For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514

One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

2022
LAST MINUTE MATERIAL
BY JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA

1. If the psychological violence consisting of marital infidelity punishable

under RA No. 9262 is committed in Singapore but the psychological effect
occurred in the Philippines since the wife of the respondent, who suffered
mental anguish, is residing in the Philippines, our court can assume
jurisdiction.

Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Philippines has no
territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed on board a foreign merchant
vessel passing through its 12-mile territorial sea except in the following cases:
(1) if its consequences extend to the coastal State; (2) if it disturbs the peace of
the country or the good order of the territorial sea; (3) if the ship master or a
diplomatic or consular officer of the flag State requested assistance from the
local authorities; or (4) if it is for the suppression of traffic in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances.

2. The President of the Philippines is entitled to immunity from suit

subject to the following conditions: (1) the immunity has been asserted; (2)
during the period of his incumbency and tenure; and (3) the act constituting
the crime is committed in the performance of his duties. Presidential immunity
will assure the exercise of presidential duties and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction, considering that the Chief Executive is a job that
demands undivided attention.

A Vice President is not immune from criminal prosecution. The job of the
Vice President, unlike the head of the executive department, does not demand
undivided attention. Hence, the circumstance, on which the presidential
immunity is based, is not obtaining if the position is vice-presidential.

3. The requisites of mistake of fact as a complete defense are: (1) that the
acts done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be; (2) that the mistake of fact is not due to negligence; (3) the mistake
is not accompanied with criminal intent of the offender.

4. In error in personae, a person is criminally responsible for

committing an intentional felony although the actual victim is different from
the intended victim due to mistake of identity. In praeter intentionem, a person
shall incur criminal liability for committing an intentional felony although its
wrongful consequence is graver than that intended. In aberratio ictus, a person
is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the
actual victim is different from the intended victim due to mistake of blow.
First part of Article 4, Article 12 on accident and Article 365 provides a
rule on proximate cause. If the proximate cause of the death of the victim is a
felony, e.g., physical injuries, threat or unjust vexation, the accused is liable for
homicide because of Article 4. If the proximate cause of the death of the victim
is an act not constituting a felony, Article 4 is not applicable. The application of
Article 4 presupposes that the accused committed a felony. In such a case, the
accused is exempt from criminal liability because of the circumstance of
accident under Article 12. If the proximate cause of the death of the victim is a
culpable act, Article 12 on accident is not applicable. Lack of culpa is an
element of accident. In such a case, the accused is liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365.
1|Page
For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514
One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

If the crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who
was hit by reason of aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused
is liable for a complex crime. However, the accused is liable for separate crimes
despite the application of the aberratio ictus rule (1) if the bullet that killed the
target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third person, who was
hit by reason of aberratio ictus (2) If the crime committed against the third
person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus, is merely a light felony such
as slight physical injuries or an offense punishable under special law such as
child abuse.

5. If a person in committing an intentional felony creates in the mind of

the victim an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to
escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person who creates such a state
of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries. Such intentional felony that
creates a sense of danger can be threat; murder; rape; or robbery. In sum, he
shall incur criminal liability for the death of or injuries sustained by the victim
although this consequent crime is different from threat, murder of another
victim, or rape which he intended to commit.

6. Gender is an element of crimes against chastity except acts of

lasciviousness. If the gender element is not present in a crime against chastity
such as adultery or abduction, the accused is not liable for impossible crime
because the act which is impossible to be committed does not constitute a
crime against person or property.

7. A conspirator is liable for a crime, which they agreed to commit, and

other crimes, which could be foreseen and are the natural and logical
consequences of the conspiracy.

Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by

reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears
that they sought to prevent the killing.
8. Delito continuado is composed of several acts committed under a single
criminal impulse in violation of a single penal provision.

9. When the elements of both robbery by means of violence and

intimidation and robbery by using force upon things are present, the crime is a
complex one under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the penalty for
robbery in an inhabited house shall be imposed in its maximum period.
10. If the offender committed several crimes, the court must consider if
they can be merged together to form a special complex crime, or complex
crime, or if the principal crime can absorb the other crimes. If the provisions on
special complex crime, Article 48 on complex crime and doctrine of absorption
are not applicable, then the court shall convict the accused of separate crimes.

11. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and

accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the
offense can be duly established in evidence, the determination of the liability of
the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal.

12. The requisites of battered woman syndrome as a defense are: (1) that
the battering man, with whom the battered woman has a marital, sexual or
dating relationship, inflicted physical harm upon her; (2) that the infliction of

2|Page
For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514
One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

physical harm must be cumulative; and (3) the cumulative abuse results to
physical and psychological or emotional distress to the woman.

12. Having sexual intercourse with the offended party, who is under 12
years of age, is statutory rape. The word “age” in this provision includes
chronological age and mental age. Hence, having sexual intercourse with idiot
(mental age is 2 years), imbecile (mental age is 7 years), or feebleminded
(mental age is 12) is statutory rape. However, having sexual intercourse with a
person with borderline intelligence is not statutory rape because his mental age
is above 12 years; but it is considered as rape against a person deprived of
reason.

Under Section 5 (b) of RA No 7610, when the child subjected to sexual

abuse is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape
and acts of lasciviousness under RPC. The word “age” in the phrase “when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age” in Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is either
chronological or mental.

In exempting circumstance, there is a difference between actual age and

mental age. In exempting circumstance of imbecility (mental age is 7 years),
what is important is the mental age of the accused. A feebleminded, whose
mental age is 12 years old, is not exempt from criminal liability since he is not
an imbecile, but he is entitled to mitigating circumstance of mental illness.

13. Article 64 (5) on special mitigating circumstance that requires the

graduation of penalty is only applicable if the penalty contains three periods.
Reclusion perpetua to death prescribed for parricide is not a penalty containing
three periods. The applicable provision is Article 63 par. 2 (3) on the rule
involving a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties. Hence, the lesser
penalty (reclusion perpetua) shall be applied.

14. Under Section 4 of PD 968, when a judgment of conviction imposing

a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is
modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall
be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such
decision becomes final. This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit
of probation should he seek a review of the modified decision which already
imposes a probationable penalty.

15. In death under exceptional circumstance, the person must surprise

his spouse in the very act of sexual intercourse, neither before the act nor after
the act nor through sex video.

“Sexual intercourse,” which is an element of rape through carnal

knowledge, adultery, concubinage or seduction or death under exceptional
circumstance does not includes homosexual intercourse such as fingering a
woman by a lesbian.

16. If the accused received the property with the consent of the owner
but he (e.g. employee) merely acquired physical or de facto possession in doing
so, failure to return, or misappropriation shall be considered as taking without
consent of the owner; hence, the crime is theft. If the accused received the
property with the consent of the owner and he acquired legal or de jure
possession in doing so by reason of trust, commission, administration or
obligation to return or deliver, misappropriation or conversion shall be
considered as estafa. If the accused received the property with the consent of
the owner and he acquired ownership, failure to perform obligation such as
paying the price thereof is civil in character.

3|Page
For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514
One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

If the crime charged in the information is estafa through

misappropriation, but the crime proven by evidence is qualified theft (e.g. the
accused is an employee, whose possession over the misappropriated property is
physical), the accused can be convicted of the latter because of the variance
rule.

17. If the main objective is to kill the victim in a building, and fire is
resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal, the crime committed
is murder only. Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs arson since the
latter is an inherent means to commit the former. Single act of burning the
building to kill two persons constitutes compound crime of double murders.

If the main objective is to burn the building, but death results by reason
or on the occasion of arson, the crime is arson with qualifying circumstance of
resulting death. The resulting homicide is absorbed since it will be considered
as a modificatory circumstance.

If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already done so, and
arson is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the offender may be
convicted of two separate crimes of either homicide or murder, and arson.

18. In robbery with homicide, all other felonies such as rape, intentional
mutilation, usurpation of authority, or direct assault with attempted homicide
are integrated into this special complex crime. This special complex crime is
committed as long as death results by reason or on occasion or robbery
without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime, and the number death.

19. If the robbers held hostages the victims to prevent the policemen
form arresting them, the crime committed is robbery, which absorbs illegal
detention (People v. Astor, G.R. Nos. L-71765-66, April 29, 1987). On the other
hand, if the rapist held hostage the victim to prevent the policemen from
arresting him, the crimes committed are rape and serious illegal detention
qualified by the circumstance that the victim is a female. (People vs.
Concepcion, G.R. No. 214886, April 04, 2018)

20. If the offender committed falsification of document and other crimes,

the following rules should be observed: (1) When falsification of public, official
or commercial document is a necessary means to commit malversation, estafa
or theft, offender is liable for a complex crime; (2) When falsification of public,
official or commercial document is not a necessary means to commit other
crimes, this is not a complex crime. Thus, when falsification of public, official
or commercial document is a merely a means to conceal malversation, estafa or
theft, the crimes are separate.

Under the common element doctrine, the use of damage as an element of

falsification of private document precludes the re-use thereof to complete the
elements of estafa, and vice versa. Common element doctrine is only applicable
if the crimes involved are estafa and falsification of private document. If the
common element principle is applicable, the following rules should be
observed: (1) When falsification of private document is a necessary means to
commit estafa, the crime committed is falsification; (2) When falsification of
private document is not a means to commit estafa, the crime committed is
estafa.

21. The crime of use of falsified document, the person who used the
forged document is different from the one who falsified it. If the one who used
the falsified document is the same person who falsified it, the crime is only
falsification and the use of the same is not a separate crime. Falsification of a

4|Page
For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514
One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

public document and use of false document by the same person who falsified it
constitute but a single crime of falsification.

22. Physical violence against woman is punishable under Section 5 (a).

However, if physical violence caused mental or emotional anguish to the
victim, the offender may be prosecuted for psychological violence against
woman under Section 5 (i). Physical violence will be considered as an element
of psychological violence.

Deprivation of financial support is punishable as economic violence

against woman under Section 5 (e). However, if the deprivation of financial
support caused mental or emotional anguish to the offended woman, the
offender may be prosecuted for both psychological violence against woman
under Section 5 (i) and economic violence against woman under Section 5 (e).

21. In Bongalon v. People, accused saw the victim and his companions
hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused struck minor-victim at the
back with his hand and slapped his face. Since the accused committed the act
at the spur of the moment, they are perpetrated without intent to degrade the
dignity of the victim. Without such intent, the crime committed is not child
abuse under R.A. No. 7610 but merely slight physical injuries.

Without intent to degrade the child, child abuse is not committed because
the Bongalon principle but the accused can be held liable for slight physical
injuries, or light threat or he is not criminally liable at all.

The Bongalon principle is inapplicable if the accused did not assault a

child in the heat of anger or as spontaneous reaction to his misbehavior.

Child abuse involving degrading a child is a crime different from child

abuse involving serious physical harm, burn, laceration, internal injuries or
fracture of the bone. What is involved in Bongalon is child abuse involving
degrading the child. Thus, if the child suffered serious physical harm, burn,
laceration, internal injuries or fracture of the bone, Bongalon principle is not
applicable although there is no intent to degrade the child.

22. Consent is immaterial in cases involving sexual abuse under R.A.

No. 7610 where the offended party is below 12 years of age. However, consent
is material when the offended party is a child, who is 12 years old or above. In
such a case, consent of the child is a defense in cases involving sexual abuse.
Consent as a defense is either express or implied. Consent is implied if the
prosecution failed to prove that the child had sex with accused due to money,
profit or consideration, or coercion or influence. The sexual congress between
accused and AAA (child) was not limited to just one incident. They were in a
relationship even after the incident alleged in the Information and had even
produced two (2) children. It is clear that AAA, who is capable to discern good
from evil, give consent to the sexual act. Accused was acquitted.

23. If the acts constitute rape, sexual assault or acts of lasciviousness

under the Revised Penal Code and sexual abuse under RA No. 7610, the
accused shall not be prosecuted for a complex crime since sexual abuse for
being an offense punishable under special law cannot be made a component of
a complex crime. Neither shall the accused be prosecuted for two crimes
because of the rule on double jeopardy. If this is the situation, the following
rules should be observed.

(1) If the act constitutes rape under RPC and sexual abuse RA No. 7610,
the accused shall be prosecuted under RPC, since this law prescribes a higher

5|Page
For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514
One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

penalty. If the act constitutes statutory rape and sexual abuse, the accused
shall be prosecuted under RPC, since Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 says so.

(2) If the act constitutes acts of lasciviousness under RPC and sexual
abuse under RA No. 7610 committed against a child, who is 12 years of age or
above, the accused shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610, since this law
prescribes a higher penalty. The crime will be designated as lascivious conduct.

If the act constitutes acts of lasciviousness under RPC and sexual abuse
under RA No. 7610 committed against a child, who is under 12 years of age,
the accused shall be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under RPC but the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period under RA No. 7610 shall be
imposed. The crime will be designated as acts of lasciviousness under RPC in
relation to RA No. 7610.

(3) If the act constitutes sexual assault under RPC and sexual abuse
under RA No. 7610 committed against a child, who is 12 years of age or above,
the accused shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610, since this law prescribes a
higher penalty. The crime will be designated as lascivious conduct.

If the act constitutes sexual assault under RPC and sexual abuse under
RA No. 7610 committed against a child, who is under 12 years of age, the
accused shall be prosecuted for sexual assault under RPC but the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period under RA No. 7610 shall be imposed.
It is not the intention of RA No. 8353, which introduces sexual assault in RPC,
to disallow the penalty under RA No. 7610. To impose the lesser penalty of
prison mayor under RA No. 8353 for sexual assault is unfair to the child. The
crime will be designate as sexual assault under RPC in relation to RA No. 7610.

If the act constitutes qualified sexual assault under RPC and sexual abuse
under RA No. 7610 committed against a child, who is under 12 years of age,
the accused shall be prosecuted for qualified sexual assault with the penalty of
reclusion temporal under RPC. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period under RA No. 7610 shall not be imposed since RPC already prescribes a
grave penalty.

24. Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, accused is liable for special complex crime of kidnapping with
murder or homicide.
Special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide is a crime
against liberty. Hence, to commit this crime in accordance with the Mercado
principle, there must be an appreciable period of time within which the victim
was deprived of liberty. If the victim in a few minutes died after the accused
gagged the mouth of minor victim with stockings; placed him in a box; sealed it
with masking tape and placed the box in the attic, the crime committed is
murder. If the victim was killed after being dragged about 40 meters from his
house, the crime committed is murder.
If the intention of the accused is only to kill the victim, and the deprivation
of liberty is just incidental to such killing, Mercado principle is not applicable;
hence, the crime committed is murder, and not kidnapping with murder.
Without intent to deprive liberty, the offenders cannot be held liable for
kidnapping, which is a crime against liberty. The detention is considered as
incidental if the same merely arises from the transportation of the victim to the

6|Page
For LECTURES by Judge CAMPANILLA, kindly text 09327988549, 09998843644, 09564080514
One-day Lecture: Jan 22 and 23; 3-hour Speed Lecture: Feb. 2 and

place where he shall be executed. (People v. Estacio, Jr., G.R. No. 171655, July
22, 2009; People v. Ong, G.R. No. L-34497, January 30, 1975)
In Mercado, deprivation of liberty is not incidental since the victim was
detained in a safehouse. There are two criminal intentions, to wit: to deprive
liberty and to kill. Hence, accused is liable for special complex crime of
kidnapping with murder. In Estacio, the deprivation of liberty is incidental
since the victims were merely transported to the place where they will be
killed. They were not detained in a safehouse. There is a single criminal
intention, and that is, to kill him. Hence, the crime committed is murder only.
The detention is also considered as incidental if the same merely arises
from the transportation of the victim from one place to another to evade the
police authorities from arresting them.

7|Page