungratefulness the
accused took advantage of the generosity of Extraordinary circumstance (equal
the victim in facilitating the crime. penalty): That if the crime committed with
the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the
LOOSE FIREARM law with a maximum penalty which is equal
Absorption: Violation of this Act is in to that imposed for illegal possession of
furtherance of, or incident to, or in firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its
connection with the crime of rebellion of minimum period shall be imposed in
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such addition to the penalty for the crime
violation shall be absorbed as an element of punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or other special laws of which he/she is found
attempted coup d’ etat. guilty.
Separate crime: If a crime is committed by Proving loose firearm: In People v.

a person without using the loose firearm, the Lualhati, this Court merely stated that the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a existence of the firearm must be established;
distinct and separate offense. it did not rule that the firearm itself had to be
presented as evidence. Thus, in People v.
Special aggravating circumstance (if Orehuela, the Court held that the existence
greater penalty): When the loose firearm is of the firearm can be established by
used in committing a crime with a graver

REVIEWER
testimony, even without the presentation of Spouse in this case must be of legal
the said firearm relationship.
CYBERCRIME LAW Adoptive relationship: this should be

Use of computer system: All crimes considered in appreciating alternative
defined and penalized by the Revised Penal circumstance because adoption creates a
Code, as amended, and special laws, if legal fiction of filiation between the
committed by, through and with the use of adopting parent and the adopted person.
information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant However, given that the law only extends
provisions of this Act: Provided, That the such filiation between and among
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) themselves, appreciating alternative
degree higher than that provided for by the circumstance is only limited to such
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and relationship (between the adopter and
special laws, as the case may be. adopted) with the exception on brother or
sisters (in the eyes of criminal law; i.e.
 Note: in prosecution of SPL, it must defense of a relative and as an alternative
adopt the nomenclature of the circumstance).
penalties of RPC because the
Mitigating in crimes against person: if the
wording of this aggravating
crime is classified as less grave felony or
circumstance “One degree higher
light felony AND the victim is a relative of
provided by the RPC”.
lower level.
Aggravating in crimes against person: if

ALTERNATIVE the crime is either grave felony OR the
CIRCUMSTANCES victim is a relative of higher level.
RELATIONSHIP Mitigating in crimes against property: if

Personal circumstance: relationship as an the felony committed by the offender are
alternative circumstance is personal or those enumerated under Art. 332 (absolutory
innate on a particular accused, hence should cause for certain crimes against property)
there be any conspiracy or other malefactors, then it is exempting, otherwise any crimes
the alternative circumstance cannot be against property not falling within the list of
extended to them. Art. 332 is mitigating only.
Common law relationship: Unlike in

absolutory cause found under crimes against
property, common law relationship cannot
be appreciated in alternative circumstance.

REVIEWER
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES are considered to assess his state of mind

before the crime. The predisposition test
INSTIGATION vis-à-vis ENTRAPMENT emphasizes the accused's propensity to
Difference between the two: In entrapment, commit the offense rather than the officer's
the entrapper resorts to ways and means to misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a
trap and capture a lawbreaker while line between a "trap for the unwary innocent
executing the latter’s criminal plan. In and the trap for the unwary criminal." If the
instigation, the instigator practically induces accused was found to have been ready and
the would-be-defendant into committing the willing to commit the offense at any
offense (principal by direct participation), favorable opportunity, the instigation
and becomes a co-principal (by defense will fail even if a police agent used
inducement). an unduly persuasive inducement.
In entrapment, the means originates from the Some states, however, have adopted the
mind of the criminal. The idea and the "objective" test. Here, the court considers
resolve to commit the crime come from him. the nature of the police activity involved and
In instigation, the law enforcer conceives the the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry
commission of the crime and suggests to the is focused on the inducements used by
accused who adopts the idea and carries it government agents, on police conduct, not
into execution. on the accused and his predisposition to
commit the crime. For the goal of the
The legal effects of entrapment do not defense is to deter unlawful police conduct.
exempt the criminal from liability. The test of entrapment is whether the
Instigation does. conduct of the law enforcement agent was
likely to induce a normally law-abiding
Tests considered (both applicable in our
person, other than one who is ready and
system) (People v. Casio, 2014): American
willing, to commit the offense; for purposes
federal courts and a majority of state courts
of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding
use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test
person would normally resist the temptation
laid down in Sorrells v. United States to
to commit a crime that is presented by the
determine whether entrapment actually
simple opportunity to act unlawfully.
occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the
accused's predisposition to commit the Decoy solicitation not an instigation
offense charged, his state of mind and (People v. Sta. Maria, 2007): It is no
inclination before his initial exposure to defense to the perpetrator of a crime that
government agents. All relevant facts such facilities for its commission were purposely
as the accused's mental and character traits, placed in his way, or that the criminal act
his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in was done at the "decoy solicitation" of
committing the crime, his reputation, etc., persons seeking to expose the criminal, or

REVIEWER
that detectives feigning complicity in the act because his acts are indispensable for the
were present and apparently assisting its commission of the crime.
commission. Especially is this true in that
class of cases where the offense is one Active participation: performed an
habitually committed, and the solicitation act directly and positively resulting
merely furnishes evidence of a course of to the desired intent. Inflicting a
conduct.9 mortal wound is an example.
As here, the solicitation of drugs from Moral assistance: giving the accused
appellant by the informant utilized by the an assistance which results into the
police merely furnishes evidence of a course desired result. Giving a weapon used
of conduct. The police received an to kill is an example.
intelligence report that appellant has been
habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly Moral ascendancy: having influence
acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect over the person which is the
a drug transaction with appellant. There was proximate cause for the commission
no showing that the informant induced of the crime.
appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.
Example: A, with intent to kill,
delivered and inflicted a mortal
PARTICIPATION OF wound to B.
MALEFACTORS
B was still breathing. Unknown to A,
PRINCIPAL C who was watching the whole
By direct participation: should conspiracy incident and went to B and delivered
exist, the act of one is the act of all hence the final blow, killing B as a
there no need to determine the degree of consequence. A and C are both liable
participation performed by the malefactors. as principal by direct participation.
In the absence of conspiracy, the prosecution Should A and C be in conspiracy, no

is duty bound to determine the degree of matter what the degree of their
participation the accused committed, actions are, they are considered as
whether necessary and indispensable or not principals.
(necessary BUT NOT indispensable;
accomplice only). By inducement: the inducement must the
proximate cause as to why a crime has been
What makes an accused a principal: The committed, without such inducement there
following makes a person a principal will be no crime. Otherwise, there is no
principal by direct inducement.

REVIEWER
Inducement by use of words: To make

words of command as the determining cause If he participates in drafting the
of the commission of the crime, which will criminal design, he is also considered
make the accused liable as principal by as principal, bound by the agreement.
inducement, the following elements must
concur; 2. Performance by an accomplice is not
indispensable;
1. Ascendancy of the inducer over the
 This is another factor that separates
actor is present;
an accomplice from becoming a
2. Commands used must be direct and
principal by indispensable
efficacious as to amount to coercion
cooperation, especially in cases
(physical and/or moral);
where direct conspiracy is not
3. Command must be uttered prior to
proven.
the commission of the crime;
4. The actor has no personal reason to
 His actions are either material aid or
commit the crime.
moral aid which is necessary but not
By indispensable cooperation: to indispensable.
distinguish from an accomplice, there must
be conspiracy in which he had participated 3. Performance of previous and
in the drafting and/or performed an act simultaneous act.
indispensable to the commission (should  It should not be subsequent, because
there be no prior agreement), without which that will only make him as an
the crime will not be consummated. accessory.
ACCOMPLICE 4. Actions of the accomplice must

What makes an accomplice: to hold the relate to the acts of the principal.
person as an accomplice, the following are
to be taken into consideration; Concurrence but no participation: X
1. Concurrence of the criminal design decided to rape Z. Y knows and
already agreed upon by the concurs with X’s plan but did not do
principals; accomplice knows and any action. Y cannot be held liable as
concurs to the criminal design an accomplice.
already drafted by the principal;
Direct participation but no
 This is what separates an accomplice
concurrence: X wanting to kill Z
from becoming a principal. He
borrowed a gun from Y with a fake
merely concurred to an existing
reason that it shall be used for
criminal design.
hunting birds. X succeeded in killing

REVIEWER
Z. Y cannot be held liable as an ANTI-FENCING LAW

accomplice because he has no Robbery or theft must already exist:
knowledge of X’s criminal design, Filing a complaint for robbery or theft is not
despite participating therein. indispensable in the prosecution for fencing.
It is enough that such action may be proven
Conspiracy vis-à-vis Accomplice: the in the prosecution of fencing (without
following are considered the difference necessarily convicting the theft or robber).
between the two concept;
Specie of robbery and theft: Carnapping
As to draft of the agremeent: in and cattle rustling is a specie of theft or
conspiracy, the conspirators actually robbery, hence it can be considered in
drafted the criminal design. In prosecution of fencing.
accomplice, he merely concurs to
one that is already existing Knowledge: anti-fencing law does not limit
itself to actual knowledge but also extends to
As to degree of participation: in constructive knowledge or that which the
conspiracy, the act of one is the act fencer must have reasonable known based
of all. In accomplice, he merely from the circumstance that the property
performs an act that is not involved has been the subject matter of theft
indispensable hence the theory of or robbery.
imputation cannot be operated
against him. If the information alleged that the accused
“knows” that the property is stolen, he
ACCESSORY cannot be convicted of fencing on the
Time of participation: what makes an ground that he “should have known” that the
accessory different from a principal and same was derived from the proceeds of the
accomplice is the time when he came into theft because of his constitutional right to be
the picture. An accessory only performs an informed.
act subsequent to the commission of the
crime where he has knowledge thereof. Presumption of knowledge: Mere possession
of any good, article, item, object, or
Assisting the principal to escape: It is not anything of value which has been the subject
only limited to actually helping the principal of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
to escape, any act which tends to produce evidence of fencing.
the same effect shall be considered. An
example would be giving false information Unlike in accessory: for one to be
from law enforcers to divert their attention liable as an accessory in a crime
away from the principal. committed by another, the
prosecution must prove that the

REVIEWER
accessory has knowledge of the

crime. As to presumptions involved: in
accessory, under the rules on
Second form of fencing: For purposes of evidence whenever a person is found
this Act, (1) all stores, establishments or in possession of a property recently
entities dealing in the buy and sell of any stolen and he has no justifiable
good, article item, object of anything of reason for the possession, he is
value; (2) obtained from an unlicensed presumed to be the thief thereof. In
dealer or supplier thereof, shall; (3) before anti-fencing law, the person who is
offering the same for sale to the public, in possession of the stolen item is
secure the necessary clearance or permit presumed to be the fencer.
from the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the town or As to criminal exemption: under the
city where such store, establishment or RPC, the penalties prescribed for
entity is located. accessories shall not be imposed
Any person who fails to secure the clearance upon those who are such with respect
or permit required by this section or who to their spouses, ascendants,
violates any of the provisions of the rules descendants, legitimate, natural, and
and regulations promulgated thereunder adopted brothers and sisters, or
shall upon conviction be punished as a relatives by affinity within the same
fence. degrees, with the single exception of
accessories falling within the
Accessory v. Fencer: the following are the provisions of paragraph 1 (profiting).
difference between a fencer and an
accessory; In anti-fencing law, there is no
equivalent provision thereof.
As to the nature of the offender: In
accessory, he is merely an accessory OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
whereas in anti-fencing law, the The penalty of prision correccional in its
fencer is a principal for violating PD maximum period, or a fine ranging from
1612 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who knowingly or
As to actual gain: in accessory, gain willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
is necessary for one to be prosecuted delays the apprehension of suspects and the
as an accessory. In anti-fencing law, investigation and prosecution of criminal
actual gain is not necessary, intent to cases by committing any of the following
gain and knowledge is enough to acts:
convict him.

REVIEWER
(a) preventing witnesses from service of process or court orders or

testifying in any criminal proceeding disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's
or from reporting the commission of offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
any offense or the identity of any courts;
offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, (f) making, presenting or using any
intimidation, force or threats; record, document, paper or object
with knowledge of its falsity and
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing with intent to affect the course or
or concealing any paper, record, outcome of the investigation of, or
document, or object, with intent to official proceedings in, criminal
impair its verity, authenticity, cases;
legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any (g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing
investigation of or official to accept any benefit in consideration
proceedings in, criminal cases, or to of abstaining from, discounting, or
be used in the investigation of, or impeding the prosecution of a
official proceedings in, criminal criminal offender;
cases;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly
(c) harboring or concealing, or another with the infliction of any
facilitating the escape of, any person wrong upon his person, honor or
he knows, or has reasonable ground property or that of any immediate
to believe or suspect, has committed member or members of his family in
any offense under existing penal order to prevent such person from
laws in order to prevent his arrest appearing in the investigation of, or
prosecution and conviction; official proceedings in, criminal
cases, or imposing a condition,
(d) publicly using a fictitious name whether lawful or unlawful, in order
for the purpose of concealing a to prevent a person from appearing
crime, evading prosecution or the in the investigation of or in official
execution of a judgment, or proceedings in, criminal cases;
concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same (i) giving of false or fabricated
purpose or purposes; information to mislead or prevent the
law enforcement agencies from
(e) delaying the prosecution of apprehending the offender or from
criminal cases by obstructing the protecting the life or property of the

REVIEWER
victim; or fabricating information offense which has an equal or greater

from the data gathered in confidence penalty.
by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information Should the offender be previously convicted
and not for publication and of more than one offense, those past crimes
publishing or disseminating the same must have a penalty lighter than the penalty
to mislead the investigator or to the imposed for the current crime or even if he
court. has been punished of multiple past crime,
the preceding crime have a penalty equal or
If any of the acts mentioned herein is greater than the present crime which he is
penalized by any other law with a higher found guilty, the first rule applies.
penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.
Example of First Rule: X has been
convicted and served the crime of
REPEATED OFFENDERS simple rape which has the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Thereafter, X
RECIDIVISM killed Z and was liable for homicide.
Recidivist: A person who have been
previously convicted by final judgment of Reiteracion shall be applied as an
another crime and is placed on trial for aggravating circumstance.
another crime belonging under the same
title. Example of Second Rule: X has been
convicted and served for the crimes
“Placed on trial”: this presuppose any stage of malicious mischief, and homicide.
of the trial from arraignment until Thereafter, X was held liable for
pronouncement of the judgment. slight physical injuries.
REITERACTION
Reiteracion: First rule: Offender has been Reiteracion cannot be applied
previously punished for an offense to which because the penalty of the previous
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty. crime (homicide) is greater than the
penalty imposed on the current crime
Second rule: Offender has been previously (slight physical injury).
punished for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty. It would have been different if it
were the other way around, where
Rule simplified, if the offender is on trial for
the preceding crime would be
another offense and found to be guilty
malicious mischief which has a
thereof, it will aggravate the penalty thereto
penalty equal or greater than slight
if he has been previously convicted of one
physical injuries.

REVIEWER
QUASI-RECIDIVISM Effect of Conditional Pardon; Parole; and

Quasi-Recidivism: any person who shall Probation: In all of these instances, the
commit a felony after having been convicted penalty of the accused is considered as
by final judgment and before beginning to suspended. Any crime committed by the
serve such sentence, or while serving the accused during the suspended sentence, this
same, shall be punished by the maximum aggravating circumstance shall be taken into
period of the penalty prescribed by law for consider.
the new felony.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
This is an extra-ordinary aggravating Habitual delinquency: a person who,
circumstance that cannot be offset by any within a period of 10 years from the date of
mitigating circumstance. his release or last conviction of the crimes
mentioned herein (FRETSeL) is found
Nature of the crimes involve: the previous guilty of any of the said crime a third time or
crime where he was convicted can be any oftener.
crime, either they be punished under the
RPC or SPL. However, the present crime Regardless if it is SCC: Special complex
must be a felony because that is the wording crime consist of two felonies but the law
of Art. 166 of the RPC treats them technically as one, hence
habitual delinquency rule shall apply.
Exception: Should the present crime adopt
the nomenclature of the penalties provided Stages: the rule on habitual delinquency
under the RPC, quasi-recidivism shall be shall apply regardless of the stage of
applied. execution. It shows the same depravity and
perversity.
Peculiarity of drugs case: despite the fact
that law on drugs adopts the nomenclature of Accomplices and Accessories: the rule on
the penalties under the RPC, it explicitly habitual delinquency shall apply regardless
provides that the rules on RPC shall not be of the degree of participation. It shows the
applicable except in cases where the same depravity and perversity.
offender of the drugs case is a minor.
Requires finality of judgment and before COMPLEXITIES OF A

service: if the offender prior to the finality
of his case committed another crime, he CRIME
cannot be considered as quasi-recidivist
CONTINUED CRIME/ DELICTO
because the law requires that it is only
CONTINUADO
applicable before beginning the service of
Delicto continuado: continued crime can
his sentence (presupposes a final judgment
only be committed should there be; plurality
is already existing).

REVIEWER
of acts performed; performed at the same separately from each other where he had no
time and at the same place; involving one forehand knowledge that he would perform
single criminal violation; motivated by one multiple violation thereof, he is motivated
criminal intent. by separate criminal intent hence multiple
criminal cases.
The accused in this case can only be held
liable for one criminal act instead of Non-application on Mala Prohibita: Given
multiple violation. The reason being is that that crimes punished under SPL does not
our law punishes mens rea materialized by need criminal intent, delicto continuado
overt acts, since one criminal intent is cannot be appreciated. Each violation
present, there is only one crime. constitutes separate and distinct criminal
cases.
Defrauding a single person at multiple
occasion: Defrauding the victim several However, should SPL require intent as one
times at different occasions can be evidence of the means or an element in the
that he was not motivated by one single commission thereof, delicto continuado can
criminal intent. be applied.
Defrauding multiple persons: similar to Example: RA 3019 Section 3

the rule above, the accused have several (causing undue injury) can be
criminal intents to defraud as many as there committed by means of evident bad
are victims to defraud. faith (criminal intent), hence delicto
continuado can be applied.
Single larceny rule: it is the act of taking
away several personal properties (either of CONTINUING CRIME
the same owners or different) by the accused Continuing crime: a crime which has
at the same time and place, motivated by one already been consummated but its effects are
criminal intent. continuing.
Multiple penetration: Several penetrations The only purpose of this crime is to

motivated by single criminal design of determine possible venues for the
satisfying the lust constitutes a single crime prosecution of the crime.
of rape.
Example: Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
However, should multiple penetration serve Detention is consummated once there is
to satisfy multiple lust, he shall be held detention or depriving another of his liberty.
liable for multiple rape. However, the effects of deprivation are still
continuing.
Forehand knowledge indicia of singular
criminal intent: if the accused in
committing the same criminal provision

REVIEWER
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME i.e. the act of detonating an explosive

Special complex crime: composed of two killing multiple people in the
or more crimes for which the law treats as process.
one offense and fixes a single penalty.
Complex crime: when a crime is a
Original design: In SCC, the original necessary means to commit another crime. It
design of the offender is material. This will is only necessary and not indispensable in
be the basis for the proper crime to charge the commission of the crime, otherwise the
on to the offender. crime committed which is indispensable to
the crime intended is absorbed.
i.e. suppose that the intent of the
offender is to kill the victim. Upon i.e. acts of lasciviousness is
successfully killing the victim, the indispensable to the crime of rape,
offender saw valuables in the person hence absorbed. However, forcible
of the victim and decides to steal it. abduction is only necessary but not
indispensable in the commission of
The crimes are murder and theft. the crime of rape.
It would have been different if the No complex crimes involving SPL: the
accused intends to steal and acquire accused shall be liable for two separate
the valuables of the victim and in the crimes punished by RPC and the SPL
process thereof, the victim was without necessarily offending double
killed. jeopardy due to the absence of criminal
The crime is robbery with homicide, intent.
a special complex crime. Doctrine of absorption: this doctrine
Composite crimes: crimes committed that discusses that when a particular act which is
has a direct connection or intimate a crime in itself is an indispensable element
relationship with the original crime intended of another crime intended to be committed,
to be committed by the accused. the accused shall only be liable for the latter
crime.
i.e. homicide as a common
composite crime of robbery; Under our penal law, a criminal should be
kidnapping; rape; and attempted rape adjudicated on the basis of his criminal
resolution/intent and not on the number of
COMPOUND AND COMPLEX CRIME acts he had committed in furtherance of that
Compound crime: when a single act single criminal intent.
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felony.

REVIEWER
PENALTIES IN FINES UNDER RA 10951

Value of the fines under the amendment:
GENERAL By virtue of RA 10951, it updated and
revamped the penalties imposed on felonies
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE under the RPC, given that the penalties and
RPC fines are archaic.
General rule: when a special penal law
does not explicitly state the applicability of Afflictive felonies: exceeding
the provisions of RPC, it shall nonetheless P1,200,000
be in suppletory character to fill in the gaps
not provided by the special penal law. Correctional felonies: does not
exceed P1,200,00 but should not be
Exception: when the special penal law less than P40,000
explicitly provides that non-applicability of
the provision of the RPC. Light felonies: below P40,000.
Adoption of the nomenclature: despite the Imposing a penalty of fine “or”
absence of an express provision under an imprisonment: the choice of whether the
SPL, if the law adopts the technical accused should suffer a fine or
nomenclature of the RPC then the provisions imprisonment is left to the discretion of the
of the latter applies. court. The judge cannot leave it to the choice
Peculiar case of drugs case: generally, of the accused, otherwise it is a clear
provision of the RPC shall not apply in drug abdication of judicial powers.
case law because the SPL punishing it DISQUALIFICATIONS
explicitly provides the exclusion of RPC Perpetual or temporary: disqualification
provision, despite the fact that it adopted the which are considered perpetual are to be
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC imposed against the accused all throughout
Exception: in cases of minor offender, the his lifetime. In temporary, it shall only be
penalties and provision of the RPC applies imposed during the service of his sentence.
if; Absolute v. special: In absolute, the
 If the offender is a minor following are considered the effects;
 In certain attempted violations 1. The deprivation of the public offices and
(Section 26) of the drugs case as employments which the offender may have
explicitly provided therein. held even if conferred by popular election.

REVIEWER
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any of the proceeds of the crime and the
election for any popular office or to be instruments or tools with which it was
elected to such office. committed.
3. The disqualification for the offices or Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall
public employments and for the exercise of be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
any of the rights mentioned. Government, unless they be property of a
third person not liable for the offense, but
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or those articles which are not subject of lawful
other pension for any office formerly held. commerce shall be destroyed.
In special disqualification: 1. The In relation to drugs case: During the
deprivation of the office, employment, pendency of the case in the Regional Trial
profession or calling affected; Court, no property, or income derived
2. The disqualification for holding similar therefrom, which may be confiscated and
offices or employments either perpetually or forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or
during the term of the sentence according to transferred and the same shall be in custodia
the extent of such disqualification. legis and no bond shall be admitted for the
release of the same.
Why is it called special: because the
disqualification is specifically catered to the Hence, whenever a property is confiscated
particular calling or profession exercised by for violation of drugs law, any person cannot
the offender. Unlike in absolute where it get back the property until the termination of
pertains to public office. the case, even if it is secured by a bond. The
reason is for preservation of evidence and to
Suffrage: what is only included in the ensure the availability.
disqualification in relation to suffrage is
voting on popular elections. It does not
extend to other exercise of suffrage like PREVENTIVE
voting in a plebiscite.
IMPRISONMENT
Nature of the disqualification: it can either If the accused was detained by reason of a
be a principal penalty or an accessory warrant or via lawful warrantless arrest, and
penalty. If it is an accessory penalty, it he cannot post bail or the offense is non-
follows the duration of the principal penalty bailable, he can be placed under preventive
imposed. imprisonment.
FORFEITURES CREDITING
Every penalty imposed for the commission Full credit: the detention prisoner must
of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture execute a detainee’s manifestation in writing

REVIEWER
and assisted by his counsel which shows that trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if
the detainee consents to be subjected with the same is under review.
the same disciplinary rules as to that of a
convicted felon. In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
4/5 credit: if the detention prisoner does not shall be released after thirty (30) days of
want to be subjected with the same preventive imprisonment.
disciplinary rules, he shall execute a
detainee’s waiver in writing with the Remedy: file a petition for habeas corpus.
assistance of his counsel. Not entitled to immediate release: if the
No credit: If the detention prisoner is accused is a recidivist; habitual delinquent;
already convicted twice or more times; he escapee; or a person charge with heinous
failed to surrender upon being summoned crime.
for the execution of his sentence.
Child in conflict with the law: automatic GOOD CONDUCT TIME

full credit without the need of any execution ALLOWANCE
of waiver or manifestation, as provided
under Sec. 41 of RA no. 9344 COMPUTATION
The good conduct of any offender qualified
PENALTIES vis-à-vis CREDITING
for credit for preventive imprisonment
Reclusion perpetua is imposed: automatic
pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any
reduction from 40 years. to 30 years.
convicted prisoner in any penal institution,
Destierro: the wordings of the law rehabilitation or detention center or any
“sentence consisting of deprivation of other local jail shall entitle him to the
liberty” presupposes that when the accused following deductions from the period of his
is imposed with the penalty of destierro, sentence:
preventive imprisonment shall be applicable.
“1. During the first two years of
IMMEDIATE RELEASE imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
Whenever an accused has undergone deduction of twenty days for each month of
preventive imprisonment for a period equal good behavior during detention;
to or more than the possible maximum
“2. During the third to the fifth year,
penalty of the offense charged to which he
inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be
may be sentenced and his case is not yet
allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for
terminated, he shall be released immediately
each month of good behavior during
without prejudice to the continuation of the
detention;

REVIEWER
“3. During the following years until the “This Article shall apply to any prisoner
tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, whether undergoing preventive
he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty- imprisonment or serving sentence.”
five days for each month of good behavior
during detention; NOT ENTITLED TO AVAIL GCTA
If the accused is a recidivist; habitual
“4. During the eleventh and successive years delinquent; escapee; or a person charge with
of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a heinous crime.
deduction of thirty days for each month of
good behavior during detention; and
THREE-FOLD RULE
“5. At any time during the period of
imprisonment, he shall be allowed another SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE
deduction of fifteen days, in addition to When the nature of the penalty imposed
numbers one to four hereof, for each month against the accused allows him to serve the
of study, teaching or mentoring service time penalty simultaneously, it shall be applied to
rendered. that.
“An appeal by the accused shall not deprive Penalties that usually allow simultaneous
him of entitlement to the above allowances service is imprisonment together with other
for good conduct.” accessory penalties (disqualifications, fines,
and suspension).
SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE
A deduction of one fifth of the period of his SUCCESSIVE SERVICE vis-à-vis
sentence shall be granted to any prisoner THREE FOLD RULE
who, having evaded his preventive If the accused is sentenced with multiple
imprisonment or the service of his sentence imprisonment, successive service of
under the circumstances mentioned in sentence in relation to the three-fold rule and
Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to max cap shall apply.
the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of a proclamation announcing the Three-fold rule: the maximum duration of
passing away of the calamity or catastrophe the convict's sentence shall not be more than
referred to in said article. A deduction of three-fold the length of time corresponding
two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall to the most severe of the penalties imposed
be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay upon him.
in the place of his confinement Max cap: Such maximum period shall in no
notwithstanding the existence of a calamity case exceed forty years.
or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of
this Code. Discussion: The max cap that the accused
shall serve is 40 years, should the total

REVIEWER
penalties to be imposed against him (without amount equivalent to the highest minimum
three-fold rule) or upon applying the three- wage rate prevailing in the Philippines
fold rule exceeds 40 years.
Not imprisonment of debt: Fine is imposed
Illustration: Total of the penalties to be by law. Debt arises from contract. Hence
served successively < three-fold rule < the subsidiary imprisonment is not contrary to
max cap. constitutional provision of debt
imprisonment.
The sum total of the penalties to be served
successively should be less than the three- Subsequent solvency: The subsidiary
fold rule and should be less than the max cap personal liability which the convict may
of 40 yrs. have suffered by reason of his insolvency
shall not relieve him from the fine in case
Whatever is lower of the three shall be the his financial circumstances should improve.
time the convicted felon should serve.
Need express statement: Subsidiary
i.e. a crime was committed by the imprisonment is not like an accessory
accused 20 times with a penalty of penalty where despite the fact it is not
arresto mayor (6 months max). written in the judgment, it is implied
Applying the illustration, we have therefrom.
the following; 120 months < 18 Before a person can be held to suffer
months < 40 yrs. subsidiary imprisonment, it must be
Hence, the three-fold rule will apply. expressly stated in the judgment. The reason
is that it is a principal penalty being served
Limited application: this is only with in lieu of the fine (which is a principal
regard to the actual number of years the penalty in itself).
offender has to serve. The court has no
authority to apply this rule. It is mandated to FINE ONLY
impose as many penalties are there for the When the principal penalty imposed be only
crime the accused is found guilty. a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have
been prosecuted for a grave or less grave
SUBSIDIARY felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if
for a fight felony.
IMPRISONMENT
Limited to fines only: If the convict has no FINE AND IMRPISONMENT
property with which to meet the fine, he If the principal penalty imposed be prision
shall be subject to a subsidiary correctional or arresto and fine, he shall
imprisonment at the rate of one day for an remain under confinement until his is

REVIEWER
satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment When the crime is frustrated, one degree
shall not exceed one-third of the term of the lower of that prescribed is imposed. If the
sentence, and in no case shall it continue for crime is attempted, two degrees lower of
more than one year, and no fraction or part that prescribed is imposed.
of a day shall be counted against the
prisoner. Participation of offender: if the law
provides a penalty for a particular crime, it is
Imprisonment exceeds six years: When the presumed that it is imposed on the principal
principal penalty imposed is higher than malefactor.
prision correctional, no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the When an accomplice is present, one degree
culprit. lower of that prescribed is imposed. If an
accessory is present, two degrees lower of
Determination of the imprisonment: in that prescribed is imposed.
relation to indeterminate sentences, the
maximum imposed by the court shall be the Point of reference in this case: it shall
point of reference to determine the always be the penalty imposed against the
application of subsidiary imprisonment. principal that shall determine the penalties to
be imposed against the accomplice and
FINE AND FIXED DURATION accessory if there is any.
PENALTY
If the principal penalty imposed is not to be Privilege mitigating circumstances: this
executed by confinement in a penal cannot be offset by any aggravating
institution, but such penalty is of fixed circumstance and must be appreciated first
duration, the convict, during the period of before applying the proper penalty in
time established in the preceding rules, shall relation to circumstances present.
continue to suffer the same deprivations as Minority: it is always a privilege mitigating
those of which the principal penalty consists. circumstance that would lower the penalty
by one degree.
GRADUATION OF Incomplete justification/ exemption

(majority): It can either lower the penalty by
PENALTIES one degree or two depending on the
FACTORS THAT WOULD LOWER discretion of the court taking into consider
THE PENALTY BY DEGREES the nature of the crime and the presence of
Stages of execution: if the law provides a other circumstances.
penalty for a particular crime, it is presumed
that it is imposed on its consummated stage.

REVIEWER
RULES ON GRADUATION Penalty in full with penalty in period: The

In all instances, the reference point would be graduated penalty must be immediately
the lesser penalty imposed by the law inferior to the prescribed penalty
(whether it be complex or simple penalties)
Example: RT max to RP. The
One penalty is imposed: the next lower in graduated penalty is PM max to RT
degree is considered the graduated penalty. medium
Example: Reclusion temporal is Graduating death penalty: death shall be

imposed for the crime of homicide. excluded from the scale of graduated
One degree lower is prision mayor. penalties.
Two penalties are imposed as one: when Hence, if the penalty imposed by law is
the law imposes two penalties as one penalty death, immediately lower it to RP and from
for a crime, the next lower in degree of that there apply the rules on graduation of
lesser penalty is considered as the graduated penalty.
penalty.
GRADUATION OF INDIVISIBLE
Example: Reclusion perpetua to PENALTIES vis-à-vis AC AND MC
death is imposed for the crime of Single indivisible penalty: In all cases in
murder. One degree lower is which the law prescribes a single indivisible
reclusion temporal. penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
Penalties imposed is in periods: the circumstances that may have attended the
graduated penalty must also be in periods. If commission of the deed.
the penalty in period is composed of one,
then the graduated penalty must also include Appreciation of MC and AC in single
one period. Two; two. Three; three. indivisible penalty: No amount of AC or MC
will change the nature of the penalty to be
Example; one: one: PC in medium. imposed on the accused.
The graduated penalty is PC in
minimum The only exception is when the privilege
mitigating circumstance of minority is
Two; two: PC in medium to max. present.
The graduated penalty is Arresto
Mayor max- PC minimum Example: simple rape is punished
with reclusion perpetua.
Three; three: PC max to PM Notwithstanding the presence of MC
medium. The graduated penalty is and AC, the penalty to be imposed is
AM max to PC medium still RP.

REVIEWER
Should rape be committed by a penalty shall lower the degree by one level.
minor who acted with discernment, However, under Art. 63 (rule on indivisible
lower the penalty by one degree. penalties) it cannot be appreciated, hence no
From there, application of MC and matter how many MC is present, this cannot
AC can now be appreciated because lower the degree of the indivisible penalty.
the penalty is no longer indivisible.
GRADUATION OF DIVISIBLE
Two indivisible penalty: In all cases in PENALTIES vis-à-vis AC AND MC
which the law prescribes a penalty No MC and AC present: When there are
composed of two indivisible penalties, the neither aggravating nor mitigating
following rules shall be observed in the circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
application thereof: prescribed by law in its medium period.
1. When in the commission of the deed there Presence of AC only: When an aggravating
is present only one aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
applied. maximum period.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor Limit: Whatever may be the number and
aggravating circumstances, the lesser nature of the aggravating circumstances, the
penalty shall be applied. courts shall not impose a greater penalty
than that prescribed by law, in its maximum
3. When the commission of the act is period.
attended by some mitigating circumstances
and there is no aggravating circumstance, Presence of one MC only: When only a
the lesser penalty shall be applied. mitigating circumstances is present in the
commission of the act; they shall impose the
4. When both mitigating and aggravating penalty in its minimum period.
circumstances attended the commission of
the act, the court shall reasonably allow Presence of two MC only; special
them to offset one another in consideration mitigating circumstance: When there are
of their number and importance, for the two or more mitigating circumstances and
purpose of applying the penalty in no aggravating circumstances are present,
accordance with the preceding rules, the court shall impose the penalty next lower
according to the result of such to that prescribed by law, within the medium
compensation. period thereto.
Appreciation of special mitigating Presence of three MC only: Same as the

circumstance: Under Art. 64, when two or rule above, but this time instead of being in
more MC is present without any AC, the the medium period, the court shall impose a

REVIEWER
penalty within the time frame of the

minimum period. Penalty to be imposed is the graver
penalty of the two crimes; reclusion
Presence of four and above MC only: temporal for homicide in max.
Same as the rule above. However, only one
special mitigating circumstance can be The presence of minority will lower
appreciated. The remaining MCs shall only the penalty by one degree. Hence,
impose the penalty to its minimum period prision mayor in max (because of
Presence of MCs and ACs: When both SAC)
mitigating and aggravating circumstances Catch all proviso in graduation:
are present, the court shall reasonably offset Whenever the penalty prescribed does not
those of one class against the other have one of the forms specially provided for
according to their relative weight. in this Code, the periods shall be distributed,
Presence of three MCs and one ACs: applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
Offset rule. Despite having two MCs left,
the special mitigating circumstance cannot
be appreciated because the law requires that
INDETERMINATE
for the “SPMC” to apply, there must be no SENTENCE LAW
ACs present. Why is it called indeterminate: upon
Complex penalty: In cases in which the law serving the minimum penalty to be imposed
by law, the accused is only eligible for
prescribes a penalty composed of three
distinct penalties, each one shall form a parole. Grant thereof is not immediate. It is
still up to the president on whether he may
period; the lightest of them shall be the
minimum the next the medium, and the most be granted or not.
severe the maximum period. Mandatory application: applying ISL is
Presence of Special AC: it shall apply the mandatory to both RPC and SPL. Thus, the
court cannot sentence the accused with a
penalty in maximum regardless of the
presence of other circumstances. straight penalty without applying ISL.
However, jurisprudence (People v. Nang

Presence of Special AC and PMC of
minority and/ or SPMC: Apply first the Kay) discusses that ISL will not be applied
if it is not favourable to the accused and the
PMC then the SPMC then the special
aggravating. penalty originally imposed to him is
favourable.
Example: Complex crime of direct
assault with homicide committed by
a minor with discernment.

REVIEWER
SPL APPLYING THE RULES OF RPC As to when it is granted: probation is upon

SPL: under the indeterminate sentence law, acquiring a probationable period for the first
fixing the indeterminate penalty for a SPL instance, before perfecting an appeal or
shall be not beyond the maximum but shall before finality. Parole, after satisfying the
not be lower than the minimum. minimum. Pardon, upon grant of the
president after conviction.
However, when the SPL applies the
technical nomenclature of the RPC, the rule As to disqualification (in re: penalties): a
in relation to RPC vis-à-vis fixing the person suffering a penalty of more than six
indeterminate sentence law shall apply. years is disqualified. Parole, RP; life
imprisonment; and death is disqualified. No
DISCRETIONARY STRAIGHT disqualification for pardon.
PENALTY OR INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE LAW SUSPENSIONS
PC minimum as max (after applying the Accessory penalty: together with the
circumstances) the court may either apply principal penalty, the accessory penalty shall
an indeterminate sentence or apply a straight be considered suspended because the
penalty. accessory penalty follows the principal
penalty.
The range of PC minimum is 6m and 1d to
2y and 4m. Hence, a convicted felon who is under
probation can still run for public office
Hence, the court may either impose a because the accessory penalty is suspended.
maximum within the one-year period to
which he can give a straight penalty or he Civil liabilities: the wording of probation
can give an indeterminate sentence. law heavily implies that the suspension is
only limited to the criminal aspect of the
case. Hence, civil aspect such as paying
PROBATION LAW pecuniary liabilities is not suspended.
DIFFERENCE WITH PAROLE / CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE

PARDON LAW vis-à-vis PROBATION
As to nature of the grant: probation is The only benefit granted to a juvenile
judicial in nature whereas the parole and delinquent is the freedom to apply probation
pardon is executive in nature. even beyond the period given by law,
provided that the penalty is a probationable
As to effect on sentence: probation suspends period.
the entire sentence. Parole suspends only a
part (after satisfying the minimum). Pardon
completely defer criminal liability

REVIEWER
MUTUALITY OF REMEDIES transpired thereafter are not defenses to

EXPLAINED remove criminal liability unless they are
If the accused was convicted of a crime with explicitly provided by law.
a non-probationable period, he can opt to
file an appeal. This does not necessarily Novation: it can be a defense to prevent
deny him of the right to avail probation. criminal liability from being attached but not
a defense to extinguish criminal liability.
Should his appeal yield to a judgment where
he is granted a probationable period, this is In cases where contractual relationship is
where the mutuality of remedies will apply. material in defining a particular crime,
novation of the agreement prior to the
The accused has the option to either apply consummation of the crime may put a dearth
for probation which will suspend his in the evidence of the prosecution to convict
sentence or further seek appeal in the hopes the accused.
of getting a better judgment.
However, this must be made prior to the
If he availed the latter, even if the next consummation of the crime otherwise when
judgment granted him an even lower penalty the crime has already been committed the
he can no longer avail probation. liability attaches.
Availing probation must be at the first Estafa: estafa through misappropriation of a

instance it is applicable, otherwise it is property where the accused has juridical
deemed waived. possession may offer the defense of
novation of the contract that would change
Point of reference: it is the penalty imposed his right over the property into actual
by the court and not the penalty provided by ownership thereby preventing
law which will determine whether the “misappropriation” from happening which is
accused is entitled to avail probation. Simply essential to the element of the crime.
put, it is the penalty of the crime to which he
is convicted and not the penalty of the crime Novation after: it will simply affect the civil
to which he is charged. liability of the accused.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
EXTINGUISHMENT OF Prescription: an act of grace on the part of
the state on waiving their right to prosecute
CRIMINAL LIABILITY a case.
EXCLUSIVE LIST It can be invoked anytime, and cannot be

It is a basic rule that once a crime has been waived.
consummated, criminal liability already
attaches to the offender. Matters that

REVIEWER
Reference point: When the penalty fixed by offended is civilly liable to provide support
law is a compound one, the highest penalty or considers the offended party as the heir of
shall be made the basis of the application of the victim.
the rules contained in the first, second and
third paragraphs of this article. Example: X kills B. B is the victim
who cannot file a case because he is
Qualified rule: some crimes though already already dead. B’s son, A can file a
committed may not necessarily be filed criminal case against X because B is
immediately. It needs to be actionable before liable to support A or considered as
there can be a complaint. one of B’s heirs under the law on
succession.
Example: in false testimony in a
criminal case against the accused, the Continuing crime: in continuing crimes,
complaint shall only commence from the reckoning point is when the crime has
the finality of the criminal case. ended.
In re: defamation: the nature of the Circumvention: A grave crime cannot be

defamation mentioned in this article is grave filed against the accused for the purpose of
in nature. Hence, if the defamation or convicting him of the lesser crime
slander by deed is simple in nature, it shall necessarily included therein if the purpose is
be considered as light felonies having to circumvent the rule on prescription.
prescriptive period of 2 months. (Francisco v. CA, 1983)
Computation of the period: generally, Example: Should X commit a crime

under our legal system, when the last day of grave coercion but it already
falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, the prescribed. The prosecution cannot
next working day shall be considered as the file a case of robbery against X and
last day. However, in computation of hope that X will be held liable for
prescriptive period in crimes, this rule has grave coercion.
no bearing.
Prescriptive period for SPL: Violations
Prescription automatically sets in, hence it is penalized by special acts shall, unless
up for the prosecutor to file an information otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in
before the last day which happens to fall on accordance with the following rules: (a)
weekend or a legal holiday. (Yapdiangco v. after a year for offenses punished only by a
Buencamino, 1983). fine or by imprisonment for not more than
one month, or both; (b) after four years for
Who is an “offended party”: it does not those punished by imprisonment for more
only extend to the actual victim of the crime, than one month, but less than two years; (c)
it also extends to those persons who the after eight years for those punished by

REVIEWER
imprisonment for two years or more, but less Should there be no final judgment and/or the
than six years; and (d) after twelve years for convict has not yet commenced his sentence,
any other offense punished by imprisonment prescription will not operate.
for six years or more, except the crime of
treason, which shall prescribe after twenty Difference with prescription of crime: the
years. Violations penalized by municipal following are the differences between the
ordinances shall prescribe after two months. two;
Exception: should an SPL provide its own As to the reckoning point: PC shall
rule on prescription, it shall follow that rule be reckoned from commission or
given that it is a special law. discovery/ knowledge. PP
commences from the evasion of the
Reckoning point: it shall be reckoned from convict of the sentence he is serving.
the day it was actually committed or should
it be unknown, from the day it is made As to interruption: PC upon the filing
known to the offended party or to the state of the complaint or information. PP,
through its persons in authority or agents. defendant should give himself up, be
captured, should go to some foreign
Qualified rule: some crimes though already country with which this Government
committed may not necessarily be filed has no extradition treaty, or should
immediately. It needs to be actionable before commit another crime before the
there can be a complaint. expiration of the period of
Example: in BP 22, the crime can prescription.
only be actionable after the lapse of
the banking days required by law. As to the need of extradition treaty:
PC, it does not matter whether the
Interruption: upon filing of a complaint or PH has an extradition treaty with the
information (either judicial or executive). country where the accused is located.
The prescriptive period shall not run.
However, in cases for violations of an
ordinance, it shall be tolled from the filing of
PP, the prescriptive period shall still
the proper complaint before the courts.
run if the PH has an extradition
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY treaty with the country where the
Application: prescription of penalty convict is located. Absence thereof,
presupposes that there is already a final the prescriptive period will not run.
judgment convicting a person of a crime and
EFFECT
such convict is already serving his sentence.
Some mode of extinguishing criminal
liability will only remove the liability but

REVIEWER
not necessarily the crime and the fact that it TITLE 1: CRIMES
was committed.
AGAINST NATIONAL
Some will totally wipe out the whole ordeal,
treating as if no crime had ever existed in the SECURITY AND LAWS
first place. OF NATION
The purpose of knowing this fact is that it TREASON
has some repercussion on certain rules of No need of actual execution of treasonable
our criminal law. design: What matters most is that the person
Example: Should the accused be levies war against the Philippines or
given amnesty. Subsequently, he was adherence to the offender
convicted of a political offense. The “Actual Assembly of Men” v.
aggravating circumstance of Conspiracy: In the former, the purpose of
recidivism shall not apply because the persons actually coming together is to
the first crime committed was totally execute a treasonable design. Whereas in the
wiped out. latter, the purpose is merely to come to an
agreement on committing treason.
This is different if the first crime was
extinguished by pardon. Recidivism The original criminal design will always
shall still apply because it does not determine what proper crime to charge.
erase the fact that the crime was
committed and its effects on the Adherence to the enemies: adherence is
personal circumstance of the any kind of aid that is direct and strengthens
accused. the power and/or simultaneously weakens
PH defense.
Doctrine of Absorption: Proposal to

commit treason is absorbed by conspiracy;
conspiracy is absorbed by treason itself; and
other common crimes is absorbed by treason
provided that they are in furtherance of a
treasonable design.
BOOK 2 CONSPIRACY / PROPOSAL TO

COMMIT TREASON
Take into consider the “principal” crime
they refer to. It is treason.

REVIEWER
Hence, the following rules on treason Since Y is a Chinese citizen, Z

substantially applies in the crime of cannot commit treason.
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.
Privilege communications: Privilege
Example: The rule on who the communications found under our laws can
offender is; a Filipino and a foreigner be considered as exempting circumstance;
can commit treason. They can also failure to perform an act required by law,
be held liable for conspiracy / when prevented by some lawful insuperable
proposal to commit treason. cause.
MISPRISION OF TREASON Example: X, a priest, who received

Offender is not a foreigner: Unlike in the information from one of his penitents
previous crimes mentioned, misprision of that the latter gave aid and comfort to
treason can only be committed by a Filipino enemy state by disclosing military
citizen. secrets of PH.
Taking into consider the principal crime: X’s failure to disclose the
given that the gravamen for misprision of information to authorities is
treason is failure to report the actual crime exempted from misprision of treason
of treason, in order to be prosecuted for because priest-penitent
misprision, the rules on treason must also be communication is considered as
taken into consider. privilege communication.
Example: During PH-China war; ESPIONAGE

X acquired information that Y (a
Chinese citizen) conspired with Z Difference with treason: given that the
(a foreigner residing in the second means of committing espionage can
Philippines) to exchange military also be considered as a crime of treason,
secrets. X however failed to what makes them different from each other;
disclose this information to the
As to being a war crime: Treason can
proper authorities.
only be committed during war times;
whereas, espionage can be
X cannot be liable for misprision
committed even at times of peace.
of treason because Y is a Chinese
citizen, a belligerent person who
As to who the offender is: Treason
does not owe any allegiance to
can be committed by PH citizen or
the Philippines, hence cannot be
any foreigner, both owning
liable for treason.
allegiance (permanently and
temporarily, respectively). Second

REVIEWER
act of espionage can be committed It can be argued that when the seizure is
only by a public officer who by facilitated by an attack or boarding it is
reason of his position acquires qualified, if it is seized in any other way
confidential information relative to without conducting the acts mentioned then
military information of the it is simple piracy.
Philippines and discloses its content
to a representative of a foreign If the vessel is attacked without seizing the
nation.` vessel then it is only simple piracy.
ANTI-TERRORISM LAW
As to weakening the defense: in Accomplice and Accessory: with Sec. 5-6
treason, it is necessary that the of the law, it punishes not only the principal
defense of the PH is weakened due to offender but also its accomplice and
the act of giving confidential military accessories. However, this should not mean
secret. In espionage, it is not that the penalties under the RPC shall be
necessary that the defense of the PH applicable, because this law provides its own
actually be weakened. penalties.
PIRACY
Universal crime: universal crime means
that the crime is treated a punishable in
TITLE 2: CRIMES
whatever state or nation. Hence, any state AGAINST THE
has the right to prosecute the crime of piracy
notwithstanding the flag doctrine and extra-
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS
territoriality principle. OF THE STATE
The universal crime will only operate when ARBITRARY DETENTION
the offender’s original design is to commit Acting under the color of authority:
piracy. If the criminal design be anything Acting under the color of authority to effect
than piracy, the flag doctrine and an arrest is material because the offenders
extraterritoriality principle shall be herein are involved in the effecting or
applicable. causing arrest.
First qualifier of piracy vis-à-vis first type Hence, even if the offender is a public
of piracy: the first qualifier is when the officer who can effect or cause an arrest but
vessel is seized by boarding the vessel or detains a person without any color of
attacking it. The first type of piracy is authority then the crime is not arbitrary
seizing the vessel or attacking the vessel. detention.

REVIEWER
ARBITRARY DETENTION; FAILURE with the expression statement (under Art.

TO DELIVER 153) that it shall not fall under Art. 131-132.
In relation to custodial rights of an
accused: Under R.A. No. 7438, any waiver As to offender: Art. 152 can be
by a person arrested or detained under the committed by anyone, public or
provisions of this crime shall be in writing private individual. In Art. 131-132, it
and signed by such person in the presence of is committed by a public officer
the counsel. As to participation: Art. 152
An invalid waiver will make the presupposes that the offender is a
apprehending officer liable for this crime participant of the meeting or
and duty bound to release the person association. In Art. 131-132, the
detained. offender is a by-stander.
VIOLATION OF DOMICLE As to the gravamen: In Art. 152, the

“Owner of the dwelling”: Legal luminaries criminal intent of the offender is to
agrees that when the law speaks of “owner” cause a disturbance. In Art. 131-132,
it need not be the actual proprietor of the the criminal intent is directed against
dwelling, it suffices that anyone who resides the fundamental rights of the
therein can extend prohibition. offended party.
Difference of the first and second mode: Relationship with Art. 153 and 133:
Under the first mode of committing this Should the religious ceremony be disrupted;
crime, prohibition (express or implied) from the crime is Art. 153. Art. 133 is included
the offended party is an essential element. therein because one of the acts punished
Under the second form, there is no need under Art. 133 is when the offender
prohibition, mere absence of consent will performs a notoriously offensive act during
already consummate the crime. a celebration of religious worship.
Qualifiers: conducted during nighttime or Disruption present: Art. 133 does not need
confiscating /seizure of a property not an the celebration to be disrupted. Had it not
evidence of a crime and failure to return it been disrupted, then the offender is liable
back. under Art. 133.
ARTICLE 131- 133 IN RE: ART. 153 How to gauge whether it is notoriously
Relationship of Art. 153 and Art. 131-132: offensive: it is not on the perspective of the
Under Article 153 (Tumults and Other offender to determine whether his act is
Disturbances), the second mode for this offensive or not, rather it is on the
crime is also constitutive of the crimes perspective of the religious community.
punished under Art. 131 and 132, however

REVIEWER
TITLE 3: CRIMES government authority with respect to a

particular matters or subjects or to remove
AGAINST PUBLIC the locality under the control of the
ORDER government.
Committed even if only a portion is

REBELLION
affected: The gravamen of rebellion is
Difference with treason: the following are
armed public uprising against the
difference between treason and rebellion
government, hence it is a crime of
As to intent: Rebellion levies war multitudes, involving crowd action that
against the Philippine government cannot be confined within a predetermined
without necessarily adhering to an bound.
enemy state. Treason must adhere to
Hence, it must be pointed out that for the
an enemy state.
crime of rebellion to be consummated, it is
not required that all armed participants
As to means committing the crime:
should congregate in one place.
Rebellion has only one means as
provided by law. Treason can be This was the problem addressed by the court
committed by two means. when confronted with the issue of placing
Mindanao as a whole under martial law
As to who are the offenders: despite the rebellion being limited to
Rebellion can be committed against Marawi City.
any person. Treason can be
committed only by a PH Citizen or a Example: NPAs declared war against
foreigner both owning allegiance to the Philippines by seizing the
the Philippines (permanently and following government offices found
temporarily, respectively) in Manila city.
This does not remove the fact that

As to being a war crime: Rebellion
rebels may also be present in other
can be committed even at times of
public establishments such as (but
peace. Treason is a dormant crime; it
not limited to) public hospitals;
will only be effective if it is
schools; and local government
committed during war.
offices scattered all throughout
Insurrection (mini rebellion): Public Luzon. Hence, declaration of martial
uprising and taking up arms against the law nationwide is valid.
government to effect some change of minor
Taking into consider the participation of
importance such as the manner of
the persons: Leader (rebellion): Any person
governance, or to prevent the exercise of

REVIEWER
who promotes, maintains, or heads rebellion CONSPIRACY / PROPOSAL TO

or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of COMMIT REBELLION AND COUP
reclusion perpetua. D’ETAT
Take into consider the “principal” crime
Participant (rebellion): Any person merely they refer to. It is rebellion or coup d’etat.
participating or executing the commands of
others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty Hence, the following rules of the above
of reclusion temporal. crime mentioned substantially applies in the
crime of conspiracy and proposal to commit
Leader (coup): Any person who leads or in rebellion or coup d’etat.
any manner directs or commands others to
undertake a coup d'etat shall suffer the INCITING TO REBELLION
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Content of the proposal: not only do you
propose to commit the purpose or objectives
Participant (coup): Any person in the of rebellion but must also propose the means
government service who participates, or of committing rebellion.
executes directions or commands of others
in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the Furthermore, you must not be a part of the
penalty of prision mayor in its maximum rebellion, otherwise you will be held liable
period. for rebellion per se.
Participant; non-govt. person (coup): Any DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

person not in the government service who OR EMPLOYEES
participates, or in any manner supports, Gravamen: public officers or employees
finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup who have failed to resist a rebellion by all
d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion the means in their power, or shall continue
temporal in its maximum period. to discharge the duties of their offices under
the control of the rebels or shall accept
Agent of the leader: When the rebellion, appointment to office under them.
insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the
command of unknown leaders, any person Should not be in conspiracy: If the public
who in fact directed the others, spoke for officers mentioned in this crime are in
them, signed receipts and other documents conspiracy with the rebels, the proper crime
issued in their name, as performed similar is rebellion per se.
acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be deemed
a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or INCITING TO SEDITION
coup d'etat. First form of inciting to sedition: much
like inciting to rebellion, the offender must
propose to commit the purpose or objectives

REVIEWER
of sedition AND the means of committing Test to determine seditious words: Using
sedition the dangerous tendency test, one can
determine whether the offender is liable for
Second form of inciting to sedition: should uttering seditious words or not.
the offender fail to propose the means of
committing sedition, he may nonetheless be Dangerous tendency test is different from
held liable for the second form of inciting to clear and present danger test in the sense
sedition, uttering seditious words which that in the former, it does not need any
tends to disturb public peace actual or any imminent threat of sedition
such that uttering words would actually
Seditious words: any words that tend to initiate sedition. Dangerous tendency test
have any of the following effects; only needs the possibility that people will be
 Tend to disturb or obstruct any incited to commit sedition. Mere probability
lawful officer in executing the will already make one liable for inciting to
functions of his office; sedition.
 Tend to instigate other to meet Example: X, through his live online video
secretly for unlawful purpose; conference repeatedly discusses communist
 Suggest or incite rebellious teachings and ideologies and compares them
conspiracies or riots; to the ideologies of democracy.
 Tend or lead to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities; This is not inciting to sedition of the first
 Tend or lead to disturb the peace of form because X does not propose on the
the community, the safety and order manner of executing his communistic
of the government; ideologies.
 Knowingly conceals such evil Should X, along with his speeches, utters
practices. how communism may solve the problem of
Freedom of speech vis-à-vis uttering the Philippines and that democracy is no
seditious words: Uttering theories and longer an effective type of government. X
ideologies of communism alone is not can be held liable for uttering seditious
inciting to sedition because it lacks the words because it has the tendency to stir up
proposal of how to execute the seditious people against the lawful authorities and or
design. disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the government.
However, the offender may be held liable
for the second mode of inciting to sedition Publishing scurrilous libels against the
should the speech has the tendency to incite government: this is the third form of
others committing inciting to sedition. To be liable
for this type of inciting to sedition, not only

REVIEWER
does the message be seditious they must also Is search included in the immunity: No,
be scurrilous or vulgar, mean, and foul under the constitution the only immunity
insinuations against the government. granted to members of congress is limited to
arrest.
Example: a picture of the
Malacanang Palace was published Hence, under the rule on constitutional
online and on local papers bearing supremacy, any members are not to be
the captions “Worthless and New exempt from search conducted even if there
Age Marcos Regime” may be is still an on-going session.
considered as scurrilous libel against
the government. ILLEGAL MEETING
First mode of illegal meeting: the wordings
DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS of the law uses the term “crimes punishable
Constitutional provision of immunity vis- under the RPC”. Hence, any illegal meeting
à-vis immunity under Art. 145 (2nd mode): for the purpose of committing any crimes
Under the RPC, the immunity granted to punished under a special penal law cannot
members of congress is any crimes with a be prosecuted under this crime.
penalty of prision mayor or below shall be
exempted from arrest while congress is in Presumption: Given that intention is a state
session. Whereas, under the constitution, of the mind, the law provides a presumption
they are exempt from arrest involving of illegal meeting. If any person present at
crimes with a penalty six years and below. the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it
shall be presumed that the purpose of said
Following the rule on constitutional meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to
supremacy, the immunity given under the commit acts punishable under this Code, and
constitution shall be followed. RPC cannot he shall be considered a leader or organizer
extend the grant of immunity. of the meeting.
Example: While congress is in Mere meeting is sufficient: it is not

session, a criminal case was filed necessary that the audience is actually
against Senator X with a penalty incited to commit the crime proposed during
imposed by law of Prision Mayor. the meeting. It is enough that they had meet
to discuss the possibility of committing a
X can be arrested. The arresting crime.
officer cannot be held liable for
Art.145 because under the Second mode of illegal meeting: the second
constitution, the immunity only mode of committing illegal meeting is when
extends to six years and below. the audience is actually incited to commit
the crimes of treason, rebellion or

REVIEWER
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a tanods are considered as agents of persons in

person in authority or his agents. authority.
Difference of second mode with other Serious attack on the agent of a person in
crimes involving the same actions authority: any attack or mere laying of
(inciting): The leaders, organizers, and hands over an agent of a person in authority
participants are liable for illegal meeting cannot amount to direct assault if the attack
regardless if they are incited or not (taking is not serious.
into consider the first form of this crime).
The reason being, such degree of attack does
Should they be incited, the speaker who not necessarily reflect the gravamen direct
delivered the speech shall be held liable assault which is clear intention to defy
either for illegal meeting or inciting. authority via assaulting an officer of the law.
Difference of this crime with conspiracy: Resistance and intimidation must be

there appears no difference between the two, serious: regardless whether the offended
hence it would be argued that the prosecutor party is a person in authority or an agent,
can cherry pick the crime. However, for ease resistance or intimidation employed must be
choose illegal assembly because the law serious in nature, otherwise the offender is
provides a presumption that when a person not liable for direct assault.
is armed, the meeting is for an illegal
purpose unlike conspiracy where you still Element of “Assault is against a person in
need the element of meeting and agreeing to authority or an agent”: This presupposes
commit a crime. that the victim at the time of the attack is
still a person in authority or an agent of a
DIRECT ASSAULT person in authority within the contemplation
Teachers and Lawyers: this is the only of law, otherwise direct assault cannot be
article under the RPC where teachers and considered.
lawyers are considered as persons in
authority. Any other provision of the RPC Example: A 68-year-old judge
with reference to “Persons in Authority” rendered a decision convicting X for
does not include teachers and lawyers as a crime with a penalty of 3 years of
persons in authority. imprisonment.
Barangay officials, expanded definition of Upon serving his sentence, X, who is

authority: Under Section 388 of the LGC, still angered by the conviction
barangay chairman, barangay councilmen, imposed upon him, attacked and
and lupong tagapamayapa are considered as repeatedly stabbed the judge causing
persons in authority whereas, barangay his death.

REVIEWER
This is not direct assault. Despite the UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF

fact that the motive of X is due to the PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL
judge’s performance of duty, he UTTERANCES
cannot be liable for direct assault Second mode as a “Catch all proviso” in
because the victim, at the time of the relation to inciting to particular crime:
attack, is no longer a judge as he is Second of this crime involves any person
already retired. who by the same means, or by words,
utterances or speeches shall encourage
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE disobedience to the law or to the constituted
What distinguishes direct assault from authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act
resistance and disobedience: As explained punished by law.
in People vs. Breis and Yumol, G.R. No.
205823, 17 August 2015, the difference lies Inciting to a particular crime would usually
in the gravity of the disobedience. If it is not require not only proposing its purposes but
serious in nature or if it is serious in nature also the means thereto. If what is proposed is
but there was no force employed, then it is only the means then the offender may only
punishable under Article 151 of the RPC. be liable for this crime (except when what is
However, if there is force, intimidation, or involved is inciting to sedition, in which
resistance and the nature of the same is case the proper crime to charge is the second
serious, then it may constitute Direct act of inciting to sedition).
Assault, which is punishable under Article
148 of the RPC. EVASIONS (ART. 156-159)
Must be a prisoner: the persons involved
The gravity of the disobedience, according under this articles are prisoners.
to the Supreme Court, is measured by the
circumstances surrounding the act, the To be a prisoner, one must not only be
motives that prompted it, and the importance arrested, he must be booked, incarcerated,
of the transgression. Gravity also does not and all the necessary paper work is executed
depend on the source of the order disobeyed. to make one a prisoner.
Thus, just because it was the Secretary of the Nature of the prisoner under Art. 156:
Department of National Defense which gave either a convicted felon or preventively
the order, for example, does not make the detained
violation a serious one. Conversely, just
because it was the Barangay tanod which Nature of the prisoner under Art. 157:
gave the order that was disobeyed does not convicted felon serving a penalty involving
make it case of simple disobedience. a deprivation of his liberty (detained or not
detained)

REVIEWER
Nature of the prisoner under Art. 158- that the person who is well versed in the
159: convicted felon serving a penalty signature or handwriting of another is
involving detention. deceived that the forged signature or
handwriting is that of the actual owner.
Article 158 “Mutiny which he had not
participated”: Under Art. 158, when a USURPATION OF AUTHORITY/
prisoner participated in a mutiny which OFFICIAL FUNCTION
eventually facilitated his escape, the proper Under the first act: it is enough that a
crime to charge is Art. 157 qualified by person knowingly, intentionally, and falsely
connivance with other convicts or misrepresents himself as an officer of the
employees of penal institution. law without necessarily performing task
pertaining to said office.
Otherwise, Art. 158 will be the proper crime
to charge the accused who escaped because Under the second act; “Under the false
of a mutiny which he had no participation. pretense of an official function”: this
element presupposes that the offender
Art. 159: No period provided for the actually believe that he has the authority to
conditional pardon: In case of an absence act and exercise the functions of a particular
in the period of the conditional pardon, it is existing and lawful office when in reality he
presumed that it is co-extensive with the has no authority to do so.
penalty remaining. Hence, should the
accused commit a crime beyond the period Example: a suspended public officer
of his sentence, he cannot be liable of who performs his official acts while
violation of conditional pardon. under suspension can be held liable
for usurpation of official functions.
TITLE 4: CRIMES PERJURY VIS-À-VIS FALSE

TESTIMONY
AGAINST PUBLIC Difference between perjury and false
INTEREST testimony: Both includes giving of false
information, the difference lies on the
COUNTERFETING AS ONE OF THE whether the document or statement was
MEANS UNDER ART. 171-172 made under oath or not.
Counterfeiting: in counterfeiting, there is
In perjury, the gravamen of the crime is the
an original signature, handwriting or rubric
violation of the sanctity of the oath, whereas
which is imitated. In order to constitute an
in false testimony, the gravamen is making a
imitation of another’s signature on a
false statement offered before a judicial
document, it is not necessary that the
body.
imitation be perfect. What is important is

REVIEWER
Hence, one must look as to whether a drug from one place to another. In the
particular item is made under oath or not. present case, although petitioner and his co-
accused were arrested inside a car, the car
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN was not in transit when they were accosted.
EVIDENCE From the facts found by the RTC, that car
Meaning of “Offering”: offering an was parked and stationary. The prosecution
evidence has a technical meaning under our failed to show that any distance was
rules on evidence. That meaning should not travelled by petitioner with the drugs in his
be applied in prosecution of this crime. possession. The conclusion that petitioner
Offering as applied in this crime is transported the drugs merely because he was
understood to have its general sense which is in a motor vehicle when he was accosted
presentation of the witness. with the drugs has no basis and is mere
speculation. The rule is clear that the guilt of
the accused must be proved with moral
TITLE 5: CRIMES certainty. All doubts should be resolved in
favor of the accused. It is the responsibility
RELATIVE TO OPIUM of the prosecution to prove the element of
AND OTHER transport of dangerous drugs, namely, that
transportation had taken place, or that the
PROHBITED DRUGS accused had moved the drugs some distance.
IMPORTATION SELLING OF DRUGS
Importation of drugs: What is material in No need of actual payment: what is only
this case is that the prosecution must be able required for the prosecution of this crime is
to show that the drugs originated outside PH that the offender must have transferred or
territory; the vessel or craft where it was delivered the drugs to the buyer.
stored; and the fact that such vessel or craft
landed in the Philippines. The law uses the words “sell” which is
defined under this law as the act of giving
TRANSPORTATION away dangerous drugs whether for money or
Transportation of drugs: Unlike in any other consideration.
importation of drugs where the place of
origin and place of destination is material, in Hence, non-receipt of the money nor
transportation, what is required is that the presentation of the buy-bust money will not
drugs must be in transit. lead to an acquittal for the crime of selling
drugs provided that the drugs were
The need of “Actual Transit” (San Juan completely delivered.
v. People, 2011): The essential element of
the charge is the movement of the dangerous

REVIEWER
DELIVERY OF DRUGS himself/herself unless administered by a

Difference of delivery with selling: in duly licensed practitioner for purposes of
selling, money or other consideration is medication.
involved. Whereas, delivery money or other
consideration in exchange of the dangerous TRADING OF DRUGS
drug is not involved. Trading of drugs: Transactions involving
the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs
“With or without consideration”: and/or controlled precursors and essential
Consideration involved in this instance is chemicals using electronic devices such as,
not for the drugs but for the actual delivery but not limited to, text messages, e-mail,
services rendered by a person. mobile or landlines, two-way radios,
internet, instant messengers and chat rooms
DISPATCH OF DRUGS or acting as a broker in any of such
Dispatch: this presupposes that offender transactions whether for money or any other
orders that dangerous drugs is to be moved consideration in violation of this Act.
from one destination to another destination.
BROKERAGE OF DRUGS
Example: X ordered A and B to Broker: an agent arranges any transactions
deliver 2 sacks of dried marijuana mentioned under RA 9165. Acting as a
leaves to Z. Z sold it to Y. Y smoked middleman between the source and
the marijuana leaves. consumer.
X is liable for dispatch; A and B are POSSESSION OF DRUGS WITH

liable for transportation; Z is liable OTHER VIOLATIONS OF RA 9165
for selling and Y is liable for use. Possession of two or more different drugs
(David v. People, 2011): if the accused is
GIVING AWAY OF DRUGS found to be in possession of different
Gratuitous in nature: the act of disposing dangerous drugs on a single occasion, he is
or giving away any dangerous drugs without only liable for one charge of possession and
any money or consideration is considered as imposed of the graver penalty (dependent
giving away of drugs. upon the gram and type of drug he was
ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGS found in possession).
Administration of drugs: Any act of Absent any clear interpretation as to the
introducing any dangerous drug into the application of the penalties in cases such as
body of any person, with or without his/her the present one (accused being caught in
knowledge, by injection, inhalation, possession of two different drugs), this
ingestion or other means, or of committing Court shall construe it in favor of the
any act of indispensable assistance to a petitioner for the subject provision is penal
person in administering a dangerous drug to

REVIEWER
in nature. It is a well-known rule of legal convicted for the crime of possession of

hermeneutics that penal or criminal laws are dangerous drugs because it is necessarily
strictly construed against the state and included in the charges of transportation and
liberally in favor of the accused.37 Thus, an delivery.
accused may only be convicted of a single
offense of possession of dangerous drugs if USE OF DRUGS
he or she was caught in possession of Use of dangerous drugs: A person
different kinds of dangerous drugs in a apprehended or arrested (for drug related
single occasion. If convicted, the higher crimes), who is found to be positive for use
penalty shall be imposed, which is still of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory
lighter if the accused is convicted of two (2) test, shall be imposed a penalty of a
offenses having two (2) separate penalties. minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in
This interpretation is more in keeping with a government center for the first offense,
the intention of the legislators as well as subject to the provisions of Article VIII of
more favorable to the accused. this Act.
Possession and use: Under Section 15 of If apprehended using any dangerous drug for
the law, where a person is tested positive for the second time, he/she shall suffer the
dangerous drugs is also found to have in his penalty of imprisonment.
possession of any dangerous drugs, he shall Provided, That this Section shall not be
be held liable for the possession instead of applicable where the person tested is also
use. found to have in his/her possession such
The fact that what has been found in his quantity of any dangerous drug provided for
possession is different from the drugs he was under Section 11 of this Act, in which case
found positive has no bearing. the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Possession and sale: Possession of drugs is Elements of use: the following are essential
inherent in the crime of selling drugs, for the prosecution of use of dangerous
provided that the what has been found in the drugs;
possession of the offender is the very same 1. Person was apprehended or
drugs which is the subject matter of the arrested of a crime involving
transaction. dangerous drugs punished under
Possession and importation and delivery: RA 9165;
should the prosecution fail to prove the 2. Subjected to confirmatory test;
elements necessary to convict the accused of 3. Confirmatory test came back
transportation or delivery, the accused shall positive;
not be held liable thereof but may be 4. Accused should not be found in
possession of other drugs

REVIEWER
confidential informant be presented before

Permutations of situation: If a police the court to testify that the accused is
officer caught a person in flagrante engaged in the dealing of dangerous drugs.
delicto of using dangerous drugs, the
proper would be use of dangerous Confidential informants work incognito.
drugs provided that he had Should they be known or disclosed would
undergone confirmatory tests and the render the efficiency of their work at peril,
results came back positive for use. ultimately adding hardship in the arrest and
prosecution of personalities involved in
Should there be no confirmatory test dangerous drugs.
and/or the confirmatory test came Presentation of the poseur buyer: It
back negative, the person shall be depends on whether the accused denies that
held liable for possession. the sale ever transpired or not.
Should the confirmatory test came Presence of denial of sale: the poseur
back positive but other than the buyer must be presented as he has
drugs he was using, another was the first-hand knowledge to rebut the
found to be in his possession, the allegations of the accused.
accused will be held liable for
possession. Police officers cannot testify on this
matter as they have no personal
Presumption of use: The possession of knowledge because they are not the
such equipment, instrument, apparatus and buyers but merely an observer from a
other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of distance.
the purposes enumerated in the preceding
paragraph (for smoking, consuming, No denial of sale: the poseur buyer
administering, injecting, ingesting, or need not be presented.
introducing any dangerous drug into the
body) shall be prima facie evidence that the PLANTING OF EVIDENCE
possessor has smoked, consumed, Planting of dangerous drugs: The willful
administered to himself/herself, injected, act by any person of maliciously and
ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or
be presumed to have violated Section 15 of attaching directly or indirectly, through any
this Act. overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES and essential chemical in the person, house,
Presenting confidential informants as effects or in the immediate vicinity of an
witness: It is not indispensable for the innocent individual for the purpose of
prosecution of dangerous drugs that the

REVIEWER
implicating, incriminating or imputing the CHAIN OF CUSTODY

commission of any violation of this Act.
Justifiable reason for deviations: The
PERSONS LIABLE UNDER RA 9165 Supreme Court listed the following
Other than the actual perpetrator/s, the acceptable justifications in case of the
following are the personalities that can be absence of witnesses: (1) their attendance
held liable under RA 9165; was impossible because the place of arrest
was a remote area; (2) their safety was
Protectors/ coddlers: Any person who threatened by an immediate retaliatory
knowingly and willfully consents to the action of the accused; and (3) earnest efforts
unlawful acts provided for in this Act and to secure the presence of the witnesses
uses his/her influence, power or position in within the period required under Art. 125 of
shielding, harboring, screening or the RPC prove futile through no fault of the
facilitating the escape of any person he/she arresting officers.
knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe
on or suspects, has violated the provisions of
this Act in order to prevent the arrest, Under Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as amended by
prosecution and conviction of the violator. RA 10640, the presence of at least two
insulating witnesses are required: (1) an
Financier: Any person who pays for, raises elected public official, and (2) a
or supplies money for, or underwrites any of representative from the media, or a
the illegal activities prescribed under this representative from the National Prosecution
Act. Service. Here, the lone witness’s credibility
Poseur buyer: Should the poseur buyer be (media representative) reporter as the lone
charged with possession of dangerous drugs, witness in a buy-bust operation is neither a
he can use the defense of instigation because plausible explanation nor an unacceptable
the mens rea to possess drugs did not justification for the PDEA’s non-compliance
originate from him rather, he was ordered by with the chain of custody rule. (People v.
law enforcers to act as a poseur buyer for Lim, September 4, 2018)
purposes of prosecution of selling of drugs PLEA BARGAINING RA 9165
of the accused. Estipona v. Lobrigo, 2017: While the
Furthermore, it may be argued that the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
poseur buyer’s possession is authorized by jurisdiction of the various courts is, by
law as his possession is state sanctioned for constitutional design, vested unto Congress,
purposes of acquiring evidence to prove the the power to promulgate rules concerning
corpus delicti of selling of drugs. the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and

REVIEWER
procedure in all courts belongs exclusively implement an existing right by regulating

to this Court. the judicial process for enforcing rights and
duties recognized by substantive law and for
In determining whether a rule prescribed by justly administering remedy and redress for
the Supreme Court, for the practice and a disregard or infraction of them.
procedure of the lower courts, abridges,
enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, Under the present Rules, the acceptance of
the test is whether the rule really regulates an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable
procedure, that is, the judicial process for right but depends on the consent of the
enforcing rights and duties recognized by offended party57 and the prosecutor, which
substantive law and for justly administering is a condition precedent to a valid plea of
remedy and redress for a disregard or guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily
infraction of them. If the rule takes away a included in the offense charged.58 The
vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule reason for this is that the prosecutor has full
creates a right such as the right to appeal, it control of the prosecution of criminal
may be classified as a substantive matter; actions; his duty is to always prosecute the
but if it operates as a means of implementing proper offense, not any lesser or graver one,
an existing right then the rule deals merely based on what the evidence on hand can
with procedure. sustain.
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been Under the present Rules, the acceptance of
defined as "a process whereby the accused an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable
and the prosecution work out a mutually right but depends on the consent of the
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to offended party57and the prosecutor, which
court approval."49 There is give-and-take is a condition recedent to a valid plea of
negotiation common in plea bargaining.50 guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily
The essence of the agreement is that both the included in the offense charged.58 The
prosecution and the defense make reason for this is that the prosecutor has full
concessions to avoid potential losses.51 control of the prosecution of criminal
Properly administered, plea bargaining is to actions; his duty is to always prosecute the
be encouraged because the chief virtues of proper offense, not any lesser or graver one,
the system - speed, economy, and finality - based on what the evidence on hand can
can benefit the accused, the offended party, sustain.
the prosecution, and the court.52
Considering the presence of mutuality of

advantage,53 the rules on plea bargaining
neither create a right nor take away a vested
right. Instead, it operates as a means to

REVIEWER
TITLE 6: CRIMES even if it does not involve any of the means

set forth in the preceding paragraph.
AGAINST PUBLIC
Specific criminal acts of trafficking:
MORALS Under Sec. 4 of the law, the following are
considered criminal acts punishable;
ANTI-TRAFFICIKING
What is trafficking: refers to [MR “(a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer,
PHOTO] the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or
providing, offering, transportation, transfer, receive a person by any means, including
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of those done under the pretext of domestic or
persons; overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship, for the purpose of
With or without the victim’s consent or
prostitution, pornography, or sexual
knowledge, within or across national
exploitation;
borders;
“(b) To introduce or match for money,
By means of threat, or use of force, or other
profit, or material, economic or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
consideration, any person or, as provided for
deception, abuse of power or of position,
under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
woman to a foreign national, for marriage
person, or, the giving or receiving of
for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
payments or benefits to achieve the consent
offering, selling or trading him/her to engage
of a person having control over another
in prostitution, pornography, sexual
person;
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
For the purpose of exploitation which involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or
“(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or
the prostitution of others or other forms of
simulated, for the purpose of acquiring,
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
organs.
exploitation, forced labor or slavery,
No need to prove the means: The involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
recruitment, transportation, transfer,
“(d) To undertake or organize tours and
harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for
travel plans consisting of tourism packages
the purpose of exploitation OR when the
or activities for the purpose of utilizing and
adoption is induced by any form of
offering persons for prostitution,
consideration for exploitative purposes shall
pornography or sexual exploitation;
also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’

REVIEWER
“(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage suffer serious harm or physical

in prostitution or pornography; restraint; or
“(f) To adopt persons by any form of “(2) To abuse or threaten the use of
consideration for exploitative purposes or to law or the legal processes; and
facilitate the same for purposes of
prostitution, pornography, sexual “(k) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain,
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt
involuntary servitude or debt bondage; or receive a child for purposes of
exploitation or trading them, including but
“(g) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of not limited to, the act of baring and/or
persons for the purpose of prostitution, selling a child for any consideration or for
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced barter for purposes of exploitation.
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of
bondage; children shall include:
“(h) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, “(1) All forms of slavery or practices
transfer, obtain, harbor, maintain, provide, similar to slavery, involuntary
offer, receive or abduct a person, by means servitude, debt bondage and forced
of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, labor, including recruitment of
violence, coercion, or intimidation for the children for use in armed conflict;
purpose of removal or sale of organs of said
person; “(2) The use, procuring or offering of
a child for prostitution, for the
“(i) To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, production of pornography, or for
harbor, maintain, offer, hire, provide, pornographic performances;
receive or adopt a child to engage in armed
activities in the Philippines or abroad; “(3) The use, procuring or offering of
a child for the production and
“(j) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, trafficking of drugs; and
obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or
receive a person by means defined in “(4) The use, procuring or offering of
Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced a child for illegal activities or work
labor, slavery, debt bondage and involuntary which, by its nature or the
servitude, including a scheme, plan, or circumstances in which it is carried
pattern intended to cause the person either: out, is likely to harm their health,
safety or morals; and
“(1) To believe that if the person did
not perform such labor or services, “(l) To organize or direct other persons to
he or she or another person would commit the offenses defined as acts of
trafficking under this Act.”

REVIEWER
Attempted trafficking: Where there are low-income families, for the purpose of
acts to initiate the commission of a selling the child.”
trafficking offense but the offender failed to
or did not execute all the elements of the Qualified trafficking: Violations of Section
crime, by accident or by reason of some 4 of this Act shall be considered as qualified
cause other than voluntary desistance, such trafficking:
overt acts shall be deemed as an attempt to (a) When the trafficked person is a child;
commit an act of trafficking in persons. As
such, an attempt to commit any of the (b) When the adoption is effected through
offenses enumerated in Section 4 of this Act Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as
shall constitute attempted trafficking in the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995”
persons. and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual
“In cases where the victim is a child, any of exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
the following acts shall also be deemed as involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
attempted trafficking in persons:
(c) When the crime is committed by a
“(a) Facilitating the travel of a child who syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is
travels alone to a foreign country or territory deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
without valid reason therefor and without out by a group of three (3) or more persons
the required clearance or permit from the conspiring or confederating with one
Department of Social Welfare and another. It is deemed committed in large
Development, or a written permit or scale if committed against three (3) or more
justification from the child’s parent or legal persons, individually or as a group;
guardian;
(d) When the offender is a spouse, an
“(b) Executing, for a consideration, an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a
affidavit of consent or a written consent for person who exercises authority over the
adoption; trafficked person or when the offense is
“(c) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for committed by a public officer or employee
the purpose of selling the child; (e) When the trafficked person is recruited to
“(d) Simulating a birth for the purpose of engage in prostitution with any member of
selling the child; and the military or law enforcement agencies
“(e) Soliciting a child and acquiring the (f) When the offender is a member of the
custody thereof through any means from military or law enforcement agencies;
among hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare “(g) When by reason or on occasion of the
centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and act of trafficking in persons, the offended

REVIEWER
party dies, becomes insane, suffers of information technology and the internet,
mutilation or is afflicted with Human of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the material that promotes trafficking in
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome persons;
(AIDS);
(d) To assist in the conduct of
“(h) When the offender commits one or misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of
more violations of Section 4 over a period of facilitating the acquisition of clearances and
sixty (60) or more days, whether those days necessary exit documents from government
are continuous or not; and agencies that are mandated to provide pre-
departure registration and services for
“(i) When the offender directs or through departing persons for the purpose of
another manages the trafficking victim in promoting trafficking in persons;
carrying out the exploitative purpose of
trafficking. (e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and
entry of persons from/to the country at
Acts promoting trafficking: The following international and local airports, territorial
acts which promote or facilitate trafficking boundaries and seaports who are in
in persons, shall be unlawful: possession of unissued, tampered or
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose
allow to be used any house, building or of promoting trafficking in persons;
establishment for the purpose of promoting (f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the
trafficking in persons; passport, travel documents, or personal
“(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute documents or belongings of trafficked
unissued, tampered or fake counseling persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
certificates, registration stickers, overseas prevent them from leaving the country or
employment certificates or other certificates seeking redress from the government or
of any government agency which issues appropriate agencies; and
these certificates, decals and such other (g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or
markers as proof of compliance with otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
government regulatory and pre-departure services of a person held to a condition of
requirements for the purpose of promoting involuntary servitude, forced labor, or
trafficking in persons slavery.
(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or (h) To tamper with, destroy, or cause the
distribute, or cause the advertisement, destruction of evidence, or to influence or
publication, printing, broadcasting or attempt to influence witnesses, in an
distribution by any means, including the use

REVIEWER
investigation or prosecution of a case under IMMORAL DOCTRINES. OBSCENE

this Act; PUBLICATION AND EXHIBITION,
AND INDECENT SHOWS
“(i) To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate For the crime to arise, it presupposes that
or possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal, there is publication or spread of the indecent
remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or publication to third persons and done on a
purported passport or other travel, habitual basis.
immigration or working permit or document,
or any other actual or purported government
identification, of any person in order to TITLE 7: CRIMES
prevent or restrict, or attempt to prevent or
restrict, without lawful authority, the COMMITTED BY A
person’s liberty to move or travel in order to PUBLIC OFFICER
maintain the labor or services of that person;
or WHO IS THE OFFENDER
Public officer: anyone who performs
“(j) To utilize his or her office to impede the
official duty or function in the government
investigation, prosecution or execution of
(national, local, agencies, instrumentalities,
lawful orders in a case under this Act.”
even GOCCs) by virtue of direct provision
Difference with child trafficking: Under of law, election, or appointment by a
RA 7610, a person can be held liable for competent authority notwithstanding the fact
child trafficking if he engages in dealing, that they are receiving compensation or a
transacting, a child alone. simple nominal fee and/or notwithstanding
the fact of their title in office.
Should the person’s motive in dealing or
transacting a child be for the purposes Private individual: private individual found
mentioned under Anti-Trafficking law, the acting in conspiracy with the public officer
crime is the latter. may be held liable for the applicable
offenses under Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Difference with child prostitution: Under Practices and certain crimes punished under
RA 7610, child prostitution presupposes the Revised Penal Code.
single incident of offering the services of a
child to engage in sexual activities. In relation to Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Whereas, under Anti-trafficking law, there is Practices (People v. Go, 2014): A private
an element of regularity. The act of the individual alone cannot be charged with
accused who would regularly offer the violation of this law without a co-accused
sexual services of a child in exchange of who is a public officer with whom he
money is liable for anti-trafficking law. conspired in committing this crime.
However, a private individual can be

REVIEWER
charged alone with violations of this law regulation promulgated by a

even without a co-accused, if the public competent authority.
officer with whom he conspired in
committing the crime is already dead prior o As to who corrupts the
to the filling of the information. officer: In direct bribery it
can be anyone (public or
RA 3019: ANTI-GRAFT AND
private individual). In RA
CORRUPT PRACTICES AND THEIR
3019, it can only be
RESPECTIVE DISCUSSIONS
committed by a fellow public
Persuading, inducing or influencing
officer
another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and
o As to liability of the person
regulations duly promulgated by
who corrupts another: In
competent authority or an offense in
direct bribery, the person who
connection with the official duties of the
corrupts the public official is
latter, or allowing himself to be
liable for corruption of public
persuaded, induced, or influenced to
officers. In RA 3019, both are
commit such violation or offense.
liable under this type (if both
 Deliberate intent on the part of the are public officers). In case of
public official concerned to induce or a private individual, he is
persuade another public officer to liable for Sec. 4(2) RA 3019.
violate rules and regulations
promulgated by competent authority o As to liability of the person
by means of consideration reward, corrupted: In direct bribery,
payment, or remuneration. he is liable for direct bribery
and any crimes committed by
 Difference with bribery: the reason of the bribery. In RA
following are considered the 3019, he is liable under this
difference between this crime from type of act (among other
direct bribery; crimes committed).
Directly or indirectly requesting or

o As to act being persuaded: In
receiving any gift, present, share,
direct bribery, it involves percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
three acts. Whereas in RA
any other person, in connection with any
3019, it only involves an act contract or transaction between the
of violating rules and
Government and any other party,

REVIEWER
wherein the public officer in his official securing a permit or license to be

capacity has to intervene under the law. given by the public officer involved.
 Lack of demand of gift is not a Accepting or having any member of his

defense. The law is extensive as to family accept employment in a private
include not only requesting but also enterprise which has pending official
receiving. business with him during the pendency
thereof or within one year after its
 Transaction involved: This act is termination.
limited only to contracts or
 Necessary for conviction: There
transactions involving monetary
must be a showing that the public
considerations where the public
officer involved herein had caused
officer has the authority to intervene
his relative (or himself) to accept the
under the law.
appointment or position from the
firm or company that has a pending
 “Right to intervene”: the officer
transaction with the public officer or
involved herein must have the
caused his relative (or himself) to
authority or the right to intervene in
accept the appointment or position
any contract or transaction involving
from the same firm during the 1-yr.
monetary consideration, otherwise he
period ban, counting from the public
is not liable for this type of RA 3019.
officer’s termination or severance
from public office.
Directly or indirectly requesting or
Causing any undue injury to any party,
receiving any gift, present or other
including the Government, or giving any
pecuniary or material benefit, for himself
private party any unwarranted benefits,
or for another, from any person for whom
advantage or preference in the discharge
the public officer, in any manner or
of his official administrative or judicial
capacity, has secured or obtained, or will
functions through manifest partiality,
secure or obtain, any Government permit
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
or license, in consideration for the help
negligence. This provision shall apply to
given or to be given, without prejudice to
officers and employees of offices or
Section thirteen of this Act.
government corporations charged with
 Gravamen: the act of receiving or the grant of licenses or permits or other
requesting benefit whether directly, concessions.
or indirectly from a person who has
 Personalities involved herein are
an official transaction with the public
anyone from the government
officer, particularly in exchange of

REVIEWER
regardless whether their function intentionally with a conscious

relates to the grant of licenses or not. indifference to consequences in so
far as other persons may be affected.
The gravamen for this type of
corrupt practice is either causing  Means of committing this type of
injury to any party (private or corrupt practice: it can be done
government) and/or giving either through deliberate intent or
unwarranted benefit to anyone in the culpable negligence. This is evinced
discharge of their official function from the fact that one of the key
both of which is done through elements provided by law is how the
manifest partiality, evident bad faith, injury was sustained (manifest
or gross inexcusable negligence. partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence).
 How this corrupt practice is
performed: The second element In one of the cases decided by the
enumerates the different modes by Supreme Court, a public officer was
which means the offense penalized in charged with this type of corrupt
Section 3 (e) may be committed. practice because he removed and
"Partiality" is synonymous with destroyed a fence which encroach a
"bias" which "excites a disposition to public road.
see and report matters as they are
wished for rather than as they are." He was acquitted because based from
the facts of the case, the public
"Bad faith does not simply connote officer was acting under the belief
bad judgment or negligence; it that he was merely abating a
imputes a dishonest purpose or some nuisance; that he turned over the
moral obliquity and conscious doing what was left of the fence to police
of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty authorities.
through some motive or intent or ill
will; it partakes of the nature of Good faith means honest, lawful
fraud." intent; the condition of acting
without knowledge of fraud, and
"Gross negligence has been so without intent to assist in a
defined as negligence characterized fraudulent or otherwise unlawful
by the want of even slight care, scheme (Giangan v. People, 2015).
acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and

REVIEWER
Hence, good faith as a defense for be the party who suffered

this crime can be advanced by the undue injury. Whereas under
accused to be acquitted of charges. the second mode, the benefit
is given to a private party
 First mode: the concept of undue who can either be a private
injury is the same as the civil law individual or a public
concept of actual damages. It is personality but acting in a
required that undue injury must be private capacity.
specified, quantified, and proven to
the point of certainty otherwise, Should the person be given
conviction for the first mode cannot benefit is the government
be sustained. itself, this crime cannot be
committed.
 Second mode: the element of
Neglecting or refusing, after due demand
damage is not required unlike the
or request, without sufficient justification,
first mode.
to act within a reasonable time on any
matter pending before him for the
 Difference between the first mode
purpose of obtaining, directly or
and second mode: other than the
indirectly, from any person interested in
element of damage as discussed
the matter some pecuniary or material
above, the following are considered
benefit or advantage, or for the purpose
the differences that separates the first
of favoring his own interest or giving
from the second mode of committing
undue advantage in favor of or
this type of corrupt practice.
discriminating against any other
interested party.
o As to the involvement of
injured or benefitted party:  Gravamen: non-feasance for an
Under the first mode, the unreasonable amount of time without
injured party is an offended any justification despite demand to
party. Whereas, in the second perform the task of his office, for the
mode, the private individual purpose of;
who benefitted from the o Obtaining (directly or
advantage extended is liable indirectly) some pecuniary or
under RA 3019 material benefit or advantage
o Favouring his own interest;
o As to the involvement of the
government: Under the first
mode, the government may

REVIEWER
o Giving undue advantage in because he has financial or pecuniary

favour of another interested interest.
party;
o Discriminating against other Under the second mode, mere
interested party. financial or pecuniary interest in any
transaction which the constitution or
Entering, on behalf of the Government, the law prohibits without any need of
into any contract or transaction intervention.
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the same, whether or not the public Example: Under the
officer profited or will profit thereby. constitution, a member of
congress shall not be directly
 Determination of “Manifestly and
or indirectly financially
Grossly Disadvantageous”: In
interested in any contract
order to show that there was an
with or in any franchise or
overpricing in the subject
special privilege granted by
transaction, a canvass of different
the government.
supplier with their corresponding
prices of properties identical to that Directly or indirectly becoming
alleged overpriced property must be interested, for personal gain, or having a
procured. material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel
Failure to do so will cause the or group of which he is a member, and
acquittal of the accused for violation which exercises discretion in such
of this type of corrupt practice. approval, even if he votes against the
same or does not participate in the action
Director or indirectly having financing or
of the board, committee, panel or group.
pecuniary interest in any business,
contract or transaction in connection with Interest for personal gain shall be
which he intervenes or takes part in his presumed against those public officers
official capacity, or in which he is responsible for the approval of manifestly
prohibited by the Constitution or by any unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
law from having any interest. transactions or acts by the board, panel
or group to which they belong.
 Two modes of committing this type
of corrupt practice: Under the first  Gravamen: Having an interest in
mode, the public officer must any transaction that would require
directly or indirectly intervene in his the approval of a group to which the
official capacity to any transaction public officer is a member and given

REVIEWER
the power to vote (even if he votes Revised Penal Code and/or any violation of
against it or does not vote at all) SPL.
Knowingly approving or granting any RA 3019 provision punishing private

license, permit, privilege or benefit in individuals: The following are the
favor of any person not qualified for or provisions that explicitly punishes a private
not legally entitled to such license, permit, individual withy RA 3019.
privilege or advantage, or of a mere
representative or dummy of one who is Note, the following presupposes a
not so qualified or entitled. conspiracy or involvement of a public
officer;
 Good faith as defense (Mendiola v.
People, 1992): This case involves a  Section 3 (last paragraph): The
mistake in issuing a building permit person giving the gift, present, share,
based on doubtful or difficult percentage or benefit referred to in
questions of law. Upon showing subparagraphs (b) and (c); or
proof of good faith, the accused was offering or giving to the public
acquitted with this type of corrupt officer the employment mentioned in
practice. subparagraph (d); or urging the
divulging or untimely release of the
Divulging valuable information of a confidential information referred to
confidential character, acquired by his in subparagraph (k) of this section
office or by him on account of his official shall, together with the offending
position to unauthorized persons, or public officer, be punished
releasing such information in advance of
its authorized release date.  Setion 4 (a) and (b): It shall be
unlawful for any person having
 Gravamen: divulging valuable family or close personal relation with
information of confidential in nature any public official to capitalize or
to authorized persons or advance exploit or take advantage of such
release (before the authorized release family or close personal relation by
date) acquired by a public officer by directly or indirectly requesting or
virtue of his official function. receiving any present, gift or
Double jeopardy: “In addition to acts or material or pecuniary advantage
omissions of public officers already from any other person having some
penalized by existing law”. It is clear then business, transaction, application,
that one may be charged with violation of request or contract with the
RA 4019 in addition to any felony government, in which such public
committed by a public officer under the official has to intervene.

REVIEWER
along the same line of

Family relation shall include the business;
spouse or relatives by consanguinity o nor to any transaction,
or affinity in the third civil degree. contract or application
already existing or pending at
The word “close personal relation” the time of such assumption
shall include close personal of public office;
friendship, social and fraternal o nor to any application filed
connections, and professional by him the approval of which
employment all giving rise to is not discretionary on the
intimacy which assures free access to part of the official or officials
such public officer. concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites
(b) It shall be unlawful for any provided by law, or rules or
person knowingly to induce or cause regulations issued pursuant to
any public official to commit any of law;
the offenses defined in Section 3 o nor to any act lawfully
hereof. performed in an official
capacity or in the exercise of
 Section 6: It shall be unlawful for the a profession.
spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within the  Section 14 (last paragraph): where
third civil degree, of the President of the practice of such profession, trade
the Philippines, the Vice-President of or occupation involves conspiracy
the Philippines, the President of the with any other person or public
Senate, or the Speaker of the House official to commit any of the
of Representatives, to intervene, violations penalized in this Act.
directly or indirectly, in any
business, transaction, contract or Exception: Nothing in this Act shall
application with the Government be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit
the practice of any profession, lawful
Exception: That this section shall not
trade or occupation by any private
apply to any person who;
person or by any public officer who
o prior to the assumption of under the law may legitimately
office of any of the above practice his profession, trade or
officials to whom he is occupation, during his incumbency
related, has been already
dealing with the Government

REVIEWER
Giving gift as an offense: Receiving any DIFFERENCE OF ART. 204 AND 205
gift includes the act of accepting directly or What is the difference of Art. 204 and
indirectly a gift from a person (other than a 205: Rendering an unjust judgment under
member of the public officer’s immediate Art. 204 is accompanied with bad faith
family), in behalf of himself or of any whereas Art. 205, there is no bad faith. In
member of his family or relative (within the both instance, the judgment is patently
fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity erroneous such that it is not based on
or affinity), even on the occasion of a family evidence and/or not supported by law.
celebration or national festivity like
Christmas. DIRECT BRIBERY
Concept of “gift”: any benefit extended to
If the value of the gift is under the the public officer as an exchange for
circumstances manifestly excessive, the performance of a crime in relation to his
public officer can be held liable for graft and office, performance of a duty (without the
corrupt practice. gift, he would not do), non-performance of a
duty.
Gift as a means of defense: Unsolicited
gifts or presents of small or insignificant Example: borrowing a car of a
value offered or given as a mere ordinary private individual in exchange of a
token of gratitude or friendship according to speedy disposition of the transaction
local customs or usage, shall be excepted he has with the public officer
from the provisions of this Act.
Always function related: The acts referred
Prosecution for corrupt practices to in the law, which the offender agrees to
(particularly Sec. 3 (b) and (c)), the value of perform, execute, or disregard must be
the gift or present need not be alleged in the ultimately related to or linked with the
information. Hence, to avoid prosecution for performance of his official duties such that
corrupt practices because of gift giving, the the officer has the apparent power and
defense is duty bound to negate the ability to bring the desired end.
following circumstances;
Crime of moral turpitude: Direct bribery
 That the gift was given in connection denotes a malicious intent on the part of the
with any government contract, offender to renege on the duties which he
transaction, license, or permit; owes his fellowmen and society in general
 The gift was given to him directly or because he agrees to accept a promise or gift
indirectly; for deliberately committing an unjust act or
 The value of the gift is manifestly refrains from performing an official duty.
excessive.

REVIEWER
INDIRECT BRIBERY CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Intent to receive: to be liable for indirect Attempted stage of corruption of public
bribery, the public officer must not only officer: He offered to give the Labor Arbiter
accept the gift but must also show that he a luxury car in exchange for a favorable
has clear intention of making the gift as his ruling on a pending illegal dismissal case.
own property. By making such offer, Mr. X already
commenced the performance of material acts
Mere physical acceptance without any act of of execution in corrupting the Labor Arbiter.
ownership is not sufficient on the part of the He was not able to perform all the material
court to conclude that indirect bribery has acts of execution only because the Labor
been committed. Arbiter refused to accept the offer [Pozar v.
To hold otherwise would lead to abuse of CA, G.R. No. L-62439, October 23, 1984].
making a public officer liable for a crime by MALVERSATION
simply placing in their physical custody Offender: any public officer who has
some property. control or custody of public property by
QUALIFIED DIRECT BRIBERY reason of the duties of his office.
Offender: this crime requires that the In a local government concept, it includes an
offender be a public officer entrusted with accountable officer who has participated in
law enforcement who refuses from arresting the use or application of public property or
or prosecuting an officer in consideration of funds.
any promise, gift, or present.
Authority to control or custody: the
Hence, should the problem involve a judge, authority of the public officer over the
it is not qualified bribery because convicting public funds or property (in relation to
a person is not equal to arresting or control and/or custody) must emanate from
prosecution which is an indispensable act of the law itself or by virtue of his office.
qualified bribery.
Should the authority emanate from the order
Actus rea of qualified bribery: It is not the of a superior, he is not considered as
acceptance of the briber nor agreement not accountable public officer. Any
to arrest or prosecute but the actual act of misappropriation thereof is considered as
refraining to arrest or prosecute a criminal qualified theft and not malversation of
because the wording of the law is “he public funds or property.
refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender”. Example: a payroll officer of a
certain government office is not an
accountable officer because he has
no authority to control or dispose the

REVIEWER
salaries of the employees. Should he mitigating circumstance depending on the

alter true amounts of the net pay factual circumstance of the case.
appearing in the payroll constitutes
another crime than malversation. As a defense: if upon demand of
audit, the person returned the
Malversation through misappropriation deficient fund or missing property.
v. taking: misappropriation is akin to estafa This negates the prima facie
through misappropriation whereas taking is presumption of malversation needed
akin to theft. for conviction.
In misappropriation, jurisprudence seems to As a mitigating circumstance: when

lean on the fact that the accountable public the person returned the deficiency
officer did not directly benefit from the after misappropriating it (with no
crime whereas in taking there is an actual benefit for himself)
and direct benefit.
Intentional v. Culpable malversation: In No defense; no mitigating: if

intentional malversation the possibility of restitution is made after an
conspiracy is possible because the public unreasonable length of time.
officer consented in the taking of public ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
funds or property with intent. Whereas, in Elements: the following are considered the
culpable malversation, the public officer elements needed to convict a person of
allowed the taking because of his plunder.
negligence.
1. Offender is a public officer who acts
To be liable for culpable malversation: It by himself or in connivance with
is important that there is a third person who other person
took the property or fund and the
 Principal plunderer: the principal
accountable public officer permitted the
plunderer must be a public officer,
taking by the third person through
either alone or in connivance with
abandonment or negligence. Absence of
other persons.
misappropriation or taking by the third
person, culpable malversation cannot be
 Other persons: connivance with
committed.
members of his family, relatives by
Restitution as a defense and as a affinity or consanguinity, business
mitigating circumstance: In general, associates, subordinates or other
restitution is not one of the means of persons.
extinguishing criminal liability however,
restitution can either be a defense or a

REVIEWER
Any person who participated with

the said public officer in the 3. aggregate amount or total value of at
commission of an offense least Fifty million pesos
contributing to the crime of plunder (P50,000,000.00)
shall likewise be punished for such  Ill-gotten wealth: any asset, property,
offense. business enterprise or material
possession of any person within the
2. amasses, accumulates or acquires ill- purview of plunder acquired by him
gotten wealth through a combination directly or indirectly by any
or series of overt criminal acts as combination or series of predicate
described in Section 1 (d) hereof crimes of plunder
 The wording of the law requires the
offenders to perform series or  In relation to conspiracy: once
combination of acts. conspiracy is proven, the actual
amount receives by each actors of
“Combination” of predicate crime the crime shall be summed up in
presupposes different predicate crime order to determine whether the reach
whereas “Series” of overt criminal the threshold required by law.
acts means repeated performance of
the same predicate crime. No conspiracy proven: each or the
individual shall be treated separately
Example: A public officer receives and independently from each other.
25 million worth of stocks in a The threshold amount required by
mining firm who happens to have a law shall be determined individually.
pending transaction with the public
officer. Furthermore, the same Proving plunder: It shall not be necessary
mining company gave as kickback to prove each and every criminal act done by
25 million pesos in cash to ensure the the accused in furtherance of the scheme or
prompt disposition of the transaction. conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire
ill-gotten wealth. Establishing beyond
The public officer herein committed reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or
a combination of predicate crimes of criminal acts indicative of the overall
(1) receiving directly shares of stock unlawful scheme or conspiracy is sufficient
and (2) receiving kickback from any to prove plunder.
person that has a contract with the Preventive suspension: there are three
government or by reason of the requirements before a public officer may be
office or position of the public preventively suspended;
officer.

REVIEWER
 A public officer is charged with of a crime or a third person punished

violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft for the acts of another or by reason
and Corrupt Practices); crimes of discrimination
committed by a public officer under
the RPC; As to the offender: In maltreatment,
o The law did not distinguish the offender is a public officer who is
whether the public officer is a in charge of the prisoner. In torture,
elected or appointed. the offender is a person in authority
or his agent.
 Public officer is being criminally
prosecuted under a valid As to purpose: In maltreatment, it is
information; to punish in a cruel and humiliating
o Presupposes that there has manner or to obtain a confession or
been preliminary information. In torture, in addition to
investigation conducted. the purposes of maltreatment, it also
includes discrimination as one of the
 Pre-suspension hearing is conducted purposes of torture.
o It is to ascertain; (1) the
accused had been afforded Command responsibility in torture
due preliminary investigation act: The immediate commanding
prior to the filing of the officer of the unit concerned of the
information against him; (2) AFP or the immediate senior public
the acts for which he was official of the PNP and other law
charged constitute a violation enforcement agencies shall be held
of the crimes mentioned liable as a principal to the crime of
herein; (3) whether the torture or other cruel or inhuman and
information against him is degrading treatment or punishment
quashable. for any act or omission, or
negligence committed by him/her
MALTREATMENT AND ANTI- that shall have led, assisted, abetted
TORTURE ACT or allowed, whether directly or
Difference: the following shall be indirectly, the commission thereof by
distinction between the two; his/her subordinates. If he/she has
knowledge of or, owing to the
As to the victim: In maltreatment, the circumstances at the time, should
offended party must be a prisoner have known that acts of torture or
whereas in torture, the victim could other cruel, inhuman and degrading
be any one either they are suspected treatment or punishment shall be

REVIEWER
committed, is being committed, or TITLE 8: CRIMES

has been committed by his/her
subordinates or by others within AGAINST PERSON
his/her area of responsibility and,
despite such knowledge, did not take DEATH/ PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER
preventive or corrective action either EXCEPTIONAL CASES
before, during or immediately after Legitimate spouse: to avail this defense, the
its commission, when he/she has the marriage between the accused and his
authority to prevent or investigate spouse must be legal.
allegations of torture or other cruel, If no marriage is existing, the only benefit
inhuman and degrading treatment or the offender can use is the mitigating
punishment but failed to prevent or circumstance of passion or obfuscation.
investigate allegations of such act,
whether deliberately or due to Caught in the actual act of sexual
negligence shall also be liable as intercourse: it must be during, not before or
principals. after otherwise this defense cannot be
availed.
ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR
POSITION It does not matter whether the accused
Qualified: If such office shall have been actually saw and witnessed the carnal act
abandoned in order to evade the discharge of being committed. It is enough that he
the duties of preventing, prosecuting or surprises them under such circumstance as
punishing any of the crime falling within to reasonably show that the carnal act is
Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of being committed.
Book Two of this Code.
 Suppose that the carnal act between
UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS the spouse and the paramour were
Qualification referred: Must refer to legal videotaped. Should the accused saw
qualifications, not necessarily referring to the sex video, this is not “caught in
the fact that the person is suspended because the actual act of sexual intercourse”
in reality he still possesses the required hence cannot claim a valid defense
qualifications. under Art. 247
Death or physical injury inflicted during

or immediately thereafter: the outrage and
overwhelming feeling of the accused must
have brought the injuries inflicted against
the spouse and/or the paramour.

REVIEWER
 Immediately threreafter: it effects on rules of criminal law involving

presupposes that injuries may not Art. 247;
necessarily be inflicted while the
Jurisdiction: The proper court that has
victim/s are in the actual of act of
jurisdiction is RTC, the penalty of destierro
copulation. The law also recognizes
is only imposed should the accused be
the fact that the injuries may be
successful in availing Art. 247. Furthermore,
inflicted immediately thereafter
the crime charge is parricide and/or
provided that it was still motivated
homicide.
by the blinding impulse brought
about by the sexual intercourse. Self-defense: For purposes of self-defense,
the spouse or the paramour who had killed
Mistake of fact: If the facts had the accused
the outraged spouse is liable for killing the
believe them to be were true, his actions
latter because the outraged spouse is not
would be justified provided that he is not
performing an unlawful aggression which is
negligent all throughout the commission of
an essential element of self-defense.
the crime.
Civil liability: Art. 247 is not a crime, hence
Example: Should X (the husband) caught his
the accused who killed the victim has no
wife Y having sexual intercourse with Z and
civil liability.
subsequently killed Z. Prosecuted for the
crime of homicide, X offered the defense of KILLING
Art. 247. Intent to kill presumed: If the offender
intentionally inflicted injury upon the
The prosecution on the other hand presented
victim, who died as a consequence, intent to
medical records that Z was born female and
kill is conclusively presumed.
underwent gender re-assignment hence X
cannot avail the defense of Art. 247. However, the concept of intent to kill as an
element of killing should not be confused
X, as a rebuttal, in lieu of Art. 247, offered
with the application of praeter intentionem
that he had mistaken Z as male because of
to mitigate the criminal liability of a person.
his physical appearance.
Hence, intent to kill is conclusively
In this case, X’s defense can be tenable
presumed and the accused cannot use the
because of mistake of fact. Had Z be
defense of “no intent to kill” to be acquitted,
actually born male, X can avail the defense
nonetheless praeter intentionem can still be
of Art. 247.
appreciated.
Implications of Article 247 not being a
MURDER
crime: the following are the following
Witness needed: in crimes of killing, a
witness is material to determine whether it is

REVIEWER
murder or homicide. The witness will be The peculiarity of this second rule is
able to testify on the fact that killing was on the fact that certain circumstances
attended with any of the qualifying in Art. 247 is not considered as an
circumstance of murder. aggravating circumstance under Art.
14.
Respective rules for circumstances: the
following are the rules to take into consider Example: X was killed by Y
in understanding circumstance found in with treachery and thereafter
murder; Y buried the body to conceal
 Absorption: Usually when treachery the corpus delicti.
is with accompanied with another
circumstance in killing a person. Two circumstances are
present in this case; treachery
The definition of treachery is the and employing means to
deliberate adoption of the means and insure impunity. The latter is
methods by the accused to ensure the not considered as an
execution of the act without being aggravating circumstance
inflicted of any defense (of whatever under Article 14 of the RPC
degree) that the victim may employ whereas, the former
to repel and prevent the attack. With circumstance is can be
the definition, certain qualifying considered as an ordinary
circumstance is absorbed as the aggravating circumstance.
means or method employed. To better appreciate this
situation, impunity shall be
Usually treachery absorbs: taking considered as the qualifying
advantage of superior strength, with circumstance whereas
the aid of armed men, or employing treachery shall be used to
means to weaken the defense or of aggravate the criminal
means or persons to insure or afford liability.
impunity.
 Qualifiers of infanticide and
 Qualify and as ordinary: if there are parricide: should the qualifying
two or more circumstances that can circumstances of the crimes
be used to qualify the killing, one of mentioned is alleged and proven, the
them is sufficient to qualify and the proper conviction is those crimes and
remaining will be used as an not murder.
ordinary aggravating circumstance

REVIEWER
Suddenness of the attack not necessarily ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF A

treachery: The suddenness of the attack FIREARM
does not by itself, suffice to support a Victim dies: intent to kill is conclusively
finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was presumed hence the person cannot be
to kill, so long as the decision was made all convicted of illegal discharge of firearm.
of a sudden and the victim’s helpless
position was accidental ABORTION IN RE INFANTICIDE IN
RE MURDER/ PARRICIDE
In a number of cases, the Court held that Viability of life of the fetus (People v.
treachery cannot be appreciated simply Paycana, 2008; 2015 Bar exams): One
because the attack was sudden and must determine if a fetus is viable of human
unexpected [People v. Vilbar]. life independent from his mother to
determine whether one is liable for abortion,
infanticide, murder or parricide.
This negates the concept of deliberateness in
adopting the method and means to ensure no How to determine the viability of the
defense. fetus: A fetus with an intra-uterine life of
six month or less is not capable of
DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTOUS
independent life. A fetus with an intra-
AFFRAY
uterine life of more than six-month is
Conspiracy is not possible: The persons
capable of independent life.
who assaulted each other must not be
composed of groups organized for the Hence, even if the fetus with an intra-uterine
common purpose of reciprocally assaulting life of exactly 6 months was violently
and attacking each other. expelled and was able to survive for more
than three days, the crime will always
The essence of tumultuous affray is assault
amount to abortion (unintentional or
in a confused manner.
intentional).
If conspiracy exist, it does not matter who
However, should the fetus have an intra-
delivered the final fatal blow because the act
uterine life of 6 months and 20 days and was
of one is the act of all.
violently expelled. The crime shall be
PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED IN A dependent on the number of days the fetus
TUMULTOUS AFFRAY survived.
Degree of violence committed: the degree
How to prove viability: An expert
of violence that must be committed should
assessment of the doctor on the viable
not amount into less serious to serious
condition of the fetus must be considered
physical injury otherwise the person will be
and given considerable weight.
held liable for that particular crime.

REVIEWER
Situations: Should the fetus within an intra- Non-violent means: if the accused
uterine life of 5 months was violently did not employ violence but some
expelled but was able to survive for four other means which is sufficient to
days, the proper charge is abortion cause abortion, Article 4 or the
proximate cause doctrine will apply.
Should the fetus with an intra-uterine life of The consequence is intentional
7 months be violently expelled and survive 2 abortion because intent to abort is
days, the crime is infanticide conclusively presumed when the
Should the fetus survive 3 days, the crime is fetus dies.
either parricide or murder depending on the
presence of relationship. Example: A is considered as a high-
risk pregnancy, her doctor
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION recommends that she be under no
Elements: the following are considered the stress for even the slightest stress can
elements of unintentional abortion; already cause abortion.
1. That there is a pregnant woman;

Z in the heat of anger, threatened to
 Knowledge of the offender that the
kill A. The stress produced by the
victim was pregnant is not an
threat caused abortion.
essential element of unintentional
abortion. However, this may negate
Z is liable for intentional abortion.
the intent in the crime of intentional
Threatening A in the heat of anger is
abortion
considered as other light threat (a
felony punished by RPC) which is
2. That violence was inflicted upon her;
the direct and natural consequence of
3. Violence was intentional;
A’s abortion.
 What is required is that the offender
employed a degree of violence 4. That as a result of the violence, the
capable of abortion. In this case, the fetus died (either in the womb or
accused is liable for Art. 256 violently expelled therefrom which
causes death).
If the means employed by the
 Prenatal death: if the fetus died
offender is not violence but
inside the womb of the woman, it
nonetheless produces unintentional
will always amount into abortion.
abortion, the crime is intentional
abortion.
 Postnatal death: if the fetus was
violently expelled from the womb of
the woman and died thereafter, the

REVIEWER
fetus must not be considered as reason or unconscious who does not put any
having viable life. resistance during the ordeal.
INTENTIONAL ABORTION “deprived of reason”: jurisprudence

Extenuating circumstance: it is only includes persons suffering from
applicable to the mother of the aborted child schizophrenia and insanity as personalities
for purposes of concealing dishonor. It deprived of reason. Hence, it is required that
cannot extend to the maternal grandparents. the prosecution must be able to prove this
qualification,
INFANTICIDE
Extenuating circumstance: it is applicable No amount of valid consent can be given by
to the mother of the aborted child and these personalities hence any sexual
extends to the maternal grandparents. congress with them is considered as rape.
Purpose herein is to conceal dishonor
The defense of lack of force or intimidation
RAPE is not tenable in this instance.
Continuous consent: the gravamen of rape
is having sexual intercourse or without “Under 12 yrs. of age”: This is not limited
consent. To be free from prosecution, the to physical age. Person suffering from
defense must be able to show that the victim mental retardation with a mental age of a
gave her consent not just initially but must child below 12 is included in this definition.
be present through the entire sexual Hence a person who is not a retard, the
congress. physical age is taken into consider. Whereas,
Proof that the victim withdrew her consent a retard person, his mental age is taken into
midway, yet the accused forced himself will consider.
be liable for the crime of rape despite The prosecution is duty bound to prove this
consent being initially present. mental status of a person.
Resistance: any physical overt act o This is to be treated differently from
manifesting resistance against the advances one of the qualifying circumstance of
of the offender in any degree is an rape: To be considered as qualifying
acceptable evidence of rape. circumstance, the information must
Lack of resistance does not necessarily allege that the accused knew of the
negate that the sexual congress between two mental disability, emotion disorder,
persons is without consent. We have to take and physical handicap of the victim.
into consider that rape can also be
committed against a person deprived of Failure to allege: it cannot be used to
qualify the crime of rape; the

REVIEWER
accused is only liable for simple Example: Step-relationship is

rape. different from common-law-
relationship that would qualify the
Fraudulent machination: When a person is crime of rape of a minor.
a victim of fraudulent machination or
manipulation such that the victim acts Suppose that the information alleges
without or with false knowledge as his/her step-relationship between the
basis of consent. The offender will be liable offender and the victim when in fact
for rape. the offender is merely the common-
Grave abuse of authority: abuse of law husband of the victim’s parent.
authority in this instance is similar to abuse This will not be appreciated against
of authority in qualified seduction. The the accused because step-relationship
difference being is that the abuse in this case presupposes a valid marriage
is grave or such a degree that the person’s between the offender and the parent
free will is subjugated. of the victim whereas in common-
law-relationship, there is no marriage
Example: a professor who threatens existing.
his student of a failing grade needed
by the latter to graduate unless the Sweetheart defense: two elements must be
student submits herself to the sexual proven by clear and convincing evidence;
desires of the professor. This is an
 The accused and victim were lovers
example of grave abuse of authority.
 The victim consented to the alleged
The means that facilitated the rape must be sexual relation with the offender.
specifically alleged in the information in
Love is not a license for lust.
order not to deny the constitutional right of
the accused of being informed of the nature Proving the age of the victim (People v.
and the cause of accusation against him. Flores, 2012): In order to remove any
confusion that may be engendered by the
Example: In cases where the accused
foregoing cases, we hereby set the following
raped a retarded person, but the
guidelines in appreciating age, either as an
information alleges that the victim is
element of the crime or as a qualifying
deprived of reason.
circumstance.
This is also applicable in cases of qualifying
1. The best evidence to prove the age
circumstances. Elements thereof must be
of the offended party is an original or
alleged and proven in order to be
certified true copy of the certificate
appreciated against the accused.
of live birth of such party.

REVIEWER
2. In the absence of a certificate of that she is less than 18 years

live birth, similar authentic old.
documents such as baptismal 4. In the absence of a certificate of
certificate and school records which live birth, authentic document, or the
show the date of birth of the victim testimony of the victim’s mother or
would suffice to prove age. relatives concerning the victim’s age,
the complainant’s testimony will
3. If the certificate of live birth or suffice provided that it is expressly
authentic document is shown to have and clearly admitted by the accused.
been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear 5. It is the prosecution that has the
and credible, of the victim’s mother burden of proving the age of the
or a member of the family either by offended party. The failure of the
affinity or consanguinity who is accused to object to the testimonial
qualified to testify on matters evidence regarding age shall not be
respecting pedigree such as the exact taken against him.
age or date of birth of the offended
party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 6. The trial court should always
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall make a categorical finding as to the
be sufficient under the following age of the victim.
circumstances
Transgender; in relation rape: having
a. If the victim is alleged to sexual intercourse/ carnal knowledge by
be below 3 years of age and means of force against a transgender woman
what is sought to be proved is cannot be considered as rape of the first kind
that she is less than 7 years because the crime is gender specific.
old; But, rape through sexual assault can be
committed against a transgender because the
b. If the victim is alleged to crime is genderless. However, it may be
be below 7 years of age and argued that when an instrument or even the
what is sought to be proved is penis of the offender penetrated the
that she is less than 12 years “genitalia” of the transgender victim, it
old; merely amounts to acts of lasciviousness and
not rape.
c. If the victim is alleged to
be below 12 years of age and Consummated rape: with the wording of
what is sought to be proved is the law “carnal knowledge”, it does not
require penetration (in whatever degree) as

REVIEWER
long as the penis (erect or not) has touched However, the offender was arrested
the lips of the pudendum of the victim, rape at that point.
is already consummated.
He is liable for unjust vexation; no
Attempted rape: intent to lie coupled by the evidence was offered to show that
facts surrounding the case will determine the accused is motivated with lewd
whether the proper crime to charge is designs.
attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.
Circumstance that would show attempted o Example: Lovers who were seated
rape (among others): if the offender tries to far back in a movie theater. The act
force his penis (erect or not) against the of the boyfriend in suddenly
genitalia of the victim caressing the breast of his girlfriend
without the use of any force or
Variant crime: If the accused is motivated intimidation can be held liable for
with lewd designs but the actions is not unjust vexation. Lewd design is
indicative of intent to lie, the crime is acts of present but the circumstances
lasciviousness mentioned under the law to facilitate
acts of lasciviousness is absent.
o Example: when the offender
undresses a woman at gun point,
o Example: Kissing a girl and mashing
caresses the breast and inner
her breast in public with intent to
thighs, kisses the neck and breast,
bring contempt or dishonor, the
and after the offender removed
accused is liable of slander by deed.
his pants he was arrested.
Despite the presence of lewd
designs, it was not done with the
Intent to lie in this case is
circumstances under the law to
doubtful, hence the proper crime
facilitate acts of lasciviousness.
charge is acts of lasciviousness.
If the accused is not motivated with lewd It is not unjust vexation as well
designs: the actions of the accused may because the intent of the accused is
amount only to unjust vexation or some to bring dishonor on the victim.
other crime.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
o Example: the offender forcefully CHILDREN
pressed a chemical soaked clothe on Sexual relationship: refers to a single
the nose of the victim with the intent sexual act which may or may not result in
to make the latter unconscious. the bearing of a common child.

REVIEWER
Dating relationship: refers to a situation Before this expanded concept can be

wherein the parties live as husband and wife appreciated, there must be evidence from a
without the benefit of marriage or are qualified physician, psychologist, or
romantically involved over time and on a psychiatrist attesting that her their physical
continuing basis during the course of the condition rendered them incapable of fully
relationship. A casual acquaintance or taking care or protecting themselves
ordinary socialization between two
individuals in a business or social context is Catch all proviso nature of RA 7610: Any
not a dating relationship. person who shall commit any other acts of
child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be
Children: refers to those below eighteen responsible for other conditions prejudicial
(18) years of age or older but are incapable to the child’s development including those
of taking care of themselves as defined covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree
under Republic Act No. 7610. As used in No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the
this Act, it includes the biological children Revised Penal Code x x x.
of the victim and other children under her
care. For as long the acts of a person does not fall
under child and sexual abuse under RA
It does not necessarily need that the child be 7610, felony under RPC, it shall be
the common child of the woman and the considered as child abuse punished under
offender, it suffices that the child is Sec. 10 of RA 7610.
biologically related to the woman.
Essential element for child abuse: What is
Habituality is not an element: with the material is the presence of debases, degrades
wording of the law “Violence against or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of
women and their children” refers to any act a child as a human being regardless whether
or a series of acts committed by any person”, the act being habitual or not; physical,
it shows that the intent of the law is not to psychological, sexual, emotional
limit the prosecution to multiple acts of maltreatment.
harassment.
Bongalon doctrine: when the chastisement
CHILD ABUSE RA 7610 was made in the heat of the moment or
Expanded concept of a child: those over spontaneously, the accused cannot be said to
but are unable to fully take care of be liable of RA 7610 but for some other
themselves or protect themselves from crime. The reason being is that there is no
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or intent to debase the child.
discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition Child abuse in secluded place: Any person
who shall keep or have in his company a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in

REVIEWER
ten (10) years or more his junior in any cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
public or private place, hotel, motel, beer prostitution under the RPC
joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other  As to the gender of prostitute: Under
tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the RPC, the offender must be a
punishment: woman
Provided, that this provision shall not apply

Prostitutes under RA 7610 and 9208
to any person who is related within the
can be anyone.
fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or
any bond recognized by law, local custom
 As to habituality: Under the RPC, it
and tradition or acts in the performance of a
is an essential element that the
social, moral or legal duty.
prostitute must be engage in such
 Possible defenses herein involve the activity habitually
age between the minor and the
offender; the fact that the wordings Whereas, under RA 7610 and 9208it
of the law uses “keep or have in his does not require that the prostitute be
company” presupposes that minor engaged or subjected to such activity
was initially with him and it cannot habitually.
be said that the minor presented
himself. Lastly, the relationship  As to the liability of the Pimp: under
either consanguinity, affinity, or by the revised penal code, the pimp is
duty. liable for qualified corruption of
minors under Art. 340
Child abuse; Prostitution (under the Under RA 7610, the pimp shall be
RPC); Anti-Human Trafficking: The liable for Sec 5(a) [child prostitution
following are the rules between the three and sexual abuse].
crimes;
Under RA 9208 (as amended), the
 As to the prostitute: Under the RPC,
pimp shall be liable for qualified
a prostitute is women who, for
trafficking
money or profit, habitually indulge
in sexual intercourse or lascivious
Difference with child prostitution:
conduct. They are criminally liable
Under RA 7610, child prostitution
presupposes single incident of
Prostitutes under RA 7610 and RA
offering the services of a child to
9208 are considered victims hence
engage in sexual activities. Whereas,
under Anti-trafficking law, there is

REVIEWER
an element of regularity. The act of As provided under RA 7610, the

the accused who would regularly person is liable under Section 5 of
offer the sexual services of a child in the law.
exchange of money is liable for anti-
trafficking law. Under RA 9208, under Sec. 11 (as
amended) the use of trafficked
 As to brothels and/or those who person is committed by any person
benefit from prostitution: Under the who buys or engages the services of
RPC, those who benefits from the a trafficked person for prostitution
activity of prostitution shall be liable
for white slave trade: any person
who, in any manner, or under any TITLE 9: CRIMES
pretext, shall engage in the business AGAINST LIBERTY
or shall profit by prostitution or shall
enlist the services of any other for SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
the purpose of prostitution Multiple victim: There are as many
criminal impulses to deprive liberty on the
Under RA 7610, under Sec. 5(c): part of the accused as there are kidnapped
Those who derive profit or advantage victims.
therefrom, whether as manager or
owner of the establishment where the Special complex crime: the main intent of
prostitution takes place, or of the the accused must be intent to deprive the
sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of person of his liberty or detain him, any
entertainment or establishment component crimes is merely an afterthought
serving as a cover or which engages committed by reason or on occasion of the
in prostitution in addition to the detention.
activity for which the license has Non-consummated composite crime: there
been issued to said establishment. is no such thing as special complex crime of
kidnapping and a non-consummated
Under RA 9208 as amended is broad composite crime. At most, the proper rule to
enough to include all other types of take into consider is two separate crimes.
benefit that a person derives from
prostitution. Kidnapping for ransom: what matters
most is that the reason behind kidnapping or
 As to patrons/ customers of the the detention of the person is to extort
prostitutes: No counter provision ransom money in exchange for his liberty,
under the RPC. the crime is immediately the special
complex crime of kidnapping for ransom

REVIEWER
notwithstanding the fact that the accused had ABANDONMENT OF INJURED VICTIM
not yet demanded money. Application: this is applicable only when
the offender had accidentally caused injury
Consent of the minor not a defense: it has to another person. Should the offender
already been settled that under our criminal intentionally inflicted the injuries, he cannot
law, a consent given by a minor is given no be held liable for this crime.
weight as they are presumed not to have
fully understood the nature and extent of the If injury was recklessly committed:
consequences of their consent, hence it is an application of this crime can either be a
invalid defense. qualifier or a separate crime.
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO Qualifier: The penalty next higher in

RETURN A MINOR degree to those provided for in Art.
Difference with serious illegal detention: 365 shall be imposed upon the
In serious illegal detention, the person has offender who fails to lend on the spot
not been entrusted with the custody of the to the injured parties such help as
minor whereas under this crime, the person may be in this hand to give.
has been entrusted with the custody of the
minor but deliberately failed to return the In order for this to become a
custody. qualifier, this must be alleged in the
information and proven that the
Committed by a parent: this presupposes
offender failed to give assistance the
that there exists a court decree (final
type and degree of assistance that the
judgment) that grants parental authority to
offender is capable of giving at the
one of the parents and the other merely
time and place of the incident.
visitation rights.
The person who was deprived of parental As a separate crime: failure of the
authority who was entrusted custody (by information to allege the qualifier,
virtue of court mandated visitation rights) the accused can be prosecuted for the
and failed to restore the custody deliberately separate crime of failure to give
shall be held liable under this crime. assistance.
Absence of any final judgment decreeing as This does not constitute double
to whom the parental authority is granted, a jeopardy because; (1) they are
parent cannot be held liable for failure to punished under different title (Art.
return a minor. Exercising parental authority 365 as criminal negligence and Art.
cannot be a source of criminal liability. 275 under crimes against liberty); (2)
Art. 365 is committed by means of
dolo whereas Art. 275, it is

REVIEWER
committed with intent; (3) Art. 365  Compel or desisting another without
does not make failure to render the use of violence/ intimidation/
assistance as an essential element, it force.
merely serves to qualify the penalty.  Taking the personal property of
another person without the use of
BLACKMAILING
violence.
Blackmail: any unlawful extortion of
 Unjustly vexing or irritating another
money by an appeal to the fears of the
victim, especially extortion of money by person.
threats of accusation or exposure. Obtaining ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW
a property from another without his consent, Elements of anti-wiretapping law: the
induced by wrongful use of fear. following are considered the elements of
anti-wiretapping law;
Blackmail as threatening to publish under
Art. 356: When the threats of accusation or 1. That there is a private
exposure in the public prints or those communication
provided under Art. 355.  Subjective and objective phase of
confidentiality shall be taken into
Blackmail as light threats: when the
consider, such that parties to the
threats of accusations are to be exposed
communications reasonably expects
other than in public prints or those provided
privacy.
under Art. 355.
Nature of the threat: if the threat is valid 2. That the offender taps any wire or
and recognized by law, then there is no cable or uses device or arrangement
crime committed. An example is if the for the purpose of secretly overhear,
person threatens to file a criminal case intercept, or record such private
against a person who committed a wrong communication;
against the former.  A third party device intentionally
placed for the purpose of secretly
COERCION
overhear, intercept, or record such
Essence of coercion: it prevents a person
private communication.
from taking the matters onto his own hands
or taking the law on his own hands without
3. That the such acts mentioned was
availing the proper remedies.
done without any authority from all
UNJUST VEXATION the parties thereto and without
Means of committing unjust vexation; the written authority from a competent
following are considered the means to court.
commit unjust vexation;

REVIEWER
TITLE 10: CRIMES  If intent to gain is the only thing

necessary to convict a person of the
AGAINST PROPERTY crime theft, why is it that when an
unfunded check is stolen and it was
RULES RELATIVE TO THEFT AND
dishonored, the crime is impossible
ROBBERY
theft and not theft per se: The reason
Concept of personal property: the term
being is that the owner cannot
personal property in the RPC should be
himself fully utilize the check
interpreted in the context of the civil code.
because its value is absent, hence
Taking: it is not necessary that the property impossible crime.
be actually carried away out of the physical
ROBBERY
presence of the lawful possessor, or that the
Special complex crimes (violence and
offender made his escape with the stolen
intimidation): whenever a composite crime
property.
is committed, the original criminal design of
To take does not require the circumstance of the accused must be examined.
carrying away or asportation. Neither does
If the original intent of the offender is to
taking requires the element of being able to
commit robbery and by reason or on
freely dispose the property taken.
occasion thereof a composite crime is
It should be understood as physical taking committed, the proper crime to charge a
coupled with the intent to gain. person is SCP.
Intent to gain is equal to depriving the owner Execution of deeds by means of violence
of the thing either permanently or or intimidation: the following are the
temporarily. elements of this crime;
No frustrated stage: while it has already 1. By reason of violence or

been established that there can be no intimidation;
frustrated theft based on jurisprudence, such 2. Offended party was forced to execute
doctrinal ruling of the SC should equally a public document or an instrument
apply to robbery given the fact that theft and (whether the instrument is public or
robbery are substantially the same with the private)
only difference on how it is facilitated. 3. Where the offender has intended to
defraud the victim.
Actual gain is not necessary: what the law
requires is intent to gain presumed on the Dwelling and dependency in robbery with
fact of the taking of the personal property. It force upon things: a dwelling is any place
does not require that there be actual gain. where a person treats it as his place of rest,
comfort and privacy.

REVIEWER
“Dependents”: anything that is attached to this law.

the dwelling of a person. Any robbery Presumption is
committed herein is considered as robbery in given by law to aid
in the prosecution
an inhabited place.
of brigandage:
Robbery vis-à-vis other crimes involving Possession of an
unlicensed firearm
extortion of money: If the means
Required number: No required
committed by the person is via violence or must be at least 4 number
intimidation upon the person, the proper members
crime to charge is robbery whereas if other Predetermined Indiscriminate
means was performed by the person to extort victim victim
money, it is not robbery Isolated transaction Continuous
commission of the
Robbery in relation to kidnapping: If the purpose mentioned
accused uses the liberty of the person as a under this law.
means to extort money from another, the
crime is serious illegal detention and
What is a highway: Under PD 532, It shall
kidnapping for ransom.
refer to any road, street, passage, highway
This presupposes that the detention of the and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway
person was unlawful. If the detention of the or railroad within the Philippines used by
person is lawful, extortion of money can persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains
either be direct bribery or robbery, for the movement or circulation of persons
depending on the means employed. or transportation of goods, articles, or
property or both.
Robbery in relation to direct bribery: when
the public officer demanded a sum of money THEFT
from a detained prisoner in exchange of his Lost property (other form of theft): lost
freedom and the person gave the money, the property presupposes that it is not res
crime is direct bribery. nullius. It has indication that it is owned by
someone. One cannot be held for theft if the
Direct bribery is committed whenever property found is not owned by any person.
money is extorted without any intimidation
being employed.
BRIGANDAGE
RPC PD 532
Mere formation is There must be an
enough for the actual commission
commission of the of the crimes
crime. mentioned under

REVIEWER
Surrender of lost property: if the finder Payable to order: the crime is estafa
surrenders the property to a policeman, the because the accused could not encash
latter shall acquire the same position the check without performing any act
occupied by the finder. In sum, the of deceit that would ultimately give
policeman shall be considered the finder and her the capacity to encash the
any appropriation of the property commercial document. Stealing the
surrendered under his custody is considered commercial document is merely a
as theft. means to facilitate estafa.
Malicious mischief in relation to theft Qualified theft: in relation to abuse of

(other form of theft): if the only intention confidence, to prove this qualifying
of the accused is to destroy the property by circumstance, the prosecution must be able
any means (other than by fire), the crime to show that the ER allows his EEs to have
committed is malicious mischief, however physical access to, or material possession of
should the accused’s main intention is to the stolen goods owned by his employer.
steal a part of the property facilitated by
destroying the principal object, the crime is Absence of this circumstance, the employee
theft. can only be liable of simple theft.
CARNAPPING
Trespassing in relation to theft: much like
Concept of carnapping: it is the same as
the aforementioned form of theft, the
that of theft and robbery by means of
original intent of the accused must be with
violence ot intimidation or by use of force
intent to gain and facilitated through
upon things. Hence, discussions on those
trespassing into another’s property to
crimes substantially applies in carnapping
acquire the fruits found therein.
with few different details.
Stealing and encashing commercial
documents: commercial documents are
representation of one person’s credit. Motor vehicles included under the law:
Encashing the funds thereon may either be Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle
theft or estafa depending on the nature of the propelled by any power other than muscular
checks whether they be payable to cash or power using the public highways
order.
 Use of public highways (Izon v.
Payable to cash: mere unlawful People, 1981: It is important that the
taking of the check payable to bearer motor vehicle is used in public
will be enough to acquire the funds highways, and not a street exclusive
therein. Any deceit is only a means for private use. If it were otherwise,
to facilitate the crime of theft. the crime is qualified theft.

REVIEWER
and tractors, trailers and traction engines of

 License to use public highways not all kinds used exclusively for agricultural
necessary (Izon v. People, supra): purposes. Trailers having any number of
From the definition cited by the wheels, when propelled or intended to be
Government which petitioners admit propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle,
as authoritative, highways are always shall be classified as a separate motor
public, free for the use of every vehicle with no power rating.
person. There is nothing in the law
Qualifying circumstance to operate: the
that requires a license to use a public
victim of the killing, or rape must be the
highway to make the vehicle a
driver, owner or occupant of the carnapped
"motor vehicle" within the definition
vehicle. If the victims are different from
given the anti-carnapping law. If a
those mentioned, two separate crimes are
vehicle uses the streets with or
committed.
without the required license, same
comes within the protection of the ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING
law, for the severity of the offense is Cattle: Large cattle as herein used shall
not to be measured by what kind of include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass,
streets or highway the same is used; or other domesticated member of the bovine
but by the very nature of the vehicle family.
itself and the use to which it is
devoted. Otherwise, cars using the Not a special law: People v. Macatanda, 28
streets but still unlicensed or P. D. No. 533 is not a special law. The
unregistered as when they have just penalty for its violation is in terms of the
beet bought from the company, or classification and duration of penalties
only on test runs, may be stolen prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, thus
without the penal sanction of the indicating that the intent of the lawmaker
anti-carnapping statute. was to amend the Revised Penal Code with
respect to the offense of theft of large cattle.
Excluded vehicles: excluded vehicles are
those things which cannot be the subject OCCUPATION OR USURPATION
matter of carnapping but can be considered Similar concept with robbery with
for prosecution of qualified theft (People v. violence and intimidation: In People v.
Bustinera, 2004). Alfeche, G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992,
the Supreme Court held that the phrase “by
Road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, means of violence against or intimidation of
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, persons” in Article 312 must be construed to
graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and refer to the same phrase used in Article 294.
cranes if not used on public highways;
vehicles which run only on rails or tracks;

REVIEWER
However, this is not to say that there is also with the use of the
a special complex crime of occupation or property leased and the
usurpation of real property with homicide or law recognizes certain
rape. Any violence or intimidation employed rights of the lessee such
against the victim shall be considered as the (as but not limited) right
basis of imposing the principal penalty of retention.
together with an additional penalty based on
the value of the property. As compared to a
possessor: he merely has
ESTAFA THROUGH
physical possession; has
MISAPPROPRIATION
limited use thereof
Means of committing estafa through
(usually based on the
misappropriation can only be committed
order of the principal) and
intentionally
has no known rights
Estafa v. Theft: Physical possession is for under our law.
theft. Juridical possession is for estafa
 Legal relationships relative to physical
o Juridical possession: this and juridical possession
presupposes that the possession o Employee-Employer
of the person is for a certain relationship: If the
period of time; has broad rights employee/employer has rights
in using the property; and the law over the property where they can
recognizes certain rights to the broadly utilize it consistent with
possessor their duties, they have juridical
possession. Whereas, if they are
o Physical possession: the only limited to the specific and
possessor in this case is required limited task required by their
to return back the property position, they only have physical
immediately after the execution possession
of a particular and specific act.
Furthermore, our law does not Most common example: bank
recognize any rights pertaining to tellers receiving money and/or
the possessor passbook from their clients have
 Example: A lessee has the physical possession as they are
right to use the property limited in depositing the amount
for a certain period of of money. Whereas, an
time, subject and exercise investment officer who receives
rights thereto consistent money from their client have

REVIEWER
juridical possession as they have middleman can invest and extend

the right to utilize it based on the the loan to anyone based on his
nature of their duties. discretion, any misappropriation
is not considered estafa.
o Agency: it depends on the nature
of the authority given to the If the middleman is given
agent. specific instruction: if the
middleman is given specific
If the authority given is broad, instructions, particularly when he
the agent acquires juridical is to invest on specific entities,
possession over the property. any misappropriation is
Furthermore, the law recognizes considered as estafa.
certain rights that the agent may
impose against the principal. Material in this case: evidence
as to the instruction and
If the authority given is limited misappropriation must be
and specific transaction, the presented in order to convict the
agent only acquires physical middleman of estafa.
possession
Middleman as borrower: in cases
o Partnership: it is always where the middleman used the
juridical possession, every money invested by the creditor to
partner act in behalf of the pay the former’s loan obligation
partnership and partners and can with another person (borrower),
utilize the property contributed the transaction between the
consistent with the purpose of the middleman and the lender is a
partnership. contract of loan. Hence, no estafa
can be committed in this
o Money market transactions: instance.
these are transactions which
involves three personalities  Ownership: if what has been
whereby the creditor transferred is ownership, estafa
invests/loans his money to through misappropriation could not
another known as the debtor be committed because the element of
through a middleman. “obligation to return or deliver back”
is absent.
If the middleman is given
discretion: in cases where the

REVIEWER
PD No. 1689: SYNDICATED ESTAFA  The victims must be

 Elements and discussions the general public.
o Estafa or other forms of Otherwise, syndicate
swindling under RPC is estafa is not
committed committed.
o Committed by a syndicate Example: If the funds

consisting of five or more acquired comes from
persons formed with the one corporation, this
intention of carrying out the is not syndicated
unlawful or illegal act, estafa. However, if
transaction, enterprise or the funds acquired
scheme came from the
 Less than 5: If the stockholders of a
malefactors are not a corporation, this is
member of a syndicated estafa.
syndicate but the
ESTAFA v. MALVERSATION
amount of the fraud is
Malversation: the property involve is of
more than P100,000
public character
and they have formed
a group or an
Estafa: the property involve is not of public
association, they shall
character
nevertheless be held
liable for the acts
Example: a loose firearm confiscated and
prohibited under this
subsequently misappropriated is considered
PD but with a lesser
as malversation. It is already under the
penalty.
custody of law. Whereas, if the firearm was
acquired for purposes of verification only
o Defraudation results in
and subsequently misappropriated is
misappropriation of money
considered as estafa.
contributed by stockholders,
or members of rural banks, COMPLEX CRIME; AS A MEANS TO
cooperative, "samahang CONCEAL; CANNOT COMPLEX
nayon(s)", or farmers First rule: If one crime facilitated the
association, or of funds commission of another crime, Art. 48 of the
solicited by RPC applies.
corporations/associations
from the general public.

REVIEWER
Example: Falsifying a public What crime to choose: if estafa can

document to conduct estafa be committed without necessarily
committing the crime of falsification,
Second rule: if one crime is performed to estafa is the proper charge. However,
conceal another crime, there are two crimes if estafa could not be committed
committed. without falsifying a document, then
Example: Falsifying a receipt to the proper charge is falsifying a
make it appear that there is proper private document
receipt when in fact the person has Example: X, father of Z, left a blank
appropriated for himself the money. signature to Z with the order that the
The first crime committed is theft instrument will only be used as
and the second crime to conceal the payment of X’s obligation.
first is falsification of document
Z, knowing that B is indebted to X,
Difference of First and Second Rule: If the used the document to collect the debt
amount or property is not yet in the and Z appropriated it for himself.
possession or control of the offender, and he The crime is estafa and not
committed one crime which facilitated falsification.
another crime, first rule applies. Whereas, if
the property is already in the possession Z can misrepresent himself to be the
and/or control of the accused, and he collector of X without necessarily
commits another crime to conceal the crime, using the blank signature.
second rule applies.
Supposing that Z is a stranger, he
Third rule: cannot complex the crimes
cannot appropriate the proceeds of
because of the common element rule. This is
the loan without some sort of proof
common for estafa and falsification of
that X authorized him. Hence, Z used
private document.
the blank signature to acquire the
In this instance, the element of damage is proceeds of the loan.
common to both.
BP 22 IN RELATION WITH ESTAFA
As to the gravamen: BP 22: the gravament
in this case is allowing the circulation of a
dud check in the financial market to its
detriment. As to Estafa: it is the deceit which
is the proximate cause why a person parted
with his money or property.

REVIEWER
As to nature: BP 22: it is mala prohibita, such that, the accused knows that he has no
the mere act of issuing a worthless check is sufficient funds yet pushed with the
punished. Estafa: mala in se, hence the transaction by deceiving the offended party
defenses of good faith is applicable. into believing the check is funded.
As to applicability of Utilitarian Hence in estafa, the prosecution has the

Principle: Both applies. Magno v. CA, burden of showing that at the time of the
1992: the accused should have been guilty of postdating, the accused has knowledge of
BP 22 but SC acquitted him of the crime such insufficiency. Otherwise, he cannot be
charged because the check issued already liable for estafa but, can still be liable for BP
lost its purpose, particularly when the 22.
obligation it used to secure was already
complied. The bouncing of the check after As to knowledge of the payee of
satisfying the obligation is already insufficiency of funds: BP 22: it is not a
immaterial. defense because what is being punished is
the issuance of a dud check. Estafa: it is
As to obligations involved: BP 22: with the defense on the basis of lack of deceit which
wording of the law “to apply on account or is the gravamen of this crime. The payee in
for value” presupposes that the obligation this case, despite knowledge of insufficiency
may already be existing or was executed assumed the risk voluntarily.
simultaneous with the issuance of the check.
Estafa: the postdating of the check must As to type of dishonor: In both case, the
come first before the obligation, because this type of dishonor must show that the accused
is the proximate cause why the offended has no sufficient funds in his account to
party departed with his property or money. make good of the check.
As to when the offender should have Any type of dishonor which is not in line
known the insufficiency of the funds: BP with the abovementioned dishonor cannot
22: the first form of BP 22, the accused must give rise to any criminal liability.
have knowledge of the insufficiency of Example: dishonored due to having
funds on the date of issuance (date stated on unauthorized signature. This does not
the check). This is because the offended mean that the accused had no
party cannot yet encash the check before the sufficient funds. Hence, any doubt
date. should be resolved in favour of the
Estafa: the accused must have knowledge accused.
that the check is unfunded on the date of
postdating (date of making and issuing the In BP 22: which check is
check). The essence of the crime is deceit subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of

REVIEWER
funds or credit or would have been As to the form of notice of dishonor: BP

dishonored for the same reason: 22: jurisprudence requires that the notice of
What we mean by “dishonored for dishonor for violation of BP 22 must be
the same reason” is that, had it not written. Estafa: verbal notice of dishonor is
for the stop payment order of the sufficient, as held by jurisprudence.
accused, the check would have been
dishonored for reasons of DAIF or As to the grace period involved: BP 22:
accounts closed, he is still liable for five banking days from the notice of
BP 22 in this case (despite stop dishonor. Hence, it presupposes that the
payment order). However, if the prosecution must be able to prove when the
check was initially funded and accused received the notice of dishonor
subsequently a stop payment order Estafa: three days from the notice of
was issued, the drawer is not liable dishonor coming from the offended
because the check was funded. party or bank.
As to presumptions provided by law: BP As to absence of notice of dishonor: BP
22: the presumption is on the knowledge of 22: requires notice of dishonor because it is
the accused of the insufficiency of funds. a key ingredient of due process. Failure to
Estafa: the presumption is the deceit. give the accused a notice of dishonor,
This is merely a presumption: deprives him of due process of law for
absence of presumption, the accused failure to give him opportunity to exercise
may still be convicted provided that the right under the law to avoid criminal
knowledge and deceit is proven by liability by making good of his check.
evidence. Estafa: if there is no notice of
As to the 90-day requirement: BP 22: it is dishonor, deceit as an element may
required for purposes of operating the still be proven by evidence
presumption. Estafa: the law does not As to the defense of payment: BP 22:
require the 90-day presentment because the payment or any agreement executed before
gravamen of estafa is the deceit committed. the filing of information prevents the
As to being a stale check: Both applies: A prosecution of BP 22. The reason being is
check must be presented within 6 months that the banking and financial market is
from the date appearing on its face, already protected by removing in circulation
otherwise the offender cannot be liable for a dud check.
BP 22 and or estafa because the check was
not dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Estafa: payment will not exculpate
the accused of any criminal liability

REVIEWER
because the crime was already the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary
consummated, particularly the act of provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general
deceit. provisions of the RPC which, by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be
However, in cases of estafa (through applied suppletorily. Indeed, in the recent
misappropriation), the defense of case of Yu vs. People,31 the Court applied
payment and or any agreement that suppletorily the provisions on subsidiary
would have novated the agreement imprisonment under Article 3932 of the
from a simple loan or that would RPC to B.P. Blg. 22.
transfer ownership over the property
(effectively removing the obligation In cases of conspiracy: the
to deliver back, essential to the offenders must have knowledge of
crime) will have the effect of the insufficiency of funds, otherwise
preventing the crime from being they cannot be held liable under
proven because an essential element theory of conspiracy.
is absent. This is conditioned on the
fact that the novation or changes The presumptions provided under the
must be made prior to the law is only applicable to the drawer
commission of the crime. and not to his co-conspirators (i.e.
endorser)
As to the means of commission: Estafa: it
is only one act, postdating or issuing a dud Example: X requested Z to issue an
check. BP 22: can also be committed where accommodation check in order for
the accused has sufficient credit in his the latter to secure credit from a
account to fund the check but fails to lending firm. X and Z knew at the
maintain said credit within the period of 90- time of the issuance that the check
days (counting from the date on the check). was unfunded.
In this mode of BP 22, presentment Z drew and issued the check to X. X

within the 90-day period is an on the other hand endorsed it to the
element, as compared to the first lending firm who gave X P100,000.
mode where it is not an element but
only to operate the presumption of The check bounced for DAIF. X and
knowledge. Z can be held liable for BP 22 and
As to application of conspiracy: Both Estafa.
applies: Ladonga v. People, 2005: B.P. Blg.
22 does not expressly proscribe the
suppletory application of the provisions of

REVIEWER
ESTAFA BY INDUCING ANOTHER TO 2. Such actions mentioned must be the

SIGN proximate cause why the person
Difference with falsification of document: parted with his property or money;
If the offended party was forced to sign the 3. Pecuniary damage was sustained by
document by deceit the crime to be charge is the offended party.
estafa. Whereas, if the document was signed
CHATTEL MORTGAGE LAW
voluntarily by the accused, the proper crime
Note: with the enactment of PPSA, the
to be charge is falsification.
proper term is “registered under PPSA”
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
Common elements;
Pretending to be the owner of a real
property v. false representation under  Identity of the personal property: the
Art. 315: property registered under PPSA and
the property removed or disposed
 As to what is being
under this article must be the same.
misrepresented: Art. 316: offender
 Validity of the registration: if the
misrepresents that he is the owner.
registration is invalid, this crime
Art. 315: offender misrepresents that
could not be committed.
he is a possessor, not necessarily an
owner. First mode: the gravamen is removal of the
registered property from the location it was
Disposing a real property misrepresented
registered without the consent of the
as having no encumbrance:
personalities required by law.
misrepresentation in this case must be
express misrepresentation. Otherwise, the Second mode: disposal of the property
crime is other deceits (Naya v. Abing, 2003) registered (either disposed or encumbered)
without the consent of the required
Swindling by taking the personal
personalities.
property: it must be made by the owner; it
must be personal property. If real property is DESTRUCTIVE ARSON V. SIMPLE
taken, the crime may be coercion but not ARSON
other forms of swindling. If the property is not on the list of
destructive arson, it is simple arson.
OTHER DECEITS
Elements:
1. False pretense, fraudulent acts or

pretense other than those mentioned
in the preceeding articles are
committed;

REVIEWER
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES In-law relationship: two schools of though

No criminal, but only civil liability, shall is present as to whether the death of one
result from the commission of the crime of person (which is the link between the in-law
theft, swindling or malicious mischief to the bloodline of the deceased person)
committed or caused mutually by the extinguishes the in-law relationship or not.
following persons:
By virtue of the doctrine of pro-reo, the
1. Spouses, ascendants and latter school of thought is applied as it
descendants, or relatives by affinity benefits the accused. (Intestate Estate of
in the same line. Gonzales v. People, 2010)
2. The widowed spouse with respect Simple crimes only: the law is strictly
to the property which belonged to the limited to the felonies mentioned therein. It
deceased spouse before the same is plain and categorical that shows that it
shall have passed into the possession applies only to crimes in their simple forms.
of another; and Hence, they cannot be considered when they
are complexed.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-
in-law and sisters-in-law, if living
together. TITLE 11: CRIMES
Personal circumstance: relationship as an AGAINST CHASTITY
absolutory cause is personal or innate on a
particular accused, hence should there be ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE
any conspiracy or other malefactors, the For every act of sexual intercourse
alternative circumstance cannot be extended. committed by the offender spouse with her
paramour constitutes separate crimes of
Spouse: this shall extend to common-law adultery.
spouses because the law does not distinguish
and such interpretation is favourable to the Transgender: adultery and concubinage
accused. cannot be committed when the paramour is a
transgender.
However, for this absolutory cause to apply,
the properties which are the subject matter Prosecuted before dissolution: when the
of the crime must refer to the properties marriage between the parties are already
owned by the common-law spouses in dissolved prior to filing the crime of adultery
common. or concubinage, the crime cannot prosper
because the offended party has no legal
Step-relationships: the benefit extends to capacity to sue.
step relationships (Intestate Estate of
Gonzales v. People, 2010)

REVIEWER
Cohabitation in concubinage: the law is liable for RA 7610 because the

requires that the offender husband and his victim is sexually abused.
paramour must be cohabiting continuously
and not merely of an isolated transaction. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Consent as a defense: given that the crime
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION of acts of lasciviousness can be committed
When committed by a teacher: it does not through force/ intimidation, consent of the
need to be the actual teacher or adviser of victim in this mode of lasciviousness may be
the victim, it suffices that the teacher is considered as a defense
teaching within the same school the victim is
currently enrolled Should the victim consented (without any
cajolery from the offender to avoid
What is “domestic”: a person who is prosecution for acts of lasciviousness under
usually living under the same roof with the the conditions of consented abduction) the
victim. accused may be exculpated.
Proof not needed: unlike in simple SIMPLE SEDUCTION

seduction where deceit is needed to be Virginity is not an element: the law
proven, in this case, the prosecution only requires that the victim is a single or
need to show the abuse authority or abuse of widowed woman and good reputation.
relationship.
Virginity is presumed if the victim is
 It must not be grave in nature unmarried and of good reputation. (People v.
otherwise the crime is rape. Lee, 2002)
In relation to RA 7610: if the victim Multiple intercourse: The fact that there
submitted herself without any coercion or should be multiple acts of intercourse would
intimidation, or any price, consideration or not amount to separate and multiple crime of
money the crime is only qualified seduction. consented abduction. What is being
punished is the deceit employed to acquire
o Conditioned on the fact that the the consent of the victim.
victim agreed due to abuse of
authority or abuse of relationship Deceit: this is the proximate cause why the
o Example: a professor who courted victim submitted herself. Absence of any
his student and engaged in sexual evidence that deceit was employed prior to
congress as a result thereof is only the sexual intercourse and that it was the
liable for qualified seduction. reason of the woman’s consent, the crime of
If the professor coerced his student simple seduction will not arise.
in having sexual intercourse in
exchange of giving her good grades

REVIEWER
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION initial act of the accused is to detain

Original design: abduction of a woman the victim with lewd designs.
against her will motivated with lewd design.
PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE CRIMES
Lewd design must be present initially. Adultery and Concubinage: the following
Absent of lewd design the accused is not rules are to be considered in the prosecution
liable for the crime forcible abduction but of adultery and concubinage;
some other crime (kidnapping and serious
illegal detention because the victim is a o The offended spouse must file a
woman). complaint;
 The state cannot
Consent as a defense: given that the crime prosecute the crime of
of forcible abduction, the victim was adultery and concubinage
abducted against her will. without any criminal
complaint being filed by
Should the victim consented (without any
the offended spouse.
cajolery from the offender to avoid
prosecution for consented abduction) the
The offended spouse may
accused may be exculpated.
choose to suffer in silence
Rape and forcible abduction rather than facing public
ridicule.
o Attempted rape and forcible
abduction: the latter absorbs the  In relation to divorce
former because attempted rape is decree (Pilapil v. Somera,
merely a manifestation of the lewd 1989): We are convinced
designs of the accused. Hence, the that in cases of such
proper crime to charge is forcible nature, the status of the
abduction. complainant vis-a-vis the
accused must be
o Rape and forcible abduction: in the determined as of the time
crime of forcible abduction, sexual the complaint was filed.
intercourse is not an essential Thus, the person who
element, hence it cannot absorb rape. initiates the adultery case
However, rape absorbs forcible must be an offended
abduction. spouse, and by this is
meant that he is still
To amount into the complex crime of married to the accused
rape through forcible abduction, the spouse, at the time of the
filing of the complaint.

REVIEWER
concubinage should the

In the present case, the fiscal discover that the
fact that private paramour has no
respondent obtained a knowledge of the marital
valid divorce in his status of offending
country, the Federal spouse.
Republic of Germany, is
admitted. Said divorce It is the duty of the judge
and its legal effects may to settle matters involving
be recognized in the the defense of the
Philippines insofar as accused.
private respondent is
concerned 23 in view of o Before the institution of the
the nationality principle criminal action, the offended
in our civil law on the spouse must have not pardoned
matter of status of (express or implied) and/or
persons. consented to the acts complained.
 After the institution, the
Under the same real-party-in-interest is
considerations and already the state, the
rationale, private offended spouse is merely
respondent, being no reduced as a witness
longer the husband of hence pardon will have
petitioner, had no legal no effect in extinguishing
standing to commence the the criminal action and or
adultery case under the liability.
imposture that he was the
offended spouse at the
time he filed suit. Seduction, Abduction, and Acts of
Lasciviousness: the following rules are to
o The offended spouse must be considered in the prosecution of S.Al.A.;
include the offender spouse and o Offended party, parents,
their paramour; grandparents, guardian, or in
 It is not for the fiscal to their absence the state has the
decide that the paramour right to file for the complaint of
should be dropped in the the crime.
information for the crime  Offended party already
of adultery and of age: the offended party

REVIEWER
has the exclusive right to o Must not expressly pardoned the

file a case against the accused prior to the institution of
accused and to pardon the crime
him without the  After the institution, the
concurrence of her parent. real-party-in-interest is
 Offended party still a already the state, the
minor: the rule on offended spouse is merely
concurrence in relation to reduced as a witness
filing a criminal hence pardon will have
complaint against the no effect in extinguishing
accused is applicable. the criminal action and or
liability.
The minor herself may  Offended party still a
file a case against the minor: pardon must be
accused independent from given along with the
the complaint that could pardon of the parents.
be filed by her parents. Single pardon can only be
possible if either the
 Offended party minor or parents are dead
incapacitated or dead: or incapacitated.
the rule on exclusivity
and succession shall RA 7610: SEXUAL ABUSE AND CHILD
apply. PROSTITUTE
When is a child considered as abused: the
Exclusive: only those child is considered as abused when he or she
personalities mentioned is a prostitute or coerced/ influenced.
can file a criminal Child prostitute: Children, whether
complaint. male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration
Succession: follow the indulge in sexual intercourse or
hierarchy provided by lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
law. children exploited in prostitution.
In relation on the parents: Child abused: Children, whether

it can be filed by the male or female who due to the
mother or father, there is coercion or influence of any adult,
no need for joint filing. syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct are

REVIEWER
deemed to be children exploited in As can be gleaned, the terms are

prostitution. used almost synonymously. It is
o Meaning of coercion or then of no moment that the
influence: Sexual intercourse or terminologies employed by RA
lascivious conduct under the 7610 and by the Information
coercion or influence of any adult [which charges the crime of acts
exists when there is some form of of lasciviousness] are different.
compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the o No need for previous sexual
free exercise of the offended abuse before a child can be
party's free will. Section 2(g) of considered as one: This is a
the Rules on Child Abuse Cases dangerous calculus which
conveys that sexual abuse borders on judicial insensitivity
involves the element of influence to the purpose of the law. If we
which manifests in a variety of adopt this view [prior sexual
forms. It is defined as: affront needed before a child can
 The employment, use, be considered as abused], it
persuasion, inducement, would amount to our collective
enticement or coercion of official sanction to the idea that a
a child to engage in or single act of rape is not
assist another person to debilitating to a child. That a
engage in, sexual single act of rape is not a
intercourse or lascivious tormenting memory that will sear
conduct or the into a child’s memory, frame his
molestation, prostitution, or her view of the world, rob him
or incest with children. or her of the trust that will enable
him or her to have full and
To note, the term "influence" diverse meaningful interactions
means the "improper use of with other human beings.
power or trust in any way that
deprives a person of free will and Thus, a violation of Sec. 5(b) of
substitutes another’s objective." RA 7610 occurs even though the
Meanwhile, "coercion" is the accused committed sexual abuse
"improper use of x x x power to against the child victim only once
compel another to submit to the [rape or acts of lasciviousness],
wishes of one who wields it." even without a prior sexual
affront.

REVIEWER
o Who employs coercion or House of Representative and of the

influence: It is immaterial deliberations of the Senate, as well as the
whether or not the accused records of bicameral conference committee
himself employed the coercion or meetings, further reveal no legislative intent
influence to subdue the will of for R.A. No. 8353 to supersede Section 5(b)
the child for the latter to submit of R.A. No. 7610.
to his sexual advances for him to
The Congress merely upgraded the same
be convicted under paragraph (b).
from a "crime against chastity" (a private
Sec. 5 of RA 7610 even provides
crime) to a "crime against persons" (a public
that the offense can be committed
crime) as a matter of policy and public
by "any adult, syndicate or
interest in order to allow prosecution of such
group," without qualification.[47]
cases even without the complaint of the
The clear language of the special
offended party, and to prevent
law, therefore, does not preclude
extinguishment of criminal liability in such
the prosecution of lascivious
cases through express pardon by the
conduct performed by the same
offended party.
person who subdued the child
through coercion or influence. In instances where the lascivious conduct
This is, in fact, the more common committed against a child victim is
scenario of abuse that reaches covered by the definition under R.A. No.
this Court and it would be an 7610, and the act is likewise covered by
embarrassment for us to rule that sexual assault under Article 266-A of the
such instances are outside the RPC, the offender should be held liable
ambit Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610. for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of
R.A. No. 7610.
Acts of lasciviousness: [T]he intentional
touching, either directly or through clothing, Need to include the elements of RA
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner 7610 (particularly whether the child is
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any a prostitute or sexually abuse) to
object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of apply the penalty of RA 7610 (In cases
any person, whether of the same or opposite of acts of lasciviousness): It is
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, fundamental that, in criminal
harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the prosecutions, every element constituting
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, the offense must be alleged in the
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the Information before an accused can be
genitals or pubic area of a person. convicted of the crime charged. This is
to apprise the accused of the nature of
Reconciled with sexual assault: Records of
the accusation against him, which is part
committee and plenary deliberations of the

REVIEWER
and parcel of the rights accorded to an  If a child is below 12 yrs. of age: We

accused enshrined in Article III, Section hold that if the acts constituting
14(2) of the 1987 Constitution. sexual assault are committed against
a victim under 12 years of age or is
Proper crimes to charge: If the act is
demented, the nomenclature of the
considered as lascivious conduct under
offense should now be "Sexual
RA 7610 in relation to sexual assault.
Assault under paragraph 2, Article
 If a child (12 to below 18 yrs. old) is 266-A of the RPC in relation to
considered as abused or exploited for Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,
prostitution and subjected to which punishes the accused of
lascivious conduct which is also reclusion temporal in its medium
considered as sexual assault under period instead of prision mayor
Art. 266 of the RPC, the offender which punishes sexual assault under
should be held liable for violation Art. 266.
of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. Proper crimes to charge: If the act is
No. 7610. having sexual intercourse with a child.
o What separate RA 7610
with Sexual Assault under  If the child is under 12 yrs. of age:
Art. 266 if the victim is a reclusion perpetua, pursuant to
child: what separates the paragraph 1(d),31 Article 266-A in
charge is the presence of relation to Article 266-B of the RPC,
exploitation or prostitution of as amended by R.A. No. 8353
the child. If the child is not (Statutory Rape).
abused or prostituted, the
proper crime to be charged is If sexual intercourse is committed
Art. 266 such as when the act with a child under 12 years of age,
of sexual assault was who is deemed to be "exploited in
facilitated by force, prostitution and other sexual abuse,"
intimidation, threat, or the then those who engage in or
child was deprived of reason promote, facilitate or induce child
or unconscious. prostitution under Section 5(a)51 of
R.A. No. 7610 shall be liable as
If the child is abused or principal by force or inducement
prostituted: the crime is RA under Article 1752 of the RPC in the
7610. crime of statutory rape under Article
266-A(1) of the RPC; whereas those
who derive profit or advantage
therefrom under Section 5(c)53 of

REVIEWER
R.A. No. 7610 shall be liable as rape under Art. 266 if it was
principal by indispensable facilitated without consent. It may
cooperation under Article 17 of the even be considered as seduction
RPC. Bearing in mind the policy of under Art. 337 or 338 if the sexual
R.A. No. 7610 of providing for intercourse was done with consent.
stronger deterrence and special
protection against child abuse and Cannot be complexed; cannot be
exploitation, the following shall be separately charge: Despite the fact that RA
the nomenclature of the said 7610 and Rape and Acts of lasciviousness
statutory crimes and the imposable all arise from the same act, the following are
penalties for principals by force or the rules to take into consider on what crime
inducement or by indispensable is to charge;
cooperation Consent is now a valid defense under RA
7610: We find that the opinion in Malto, that
 If a child is over 12 but under 18 yrs. a child is presumed by law to be incapable
of age exploited or prostituted: If the of giving rational consent, unduly extends
victim who is 12 years old or less the concept of statutory rape or acts of
than 18 and is deemed to be a child lasciviousness to those victims who are
"exploited in prostitution and other within the range of 12 to 17 years old, and
sexual abuse" because she agreed to even those 18 years old and above under
indulge in sexual intercourse "for special circumstances who are still
money, profit or any other considered as "children" under Section 3(a)
consideration or due to coercion or of R.A. No. 7610. While Malto is correct
influence of any adult, syndicate or that consent is immaterial in cases under
group," then the crime could not be R.A. No. 7610 where the offended party is
rape under the RPC, because this no below 12 years of age, We clarify that
longer falls under the concept of consent of the child is material and may
statutory rape, and there was consent. even be a defense in criminal cases
That is why the offender will now be involving violation of Section 5, Article III
penalized under Section 5(b), R.A. of R.A. No. 7610 when the offended party is
No. 7610, and not under Article 12 years old or below 18, or above 18 under
33554 of the RPC [now Article 266- special circumstances. Such consent may be
A]. implied from the failure to prove that the
said victim engaged in sexual intercourse
If a child is not considered as either "due to money, profit or any other
prostituted or abused: it may depend consideration or due to the coercion or
on how the sexual intercourse was influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
facilitated, it may be considered as

REVIEWER
TITLE 12: CRIMES insofar as the vinculum between the

spouses is concerned, it is significant to
AGAINST CIVIL STATUS note that said marriage is not without
legal effects. Among these effects is that
BIGAMY children conceived or born before the
Generally, the accused must have legally judgment of absolute nullity of the
dissolved the first marriage before marriage shall be considered
contracting a second marriage to avoid being legitimate.28 There is therefore a
prosecuted for bigamy. Furthermore, recognition written into the law itself
nullifying the second marriage will free the that such a marriage, although void ab
accused of any criminal liability for bigamy initio, may still produce legal
because it will be treated as if no marriage consequences. Among these legal
had ever existed. consequences is incurring criminal
However, the following exceptions will liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise
qualify this rule; would render the State’s penal laws on
bigamy completely nugatory, and allow
o No marriage ceremony (Morigo v. individuals to deliberately ensure that
People, 2004): when the supposed each marital contract be flawed in some
contracting parties in a marriage had manner, and to thus escape the
only signed a marriage certificate consequences of contracting multiple
without appearing before a solemnizing marriages, while beguiling throngs of
officer, the parties does not need to avail hapless women with the promise of
legal remedy to dissolve the first futurity and commitment.
marriage. They can contract a second
marriage without the fear of being o Nullifying the second marriage based
prosecuted with bigamy. on the ground caused by the accused
(Santiago v. People, 2015): The
o Psychological incapacity as the basis Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos
for the first marriage (Tenebro v. CA, and Santiago, contained the
2004): Nullifying the second marriage misrepresentation perpetrated by them
on the ground of psychological that they were eligible to contract
incapacity does not erase the fact that the marriage without a license. We thus face
accused can still be liable of bigamy. an anomalous situation wherein
petitioner seeks to be acquitted of
Although the judicial declaration of the bigamy based on her illegal actions of
nullity of a marriage on the ground of (1) marrying Santos without a marriage
psychological incapacity retroacts to the license despite knowing that they had
date of the celebration of the marriage not satisfied the cohabitation

REVIEWER
requirement under the law; and (2) Here, the cause of action of petitioner,
falsely making claims in no less than her meaning her affirmative defense in this
marriage contract. criminal case of bigamy, is that her
marriage with Santos was void for
We chastise this deceptive scheme that having been secured without a marriage
hides what is basically a bigamous and license. But as elucidated earlier, they
illicit marriage in an effort to escape themselves perpetrated a false Certificate
criminal prosecution. Our penal laws on of Marriage by misrepresenting that they
marriage, such as bigamy, punish an were exempted from the license
individual’s deliberate disregard of the requirement based on their fabricated
permanent and sacrosanct character of claim that they had already cohabited as
this special bond between spouses. husband and wife for at least five years
prior their marriage. In violation of our
Thus, in the case at bar, we cannot law against illegal marriages,44
countenance petitioner’s illegal acts of petitioner married Santos while knowing
feigning a marriage and, in the same fully well that they had not yet complied
breath, adjudge her innocent of the with the five-year cohabitation
crime. For us, to do so would only make requirement under Article 34 of the
a mockery of the sanctity of Family Code. Consequently, it will be
marriage.40redarclaw the height of absurdity for this Court to
allow petitioner to use her illegal act to
Furthermore, it is a basic concept of escape criminal conviction.
justice that no court will “lend its aid to
x x x one who has consciously and o Annulment based on involuntariness
voluntarily become a party to an illegal instead of declaration of nullity can be
act upon which the cause of action is used as a basis of defense (People v.
founded.”41 If the cause of action Aragon): A subsequent marriage
appears to arise ex turpi causa or that contracted by the accused involuntarily
which involves a transgression of cannot be the basis for conviction for the
positive law, parties shall be left crime of bigamy. It is because, one of
unassisted by the courts. 42As a result, the elements of committing an
litigants shall be denied relief on the intentional felony is voluntariness and
ground that their conduct has been intent. An accused involuntarily being
inequitable, unfair and dishonest or married lacks intent and voluntariness.
fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
controversy in issue.43redarclaw Declaration of presumptive dead: is an
evidence of good faith on the part of the
accused when being charged for the crime of

REVIEWER
bigamy. Having secured a judicial  In determining whether a

declaration of marriage is a clear evidence of statement is defamatory,
the accused’s good faith. the words used are to be
construed in their entirety
ILLEGAL MARRIAGE and should be taken in
Illegal marriage is prosecuted when the their plain, natural, and
offender entered into a marriage without ordinary meaning as they
complying with the requisites provided by would naturally be
law and/or disregarding any legal understood by persons
impediments. reading them, unless it
If the marriage is bigamous, the crime is appears that they were
bigamy and not illegal marriage despite not used and understood in
complying with the requisites provided by another sense.67
law. Moreover, a charge is
sufficient if the words are
If either of the contracting parties shall calculated to induce the
obtain the consent of the other by means of hearers to suppose and
violence, intimidation or fraud, he shall be understand that the person
punished by the maximum period. or persons against whom
they were uttered were
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL
guilty of certain offenses
MARRIAGE
or are sufficient to
Only authorities who are capable of
impeach the honesty,
solemnizing a marriage can be held liable
virtue or reputation or to
for this crime.
hold the person or
The non-filling of a criminal case against the persons up to public
solemnizing officer does not negate the ridicule.
prosecution of the contracting parties to be
prosecuted either for bigamy or illegal o It must be malicious
marriage.  Malice in law: Any
defamatory statement is
presumed to be malicious.
TITLE 13: CRIMES Therefore, it is up for the
defense to prove that the
AGAINST HONOR imputation was made in
Common elements for all defamation and
good faith or justifiable
their respective explanation;
reason. Mere truth of the
o Defamatory remarks are made

REVIEWER
imputation is generally self-esteem. A man's

not a defense. reputation is not the good
opinion he has of himself,
Malice in fact: However, but the estimation in
when the imputation is which others hold him."
considered as privilege, it
is up for the prosecution  Delivered in a closed
to prove malice. envelop (Belen v.
People, 2017): a
o Publication defamatory letter
 There is publication if the contained in a closed
material is communicated envelope addressed to
to a third person. It is not another constitutes
required that the person sufficient publication if
defamed has read or the offender parted with
heard about the libelous its possession in such a
remark. What is material way that it can be read by
is that a third person has person other than the
read or heard the libelous offended party.9 If a
statement, for "a man's sender of a libelous
reputation is the estimate communication knows or
in which others hold him, has good reasons to
not the good opinion believe that it will be
which he has of intercepted before
himself."70 Simply put, reaching the person
in libel, publication defamed, there is
means making the sufficient publication.10
defamatory matter, after it The publication of a libel,
is written, known to however, should not be
someone other than the presumed from the fact
person against whom it that the immediate control
has been written.71 "The thereof is parted with
reason for this is that [a] unless it appears that
communication of the there is reasonable
defamatory matter to the probability that it is
person defamed cannot hereby exposed to be read
injure his reputation or seen by third persons.
though it may wound his

REVIEWER
o Victim is identifiable o Similar means: by the rule of

 On the other hand, to ejusdem generis, similar means
satisfy the element of connotes any medium which if the
identifiability, it must be defamatory imputation is placed
shown that at least a third creates a more or less permanent
person or a stranger was status.
able to identify him as the
object of the defamatory Hence, even if the crime of Libel
statement. It is enough if was introduced way before the
by intrinsic reference the advent of computer and electronic
allusion is apparent or if systems, libel can be committed
the publication contains using those mediums as the
matters of description or defamatory statement was given
reference to facts and permanency.
circumstances from
Persons liable other than the author
which others reading the
(Tulfo v. People, 2008): The claim that they
article may know the
had no participation does not shield them
person alluded to; or if
from liability. The provision in the RPC
the latter is pointed out by
does not provide absence of participation as
extraneous circumstances
a defense, but rather plainly and specifically
so that those knowing
states the responsibility of those involved in
such person could and did
publishing newspapers and other periodicals.
understand that he was
It is not a matter of whether or not they
the person referred to.
conspired in preparing and publishing the
LIBEL subject articles, because the law simply so
What separates libel from other states that they are liable as they were the
defamation: A libel committed by means of author.
writing, printing, lithography, engraving,
Neither the publisher nor the editors can
radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
disclaim liability for libelous articles that
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
appear on their paper by simply saying they
any similar means.
had no participation in the preparation of the
Simply put: the moment there exists an same. They cannot say that Tulfo was all
intermediary or medium for a defamatory alone in the publication of Remate, on which
statement be delivered to others (on a more the subject articles appeared, when they
or less permanent status) then it is libel. themselves clearly hold positions of
Mere reliance on oral or verbal declaration is authority in the newspaper, or in the case of
not libel.

REVIEWER
Pichay, as the president in the publishing Several persons defamed: there are various
company. permutations with their respective rules
when it comes to situations where multiple
As Tulfo cannot simply say that he is not persons are defamed;
liable because he did not fulfill his
responsibility as a journalist, the other o One publication; one defamatory
petitioners cannot simply say that they are statement; directed against the same
not liable because they did not fulfill their group of people (People v. Aquino,
responsibilities as editors and publishers. An 1956): When a single publication of
editor or manager of a newspaper, who has a single defamatory statement is
active charge and control of its management, directed against a group of
conduct, and policy, generally is held to be personalities, the accused shall only
equally liable with the owner for the be liable for one count of libel.
publication therein of a libelous article.40
On the theory that it is the duty of the editor o One publication; multiple (separate)
or manager to know and control the contents defamatory statement; and each
of the paper,41 it is held that said person defamatory statement directed
cannot evade responsibility by abandoning against a particular person (People v.
the duties to employees,42 so that it is Del Rosario, 1950): When the
immaterial whether or not the editor or offender publishes in one article
manager knew the contents of the containing multiple defamatory
publication. statement each directed against a
particular person is liable for
Cyber libel: Due to the failure of the
multiple counts of libel or liable for
cybercrime law to provide a penalty for
as many defamatory statement
cyber libel, a person will be prosecuted for
directed against different persons
libel under the RPC with the qualifying
there is notwithstanding the fact that
circumstance of use of information and
it is published in one article.
communications technologies under Sec. 6
of the cybercrime law.
o One publication; multiple (bulked
Multiple Publication Rule (Brillante v. into one article) defamatory
CA, 2004): It is settled that a single statements; directed against a
defamatory statement, if published on particular person (Gonzales v.
several publication, gives rise to as many Arcilla, 1991): When the accused
offenses as there are publications. publishes in one article multiple
defamatory statements against a
Each and every publication of the same libel particular person, he is only liable for
constitutes a distinct offense. one count of libel.

REVIEWER
Defensive libel (discussion, not yet  The social standing of the person
actually established): In defense of honor, defamed;
a person libeled may hit back with another  Whether provocation was given by
libel even if there is an appreciable interval the offended party.
of time between the aggressive libel and
defensive libel. Putang ina doctrine: The putang ina is an
expression of Filipinos that can be used in
Once the aspersion is casted, the sting clings any concept, whether to show disdain, anger,
and the one thus defamed may avail himself excitement, even happiness. Hence, it is
of all the necessary means to shake it off. seldom considered as actionable for the
crime of slander.
In order to qualify as defensive libel, it must
answer or relate to the subject matter of the o Exception: if the statement is
libel thrown against him and must restore made not only to express emotion
the ruined reputation or honor, otherwise it but also to defame or insult a
cannot be considered. person, usually accompanied by
other defamatory words, the
o Example: X published a defamatory
person can be prosecuted for
statement against Z pertaining to Z’s
slander
criminal tendency of physically
 Example: Putang ina mo
hurting anyone he wants.
A, isa kang magnanakaw.
As a means to clear his name, Z

o It can also be considered as
made a counter statement stating that
slander by deed. Putang ina can
he was only acting in self-defense
also be expressed by deed via
and that the persons who always
raising the middle finger. If the
attack him was sent by X.
accused raised his middle finger
SLANDER directed against a person, made
Grave or simple: in determining whether publicly with intent to ridicule
slander is grave or simple, one must be the person to whom it is directed,
guided by the following indicators; the accused can be held liable for
slander by deed.
 The totality of the expressions used;  Example: The offended
 Personal relations of the accused and party while delivering a
the offended party; speech before a public,
 The circumstances surrounding the the accused went up the
case; stage and repeatedly
raised his middle finger

REVIEWER
against the speaker for all Any claim of an unworthy purpose

to see. or of the falsity and mala fides of the
statement uttered by the member of
o Putang ina as absorbed: If putang the Congress does not destroy the
ina accompanies a threat against privilege.3 The disciplinary authority
a person, he can be liable for of the assembly4 and the voters, not
either grave, light, other light the courts, can properly discourage
threats. or correct such abuses committed in
 Example: Putang ina mo the name of parliamentary
A, papatayin kita kung immunity.5
hindi mo ako papayagan.
For the above reasons, the plea of
PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATIONS Senator Santiago for the dismissal of
There are two privilege communications: the complaint for disbarment or
Absolute and qualified privilege disciplinary action is well taken.
communication Indeed, her privilege speech is not
Absolute privilege communication: if the actionable criminally or in a
defamatory statements are absolutely disciplinary proceeding under the
privileged, lack of malice is conclusively Rules of Court.
presumed notwithstanding the fact that the
accused was actually motivated by bad faith o Judicial privilege (Belen v. People,
2017): A communication is
o Speech or debate in congress (Pobre absolutely privileged when it is not
v. Santiago, 2009): Legislators are actionable, even if the author has
immune from deterrents to the acted in bad faith. This class includes
uninhibited discharge of their allegations or statements made by
legislative duties, not for their parties or their counsel in pleadings
private indulgence, but for the public or motions or during the hearing of
good. The privilege would be of little judicial and administrative
value if they could be subjected to proceedings, as well as answers
the cost and inconvenience and given by the witness in reply to
distractions of a trial upon a questions propounded to them in the
conclusion of the pleader, or to the course of said proceedings, provided
hazard of a judgment against them that said allegations or statements are
based upon a judge’s speculation as relevant to the issues, and the
to the motives. answers are responsive to the
questions propounded to said
witnesses.16

REVIEWER
It is hornbook learning that the

The reason for the rule that pleadings actions and utterances in judicial
in judicial proceedings are proceedings so far as the actual
considered privileged is not only participants therein are concerned
because said pleadings have become and preliminary steps leading to
part of public record open to the judicial action of an official
public to scrutinize, but also to the nature have been given absolute
undeniable fact said pleadings are privilege. Of particular interest
presumed to contain allegations and are proceedings leading up to
assertions lawful and legal in nature, prosecutions or attempted
appropriate to the disposition of prosecutions for crime xxx [A]
issues ventilated before the courts for written charge or information
proper administration of justice and, filed with the prosecutor or the
therefore, of general public concern. court is not libelous although
Moreover, pleadings are presumed to proved false and unfounded.
contain allegations substantially true
because they can be supported by Qualified Privilege Communication: If the
evidence in good faith, the contents statement made is considered as qualified,
of which would be under scrutiny of there is no malice in law. It is the duty of the
courts and, therefore, subject to be prosecution to prove malice before the
purged of all improprieties and accused can be held liable for the crime of
illegal statements contained libel.
therein.17 In fine, the privilege is Art. 354 of the revised penal code is not an
granted in aid and for the advantage exclusive list, there are other qualified
of the administration of justice. privilege communication found elsewhere
that can be used as a defense of libel.
o Preliminary investigations covered
by judicial immunity (supra): While  Privilege private communication: to
Philippine law is silent on the make a private communication as a
question of whether the doctrine of qualifiedly privilege communication,
absolutely privileged communication the following elements must concur
extends to statements in preliminary (with their respective explanation);
investigations or other proceedings o The person who made the
preparatory to trial, the Court found communication had a legal,
as persuasive in this jurisdiction the moral, or social duty to make
U.S. case of Borg v. Boas19 which the communication or at least
categorically declared the existence had an interest to protect
of such protection: which may either be his own

REVIEWER
or the one to whom it is act upon said

made; complaint.
 A person has the
privilege to o The communication is
communicate addressed to an officer or a
privately a complaint board, or superior, having
or concern to another some interest or duty in the
person, who has the matter, and who has the
authority or duty to power to furnish the
address or act upon protection sought;
such complaint or  In the above example,
concern the person who heard
or received the
Example: X and Y are defamatory statement
coworkers who had a cannot be considered
verbal altercation as publication within
pertaining to the the meaning of the
alleged actions of Y law because the
claiming work that is person with whom the
not his. accused have the
privilege to
X reported the matter communicate
to A, their HR something is not a
manager. In his third person.
report, X narrated
various defamatory The thing that must be
statement against Y, taken into consider is
particularly X accused that the person who
Y as a thief and receives the
swindler for claiming defamatory statement
X’s work. must be a person who
has a duty to act upon
This is not an it.
actionable libel
because X merely Example: In the
communicated to A above example,
who has the duty to should X narrate it to
his other co-

REVIEWER
employees, he is  What has been

liable for libel reported by an
because his co- individual are the
employees has no actual transactions,
duty to act upon the and speeches uttered
statements. by the public officer.
o The statements in the  Erroneous report or

communication are made in mistake in news
good faith and without commentaries on
malice. function related acts
 In this privilege of public officer does
communication, not prove actual
malice is not malice, Mistakes are
conclusively inevitable in the
presumed. The exercise of freedom of
prosecution can expression and press.
overturn the
presumption of lack If a writer in the
of malice. course of temperate
and legitimate
 Fair and true report: The following criticism falls into
elements are to be taken into error as to some
consider for this privilege to operate; detail, or draws an
o Made in good faith; incorrect inference
 In this privilege from the facts before
communication, him, and thus goes
malice is not beyond the limits of
conclusively strict truth, such
presumed. The inaccuracies will not
prosecution can cause judgment to go
overturn the against him, if the
presumption of lack jury are satisfied, after
of malice. reading the whole
publication, that it
o without any comments or was written honestly,
remarks; fairly, and with regard

REVIEWER
to what truth and has the by a public

justice require. duty to act officer in a
upon non-
o Pertaining to any judicial, confidenti
al the
legislative or other official exercise of
proceedings; their
public
o Such proceedings are not of function
confidential nature, or of any
statement, report
 Fair comments and opinion (Manila
Bulletin v. Domingo, 2017; Borjal v.
o Or speech delivered in said
CA, 1999): The doctrine of fair
proceedings, or of any other
comment means that while in general
act performed by public
every discreditable imputation
officers in the exercise of
publicly made is deemed false,
their functions.
because every man is presumed
innocent until his guilt is judicially
 Difference between privilege private proved, and every false imputation is
and fair and true report deemed malicious, nevertheless,
Diff. Private Fair and when the discreditable imputation is
Communi True directed against a public person in
cation Report his public capacity, it is not
As to the No need Publicatio necessarily actionable.
need of of n is
publicati publicatio
immaterial In order that such discreditable
on n, , what is
imputation to a public official may
otherwisenecessary
it will no
is that it be actionable, it must either be a
longer bereflects the false allegation of fact or a comment
considered
actual based on a false supposition.
as transaction
privilegewithout If the comment is an expression of
communic any opinion, based on established facts,
ation comments
then it is immaterial that the opinion
or opinion
As to Refers to Any happens to be mistaken, as long as it
content communic transaction might reasonably be inferred from
ations , or the facts.
which the speeches
recipient delivered

REVIEWER
o The defamatory statement is rather, the case should

directed against a public likewise be examined
officer, or a public figure, an under the
aspirant of public office; constitutional precept
 Public officer: The of freedom of the
conduct, moral press.94 But if the
fitness, and ability of utterances are false,
a public official to malicious, or
discharge his duties unrelated to a public
are undoubtedly officer's performance
matters of public of his duties or
interest for he is, after irrelevant to matters
all, legally required to of public interest
be at all times involving public
accountable to the figures, the same may
people and is give rise to criminal
expected to discharge and civil liability.
his duties with utmost
responsibility,  Public figure: a
integrity, competence, person who, by his
and loyalty; and to act accomplishments,
with patriotism and fame, mode of living,
justice, lead modest or by adopting a
lives, and uphold profession or calling
public interest over which gives the public
personal interest. a legitimate interest in
his doings, his affairs
It is for this reason and his character, has
that, when confronted become a "public
with libel cases personage." He is, in
involving publications other words, a
which deal with celebrity. Obviously
public officials and to be included in this
the discharge of their category are those
official functions, this who have achieved
Court is not confined some degree of
within the wordings reputation by
of the libel statute;

REVIEWER
appearing before the appointive position,

public. particularly on his
qualifications and
Arguing that he is a fitness for the position
private individual is is imbued with public
not per se applicable interest and can be
if he is involved in a subject of public
transaction imbued opinions and
with public interest. If comments without the
a matter is a subject of fear of libel.
public or general
interest, it cannot This is subject to the
suddenly become less condition that the
so merely because a comment or opinion
private individual is relates to his
involved or because in qualification for the
some sense the office.
individual did not
voluntarily choose to o The defamatory statement
become involved. The pertain to act committed by a
public's primary public officer or public figure
interest is in the in connection with their
event; the public official function or work.
focus is on the  Criticisms does not
conduct of the authorize defamation.
participant and the Any criticism beyond
content, effect and the functions or
significance of the beyond the scope of
conduct, not the public interest will
participant's prior already amount to
anonymity or libel.
notoriety.
o It must not be a false
 Aspirant for public allegation of fact or a
office: Fair comment based on a false
commentaries on the supposition
conduct of aspirant  The accused has no
for an elective or knowledge that his

REVIEWER
comment or opinion be directed against

is actually false or offended party are
reckless disregard of true. But we
what is false or not. nevertheless find
 Reckless these at least to have
disregard of been based on
what is false reasonable grounds
or not" means formed after the
that the columnist conducted
defendant several personal
entertains interviews and after
serious doubt considering the varied
as to the truth documentary evidence
of the provided him by his
publication, 38 sources.
or that he
possesses a While substantiation
high degree of of the facts supplied is
awareness of an important reporting
their probable standard, still, a
falsity. reporter may rely on
information given by
 If the comment is an a lone source although
expression of opinion, it reflects only one
based on established side of the story
facts, then it is provided the reporter
immaterial that the does not entertain a
opinion happens to be high degree of
mistaken, as long as it awareness of its
might reasonably be probable falsity.
inferred from the
facts.  No need to prove the
actual source as the
This is not to say truth. New York
however that the very Times doctrine (NY
serious allegations of v. Sullivan) was that
offended party to require critics of
assumed by accused official conduct to

REVIEWER
guarantee the truth of GOOD MOTIVE AND

all their factual TRUTHFULNESS
assertions on pain of As a defense for libel, the accused may show
libel judgments would that the defamatory statement is
lead to self- accompanied by good motive and justifiable
censorship, since ends.
would be critics
would be deterred Good motive and justifiable ends only:
from, voicing out Every defamatory imputation is presumed to
their criticisms even if be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
such were believed to intention and justifiable motive for making it
be true, or were in is shown.
fact true, because of It is a defense for the accused to provide a
doubt whether it good or justifiable reason for publishing the
could be proved or defamatory statement notwithstanding the
because of fear of the fact that it is false or the truth.
expense of having to
prove it. Example: A reporter writing an
article based on complaint letters and
[No need to prove the public records of administrative
source as truth, only cases directed against a public officer
needs to show that the who is being accused of managing
accused based his his office poorly.
opinion on an
It was pointed out that the reporter
established fact. Even
characterized his writing akin to an expose
if his comment or
where he revealed anomalies and
opinions are false,
shenanigans in the government in the hope
provided that they are
that corruption might be minimized.
not based on a false
supposition where the Truthfulness alone without any good
accused has no motive or justifiable reason: In every
knowledge of its criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may
falsity nor does he be given in evidence to the court and if it
entertain serious appears that the matter charged as libelous is
doubt as to its true, and, moreover, that it was published
veracity, he can be with good motives and for justifiable ends,
free from liability.] the defendants shall be acquitted.

REVIEWER
Hence, truthfulness of the statements alone This does not however remove the penalty
will not acquit the accused. It must be of imprisonment. If based on the discretion
accompanied with good motive and of the court that the circumstance of the case
justifiable ends. is grave such that imposition of the fine only
will depreciate the seriousness of the crime,
Truthfulness and good motive present: the penalty of imprisonment is proper.
The accused once proving his good motive
or provided a justifying reason for SLANDER BY DEED
publishing the defamatory statement will A catch-all proviso for the crime against
already be exculpated of criminal liability honor. Whenever a defamatory statement is
regardless whether the statement is false or directed against a person but not made
not. Supposing that the statement is true, all through words or those under Art. 355, it is
the more reason that the accused should be slander by deed
exculpated
Element of bringing dishonor, contempt
Truthfulness as a defense (despite absence material: in the absence of this element, we
of good or justifiable reason): Proof of the have variant crime. It can either be
truth of an imputation made against maltreatment under the umbrella of physical
government employees with respect to facts injury or unjust vexation.
related to the discharge of their official
duties shall be admitted. In such a case if the INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT
defendant proves the truth of the imputation PERSON
made by him, he shall be acquitted. Planting a particular item punished by an
SPL: If the evidence planted by a person
This is a defense regardless of involves dangerous drugs, firearms and
whether the function-related act ammunition, and explosive, the crime is not
imputed upon the public officer incriminating against an innocent person.
constitutes a crime or not. The proper crime to charge refers to their
respective special penal law provision.
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED
Based on Administrative Circular No. 08- Neither can the operation of Art. 48 of the
2008, much like estafa, the courts have the Revised Penal Code will apply because what
discretion to impose the penalty of fine in is involved in this case is a violation of SPL.
cases where the crime is not so serious in
nature. Planting of evidence: the willful act by any
person of maliciously and surreptitiously
It also allows the application of subsidiary inserting, placing, adding or attaching
imprisonment. directly or indirectly, through any overt or
covert act, in the person, house, effects or in
the immediate vicinity of an innocent

REVIEWER
individual for the purpose of implicating, TITLE 14: CRIMINAL

incriminating, or imputing the commission
of crime. NEGLIGENCE
Reckless imprudence: Any act (had it been
Complex crimes: If the police officer intentional) would constitute a grave felony,
arrested the victim without probable cause less-grave felony, and a light felony.
for purpose of planting incriminatory
evidence and to deliver him before a public It is considered reckless whenever the
officer the crime is incriminating an damage or injury is so apparent that the
innocent person through an unlawful arrest. accused clearly disregarded the standards
needed to avoid the injury.
If incriminatory evidence is planted to
justify an unlawful arrest, the crime Simple imprudence: Any act (had it been
committed is complex crime of unlawful intentional) would constitute grave, and less-
arrest through incriminating an innocent grave felony.
person.
It is only simple because the danger sought
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR to be avoided is non-apparent.
Difference with libel: when there is a direct
imputation of a crime, vice, defect or any act Exempting circumstance of accident:
or condition that tends to bring dishonor or while it may be true that the person will be
contempt, the crime is libel. excused of committing the crime he had
committed, this will not absolve him of
Should the imputation not be direct but criminal negligence had his action be
nonetheless causes dishonor, contempt, the performed with negligence.
crime is intriguing against honor.
Defense of negligence in civil cases: it is
Example: X imputed that Z is a not applicable in prosecution of criminal
prostitute. This is libel. negligence.
However, should X narrate that Z is

frequently seen in red-light district
with different escorts, this is
intriguing against honor. There is no
direct imputation of prostitution but
it causes intrigue.

REVIEWER

Criminal Law Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDENDUM TO CRIMINAL LAW

VICTORIA territoriality relates to the defense of locality

GARCIA Immunity of consuls: as long as there is a

International spaces/water in relation to

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Should the craft or vessel be located inside 1. It has commenced in the

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

factor in the commission of the offense for which they were

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Court finds that it is still necessary to reopen FELONIES

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

provocation on the accused as he is Example: X and Z engaged in

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

3. The rule established by the next preceding

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Example: In attempting to have the acts of execution, he will not be absolved

Although accused-appellant desisted Spontaneous desistance is a defense for

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

from an accomplice is conspiracy. A CONSPIRACY vis-à-vis DEGREE OF

In relation to implied conspiracy

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

JUSTIFYING Disarming the victim: generally, whatever

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE disturbed therein he shall be protected in or

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

3. Cumulative abuse results to physical INSANITY

Prior to the institution of the criminal

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Pending criminal case: if a case has subdue the will of another

In both instance, the person

Burden of proof of claiming the Personal and non-personal circumstance:

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

the principals, accomplices and DISREGARD OF AGE

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Separate crime: If a crime is committed by Proving loose firearm: In People v.

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

CYBERCRIME LAW Adoptive relationship: this should be

Aggravating in crimes against person: if

RELATIONSHIP Mitigating in crimes against property: if

Common law relationship: Unlike in

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES are considered to assess his state of mind

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

In the absence of conspiracy, the prosecution Should A and C be in conspiracy, no

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Inducement by use of words: To make

ACCOMPLICE 4. Actions of the accomplice must

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Z. Y cannot be held liable as an ANTI-FENCING LAW

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

accessory has knowledge of the

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

(a) preventing witnesses from service of process or court orders or

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

victim; or fabricating information offense which has an equal or greater

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

QUASI-RECIDIVISM Effect of Conditional Pardon; Parole; and

Requires finality of judgment and before COMPLEXITIES OF A

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

Defrauding multiple persons: similar to Example: RA 3019 Section 3

Multiple penetration: Several penetrations The only purpose of this crime is to

AN ADDENDUM TO THE LECTURE NOTES OF PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA