Crimina Law an Practica ercise

Syllabus-based eReviewer for the 2022 Bar

Compiled by RGL
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Tabl of Content Criminal liabilities and felonies Habituality

Classi cation of felonies (grave, less grave and Quasi-recidivism

Principles of Criminal Law 2
light felonies) Habitual delinquency
General Principles 2 Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter Penalties
intentionem Imposable penalties
Felonies 4
Impossible crime Classi cation
Crimes Under the Revised Penal Code 54 Stages of execution Duration and e ects
Continuing crimes Application and graduation of penalties
Special Penal Laws 100
Complex crimes and composite crimes Indeterminate Sentence Law
Practical Exercises 129 Circumstances a ecting criminal liability Accessory penalties
Justifying circumstances Subsidiary Imprisonment
I Principles of Criminal Law
Exempting circumstances Execution and service of sentence
General Principles Mitigating circumstances Three-fold rule
Mala in se and mala prohibita Aggravating circumstances Probation Law
Applicability and e ectivity of the RPC Alternative circumstances Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
Generality Absolutory causes Republic Act No. 10592
Territoriality Persons liable and degree of participation Community Service Act
Prospectivity Principals, accomplices, and accessories Extinction of criminal liability
Interpretation of penal laws Conspiracy and proposal Civil liability in criminal cases
Retroactive e ect of penal laws Multiple o enders
A General Principles
Felonies Recidivism

By RGL 2 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
1 Mala in se and mala prohibita
Crimes mala in se are inherently immoral and involve intent to
commit a crime. Good faith is a defense in mala in se crimes, but is
not a defense in mala prohibita crimes, where what is required is
merely the intent to perpetrate the act. Although most crimes
punished under special penal laws are mala prohibita, there are also
those that are mala in se.
Matalam v. People 2016
The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum
prohibitum. "An act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice
or criminal intent is completely immaterial."
Hence, "intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the
act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously
intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act,
and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself." When an
act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious to public
welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
Volition, or intent to commit the act, is di erent from criminal
intent. Volition or voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being
done. On the other hand, criminal intent refers to the state of
mind beyond voluntariness. It is this intent that is being punished
by crimes mala in se.
Garcia v. CA
The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) of the Omnibus Election Code
are mala in se. Given the volume of votes to be counted and
canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and
Reviewer
miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent
of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors.
Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall
appear. Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the
burden of proving its existence.
People v. Comia
The act of transporting a prohibited drug is a "malum
prohibitum" because it is punished as an o ense under a special law.
It is a wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without the law
punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the
mere commission of said act is what constitutes the o ense
punished and su ces to validly charge and convict an individual
caught committing the act so punished, regardless of criminal
intent.
2 Applicability and e ectivity of the RPC
a Generality
Penal laws apply to ALL PERSONS who commit crimes within
the territory.
EXC
1. Under Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations;
2. In certain exempting circumstances under the RPC and
special laws;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
3. Legal pluralism in certain areas/culture, i.e. the Muslim
Code and IPRA.
b Territoriality
Penal laws apply to all o enses committed within the PH territory.
EXC
1. Extraterritoriality under the RPC and SPLs
2. Transnational crimes under UNTOC and domestic law,
3. Universal jurisdiction in jus cogens crimes and under
UNCLOS, and
4. Erga omnes crimes under international criminal tribunal
jurisdiction.
People v. Tulin re extraterritoriality and universal jurisdiction
The attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao'' and its cargo were
committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later
brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was o -loaded,
transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under
accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although PD No.
532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the
vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the
same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised
Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law. It is likewise, well-settled that
regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible
crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo).
3 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

a. If the o ender is a habitual delinquent; 2. Intelligence;

c Prospectivity b. The new or amendatory law is not favorable to him; or 3. Intent.
Penal laws do NOT have retroactive e ect. c. Retrospective application is expressly proscribed. For culpa, instead of intent, accused is imprudent, negligent or
lacks foresight or skill while doing the act.
EXC if the provisions are favorable to the accused who is not a
People v. Sarcia
habitual o ender
Sec 68 of RA 9344 allows the retroactive application of the Act
⭐Sevilla v. People 2014
EXC to the EXC the law itself provides against such
to those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the Quasi-o enses under Article 365 of the RPC are distinct and
retroactive e ect.
time of the e ectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age separate crimes and not a mere modality in the commission of a
of 18 years at the time of the commission of the o ense. crime. Thus, the proper designation of the felony should be reckless
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan 2017 En Banc
imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents and
For as long as the penal law is favorable to the accused, it shall nd not falsi cation of public documents through reckless imprudence.
application regardless of whether its e ectivity comes after the time B Felonies Reckless imprudence resulting to falsi cation of public documents
when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of
is an o ense that is necessarily included in the willful act of
sentence has already begun. The accused shall be entitled to the
bene ts of the new law warranting him to serve a lesser sentence, or
1 Criminal liabilities and felonies falsi cation of public documents, the latter being the greater
o ense. As such, he can be convicted of reckless imprudence
to his release, if he has already begun serving his previous sentence,
Modes of committing crimes resulting to falsi cation of public documents notwithstanding that
and said service already accomplishes the term of the modi ed
1. Dolo. the Information only charged the willful act of falsi cation of
sentence.
public documents.
a. Deceit or criminal intent.
b. Act performed with deliberate intent.
3 Interpretation of penal laws
c. There must be a con uence of both an evil act and an People v. Pugay
a. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and evil intent. Actum non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
The next question to be determined is the criminal responsibility of
liberally in favor of the accused;
2. Culpa. the accused Pugay. Having taken the can from under the engine of
b. The Spanish text is controlling. the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the
a. Fault.
body of the deceased, this accused knew that the can contained
4 Retroactive e ect of penal laws b. Wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of gasoline. The stinging smell of this ammable liquid could not have
foresight, or lack of skill. escaped his notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to
The general rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive e ect
Requisites of Dolo exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony except
consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his
1. Freedom;

By RGL 4 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased.
Thus, the accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless
imprudence de ned in Article 365 of the RPC. (should have been
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide)
Proximate cause
That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any e cient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred.
The felony is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury
when:
a. There is an active force that intervened between the felony
and the injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the act of the accused.
b. The injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
Contributory negligence.
NOT e cient intervening causes
1. Weak or diseased physical condition of victim;
2. Nervousness or temperament of victim;
3. Causes inherent in the victim, i.e. victim not knowing how to
swim;
4. Neglect of victim or third person;
5. Erroneous or unskillful treatment;
6. Delay in the medical treatment of victim.
Death of victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of
physical injuries in icted
Reviewer
1. The victim was in normal health;
2. Death may be expected from the injuries in icted;
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
Dinamling v. People 2015
As to the alleged miscarriage or incomplete abortion, the allegedly
exculpatory testimony of Dr. Diaz, or even the complete disregard of
any evidence surrounding such fact does not lead to petitioner
Dinamling's acquittal. The fact of AAA's miscarriage or incomplete
abortion is not essential to proving the elements of the crime, unless
it is alleged to have caused mental or emotional su ering. It is not
among the crime's elements. In fact, it is not abortion but the mere
fact of pregnancy of the victim at the time of commission which is
an aggravating circumstance, not an element, of the o ense.
Gelig v. People 2010
The prosecution's success in proving that Lydia committed the
crime of direct assault does not necessarily mean that the same
physical force she employed on Gemma also resulted in the crime of
unintentional abortion.
It is worth stressing that Gemma was admitted and con ned in a
hospital for incomplete abortion on August 28, 1981, which was 42
days after the July 17, 1981 incident. This interval of time is too
lengthy to prove that the discharge of the fetus from the womb of
Gemma was a direct outcome of the assault.
Novicio v. People
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors,
intent to kill is presumed. It is petitioner's postulation that the lone
gunshot wound of Mario does not establish intent to kill. However,
the number of wounds inflicted is not the sole consideration
in proving intent to kill.
This Court has repeatedly held that if the victim's wound would
normally cause death, then the last act necessary to produce
homicide would have been performed and death would have
resulted were it not for the timely medical attention given to
the victim.
Kinds of criminal intent
1. General. Presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.
2. Speci c. Must be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Motive is the reason or compelling force why the accused committed
the acts complained of. Criminal intent is the purpose of the accused
in adopting the particular means to achieve his objective.
However, motive may be inquired into in some instances:
a. Where the identity of o ender is in question;
b. To determine voluntariness of the act, or whether it was
intentionally done;
c. To determine the aggressor when self-defense is invoked;
d. To determine speci c nature of the crime, i.e. murder in
furtherance of rebellion.
Serrano v. People 2010
Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern
only through external manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of
5 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter.
In Rivera v. People, the Court considered the following factors to
determine the presence of an intent to kill:
1) the means used by the malefactors;
2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained
by the victim;
3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or
immediately after the killing of the victim; and
4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed
and the motives of the accused.
Here, the petitioner used a knife in his assault. The petitioner
stabbed the victim in the abdomen while the latter was held by
Gener and Orieta. Immediately after the stabbing, the petitioner,
Gener and Orieta beat and stoned the victim until he fell into a
creek. A reasonable inference can be made that the victim was left
for dead when he fell into the creek.
Under these circumstances, we are convinced that the petitioner, in
stabbing, beating and stoning the victim, intended to kill him.
Rivera, et al v. People
Intent to kill is a speci c intent which the prosecution must prove
by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent
is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.
In the present case, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum
of evidence to prove the intent of petitioners to kill Ruben.
Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with st blows. Even as
Ruben fell to the ground, unable to defend himself against the
Reviewer
sudden and sustained assault of petitioners, Edgardo hit him three
times with a hollow block. Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on the head,
missed, but still managed to hit the victim only in the parietal area,
resulting in a lacerated wound and cerebral contusions.
That the head wounds sustained by the victim were merely
super cial and could not have produced his death does not negate
petitioners' criminal liability for attempted murder.
Mistake of fact
There is NO liability for mistake of fact. The requisites are:
1. The act done would have been lawful had the act been as the
accused believed them to be;
2. The intention in performing the act should be lawful; and
3. The mistake of fact was NOT due to negligence, bad faith
or unlawful intent of the accused. The accused must have no
opportunity to verify his mistake.
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan 2012
In the context of criminal law, a “mistake of fact” is a
misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justi ed the act
or omission which is the subject of the prosecution. Generally, a
reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a charge of crime where it
negates the intent component of the crime.
A proper invocation of this defense requires
a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable;
b) that it be a matter of fact; and
c) that it negates the culpability required to commit the crime
or the existence of the mental state which the statute
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
prescribes with respect to an element of the o ense.
People v. Gervero 2018
As early as in the case of People v. Oanis and Galanta, the Court has
ruled that mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness.
Classi cation of felonies (grave, less grave and
a
light felonies)
ART 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also
by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Elements of felonies
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. Such must be punishable by the RPC; and
3. Such is performed or incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
According to
1. Gravity — grave, less grave, light;
2. Mode of commission — Intentional and culpable;
3. Their nature — Mala in se and mala prohibita;
6 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

4. The law punishing them — Felonies, o enses and intended be di erent from Article 48 of the RPC, particularly, a delito compuesto, or a
infractions. that committed, the lesser compound crime where a single act produces two (2) or more grave
penalty shall be imposed in its or less grave felonies.
Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter
b MAX period
intentionem

Accused is still liable under the following circumstances: c Impossible crime

1. Praeter intentionem. — Injury caused is greater than what People v. Pugay re praeter intentionem
1. The act performed would be an o ense against persons or
was intended;
As for Samson, there is adequate evidence showing that his act was property;
Any person may be held liable for an intentional felony although merely a part of their fun-making that evening. His act, however,
2. Act done with evil intent;
the wrong done is not intended by him, if: does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes
of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of physical 3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
a. he has committed an intentional felony;
injuries on his person, a felony de ned in the RPC. If his act means employed is either inadequate or ine ectual;
b. the wrong done or injury caused is the direct, natural or resulted into a graver o ense, as what took place in the 4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of
logical consequence of the felony committed; OR instant case, he must be held responsible therefor. another provision of the RPC.
if the intentional felony committed is the proximate Article 4 of the RPC provides that criminal liability shall be NB: There is NO attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
cause of the injury or damage incurred by the victim. incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful
2. Aberratio ictus. — Miscarriage of the blow; act done be di erent from that which he intended. Intod v. CA and People
3. Error in personae. — Mistake in identity. As no su cient evidence appears in the record establishing any
There must be either
qualifying circumstances, Samson is only guilty of the crime of
De nition E ect as to penalty homicide de ned and penalized in Article 249 of the RPC. 1) legal impossibility, or
2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in
Lack of intent to order to qualify the act as an impossible crime.
Praeter
commit so grave a Mitigating circumstance People v. Umawid 2014 re aberratio ictus
intentionem Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where
wrong
Maureen’s death is a case of aberratio ictus, given that the fatal 1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in
Aberratio Mistake in blow; at Art 48 on complex crime blow therefor was only delivered by mistake as it was actually violation of the law;
ictus least 2 victims may apply Vicente who was Umawid’s intended target. In this regard,
2) there is intention to perform the physical act;
Umawid’s single deed actually resulted in the: (a) Attempted
Murder of Vicente; and (b) Consummated Murder of Maureen. 3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
Error in Mistake in identity; Art 49 applies — if the
personae only one victim penalty for the crime This may be classi ed as a species of complex crime de ned under 4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not

By RGL 7 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

amount to a crime.
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man
who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention
to steal the latter's wallet and nds the pocket empty. The case at bar
belongs to this category.
d Stages of execution
4. by reason of causes independent of the will of the 1. a "subjective phase," or that portion of the acts
perpetrator. constituting the crime included between the act which
begins the commission of the crime and the last act
There is an attempt when
performed by the o ender which, with prior acts, should
1. The o ender commences the commission of the felony result in the consummated crime.
directly by overt acts;
2. After that point has been breached, the subjective phase
a. That there be external acts; ends and the objective phase begins.
b. Such external acts have direct connection with the It has been held that if the offender never passes the subjective
crime intended to be committed. phase of the o ense, the crime is merely attempted.
2. He does NOT perform all the acts of execution which On the other hand, the subjective phase is completely passed in
should produce the felony; case of frustrated crimes, for in such instances, "subjectively the
3. The o ender's act be NOT stopped by his own crime is complete."
spontaneous desistance; The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts
or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. of execution have been performed by the o ender.
The critical distinction instead is whether the felony itself was
Frustrated Attempted
actually produced by the acts of execution. The determination of
has performed all the acts whether the felony was "produced" after all the acts of execution
of execution which
✔ ✘ had been performed hinges on the particular statutory
should produce the definition of the felony.
merely commences
felony as a consequence How to determine the stage of the crime

cause or accident 1. Nature of the o ense;

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its some cause
other than the 2. Elements constituting the felony;
execution and accomplishment are present; reason for independent of the
o ender's own
non-accomplishment will of the 3. Manner of committing same —
It is frustrated when spontaneous
perpetrator
desistance a. Formal Crimes — Consummated in one instant, no
1. the o ender performs all the acts of execution attempt. e.g. slander, false testimony, sale of prohibited
2. which would produce the felony as a consequence Subjective and Objective Phases drugs.

3. but which, nevertheless, do not produce it Each felony under the RPC has

By RGL 8 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
b. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal
or by overt act e.g. Flight to enemy’s country (121),
corruption of minors (340), Treason.
c. Felony by omission no attempted stage
d. Crimes requiring the intervention of two person to
commit them are consummated by mere agreement
e.g. betting in sport contests (197), corruption of public
o cer (212)
e. Material crimes. There are THREE stages of execution.
When felonies do not have stages
1. If punished under SPL;
2. By omission;
3. Formal crimes, e.g. physical injuries.
Felonies without frustrated stage
1. Theft;
2. Rape.
ART 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are
punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against person or property.
GR: Light felonies are punishable only when consummated.
EXC: Those committed against persons or property, even if
attempted or frustrated. e.g. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment (266); Art 309, nos. 7 and 8; Alteration of
boundary marks (313); Malicious mischief (328 and 329,
no. 3).
Reviewer
Valenzuela v. People⭐ and Canceran v. People 2015
Is there a frustrated stage in theft?
NO. Theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only
be attempted or consummated.
People v. Aca-ac ⭐
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female
organ because not all acts of execution were performed. Taking into
account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime
of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable
how the frustrated stage of rape can ever be committed.
As this Court explained in People v. Orita, rape is either attempted
or consummated. There can be no frustrated rape.
Baleros v. People
The attempt which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a
logical connection to a particular, concrete offense; that which
is the beginning of the execution of the o ense by overt acts of the
perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation.
It would be too strained to construe petitioner's act of pressing a
chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou which would induce
her to sleep as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen
into rape. As it were, petitioner did not commence at all the
performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape
Malou.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
Rivera v. People
An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their
consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the
o enders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously
with the in iction of injuries.
People v. Gonzalez
The (specific criminal intent) intent to kill determines whether the
crime committed is physical injuries or homicide. Such intent is
made manifest by the acts of the accused which are undoubtedly
intended to kill the victim.
For evident lack of criminal intent to kill the complainant, the
information for attempted homicide must fail. Considering the
nature and location of their injuries and the number of days
required for their treatment, we nd that the crime committed for
the injuries sustained by the children are two counts of slight
physical injuries under Art. 266.
People v. Labiaga 2013
Appellant should be convicted of attempted murder, and not
frustrated murder.
In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the
wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical
intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the
wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death without
timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of
attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
9 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

2. According to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito continuado ART 48. Penalty for complex crimes. —
In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound sustained by
consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one crime
Gregorio Conde was mortal. 1. (Compound crime or delito compuesto) When a single
in the mind of the perpetrator.
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
3. Padilla views such o ense as consisting of a series of acts
2. (Complex crime proper or delito complejo) when an
Velasco v. People arising from one criminal intent or resolution.
o ense is a necessary means for committing the other,
Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to Delito continuado Continuing crime the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same
perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of to be applied in its maximum period.
some cause other than his own desistance, petitioner committed an A single crime produced by One which is consummated in
attempted felony. Petitioner already commenced his attack with a several acts performed separately one place but by reason of the Plurality of crimes
manifest intent to kill by shooting private complainant seven times, during a period of time under a nature of the o ense, the
1. Consists in the successive execution by the same individual of
but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes single criminal intent in violation violation of the law is deemed
di erent criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet
independent of his will, that is, poor aim and the swiftness of the of a single penal provision. continuing.
been declared.
latter. Private complainant sustained a wound on the left arm that
To determine the proper venue, 2. If there has been a conviction for one or some of them, the rules on
is not su cient to cause his death. The settled rule is that where the
Its purpose is to treat several acts validity of arrest and the recidivism, quasi-recidivism, reiteracion, or habitual
wound in icted on the victim is not su cient to cause his
as one crime commencement of the running delinquency may instead be applied.
death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did
of prescription.
not perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about 3. There are two kinds
death.
Examples and Effects of Continuing crimes a. Formal or ideal — Multiple crimes committed from the same
1. Kidnapping with homicide; criminal intent are punished with ONE penalty:

e Continuing crimes 2. The term of prescription commences to run from the date the 1. Complex crime;
crime ended; i. Delito compuesto;
Continuous crimes or delito continuado
3. BP 22. — Thus, venue may be had either at the place where ii. Delito complejo.
1. For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of the check was issued, drawn, or dishonored.
acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal 2. Special complex crimes;
4. Rebellion. — a rebel may be arrested at any time without
provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, 3. Continued, continuous or continuing crimes.
need of a warrant as he is deemed to be in the act of
which means that two or more violations of the same penal
committing the o ense at any time. b. Real or material — There are di erent crimes in law as well
provisions are united in one and the same intent or
as in the conscience of the offender. They are thus
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal
f Complex crimes and composite crimes SEPARATELY punished.
purpose or aim.

By RGL 10 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Special from ordinary
4. Special complex crimes are those speci cally designated by law to
be penalized as one felony, although composed of many crimes.
5. May consist of crimes punished under SPLs, whereas the complex
crime in Art 48 contemplates of felonies punished under the RPC.
Kinds of ordinary complex crimes
1) Compound crime. Requisites:
7. Doctrine of Absorption. — If one of the o ense is an element of
another, the former is deemed absorbed by the latter and there is
only one crime.
8. Single Impulse Doctrine. — If the act or acts complained of
resulted from a single criminal impulse, it constitutes a single
o ense.
People v. Orias 2010
pulling the trigger of their respective rearms, aiming each
particular moment at di erent persons constitute
distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a
complex crime.
In People v. Lawas, the Court was "forced" to nd all the accused
guilty of only one o ense of multiple homicide. However, as this
Court held in People v. Remollino, the Lawas doctrine is more
of an exception than the general rule.

a. Only a single act is performed; Orias should be convicted of three (3) counts of murder and Here, conspiracy is very much evident from the actuations of the
NOT of the complex crime of multiple murder appellants and their co-accused. Collective responsibility replaced
b. It produces
individual responsibility. The Lawas doctrine, premised on the
The three (3) crimes of murder did not result from a single act but
i. 2 or more grave felonies, or impossibility of determining who killed whom, cannot be
from several individual and distinct acts. Deeply rooted is the
applied.
ii. one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots,
or such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. The current rule is where several killings on the same occasion
were perpetrated, but not involving prisoners, a di erent rule
iii. 2 or more less grave felonies. In the instant, the acts of Orias and Elarcosa demonstrate the
may be applied, that is to say, the killings would be treated as
2) Complex crime proper. Requisites: existence of conspiracy, thereby imputing collective criminal
separate o enses.
responsibility upon them, as the act of one is the act of all.
a. At least 2 o enses are committed; Thus, appellants are liable for the separate crimes of two (2)
b. One or some of the o enses must be necessary to commit counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted murder.
the other; People v. Nelmida 2012 En Banc As to penalty
c. All of the o enses must be punished under the same Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the case of
Appellants and their co-accused simultaneous act of riddling the
statute. attempted murder,
vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group with bullets
Rules to determine the crime/s to be charged if two or discharged from their rearms when the said vehicle passed by, 1. the maximum shall be taken from the medium period of
more are committed resulted in the death of two security escorts of Mayor Tawan-tawan. prision mayor, which is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years,
6. Foreknowledge Rule. — Where the accused repetitively Evidently, there is in this case no complex crime proper. And the 2. while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next
performed one element of a crime (or component of a complex circumstances present in this case do not t exactly the description lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, in any of its
crime) over a period of time on a more or less regular basis, having of a compound crime. periods, the range of which is 6 months and 1 day to 6
foreknowledge of its occurrence.
⭐As held in People v. Valdez, each act by each gunman years.

By RGL 11 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Napolis v. CA cited in Fransdilla v. People 2015
The complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed
persons and robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons was committed when the accused, who held rearms,
entered the residential house of the victims and in icted injury
upon the victims in the process of committing the robbery. Hence,
the penalty is that imposed for the robbery in an inhabited house,
the more serious crime. Citing Napolis v. CA, the CA correctly
ruled that all the accused, including Fransdilla, were guilty of
committing the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house
under Article 299, and robbery with intimidation or violence under
Article 294.
People v. Garcia
The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that
occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman
under the following circumstances:
1) by using force or intimidation;
2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
Garcia is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape. He should also be held liable for the other three counts of rape
committed by his three co-accused, considering the clear conspiracy
among them.
Reviewer
However, as correctly held by the trial court, there can only be
ONE complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The
crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for the rst rape.
Thus, the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as
separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. They
should be detached from and considered independently of the
forcible abduction. Therefore, Garcia should be convicted of one
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and three
separate acts of rape.
Santiago v. Garchitorena
The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the allegation
of the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens"
in the original information each amended information states the
name of the individual whose stay was legalized. The 32 Amended
Informations aver that the o enses were committed on the same
period of time. The strong probability even exists that the approval
of the application for the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was
done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was
embodied in the same document.
9. Political Offense Doctrine
a. Common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
o ense, are divested of their character as “common”
o enses and assume the political complexion of the main
crime of which they are mere ingredients, and,
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the
principal o ense, or complexed with the same, to justify
the imposition of a graver penalty.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
b. When a killing is committed in furtherance of
rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder. Rather,
the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion.
c. When the political o ense doctrine is asserted as a defense
in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to
determine whether the act of killing was done in
furtherance of a political end, and for the political
motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated.
Ocampo v. Abando 2014 En Banc
Whether the murder charges against petitioners should be dismissed
under the political offense doctrine.
NO. The political o ense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the
charge against petitioners prior to a determination by the trial court
that the murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion.
As held in the case of Prosecutor of Zamboanga v. CA, if during
trial, petitioners are able to show that the alleged murders were
indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion, the trial court shall
dismiss the murder charges upon the ling of the Information
for simple rebellion, as long as petitioners would not be placed in
double jeopardy.
Special Complexing
1. Component crimes in a special complex crime have no
attempted or frustrated stages because the intention of the
o enders is to commit the principal crime which is to rob but
in the process of committing the said crime, another crime is
committed.
2. As held in People v. Jugueta, in special complex crimes like
robbery with homicide where the penalty imposed is reclusion
12 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
perpetua, the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages are now uniformly pegged at P75K. The
award of temperate damages is also increased to P50K.
Inapplicability of Art 48
1. When the crime subject of the case are covered by the
doctrine of common elements;
a. There can be no complexing wherein two felonies
have a common element and such element is used to
complete the requirements for integrating one crime,
the other crime would be incomplete in that element
and consequently, non-existent.
b. Thus, there can be NO complex crime of estafa
through falsi cation of a private document as
both crimes require damage as an element which is
used for one renders the other incomplete.
2. When the crimes involved are subject to the rule of
absorption of one crime by the other;
3. Where the two o enses resulting from a single act are
speci cally punished as a single crime (Art 265 par 2).
4. Special complex crimes;
a. Art 266-B Rape with homicide;
b. Art 267 Kidnapping with homicide and/or rape;
c. Art 294 Robbery with homicide or rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
d. Art 297 Attempted or frustrated robbery with
homicide;
e. Art 320 Destructive arson.
Reviewer
5. When the crimes involved cannot be legally complexed:
a. Art 129 Search warrants maliciously obtained and
abuse in the service of those legally obtained with
perjury;
b. Art 210 Bribery with in delity in the custody of
prisoners;
c. Art 235 Maltreatment of prisoners with serious
physical injuries;
d. Art 312 Usurpation of real rights with serious
physical injuries;
e. Art 275 Abandonment of persons in danger and
Art 276-278 crimes against minors with any other
felony.
NB: Complexing is ‘legally impossible’ because the provisions
expressly state that the penalty for such felonies is in addition
to those imposed on the other felonies committed.
Rules on Robbery and Homicide
1. If homicide was consummated, the case will be a special
complex crime of either Art 294, wherein robbery was
consummated, or Art 297, wherein it was merely attempted or
frustrated.
2. If the homide was not consummated, but was a necessary
means to commit any stage of the robbery, Art 48 applies.
3. If the homicide was neither consummated nor necessary to
robbery, these felonies are separate and distinct o enses.
People v. Dillatan 2018
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
The component crimes in a special complex crime have no
attempted or frustrated stages.
Thus, as in the present case where, aside from the killing of Homer,
the Spouses Acob, on the occasion of the same robbery, also
sustained injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime committed is
still robbery with homicide as the injuries sustained by the Spouses
Acob are subsumed under the generic term "homicide" and,
thus, become part and parcel of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.
People v. Aspili
Neither in law nor in jurisprudence is there an aggravating
circumstance as robbery in band. More importantly, the evidence
shows that what was committed is the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide aggravated by rape.
The original design of the malefactors was to commit robbery in order
to facilitate their escape from the penal colony. Their original intent
did not comprehend the commission of rape. Hence, the rape is
deemed to aggravate the crime but damages or indemni cation for
the victim may be awarded. Instead of ignominy, it is the rape
itself that aggravates the crime.
With respect to the deaths of Daisy Gonzales and Yolanda Argue,
the appellants are clearly liable therefor since, as held by this Court
in People v. Mangulabnan, it is immaterial that the death of a
person supervened by mere accident, provided that the
homicide is produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
People v. Pulusan
13 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that the
Third. Lack of su cient provocation on the part of the
accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery
person defending himself.
indiscriminately. There is no such proof in this case. The trial
court thus correctly found Pulusan and Rodriguez guilty of the
crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape under
Article 294(1).
We must state that regardless of the number of homicides
committed on the occasion of a robbery, the crime is still robbery
with homicide. In this special complex crime, the number of
persons killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty
prescribed in Art. 294. There is NO crime of robbery with
multiple homicide. Moreover, whenever the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide is proven to have been committed, all
those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals
therein although they did not actually take part in the
homicide.
2 Circumstances a ecting criminal liability
a Justifying circumstances
Self-defense
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression. ⭐
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
Reviewer
1) There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life,
limb or right is either actual or imminent.
2) A slap on the face is unlawful aggression.
3) A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount to an
unlawful aggression.
4) The killing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous
with the attack made by the former, or at least both acts
succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time. The
accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation
and cool thinking.
5) A public o cer exceeding his authority may become an
unlawful aggressor.
6) When the aggressor ees, unlawful aggression no longer exists.
However, if the purpose of the retreat was for the aggressor to
take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the
attack already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is
considered still continuing, and the one making a defense has
a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him.
7) No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to ght. The
challenge to ght must be accepted. However, if the
aggression occurred ahead of the agreed time and place of the
ght, it is unlawful.
8) A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by
an outward and material aggression, is not unlawful
aggression, because it is required that the act be offensive and
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor
to cause injury.
9) The person defending himself cannot be expected to think
clearly so as to control his blow.
10) The measure of rational necessity is to be found in the
situation as it appeared to the person defending at the time
when the blow was struck.
11) Whether the means employed is reasonable, will depend upon
a) The nature and quality of the weapon used by the
aggressor; What the law requires is rational equivalence.
b) His physical condition, character, size and other
circumstances, and those of the person defending himself;
c) And also the place and occasion of the assault.
12) If the provocation by the person defending himself is not
proximate and immediate to the aggression, there is
self-defense.
People v. Antonio
As testi ed by accused-appellant himself, the deceased who was at
that time very drunk tried to hit him but missed and fell on
the ground. At that point, unlawful aggression ceased and it
was no longer necessary for him to stab the deceased. It was
accused-appellant, therefore, who became the aggressor when he,
despite the condition of the deceased, proceeded to stab the latter at
the back. His act can no longer be interpreted as an act of
self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill. Hence, he cannot
successfully claim the bene t of self-defense.
14 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
People v. Rubiso
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. It contemplates an actual,
sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person
defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical
force or with actual use of weapon.
It is axiomatic that the mere thrusting of one’s hand into his
pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a weapon is NOT
unlawful aggression. Even the cocking of a ri e without aiming
the rearm at any particular target is NOT su cient to conclude
that one’s life was in imminent danger.
The location and presence of gunshot wounds on the body of the
victim eloquently refute appellant’s allegation of self-defense. It is
an oft repeated rule that the presence of a large number of
wounds, their location and their seriousness would negate
self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined e ort to kill.
People v. Lansang
The justifying circumstance of defense of a relative can only be
raised where there is a concurrence of the requisites of unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the
aggression and that the person making the defense had no part
in the provocation.
Defense of relatives
Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
Reviewer
or sisters, or his relatives by a nity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the
rst and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked,
the one making the defense had no part therein.
13) Relatives that can be defended: (SADS4C)
a) Spouse;
b) Ascendants;
c) Descendants;
d) Legitimate, natural or adopted Siblings, or relatives by
a nity in the same degrees;
e) Relatives by Consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
(4C)
14) The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is
immaterial.
⭐Carungcong v. People 2010
Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause in the crimes of
theft, estafa and malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
the o ender to civil liability and frees him from criminal liability by
virtue of his relationship to the o ended party.
The continuing affinity view maintains that the relationship by
a nity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the
deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased
spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced children or
not. This is more consistent with the language and spirit of Article
332(1) of the RPC. The fundamental principle in applying and in
interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the
accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused.
Defense of strangers
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
provided that the rst and second requisites mentioned in the rst
circumstance of this Article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it;
3. Accused must not be induced by revenge, resentment
or other evil motive.
15) Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives that
can be defended is considered a stranger.
15 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Fulfillment of duty
Any person who acts in the ful llment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or o ce.
Requisites:
1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty OR in
the lawful exercise of a right or o ce;
2. The injury caused or the o ense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of
duty or the lawful exercise of such right or o ce.
Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan
Self-defense and ful llment of duty operate on di erent principles.
Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from
mortal harm, while ful llment of duty is premised on the due
performance of duty.
A policeman in the performance of duty is justi ed in using such
force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the
o ender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture
him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm.
Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in
performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is
NOT a requisite.
Fulfillment of Duty was Complete, Killing was Justified
In this case, Valino was committing an o ense in the presence of the
policemen when Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado
and jumped from the jeep to escape. The policemen would have
been justi ed in shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely
Reviewer
necessary to prevent his escape. The policemen had the duty not
only to recapture Valino but also to recover the loose rearm.
The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all
times and at all cost, to the detriment of the life of law enforcers.
The directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation
where several options are still available to the law enforcers. In
exceptional circumstances such as this case, where the threat to the
life of a law enforcer is already imminent, and there is no other
option but to use force to subdue the o ender, the law enforcer's
failure to issue a warning is excusable.
Avoidance of a greater evil
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it.
16) The greater evil should not be brought about by the
negligence or imprudence of the actor; nor must it result from
a violation of law.
17) Only criminal liability is excused, not civil liability.
Obedience to a lawful order
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior
for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
1. That an order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful.
18) The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order
of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order
and he is not negligent.
Balunueco v. CA
In the case at bar, Ricardo utterly failed to adduce su cient proof of
the existence of a positively strong act of real aggression on the part
of the deceased Senando.
First, the fact that three (3) of the assailants su ered non-fatal
injuries bolsters the fact that Senando tried vainly to ward o the
assaults of his assailants. Second, Ricardo failed to present himself
to the authorities. The natural impulse of any person who has killed
someone in defense of his person or relative is to bring himself to the
authorities and try to dispel any suspicion of guilt that the
authorities might have against him. Third, petitioner had a rather
erratic recollection of people and events.
Manaban v. CA
In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. First, Bautista was shot at the back as evidenced by the point
of entry of the bullet. Second, when Bautista was shot, his gun was
still inside a locked holster and tucked in his right waist. Third,
when Bautista turned his back at Manaban, Manaban was already
pointing his service rearm at Bautista.
16 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a
real threat to his life and the peril sought to be avoided is
imminent and actual, not imaginary.
Masipequiña v. CA
The rule is that the reasonable necessity of the means employed
to repel or prevent the attack depends upon the imminent
danger of injury, NOT on the harm actually done to the
accused.
Thus, that Masipequiña escaped serious injuries does not necessarily
imply that the means he used to repel the attack were unreasonable
and excessive.
b Exempting circumstances
the following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval.
2. A person under 15 years of age.
3. A person over 15 years of age and under 18, unless he
has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall
be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80 of this Code.
Reviewer
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible
force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,
when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
Imbecility or Insanity
1) An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children 2-7 years of age.
2) To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation
of intelligence or that there be total deprivation of the
freedom of the will. During the lucid interval, the insane
acts with intelligence.
3) Thus, epilepsy, somnambulism, and malignant malaria are
valid defenses. Feeblemindedness and pedophilia, on the
other hand, are NOT.
People v. Rafanan on insanity
In order that the exempting circumstance of INSANITY may be
taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is,
1. that the accused be deprived of reason;
2. that there be no responsibility for his own acts;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
3. that he acts without the least discernment;
4. that there be a complete absence of the power to discern, or
that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.
Where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of
intelligence, the Court has recognized at most a mitigating, not an
exempting, circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the RPC.
In previous cases where schizophrenia was interposed as an
exempting circumstance, it has mostly been rejected by the Court.
In each of these cases, the evidence presented tended to show that if
there was impairment of the mental faculties, such impairment was
not so complete as to deprive the accused of intelligence or the
consciousness of his acts. Accordingly, we must reject the insanity
defense of Rafanan.
Minority
RA 9344 as amended by RA 10360
4) A child above 15, but below 18, must have acted without
discernment to be exempt.
5) Periods of criminal responsibility
a) Absolute irresponsibility 15 years and below;
b) Conditional responsibility 15 years and 1 day - 18 years;
c) Full responsibility 18 years - 70 years;
d) Mitigated responsibility 15 years and 1 day to 18 years,
with discernment; over 70 years or senility.
6) A child in conflict with the law (CCL) is one who at the
time of the commission of the o ense is below 18 years old but
not less than 15 years and 1 day old.
17 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
7) Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of
the commission of the o ense to understand the di erences
between right and wrong and the consequences of the
wrongful act.
8) Intent refers to the desired act of the person while
discernment relates to the moral signi cance that a person
ascribes to the said act.
Accident
9) An accident is something that happens outside the sway of
our will, and although it comes about through some act of our
will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.
10) It is intrinsically contradictory to negligence.
11) The following requisites must concur:
a) that the accused was performing a lawful act with due
care;
b) that the injury is caused by mere accident; and
c) that there was no fault or intent on his part to cause the
injury.
Irresistible force
12) The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere Civil
Liability complete
instrument who acts not only without will but against his
will.
Uncontrollable fear
Self-defense
13) This presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime
by another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation
✘ M
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
or threat, not force or violence. If force or violence is to prevent or repel it;
employed, the applicable defense is irresistible force. 3. Lack of su cient provocation on the part of
14) Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, the person defending himself;
or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should NOT be
Defense of relatives
speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
15) The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no 1. Unlawful aggression;
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
combat. to prevent or repel it;
✘ M
3. In case the provocation was given by the
Insuperable cause person attacked, the one making a defense had
16) Confessant reveals to a priest of his plan to rebel against the no part therein.
government. Under Art 116, it is required that anyone who
Defense of strangers
knows of such conspiracy must report the same. However,
due to penitent-priest privileged communication, the priest 1. Unlawful aggression;
can not be compelled to report such information. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
a) The act of reporting is required under law; ✘ M to prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by
b) The priest fails to do so;
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
c) His failure was due to a lawful cause, privileged
Avoidance of greater evil or State of necessity
communication between him and a penitent.
Resume of Justifying and Exempting Circumstances 1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. The injury feared be greater than that done to
M = Mitigating
✔ M avoid it;
If not 3. There be no other practical and less harmful
Requisites
means of preventing it.
Justifying Fulfillment of duty
1. The accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of such right or
1. Unlawful aggression; ✘ M
o ce;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed 2. The injury caused or the o ense committed be
By RGL 18 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

the necessary consequence of the due Compulsion of an irresistible force

2. Mitigating responsibility. That the o ender is under
performance of duty or lawful exercise of such
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force; eighteen year of age or over seventy years.
right or o ce.
✔ ✘ 2. Such force must be irresistible; 3. Praeter intentionem. That the o ender had no
Obedience to a lawful order 3. Such force must come from a third person.
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
1. An order has been issued by a superior; Impulse of an uncontrollable fear 4. Provocation. That su cient provocation or threat on the
2. Such order must be for a lawful purpose; part of the o ended party immediately preceded the act.
✘ M 1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil
3. The means used by the subordinate to carry
out said order is lawful.
greater than or at least equal to, that which he 5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense. That the
is required to commit; act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
Exempting a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; o ense to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
b) the fear must be real and imminent; ascendants, or relatives by a nity within the same degrees.
✔ M
Imbecility or insanity c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at
6. Passion or obfuscation. That of having acted upon an
least equal to that done.
1. Imbecile is exempt in ALL cases; impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and
✔ M 2. Insane is only exempt if he acted not imminence that the ordinary man would have
or obfuscation.
during a lucid interval. succumbed to it. 7. Voluntary surrender. That the o ender had voluntarily
Minority surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents,
Insuperable cause
or
1. If 15 and below, absolutely exempt; 1. An act is required by law to be done; Plea of guilty. That he had voluntarily confessed his
2. If above 15 but below 18, conditionally 2. A person fails to perform such act;
✘ ✘ guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
✔ M exempt. 3. His failure to perform such act was due to evidence for the prosecution.
3. Exemption applies only if it can be shown that some lawful or insuperable cause.
the minor acted without discernment. 8. Deaf and Dumb, Blind. That the o ender is deaf and
dumb, blind or otherwise su ering some physical defect
Accident
c Mitigating circumstances which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
1. A person is performing a lawful act; communications with his fellow beings.
2. With due care; 9. Illness. Such illness of the o ender as would diminish the
1. Incomplete Defense. Those mentioned in the preceding
✘ M 3. He causes an accident to another by mere
chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exercise of the will-power of the o ender without however
accident; depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
attendant.

By RGL 19 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Incomplete defense 9) It must be immediate to the commission of the crime such

10. Analogous. And, nally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Privileged and ordinary
1) Ordinary or Generic mitigating are those enumerated in
Art 13. For incomplete defense however, in Subsection 1, it
becomes privileged when majority of the requisites are present.
(Art 69)
a) It is susceptible to being o set by any aggravating
circumstance.
b) If not o set, produces only the e ect of applying the
penalty provided by law in its minimum period, in case
of divisible penalty.
2) Privileged mitigating are those that cannot be o set by any
aggravating circumstance. It has the e ect of imposing upon
the o ender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than
that provided by law.
a) Art 68. When the o ender is a minor and his case falls
under the JJWA, particularly those above 15 but below 18,
and acts WITH discernment.
b) Art 69. Not all, but a majority of the requisites of
justifying or exempting circumstances are present.
c) Art 64(5). When there are 2 or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating.
d) Art 268(3). Voluntary release of person illegally detained
within 3 days;
e) Art 333(3). Abandonment without justi cation of the
spouse who committed adultery.
that the accused had no time to regain his reason and to
3) When all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt
exercise self-control.
from criminal liability are not attendant.
10) It should not be o ensive and positively strong as it may then
4) The only instance it becomes privileged mitigating is when a
be considered as an unlawful aggression that may give rise to
majority of the requisites in self-defense, defense of relatives or
self-defense.
strangers is present.
Immediate vindication of a grave offense
Praeter intentionem
11) A lapse of time is allowed between the grave o ense and the
5) It is the intention of the o ender at the moment when he is
vindication.
committing the crime which is considered.
12) Whether the personal o ense is grave must be decided
People v. Enriquez considering the social standing of the person, the place, the
time when the insult was made.
The trial court gave all of the accused the bene t of the mitigating
circumstance that the o enders had no intention to commit so 13) It is incompatible with passion or obfuscation. They cannot
co-exist, except when there are other facts, although closely
grave a wrong. The estimation of this circumstance was
connected. In other words, the cause for each arose from
proper, and its allowance was not inconsistent with the
di erent sets of facts.
nding that the crime was murder.
Provocation Vindication
Provocation
6) Any unjust or improper conduct or act by the o ended party, Also against o ender’s
Made towards o ender
capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. relatives
7) As to whether a provocation is sufficient depends upon the
Offender must An o ense need not
act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the A grave o ense
have done be grave
person provoked, the place and time when the provocation is
made. Immediately
Time lapse Proximate
8) As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the preceded the act
part of the person defending himself; whereas as a mitigating
Passion or obfuscation
circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the
o ended party. 14) Mitigating only when the same arose from lawful sentiments,
and NOT in a spirit of lawlessness or revenge.

By RGL 20 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

15) The crime committed by the accused must be provoked by Irresistible Force Passion or Obfuscation Voluntary Surrender
prior unjust or improper acts of the injured party.
Kind Exempting Mitigating 22) The following elements must be present for voluntary
16) Exercise of a right or ful llment of duty is NOT a proper surrender to be appreciated:
source of passion or obfuscation. Force Physical Not physical
a) the o ender has not been actually arrested;
17) It must be proven that the act which produced passion or Source 3rd person O ender himself b) the o ender surrendered himself to a person in
obfuscation took place at a time not far removed from the
authority, and,
commission of the crime. Arise from lawful
Lawful? NO
sentiments c) the surrender must be voluntary, spontaneous.
18) The crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse
of natural and uncontrollable fury.
Lumauig v. People 2014
19) It may be built up and strengthen over time until it can no Romera v. People
longer be repressed and will ultimately motivate the In sentencing petitioner, the Sandiganbayan correctly considered
commission of the crime. (People v. Oloverio 2015) Thrusting his bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. However, it
hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in our view, su cient failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of return or full
20) Considered as ONE mitigating circumstance with
provocation to enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his restitution of the funds that were previously unliquidated.
provocation if both arose from one and the same cause.
thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and children are in
21) INCOMPATIBLE with the following: danger. Petitioner stabbed the victim as a result of those
a. Praeter intentionem; provocations, and while petitioner was still in a t of rage. In our People v. Basite
view, there was su cient provocation and the circumstance of
b. Treachery; A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the
passion or obfuscation attended the commission of the
c. Evident premeditation; o ense. intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either because
But, we must stress that provocation and passion or obfuscation
Provocation Passion or Obfuscation 1. he acknowledges his guilt, or
are not two separate mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the
Source O ended party Caused by provocation rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they 2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily
should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance. incurred in his search and capture.
Time Immediately preceded
Need not be immediate Nonetheless, since the mitigating circumstance of voluntary If none of these two (2) reasons impelled the accused to surrender,
lapse the act
surrender is also present, Article 64 (5) of the RPC should be because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention
Effect Loss of reason and self-control of o ender applied. The penalty for frustrated homicide, pursuant to Article 50 to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not
of the RPC, is the penalty next lower in degree than that spontaneous. Here, accused-appellant willingly went to the police
prescribed by law for consummated homicide. authorities with Gilbert Sacla only to escape the wrath of private

By RGL 21 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

complainant's relatives who were pursuing him and who appeared Analogous circumstances Shall only serve to mitigate the liability of the principals,
to be thirsting for his blood. accomplices, and accessories to whom such circumstances are
a. Over 60 years with failing sight, similar to senility;
attendant. (Art 62[3])
b. Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom similar
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating
Manaban v. CA to vindication;
1. Aberratio ictus;
c. Esprit de corps or mass psychology is similar to passion or
Voluntary Surrender and Obfuscation
obfuscation; 2. Mistake in the identity;
Manaban called the police to report the shooting incident. When
d. Voluntary restitution of property similar to voluntary 3. Entrapment;
the police arrived, Manaban surrendered his service rearm and
surrender; 4. Age of criminal responsibility;
voluntarily went with the police to the police station for
investigation. Thus, Manaban is entitled to the bene t of the e. Extreme poverty similar to incomplete justi cation based on 5. Performance of righteous action.
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. state of necessity;
f. Testifying for the prosecution similar to plea of guilty; Review of Mitigating Circumstances
On obfuscation, we nd that the facts of the case do not entitle
Manaban to such mitigating circumstance. Manaban admitted Circumstance Requisites
shooting Bautista because Bautista turned around and was allegedly People v. Tampus and Montesclaros
Not all requisites necessary to justify the act or to
about to draw his gun to shoot Manaban. The act of Bautista in
We agree with both the trial and appellate courts in their Incomplete exempt from criminal liability are attendant.
turning around is not unlawful and sufficient cause for Manaban to
appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of illness as would defense If majority of the requisites are present, privileged,
lose his reason and shoot Bautista. The defense failed to establish
diminish the exercise of willpower of Ida without depriving her of otherwise, ordinary.
by clear and convincing evidence the cause that allegedly
the consciousness of her acts, pursuant to Article 13(9).
produced obfuscation. Minor
Dr. Costas testi ed that Ida was provisionally treated for Above 15 but below 18 years old.
(Privileged)
Plea of guilty schizophrenia a few months before the incident. Ida was not
totally deprived of intelligence at the time of the incident; but, she Senility O ender is over 70 years old
23) Not mitigating if made on appeal.
may have poor judgment. There is a notable and evident disproportion
24) Plea of guilty to lesser o ense than that charged is not Praeter
mitigating. However, if the information is amended to between the means employed to execute the criminal
Mitigating circumstances which are personal to o enders intentionem
change the charge to a lesser o ense and the accused pleads act and its consequences.
Mitigating circumstances which arise
guilty thereto, it is mitigating. 1. Must be sufficient;
1) From the moral attributes of the o ender; or
25) The plea of guilty must be unconditional. 2. Must originate from offended party; and
Provocation
2) From his private relations with the o ended party; or 3. Must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the
26) NOT mitigating in culpable felonies and in crimes under
3) From any other personal cause, commission of the crime by the person who is
SPLs.

By RGL 22 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
provoked.
1. There be a grave offense done to the one
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
Illness
Immediate descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
vindication brothers or sisters, or relatives by a nity within
of a grave the same degrees;
Analogous
offense 2. The felony is committed in vindication of such
grave o ense. A lapse of time is allowed between
the vindication and doing of the grave o ense.
d Aggravating circumstances
1. There be an act, both unlawful and sufficient, to
produce such a condition of mind; and
2. Said act which produced the obfuscation was
Passion or
not far removed from the commission of the
obfuscation
crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.
1. O ender had not been actually arrested.
Voluntary 2. He surrendered himself to a person in authority
surrender or to the latter's agent;
3. The surrender was voluntary.
1. O ender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. Such was made in open court, before the
Plea of
competent court that is to try the case; and
guilty
3. Such was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution.
1. The o ender is deaf and dumb, blind or
Deaf and
otherwise su ering some physical defect
Dumb,
2. Which thus restricts his means of action,
Blind
defense, or communications with his fellow
Reviewer
beings.
1. The illness of o ender must diminish the
exercise of his will-power;
2. Such illness should not deprive the o ender of
consciousness of his acts.
Similar to any of the mitigating circumstances.
1. That advantage be taken by the o ender of his public
position. (Abuse of public position)
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to
the public authorities. (Contempt of or insult to public
authorities)
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the o ended party on account of his rank, age,
or sex, (Insult to offended party)
or that is committed in the dwelling of the o ended party, if
the latter has not given provocation. (Dwelling)
4. That the act be committed with abuse of con dence or
obvious ungratefulness. (Abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness)
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship. (Palace of Chief
Executive)
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the o ense.
(Nighttime, Uninhabited place,)
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission of an o ense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band. (Band)
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
con agration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune. (Calamity)
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or
persons who insure or a ord impunity. (Aid of armed
men)
9. That the accused is a recidivist. (Recidivist)
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by nal judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the o ender has been previously punished by an
o ense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty. (Reiteracion)
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
reward, or promise. (Price, reward, or promise)
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, re,
poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international
damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of
any other arti ce involving great waste and ruin. (Great
waste and ruin)
23 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
(Evident premeditation)
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. (Craft,
fraud, or disguise)
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
employed to weaken the defense. (Abuse of superior
strength)
16. That the act be committed with treachery. (Alevosia)
There is treachery when the o ender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the o ended party might
make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural e ects of the act.
(Ignominy)
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
(Unlawful entry)
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is e ected by a
way not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof,
oor, door, or window be broken. (Breaking wall, roof,
floor, door, or window)
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
fteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (aab
RA 5438). (Aid of person under 15, Motor vehicle)
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be As to 1st offense, Been adjudged with
Served out the sentence
deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not offender shall have nality
necessary for its commission. (Cruelty)
Previous and Included in SAME Must NOT be
subsequent offenses title embraced in same title
Kinds
1. Generic — Those that can be applied to all crimes. Always aggravating ✔ ✘
2. Specific — Applies only to particular crimes.
Treachery or alevosia
3. Qualifying — Changes the nature of the crime. 1) The settled rule is that treachery can exist even if the attack is
4. Inherent — Must accompany the commission of the crime. frontal, as long as the attack is sudden and unexpected, giving
the victim no opportunity to repel it or to defend himself.
People v. Nabaluna 2) What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the
slightest provocation from an unarmed victim, made it
The element of treachery cannot simply be presumed. It must be
impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.
clearly proven as the crime itself.
3) There is treachery when the o ender commits any of the
The mere fact that two of the accused, with one of them being
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms
armed with a bolo, does not necessarily constitute abuse of
in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to
superior strength on their part. To take advantage of superior ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
strength, it is imperative that there be a showing of purposely defense that the o ended party might make.
using excessive force which is out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the person attacked. 4) There are two (2) conditions that must concur for treachery to
exist, to wit:
Lastly, disregard of old age should not be taken into account for,
a) the employment of means of execution gave the
as stated in the case of People v. Pagal, it is not proper to consider
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself
this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property.
or to retaliate; and
Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and
b) the means or method of execution was deliberately
not against persons.
and consciously adopted.
Recidivism vs Reiteracion
5) The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and
Recidivism Reiteracion without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner,
By RGL 24 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
a ording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or escape.
People v. Bermudo 2018
Gilberto was completely defenseless at the time of the attack because
he was surprised by Rommel with a blow to the head causing him to
fall to the ground. Rommel and co-accused continued to attack him
causing him multiple injuries, including the fatal ones. Gilberto was
never in a position to defend himself. Further, Rommel and his
co-accused consciously adopted the means of attack because, as
noted by the CA, they were already armed when they proceeded to
the crime scene. In addition, it is noteworthy that Rommel
suddenly, without warning or provocation, attacked Gilberto from
behind.
People v. Bagabay 2018 Caguioa, J
It is not enough that the attack was "sudden," "unexpected," and
"without any warning or provocation." There must also be a
showing that the o ender consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the
execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such
execution, without risk to himself.
People v. Jaurigue 2019
There can be no treachery when the victim was "forewarned of the
danger he was in," "put on guard," or otherwise "could anticipate
aggression from the assailant" as when "the assault is preceded by a
heated exchange of words between the accused and the victim; or
Reviewer
when the victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the
former."
People v. Angeles 2019
Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was
forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate.
Evident premeditation
To prove this aggravating circumstance, the prosecution must show the
following:
1) the time when the o ender determined to commit the
crime;
2) an act manifestly indicating that the o ender clung to his
determination; and
3) a lapse of time, between the determination to commit the
crime and the execution thereof, su cient to allow the
o ender to re ect upon the consequences of his act.
Mari v. CA
The mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se an
aggravating circumstance. There was no nding that the evidence
proved that the accused in fact deliberately intended to o end or
insult the sex of the victim, or showed manifest disrespect to the
o ended woman or displayed some speci c insult or disrespect to
her womanhood. There was no proof of speci c fact or
circumstance, other than the victim is a woman, showing insult or
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as aggravating
circumstance.
Nighttime or nocturnidad
a) particularly sought or darkness is taken advantage to commit
the o ense, or
b) facilitated the commission of the crime.
Nighttime cannot be considered if it is shown that the place was
adequately lighted.
Abuse of superior strength
People v. Maron 2019
Employment of means to weaken the defense is, at the very least,
subsumed under the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength.
In determining whether the qualifying circumstance of employing
means to weaken the defense is present, the Court shall be guided by
the same standard in determining the presence of abuse of superior
strength, i.e., "notorious inequality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the
aggressor's and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate
the commission of the crime.”
People v. Pagapulaan 2019
To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked.
25 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Unlike in treachery, where the victim was not given the opportunity
to defend himself or repel the aggression, taking advantage of
superior strength does not mean that the victim was
completely defenseless.
People v. Enojo 2019
It has been consistently held that an attack made by a man with a
deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his
sex and the weapon used in the act a orded him, and from which
the woman was unable to defend herself.
People v. Arizobal re Dwelling, Treachery, Band, Nighttime
The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating
circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the
crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim,
such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place.
However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit
the heinous crime without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's
domicile.
But treachery was incorrectly considered by the trial court. The
accused stand charged with, tried and convicted of robbery with
homicide which is primarily classi ed as a crime against property.
As such, treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance.
While it appears that at least ve (5) malefactors took part in the
commission of the crime, the evidence on record does not disclose
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
that "more than three" persons were armed, and robbery in "band" appellant from her dwelling house (kitchen) and then raped her.
means "more than three armed malefactors united in the Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his
commission of robbery." house although the o ense was not completed therein.
Nighttime did not attend the commission of the crime. The fact
that the o ense was committed at 9:30 in the evening does not
People v. Matibag 2015
su ce to sustain nocturnidad. It must be shown that nocturnidad
was deliberately and intentionally sought. The special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
rearm, which was duly alleged in the Information, should be
appreciated in the imposition of penalty. When Matibag killed
People v. Nasayao re Treachery Duhan with his rearm, the use thereof was unauthorized under the
purview of RA 8294 and is equally appreciated as a special
The victim, while squatting on top of a bench and eating his meal
aggravating circumstance. As a result, the imposition of the
with a plate in one hand, was certainly in no position to defend
maximum penalty of death, which is reduced to reclusion perpetua
himself or to retaliate. Accused may have forewarned Joves about
in light of RA 9346, stands proper. To this, the Court adds that
what he was about to do by telling him to nish his meal.
Matibag is not eligible for parole.
Nevertheless, accused did not wait for Joves to nish. He did not
give Joves the opportunity to stand up. Joves not only failed to reply
to accused’s order for him to nish his meal, but also failed to make
any instinctive reaction to the perceived threat posed by the accused People v. Perreras re Dwelling
who was holding two knives. From all indications, the attack on
Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in
Joves was sudden and unexpected.
the dwelling of the o ended party if the latter has not given
provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house. Although
accused was outside of the house when he red, the victim was
People v. de la Torre re Dwelling inside his house. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered,
In People v. Parazo, the “dwelling” contemplated in Article 14(3) it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the
dwelling of the victim to commit the o ense; it is enough that the
of the RPC does not necessarily mean that the victim owns the
victim was attacked inside his own house.
place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a
bedspacer, the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law
seeks to protect. The fact that the crime was consummated in the
People v. Taño
nearby house is also immaterial. Marita was forcibly taken by
By RGL 26 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

The Court nds that dwelling cannot be appreciated as an Insult or disregard of offended party
However, the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and craft
aggravating circumstance. The building where the two o enses were
should not have been considered by the lower court. There was a) Deliberate intent to o end or insult
committed was not entirely for dwelling purposes. The evidence
no showing that the appellants purposely sought the cover of night (sine qua non)
shows that it consisted of two oors: the ground oor, which was
when they committed the special complex crime of robbery with
being operated as a video rental shop, and the upper oor, which Rank: there should be a di erence in
homicide. Neither did the appellants employ craft, since they had Disregard of sex
was used as a residence. It was in the video rental shop where the the social condition of the o ender and
already boarded the vessel when they pretended to buy Tanduay absorbed in treachery;
rape was committed. True, the victim was dragged to the kitchen o ended;
Rum in exchange for the dried sh and chicken they were carrying.
and toilet but these two sections were adjacent to and formed parts Age: there is a considerable gap;
Even without such pretense, they could nonetheless have carried out
of the store. Being a commercial shop that caters to the public,
their unlawful scheme. Sex: Female.
the video rental outlet was open to the public. As such, it is not
attributed the sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence accords to Review of Aggravating Circumstances Dwelling
residential abodes.
Requisites Notes it is enough that the
a) o ended party must not give
Abuse of public position victim was attacked inside
provocation (sine qua non)
People v. Aspili his own house
Inherent in Malversation
We nd no merit in the appellants' contention that the lower court (217); Falsi cation of Abuse of confidence
erred in considering recidivism as an aggravating circumstance. All a) Done by a public o cer; document by public
➔ Betrayal of
the appellants are recidivists. They were serving sentence by virtue b) Took advantage of position o cers(171); Art 19 par
a) o ended party had trusted the con dence NOT
of a nal judgment of conviction when they committed the o enses. 3; Crimes by public
o ender; aggravating
Aspili, Magbanua, Mendoza and Rebutido have previously been o cers (204-245)
convicted of the crimes of frustrated homicide, serious physical b) o ender abused such trust by ➔ Con dence must be
Contempt or insult to the public authorities committing a crime against the immediate and
injuries, theft, and murder and trespass to dwelling, respectively.
Both Sales and Aguirre have previously been convicted of robbery in o ended party; personal
a) public authority is engaged in the
band. exercise of his functions; c) abuse of con dence facilitated the ➔ Stealing the property
We likewise uphold the trial court's nding that the crime was commission of the crime of host is with abuse
b) authority is not the person against
aggravated because it was committed by a band. All the six of con dence
whom the crime is committed; Becomes Direct Assault
appellants were armed when they boarded the vessel and perpetrated if done against authority
c) o ender knows him to be a public Obvious ungratefulness
their dastardly acts. There is also abuse of superior strength,
authority;
since most of the victims were women and children ranging from 2
to 9 years old. d) presence has not prevented the ungratefulness must be obvious, i.e. manifest and clear.
commission of the crime.

By RGL 27 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Palace of the Chief Executive
a) Public authority must be in their
o ce while performing his duty;
b) He may be the o ended party
Nocturnidad or Nighttime
a) crime occurred in that period of
darkness beginning at end of dusk
and ending at dawn;
b) place must not be illuminated;
c) crime must begin and be
accomplished in the nighttime;
In an uninhabited place
a) The place provides no reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving
some help;
b) accused sought the solitude for an
easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of the crime, and
to insure concealment of o ense;
By a band
a) at least four;
b) all four are armed;
c) all shall have acted together, taking
direct part in the execution of the
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
act; Ordinance/SPL
Chief Executive: Need ➔ Controlling is time of TRIAL, not the commission of
COMMON ELEMENTS FOR PAR 6
not be in the palace; His crime;
mere presence aggravates; a) facilitated the commission of the crime; OR
➔ The commission of crime and rendering of judgment must
He need not perform his b) especially sought by the o ender to insure the commission be successive: e.g.
duties; of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; OR
Crime 1 → Judgment 1 → Crime 2 → Judgment 2
c) o ender took advantage for the purpose of impunity;
Reiteracion or habituality
Two alternative tests for
Calamity or misfortune a) Accused on trial for an o ense; ➔ If o ender has not
nocturnity:
b) previously served sentence for been previously
a) Objective: Calamity includes punished or served
a) O ender must take advantage of another o ense of an equal or
facilitates crime; con agration, shipwreck, sentence, reiteracion
calamity; greater penalty, or for two or more
b) Subjective: earthquake, epidemic is NOT attendant;
crimes of a lighter penalty than that
purposely sought for the new o ense; ➔ Reiteracion NOT
Aid of armed men
c) be convicted of the new o ense. ALWAYS aggravating
a) armed persons took part in the
commission of the crime either Not considered when
Consideration of price, reward or promise
"For the purpose of directly or indirectly; both parties are
impunity" means to EQUALLY armed; a) there must be at least two (2) If not alleged to qualify
b) accused availed himself of their aid,
prevent o ender's Not considered if principals, one by inducement and the crime to murder,
or relied upon them during the
recognition, or secure conspiracy is present the other/s by direct participation; GENERIC only
commission of the crime
himself from detection
Great waste and ruin
and punishment. Recidivist
When the crime committed is parricide,
a) O ender is on trial for an o ense;
there is only GENERIC aggravating
b) previously convicted by nal judgment of another crime; Means are purposely used
Explosion
c) both o enses embraced in same title of Code; to accomplish a criminal
One of the four should
If there is intent to kill, using explosion, purpose.
not be a principal by d) o ender be convicted of new o ense
crime is MURDER
inducement.
➔ Also applies if both o enses violate the same
By RGL 28 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Derailment of Locomotive
If person dies as a result without intent,
COMPLEX CRIME of damage to
means of communication with
homicide (Arts 330 and 249 in rel to Art
4 and 48);
Evident Premeditation
a) time when o ender determined to
commit crime;
b) act indicating culprit clung to this
determination;
c) su cient lapse of time between
determination and execution,
allowing REFLECTION and
COOL THOUGHT
Craft
involves intellectual trickery and
cunning
Fraud
involves insidious words or
machinations used to induce the victim
in a manner which would enable the
o ender to carry out his criminal design.
Disguise
involves resorting to any device to conceal identity
After o ender had
determined to commit
the crime, 2nd req. exists.
Act done in order not to
arouse suspicion of the
victim;
Di ers from Craft in that
Fraud involves direct
inducement by insidious
words
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
Abuse of superior strength O ender need not enter the building for FORCIBLE ENTRY to be
aggravating.
a) There should be notorious
inequality of forces between the two Aid of person under 15 and Means of motor vehicle
parties; Incompatible with
Passion or obfuscation 1. Two di erent aggravating: aid of minors under 15, means of
b) O ender takes advantage of this motor vehicle;
inequality.
2. Estafa cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle
Alevosia or Treachery
Cruelty
a) At the time of the attack, victim was
a) Injury caused be deliberately
not in a position to defend himself a) Applies to crimes
increased by causing other wrong; The culprit enjoys and
or retaliate; AND against persons; delights in making his
b) Other wrong is unnecessary in victim su er.
b) o ender consciously adopted the b) mode of attack
accomplishing the crime;
particular means, methods, or consciously adopted.
forms.
Ignominy e Alternative circumstances
A circumstance
Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into
pertaining to the moral
must tend to make the e ects of the consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
order, which adds
crime more humiliating, putting the and e ects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
disgrace and obloquy to
victim to shame; commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree
the material injury caused
by the crime. of instruction and education of the o ender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
Unlawful Entry
consideration when the o ended party is the spouse, ascendant,
There is an unlawful entry when an descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
entrance is e ected by a way not NOT for escape relative by a nity in the same degrees of the o ender.
intended for the purpose.
The intoxication of the o ender shall be taken into consideration
Breaking wall, roof, oor, door, or window as a mitigating circumstances when the o ender has committed a
felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or
By RGL 29 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

247. If death or serious injuries result, there is mitigated

subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the of the rape should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
liability, as “extenuating circumstance”)
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an Accused did not present any evidence that his intoxication was not
aggravating circumstance. habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the rape. 5) Persons not criminally liable for theft, estafa or malicious
mischief by reason of relationship to the o ended
party. (Art. 332)
People v. Orilla re relationship People v. Dawaton
Entrapment Instigation
The Amended Information did not allege Remilyn’s minor age. The trial court erred in not appreciating the alternative
The prosecution’s failure to allege speci cally Remilyn’s circumstance of intoxication in favor of the accused. There law o cers employ ruses and
minor age prevents the transformation of the crime to its being no indication that the accused was a habitual drunkard or that schemes to ensure the
the accused is induced to commit
quali ed form. his alcoholic intake was intended to fortify his resolve to commit the apprehension of the criminal
the crime.
crime, the circumstance of intoxication should be credited in his while in the actual commission
Based on a strict interpretation, alternative circumstances are thus
favor. of the crime.
not aggravating circumstances per se. Jurisprudence considers
relationship as an aggravating circumstance in crimes against the law o cer conceives the
chastity. However, rape is no longer a crime against chastity for commission of the crime and
it is now classi ed as a crime against persons. f Absolutory causes the mens rea originates from the
suggests to the accused who
mind of the criminal
Are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of adopts the idea and carries it into
public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. execution
People v. lack of instruction generally mitigating
Bondoc except in Crimes against property and chastity A circumstance which is present prior to or simultaneously with does NOT exempt the criminal
considered an absolutory cause.
the o ense by reason of which the accused who acts with criminal from liability.
A close examination of the record is indicative of the lack of intent, freedom and intelligence does not incur a criminal liability
instruction of the o ender. There is more than su cient for an act which constitutes a crime.
justi cation for the nding of the mitigating circumstance of the People v. Casio 2014
1) Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies (Art. 6);
above character that would lessen the rigor of the Anti-Subversion
law. 2) Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16); Accused was predisposed to commit the o ense because she
initiated the transaction. As testi ed by PO1 Veloso and PO1
3) Accessories exempt from criminal liability by reason of
relationship (Art. 20); Luardo, accused called out their attention by saying “Chicks mo
People v. Fontillas 2010 re intoxication dong?”
4) A legal spouse or parent who in icts slight or less serious
The Court of Appeals correctly rejected the accused-appellant's physical injuries under exceptional circumstances; (Art. With regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is
assertion that his extreme intoxication from alcohol on the night not a condition for an entrapment operation’s validity.

By RGL 30 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

As held in People v. Padua, a prior surveillance is not a
prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust
operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method.
People v. Doria
Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the
accused. It is instigation that is a defense and is considered an
absolutory cause.
In the case at bar, the evidence shows that it was the con dential
informant who initially contacted Doria. At the pre-arranged
meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3 Manlangit who
posed as the buyer of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed the marked
money to Doria as advance payment for one (1) kilo of marijuana.
Doria was apprehended when he later returned and handed the
brick of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit.
Battered Woman Syndrome
People v. Genosa in rel. to Sec. 26, RA 9262
The severe beatings repeatedly in icted on appellant constituted a
form of cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological
resistance and self-control. This “psychological paralysis” she
su ered diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the
mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13. In
addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to
have naturally produced passion and obfuscation.
In order to be classi ed as a battered woman, the couple must go
through the battering cycle at least TWICE. The battered
woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of a. Forcing
violence,” which has three phases: i. By using irresistible force;
1) the tension-building phase; ii. By causing uncontrollable fear; OR
2) the acute battering incident; and b. Inducing
3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. i. By giving price, or o ering reward or promise;
The Court failed to nd ample evidence that would con rm the ii. By using words of command.
presence of the essential characteristics of BWS. The defense fell
another to commit a crime.
short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence”
supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic 3) Becomes liable only when the principal by direct participation
Genosa. committed the act.
4) The inducement
a. must be made directly with the intention of procuring
3 Persons liable and degree of participation
the commission of the crime; and
a Principals, accomplices, and accessories b. that such must be the determining cause of the crime.
5) The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so
Principals in uential in producing the criminal act that without it, the
By direct participation act would not have been performed.
a) Participated in the criminal resolution; and 6) Requisites for a person using words of command to be
b) Carried out their plan and personally took part in its liable as principal by induction:
execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. a. The one commanding must have the intention of
EXC where there was conspiracy to kidnap and kill and procuring the commission of the crime;
only one of the conspirators kidnapped the victim. b. He must have an ascendancy or influence over the person
who acted;
1) If the 2nd requisite is absent, there is only conspiracy, which
may not be punishable in and of itself. c. The words used must be so direct, efficacious, powerful as
By induction to amount to physical or moral coercion;
2) Two ways of becoming principal by induction, by directly d. The words must be uttered prior to the commission of the
crime; and

By RGL 31 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
e. The material executor of the crime has no personal
reason to commit the crime.
7) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission
of a crime without rst being shown that the crime has been
actually committed by another.
8) But if the one charged as principal by direct participation is
acquitted because he acted without criminal intent, his
acquittal is NOT a ground for the acquittal of the principal by
inducement.
By indispensable cooperation
a) There is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged; and
b) Cooperation in the commission of the o ense by
performing another act, without which it would not have
been accomplished.
9) One who, by acts of negligence, cooperates in the commission
of the crime may be liable as co-principal. But he is held guilty
of the same crime through reckless imprudence.
Collective Criminal Responsibility (CCR)
10) When the o enders are criminally liable in the same manner
and to the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be
the same for all.
11) Principals by direct participation have CCR; Principal by
induction, except that who directly forced another to commit a
crime, and principal by direct participation have CCR;
Principal by indispensable cooperation has CCR with the
principal by direct participation.
Reviewer
Accomplices
Accomplices are persons who, not being included in Article 17 of
the RPC, cooperate in the execution of the o ense by previous or
simultaneous acts.
The following requisites must be proved in order that a person
can be considered an accomplice:
a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design
of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with
the latter in his purpose;
b) he cooperates in the execution of the o ense by
previous or simultaneous acts; and,
c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the
principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.
Gurro v. People 2019
The prosecution failed to prove, much less allege, any overt act on
Excel's part showing his direct participation in the kidnapping itself.
It must be remembered that for one to be regarded as an accomplice,
it must be shown that
1. he knew the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, and concurred with the latter in his purpose;
2. he cooperated in the execution by previous or
simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material
or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an e cacious
way; and
3. his acts bore a direct relation with the acts done by the
principal.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
At best, Excel's participation in the incident was limited to acts
committed after the abduction was already consummated.
Particularly, Excel retrieved the ransom money from Metrobank.
12) Where there is doubt whether accused acted as principal or
accomplice, he should be liable only as an accomplice.
13) When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, only an
accomplice.
14) An accomplice does not have previous agreement or
understanding or is not in conspiracy with the principal by
direct participation.
15) What di erentiates an accomplice from a conspirator is that
the former only concurs with the criminal design, and not
the criminal intention. The conspirators have already decided
upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about
it after the principals have reached the decision.
16) In other words
a. Conspirators are the AUTHORS of a crime;
b. Accomplices are mere INSTRUMENTS who perform
acts not essential to the perpetration of the o ense.
17) The acts of the accomplice are necessary, but not
indispensable to the commission of the crime. He merely
supplies the principal with material or moral aid without
conspiracy with the latter.
18) The moral aid may be through advice, encouragement or
agreement.
19) An accomplice may be liable for a crime di erent from that
which the principal committed.
32 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Accessories
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent
to its commission in any of the following manners:
a) By pro ting themselves or assisting the o ender to
pro t by the e ects of the crime.
b) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
the e ects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
c) By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape
of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts
with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author
of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
20) The liability of an accessory is subordinate and subsequent to
that of the principal.
21) Thus, when the principal is acquitted, no legal grounds exist
for convicting accused as an accessory. Exception to this rule is
when the principal is acquitted due to an exempting
circumstance such as minority or insanity.
22) Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not
necessary for the accessory to be held criminally liable.
Exempted accessories
GR: When the principal is his
1. Spouse,
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
2. Ascendant,
Alex, Dante, and Cirilo, on the other hand, should be held as
3. Descendant, or simple accomplices for their acts of pelting the victim with rocks.
Since the deceased had already sustained two stab wounds, the act of
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by
hurling rocks at him was not indispensable to justify holding them
a nity within the same degree.
legally liable as principals.
EXC if such accessory
1. Profited by the e ects of the crime, or
2. Assisted the o ender to pro t by the e ects of the crime. People v. Madali
Time of Participation Annie's participation in the shooting of the victims consisted of
beaming her ashlight at them and warning her husband of the
Previous Simultaneous After presence of other persons in the vicinity. However, such assistance
merely facilitated the commission of the felonious acts of
Principal ✔ ✔ ✔ shooting. Ricarte Madali could have nevertheless
accomplished his criminal acts without Annie's cooperation
Accomplice ✔ ✔ and assistance.
Neither may Annie's shouts of "here comes, here comes another,
Accessory ✔
shoot'' be considered as having incited Ricarte to re at the victims
to make Annie a principal by inducement. There is no proof that
those inciting words had great dominance and in uence over
People v. Agapinay
Madali. The fact that Annie dealt a blow on Agustin while he was
As regards Julia Rapada, it is the opinion of this Court that she can being dragged by Madali to their yard does not make her a
not be held liable (as a principal by inducement). Her words, principal by direct participation. Annie's act, being previous to
"Kill him and we will bury him" amount to imprudent utterances, Madali's act of shooting Agustin, was actually not indispensable to
and not, rather, in the nature of a command that had to be obeyed. the crime committed against Agustin.
Only Romeo, Del n, and Fortunato should be held as principals in
the crime of murder. Romeo is guilty, as he admitted in open court,
People v. Balderama
by direct participation, while Del n and Fortunato are liable as
principals by cooperation. In holding the victim by his arms, both Balderrama had great moral ascendancy and in uence over the
allowed Romeo to in ict upon him a stab wound. accused Oscar. We are convinced that Oscar, who was not shown to
By RGL 33 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
have any rancor against Nestor, would not have given the fatal thrust
had it not been for Ernesto's shout of "Birahin mo na" or "birahin
mo."
People v. Tampus and Montesclaros supra
The nding of guilt of Ida as an accomplice in the rape of ABC is
dependent on proving the guilt of the principal accused. All the
requisites concur in order to nd Ida guilty as an accomplice to
Tampus in the rape of ABC. There was community of design
between Ida and Tampus to commit the rape of ABC. Ida had
knowledge of and assented to Tampus' intention to have sexual
intercourse with her daughter. She forced ABC to drink beer, and
when ABC was already drunk, she left ABC alone with Tampus,
with the knowledge and even with her express consent to Tampus'
plan to have sexual intercourse with her daughter.
It is settled jurisprudence that the previous acts of cooperation by
the accomplice should not be indispensable to the commission of
the crime; otherwise, she would be liable as a principal by
indispensable cooperation. The evidence shows that the acts of
cooperation by Ida are not indispensable to the commission of
rape by Tampus. First, because it was both Ida and Tampus who
forced ABC to drink beer, and second because Tampus already had
the intention to have sexual intercourse with ABC and he could
have consummated the act even without Ida's consent.
b Conspiracy and proposal
Reviewer
ART 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. —
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are punishable only in
the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a
felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
GR Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are
NOT punishable.
EXC When the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
a. Conspiracy to commit treason (115);
b. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection (136);
c. Conspiracy to commit sedition (141).
Requisites of proposal
1. A person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
There is no criminal proposal when —
a. The person who proposes is not determined to commit
the felony.
b. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.
c. It is not the execution of the felony that is proposed.
The proposal need not be accepted for the proponent to be
criminally liable. If the proposal is accepted, it may transform to a
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
conspiracy because there would then be an agreement and a
decision to commit a felony.
Conspiracy as a crime and as a mode of incurring
criminal liability
1. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and
decide to commit it. Conspiracy, like the crime itself, must
be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to
cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a
conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose.
3. When conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is
not a felony but only a manner of incurring criminal
liability. Thus, an act of one is the act of all. It is then not
punishable as a separate o ense.
4. In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is
important is that all participants performed speci c acts
with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably
indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death
of the victim.
Requisites of conspiracy
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony; and
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.
34 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Kinds of conspiracy, their differences and similarities
In Fernan, Jr v. People, a prosecution of 36 accused for estafa on
119 counts through falsi cation of public documents in order to
commit a series of highway scams through multiple conspiracies
among them, the SC categorized the structure of such multiple
conspiracies thereof as a guide for prosecution.
It adverted to Estrada v. Sandiganbayan wherein such structures
were named as:
a) Wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there is a single
person, or hub, dealing individually with 2 or more
persons or groups, the spokes; and
b) Chain conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of
narcotics and contraband, in which there is successive
communication and cooperation.
Extent of liability of conspirators
1. All are liable for the felony agreed upon under the conspiracy
theory.
2. Liable only for such other crimes which could be foreseen and
which are the natural and logical consequences of the
conspiracy, or foreseeable offenses.
Thus, when the agreement was to commit robbery, homicide
is foreseeable, whereas rape is NOT.
3. A member of a band in a robbery en cuadrilla is liable for all
assaults, inclusive of homicide and rape, where he was present
when these other crimes were being committed but he did not
attempt to prevent the same (Art 296 par 2), regardless if
such additional o enses were foreseeable or not.
4. If both conspiracy to rob and cuadrilla are present:
Reviewer
a. If a homicide is committed, the lookout is liable under the
conspiracy theory;
b. If a rape was committed in his presence and he did not
attempt to prevent, he will be liable under the cuadrilla
rule;
c. If the lookout was not present when homicide and rape
were committed, he will only be liable for the homicide
under the conspiracy theory.
Liability for prior acts
The liability of a conspirator for acts performed by his
co-conspirators before he joined the conspiracy depends on the
nature of those acts:
a. If the prior acts were the beginning of a felony which was
consummated after he joined, he is liable for prior acts;
b. If they were separate felonies unrelated to those
committed after he joined, NOT liable.
People v. Bangcado re Doctrine of Limited Liability
In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a
crime, the criminal responsibility arising from di erent acts
directed against one and the same person is individual and
not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only
for his own acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from
criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is clear that
neither the victims nor Banisa could have anticipated Bangcado's act
of shooting the victims since the attack was sudden and without any
reason or purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not
yet been revealed prior to the killings.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
People v. Bagano
For conspiracy to exist, it is su cient that at the time of the
commission of the o ense the accused had the same purpose and
were united in its execution. Proof of an actual planning of the
perpetuation of the crime is not a condition precedent.
From the mode and manner in which the o ense was perpetrated,
and as can be inferred from their acts, it is evident that Bagano and
Cañete were one in their intention to kill Montecino. The fact that
it was Bagano who delivered the fatal blow on Montecino and
Cañete's participation was limited to a mere embrace is immaterial.
Conspiracy bestows upon them equal liability; hence, they shall
su er the same fate for their acts.
People v. Verceles
Conspiracy has been su ciently proved by the prosecution.
Accused-appellants were one in design with accused Mamerto
Soriano in taking personal properties belonging to others without
the latter’s consent by breaking one of the windows to be used as
their ingress. In the course of the robbery, one of them, particularly
Mamerto Soriano, succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth
Bolito while accused-appellants just stood outside the door and did
nothing to prevent Mamerto Soriano.
Once conspiracy is established between two accused in the
commission of the crime of robbery, they would be both
equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on
the occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves that he
endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape.
35 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
People v. Compo
The mere presence of Lemuel, who was not shown to be armed, at
the scene of the crime does not connote conspiracy. Singularity of
purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective
are essential to establish conspiracy.
Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate, is
not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the commission of the
crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose. Conspiracy transcends companionship. The presence
and company of Lemuel were not necessary or essential to the
perpetration of the murder.
Garcia v. CA
Conspiracy was alleged in the information. Thus, it is not
necessary to allege with exactitude the speci c act of the
accused, as it is a well-settled doctrine that in conspiracy the
act of one is the act of all.
Neither is the fact that the two others allegedly in conspiracy with
the petitioner were not named with particularity, nor tried and
convicted, of any moment. An information alleging conspiracy
can stand even if only one person is charged except that the
court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were not
charged in the information.
However, the mere fact that the petitioner had prior knowledge of
the criminal design of the principal perpetrator and aided the latter
in consummating the crime does not automatically make him a
Reviewer
co-conspirator. Both knowledge of and participation in the criminal
act are also inherent elements of an accomplice. In cases of doubt
as to whether persons acted as principals or accomplices, the
doubt must be resolved in their favor and they should be held
guilty as accomplices.
People v. Canturia⭐
Only Canturia should be held responsible for the crime
because he alone perpetrated the detestable crime of rape. The
others could not be held liable therefor. For while the evidence does
show a conspiracy among the accused, it also suggests that the
agreement was to commit robbery only; and there is no evidence
that the other members of the band of robbers were aware of
Canturia's lustful intent and his consummation thereof so that they
could have attempted to prevent the same.
Said other members of Canturia's band may and should be held
guilty of the crime of robbery by a band under Article 294, No. 5, in
relation to Article 296.
Sim v. CA re Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy is deemed implied when the malefactors have a
common purpose and were united in its execution.
Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at
the moment of the commission of the crime is su cient to create
joint criminal responsibility.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was only Elison who dealt with or
personally transacted with private complainant until the time the
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
sale was consummated, by his own testimony petitioner admitted all
the acts by which he actively cooperated and not merely acquiesced
in perpetrating the fraud upon private complainant. That petitioner
is a conspirator having joint criminal design with Elison is evident
from the fact that as between them, both knew that petitioner was
the person selling the vehicle under the false pretense that a certain
Henry Austria was the registered owner. Petitioner, together with
Elison, clearly deceived private complainant in order to
defraud him.
People v. Rafael
Appellant's participation in the commission of the crimes consisted
of his presence at the locus criminis, and his shouting "Patayin,
patayin iran amen!" (Kill them all!) during the later stage of the
fatal incident. The prosecution witnesses did not see him bearing
any weapon or using one to in ict any injury on the victims. He did
not run away with the two other accused still at large. Thus, we are
far from convinced that conspiracy existed between appellant
and any of his sons. Relationship or association alone is
NOT a badge of conspiracy.
His acts, however, demonstrated his concurrence in their aggressive
design and lent support to their nefarious intent and a orded moral
and material support to their attack against the victims. Hence, we
are convinced he must be held liable as accomplice in the
commission of the crimes.
c Multiple o enders
The four forms of REPETITION
36 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

1. Recidivism Imposition of additional be punished

Results in Aggravates crime
penalty under the
2. Reiteracion or habituality
RPC.
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency Art 62[5] Requisites of habitual delinquency
(Extraordinary aggravating) — if within a period of ten years Previous Previous Previous
1. At least three of the speci ed crimes be present, on the Service of
from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of conviction by conviction by conviction by
preceding 2 of which the accused has been convicted by nal sentence is
serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, nal judgment nal judgment nal judgment
judgment; required.
estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes is enough. is enough. is enough.
a third time or oftener. 2. Interval between rst conviction or release and the 2nd
conviction must not exceed 10 years. Such interval must be Within 10
4. Quasi-recidivism Art 160 (Special aggravating) — commits a No period No period No period
maintained for the succeeding o enses; years from
felony after having been convicted by nal judgment, before between between between
release or last
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, 3. The 2nd felony must have been committed after conviction or convictions. convictions. convictions.
conviction
shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty release in the rst felony, and the 3rd felony must have been
prescribed by law for the new felony. committed after conviction or release in the 2nd felony. Generic Generic Special Extraordinary
➔ O enses committed and convictions at or about the same time Aggravating Aggravating Aggravating Aggravating
Habitual delinquent Recidivist shall be considered as only ONE in reckoning the required 3
Can not be Can not be
convictions. Can be o set Can be o set
Conviction a 3rd time or o set o set
Requires 2nd conviction
oftener
Quasi Habitual serves to serves to serves to
Recidivism Reiteracion
Recidivism Delinquency
serious or less serious physical increase increase increase Additional
Crimes injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or Same title O ense which Serving penalty to penalty to penalty to penalty is
falsi cation Need not be maximum maximum maximum imposed.
the accused sentence for an
embraced period. period. period.
was previously o ense
Within 10 years from his last under the same
Intervening convicted of punished Robbery,
release or conviction for any of immaterial Title of the Additional
period and of which under the theft, serious Always Not always Always
speci ed crimes RPC; BOTH penalty always
he is convicted RPC or SPL, or less serious aggravating aggravating aggravating
o enses imposed
Succeeding After commission anew must be while the PI, estafa or
After conviction for preceding however must
offense of preceding embraced o ense that he falsi cation
o ense be punished
committed o ense under the commits while
under the 4 Penalties
same Title of serving
RPC.
the RPC. sentence must

By RGL 37 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

a Imposable penalties e) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in Reclusion temporal
e ect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
1) The law must exist prior to the commission of the crime. Perpetual or temporary absolute disquali cation
something which when done was lawful, and
2) Regardless of the number of aggravating circumstances, the Perpetual or temporary special disquali cation
f) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
penalty cannot go higher than that prescribed by law, unless
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the Prision mayor
the nature of the crime has changed.
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
3) The penalty for habitual delinquents may be higher than proclamation of amnesty. Prisión correccional
that prescribed by the law de ning the crime, as there is Arresto mayor
6) The favorable e ect of a new law may nd the defendant in
another provision of law providing such. Correctional
one of these situations: Suspension
4) The general rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive e ect
a) Prosecution begins;
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony except Destierro
b) Sentence has been passed but service has not begun;
a) If the o ender is a habitual delinquent; Arresto menor
c) Sentence is being carried out. Light
b) The new or amendatory law is not favorable to him; or Public censure
7) A person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if
c) Retrospective application is expressly proscribed. A ictive Fine > 1.2M
within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
5) An ex post facto law is one which: conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
Correctional Fine of 40K to 1.2M
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsi cation, he is found guilty
a) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art 62[5]) Light Fine < 40K
law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act; 8) Criminal liability under a repealed law subsists: Bond to keep the peace
b) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when a) When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; Perpetual or temporary absolute disquali cation
committed;
b) When repeal is by implication; OR Perpetual or temporary special disquali cation
c) changes the punishment and in icts a greater
c) When there is a saving clause.
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when Suspension from public o ce the right to vote
committed; N/A and be voted for the profession or calling
b Classi cation
d) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes Civil interdiction
conviction upon less or di erent testimony than the law As to Gravity Penalty
Indemni cation
required at the time of the commission of the o ense;
Capital Death
Forfeiture or con scation of instruments and
A ictive Reclusion perpetua proceeds of the o ense

By RGL 38 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Payment of costs d) Escapees;

Preventive imprisonment
NB: RA 9346 abolished death penalty; converts death penalty 1) When the o ense charged is nonbailable, or he cannot furnish e) Those charged with heinous crimes.
to RP or Life Imprisonment (Pp v. Bon) the required bail.
Effects of Penalties
c Duration and e ects 2) Shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
PTAD = Perpetual or Temporary Absolute DQ;
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they
have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention PTSD = Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ.
Time included in its
Penalties prisoner 1. PTAD for public o ce
entirety min med max a) agrees voluntarily in writing a. Deprivation of

14Y 8M 17Y 4M b) after being informed of the e ects thereof and i. Public o ce and employments, even if by election;
12Y 1D 12Y 1D
Reclusion 1D 1D c) with the assistance of counsel ii. Right to vote or to be voted upon.
to to
temporal to to
20Y 14Y 8M d) to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon b. DQ for the o ces or public employments and for the
17Y 4M 20Y
convicted prisoners, exercise of any of the rights mentioned;
Prision mayor, EXC in the following cases: c. Loss of right to retirement pay or pension
6Y 1D 6Y 1D 8Y 1D 10Y 1D
absolute DQ a. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted
to to to to NB: Perpetual DQs last during lifetime of convict, while
and special previously twice or more times of any crime; and
12Y 8Y 10Y 12Y temporary DQs last during term of the sentence,
temporary DQ
b. When upon being summoned for the execution of their EXC
Prisión sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
6M 1D 6M 1D 2Y 4M 4Y 2M a. Public o ce or employment;
correccional, 3) Otherwise, he shall only be credited to four- fths of his time
to to 1D to 1D to b. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension.
suspension and under preventive imprisonment.
6Y 2Y 4M 4Y 2M 6Y
destierro 2. PTSD for public o ce, profession or calling
4) Credit for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted
from 30 years. a. Deprivation of the o ce, employment, profession or
1M 1D 1M 2M 1D 4M 1D
calling;
Arresto mayor to to to to 5) These o enders are NOT entitled to such credit:
6M 2M 4M 6M b. DQ for holding similar o ces or employments.
a) Recidivists;
3. PTSD for the exercise of right of su rage
Arresto menor 1 - 30D 1 - 10D 11 - 20D 21 - 30D b) Those who failed to voluntarily surrender upon being
summoned for the execution of their sentence; a. Deprivation of the right to vote and be voted upon;

c) Habitual delinquents; b. Cannot hold any public o ce.

By RGL 39 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

4. Suspension from public o ce, profession or calling, or the Effects of pardon In adultery or
right of su rage Given to Any party concubinage, must be
1. shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public
given to both o enders.
a. DQ from holding such o ce or exercising such profession o ce, or the right of su rage, unless such rights be
or calling, or right of su rage; expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
Pecuniary liabilities
b. If suspended from public o ce, cannot hold another 2. shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of 8) In case the property of the o ender should not be su cient
o ce having similar functions. the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be
5. Civil interdiction 6) Limitations upon its exercise met in the following order:
a. Deprivation of a. Only after conviction; a. The reparation of the damage caused.
i. Rights of parental authority or guardianship; b. Does not extend to cases of impeachment. b. Indemni cation of consequential damages.
ii. Marital authority; 7) When the principal penalty is remitted by pardon, only the c. The ne.
iii. Right to manage his property and of the right to e ect of that principal penalty is extinguished, but not the d. The cost of the proceedings.
dispose of such property inter vivos. accessory penalties attached to it, except when an absolute
pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has What are not penalties
NB: But can dispose by will or donation mortis causa. expired, everything is removed. 1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well
6. Bonds to keep the peace as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
Pardon by President Offended party requiring their con nement in a hospital.
a. present two su cient sureties who shall undertake that
such person will not commit the o ense sought to be Applicable to Any crimes Private crimes only 2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions
prevented; mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes speci ed therein.
As to criminal
b. deposit such amount in the o ce of the clerk of the court Extinguishes Only bars prosecution 3. Suspension from the employment of public o ce during the
liability
to guarantee said undertaking; trial or in order to institute proceedings.
c. If o ender fails to give the bond as required he shall be As to civil liability Does not a ect Extinguishes 4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of
detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six their administrative disciplinary powers, superior o cials
months, if he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or May be absolute Not subject to
As to conditions may impose upon their subordinates.
less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if for or conditional conditions
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws
a light felony.
After may establish in penal form. (Art 24)
Must be given Before institution of case
conviction
d Application and graduation of penalties

By RGL 40 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Effect of special aggravating circumstance

People v. Zacarias Reclusion perpetua Life Imprisonment Penalty to be imposed shall be in its MAXIMUM regardless of
mitigating circumstances.
In the scales of penalties under the RPC, reclusion perpetua is the for serious o enses penalized by
prescribed under the RPC 1. Advantage of public position;
penalty immediately higher than reclusion temporal which has a special laws
duration of twelve years and one day to twenty years. The minimum 2. By an organized/syndicated crime group;
range of reclusion perpetua should then, by necessary implication, does not carry with it any
has accessory penalties An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of
start at 20 years and 1 day while the maximum thereunder could be accessory penalty
two or more persons collaborating, confederating or
co-extensive with the rest of the natural life of the o ender. Article
entails imprisonment for at least mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the
70, however, provides that the maximum period in regard to the
thirty (30) years after which the commission of any crime.
service of sentence shall not exceed 40 years. Reclusion perpetua
convict becomes eligible for does not appear to have any
remains to be an indivisible penalty and, when it is the 3. Quasi-recidivism;
pardon, although the maximum de nite extent or duration
prescribed penalty, should be imposed in its entirety, i.e., reclusion 4. Ordinary complex crimes.
period thereof shall in no case
perpetua sans a xed period for its duration, regardless of any
exceed forty (40) years ⭐Thus, the maximum period of the prescribed penalty
mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the
commission of the crime. In prescribing the penalty of reclusion becomes the DEGREE. To get the proper period, divide this
perpetua, its duration in years, in ne, need not be speci ed. maximum period into 3 equal periods.
By degree By period Always MAX
Inapplicability of graduation by period
Stage of commission Ordinary aggravating Special aggravating 1. Only indivisible penalties are involved (Art 63);
People v. Latupan
Participation Ordinary mitigating Delito complejo 2. Penalty consists only of a ne (Art 66);
The proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, not life
3. O enses penalized by SPL, unless divisible penalties in the
imprisonment. Obviously, the trial court intended to impose Privileged mitigating
RPC were adopted by the SPL to punish violations thereof;
reclusion perpetua. However, the penalty of life imprisonment is
and
not the same as reclusion perpetua. They are distinct in nature, Factors to consider to graduate by degree
in duration and in accessory penalties. 1. Nature of participation of accused; 4. Felonies committed through negligence (Art 365).

Hence, the proper penalty for each murder, considering the absence 2. Stage of execution of the felony (Arts 50-57); Graduation of Fine
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is reclusion perpetua,
3. Privileged mitigating circumstances (Arts 68-69); By degree
with its accessory penalties. Further, accused-appellant is liable for
two counts of slight physical injuries and must be sentenced to 4. Presence of 2 or more mitigating with no aggravating (Art ART 75. Take ¼ of the maximum amount to get the next degree
twenty (20) days of arresto menor, each, likewise with its accessory 64[5]). lower, and so on
penalties.

By RGL 41 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
By period
ART 66. The ne cannot go outside the limits provided by law.
a. maximum should not exceed the ne prescribed by law
b. minimum should not be lower than that provided by law.
i Indeterminate Sentence Law
Procedure
1. Getting the MAXIMUM range
a. Start with the imposable penalty of the RPC;
b. If there are privileged mitigating (Art 68-69), or special
mitigating circumstances (Art 64[5]), lower the penalty
rst by 1 degree or more, then start from there.
2. Getting the MINIMUM range;
a. The degree next lower to the maximum range is the
minimum range of the indeterminate sentence.
3. Getting the MAXIMUM TERM
a. Consider the presence of attendant circumstances in order
to determine the period of the penalty;
b. Said period shall be the actual maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence;
4. Getting the MINIMUM TERM
a. Shall be taken from any period of the minimum range,
taking into consideration the factors stated in People v.
Ducosin
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
Inapplicability d. Complex crimes — always maximum;
1. persons convicted of o enses punished with death penalty or e. Crimes due to error in personae (Art 49), the penalty for
life-imprisonment; the lesser o ense, as between that committed and
intended, is imposed in the maximum period;
2. convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason; f. Abuse of public position or membership in an organized
syndicate (Art 62 par 1[a]) — maximum period.
3. convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage; g. Quasi-recidivism (Art 160) — maximum period;
4. convicted of piracy; h. Ordinary attendant circumstances may o set each other.
5. habitual delinquents; 3. Apply the indeterminate sentence law, when applicable.
6. have escaped from con nement or evaded sentence;
People v. Temporada
7. those who having been granted conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; Discussion on relevant terminologies
8. whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one 1. The RPC provides for an initial penalty as a general
year. prescription for the felonies de ned therein which consists
of a range of period of time. This is what is referred to as
In summary
the "prescribed penalty."
1. Determine rst the degree before xing the periods;
2. The Code provides for attending or modifying
a. Take the penalty for the principal in the consummated circumstances which when present in the commission of a
stage as the starting point; felony a ects the computation of the penalty to be imposed
b. Disregard the attendant circumstances; on a convict. This penalty, as thus modi ed, is referred to as
the "imposable penalty."
c. Consider the factors in graduating by degree.
3. From this imposable penalty, the court chooses a single
2. Determine the proper period in accordance with Arts 62 and
xed penalty (also called a straight penalty) which is the
64 by considering the following:
"penalty actually imposed" on a convict, i.e., the prison
a. Ordinary mitigating — minimum period; term he has to serve.
b. Generic aggravating — maximum period; 4. With the passage of the ISL, the law created a prison term
c. Alternative circumstances — depends on whether it which consists of a minimum and maximum term called
mitigates or aggravates;
By RGL 42 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
the indeterminate sentence. Thus, the penalty actually
imposed under the pre-ISL regime became the maximum
term under the ISL regime.
People v. Simon
1. If the judgment which could be a ected and modi ed by the
reduced penalties provided in Republic Act No. 7659 has
already become nal and executory or the accused is
serving sentence thereunder, then practice, procedure and
pragmatic considerations would warrant and necessitate the
matter being brought to the judicial authorities for relief under
a writ of habeas corpus.
2. Mitigating circumstances should be considered and applied
only if they affect the periods and the degrees of the penalties
within rational limits.
3. The nal query is whether or not the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is applicable to the case now before us.
Apparently it does, since drug o enses are not included in nor
has appellant committed any act which would put him within
the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does
not involve reclusion perpetua or death.
4. It is held that Sec 1 of ISLaw refers to an o ense under a special
law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is
without reference to the RPC.
⭐People v. Cesar
Accused-appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the crime
Reviewer
of direct assault upon a person in authority with homicide.
This being a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious
crime should be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period. The more serious crime is homicide punishable
by reclusion temporal (the prescribed penalty).
Accused has to his credit two mitigating circumstances: the
special or privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and
the ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
1. Therefore, under Art. 64, par. 5, the penalty imposable
is the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law.
2. Under Art. 71, the penalty next lower to reclusion
temporal is prision mayor.
3. Because of the complex nature of the crime committed, the
penalty of prision mayor is to be applied in its
maximum period.
4. However, having in his favor the ordinary mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty without any offsetting
aggravating circumstance, applying Art. 64, par. 2, the
penalty of prision mayor maximum should be imposed
in its minimum range.
The proper method, thus, is
1. to start from the penalty imposed by the RPC, i.e.,
reclusion temporal;
2. then apply the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority and determine the penalty immediately inferior in
degree, i.e., prision mayor; and
3. nally, apply the same in its maximum degree due to the
complex nature of the crime
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
4. but within the minimum range thereof because of the
ordinary mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Prision mayor being the maximum of the indeterminate sentence,
the minimum of the indeterminate penalty is within the range of
the penalty next lower to it as prescribed by the RPC, i.e., prision
correccional.
Lumauig v. People 2014 supra
The ISLaw, under Section 2, is not applicable to, among others,
cases where the maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one year. In determining “whether an indeterminate
sentence and not a straight penalty is proper, what is considered is
the penalty actually imposed by the trial court, after
considering the attendant circumstances, and not the imposable
penalty.”
In the case at bar, since the maximum of the imposable penalty is six
months, the ISLaw is not applicable. Thus, it is proper to impose
a straight penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor
and delete the imposition of ne.
Cajigas v. People
Applying the ISLaw,
1. the minimum of the indeterminate sentence can be
anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to the penalty prescribed by the RPC for the crime.
2. The determination of the minimum term of the
43 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
indeterminate sentence should be done without
considering any modifying circumstance attendant to
the commission of the crime and without reference to the
periods into which it may be subdivided.
3. The penalty prescribed under Article 315, paragraph 2(d)
of the RPC, as amended by PD 818, is reclusion temporal.
4. The penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor.
5. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should
be anywhere within six years and one day to 12 years of
prision mayor.
2010 supra
Gelig v. People
The penalty for the crime of direct assault is prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods. The penalty should be
xed in its medium period in the absence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances. Applying the ISLaw, the petitioner
should be sentenced to an indeterminate term, the minimum of
which is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e.,
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, and the maximum of which is that
properly imposable under the RPC, i.e., prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
Reynaldo Mariano v. People 2014
Death stands alone as the capital punishment. The RPC
classi es the felony of serious physical injuries in Art 263 based on
the gravity of the physical injuries.
Reviewer
With Ferdinand not becoming insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind,
his physical injuries did not fall under Article 263[1]. Consequently,
the CA incorrectly considered the petitioner’s act as a grave felony
had it been intentional, and should not have imposed the penalty at
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
medium period. Instead, the petitioner’s act that caused the serious
physical injuries, had it been intentional, would be a less grave
felony under Article 25, because Ferdinand’s physical injuries were
those under Article 263[3], for having incapacitated him from the
performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged in for
more than 90 days.
Conformably with Article 365, the proper penalty is arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which ranges
from one to four months. As earlier mentioned, the rules in
Article 64 are NOT applicable in reckless imprudence, and
considering further that the maximum term of imprisonment
would not exceed one year, rendering the Indeterminate
Sentence Law inapplicable, the Court holds that the straight
penalty of two months of arresto mayor was the correct penalty for
the petitioner.
People v. Medroso
Paragraph 5 of Article 365 expressly states that in the imposition of
the penalties provided for in the Article, the courts shall exercise
their sound discretion without regard to the rules prescribed in Article
64.
The penalty for homicide thru reckless imprudence with
violation of the Automobile Law is prision correccional in its
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
medium and maximum periods with a duration from two years,
four months, and one day to six years. Applying the ISLaw to which
appellant is entitled the imposable penalty covers
a) a minimum to be taken from the penalty one degree lower
than that prescribed by law or arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, i.e. four months and one day to two years and four
months, and
b) a maximum to be taken in turn from the penalty
prescribed for the o ense the duration of which is from
two years, four months and one day to six years.
The determination of the minimum and maximum terms is left
entirely to the discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will
not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear abuse.
e Accessory penalties
Accessory penalties inherent in principal penalties
1. Death, when not executed
a. Perpetual absolute DQ; and
b. Civil interdiction for 30Y, if not expressly remitted in
the pardon.
2. Reclusion perpetua and temporal
a. Civil interdiction for life or during sentence; and
b. Perpetual absolute DQ.
3. Prision mayor
a. Temporary absolute DQ; and
44 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
b. Perpetual special DQ from su rage.
4. Prisión correccional
a. Suspension from public o ce, profession or calling;
and
b. Perpetual special DQ from su rage, if the duration
of imprisonment exceeds 18 months.
5. Arresto — suspension of the right to hold o ce and the right
of su rage during the term of sentence.
Confiscation and forfeiture
of the proceeds or instruments of the crime.
1. Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall
carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was committed.
2. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be con scated
and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be
property of a third person not liable for the o ense, but those
articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be
destroyed.
f Subsidiary Imprisonment
1) If the convict has no property with which to meet the FINE
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he
shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest
minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial
court, subject to the following rules:
Reviewer
a) If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional
or arresto and ne, he shall remain under con nement
until his ne referred in the preceding paragraph is
satis ed, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall NOT
exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in
no case shall it continue for more than one year, and
no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the
prisoner.
b) When the principal penalty imposed be only a ne, the
subsidiary imprisonment shall NOT exceed six months
if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
grave felony, and shall NOT exceed fteen days, if for a
light felony.
c) When the principal penalty imposed is HIGHER than
prision correccional, NO subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit.
d) If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by
con nement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
xed duration, the convict, during the period of time
established in the preceding rules shall continue to su er
the same deprivations as those of which the principal
penalty consists.
e) The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may
have su ered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
him from the ne in case his nancial circumstances
should improve.
2) The subsidiary penalty of imprisonment in case of
non-payment of the penalty of ne must be stated in the
Judgment, otherwise it cannot be imposed despite
non-payment of the ne. (Pp v. Alapan 2018)
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
3) NO subsidiary penalty in the following cases
a) When penalty imposed is HIGHER than prision
correccional;
b) For failure to pay reparation of damage caused,
indemni cation of consequential damages, and cost of
proceedings;
c) When penalty imposed is ne and a penalty not to be
executed by con nement in a penal institution and which
has no xed duration.
4) Unless the SPL provides that subsidiary imprisonment shall
not be imposed, then it may be imposed. IOW, if the SPL is
silent, subsidiary imprisonment is allowed.
5 Execution and service of sentence
Material accumulation system
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit
otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
➔ In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively
or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted
as to the penalty or penalties rst imposed, or should they have
been served out.
The respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in
accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
45 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer
3. Reclusion temporal, People v. Tena
4. Prision mayor, This period of thirty (30) years vis-a-vis reclusion perpetua is
reiterated in Article 70 of the code. Said article pertinently provides
5. Prisión correccional,
that in applying the so called “three-fold rule” — i.e., that “when
6. Arresto mayor,
the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, the maximum
7. Arresto menor, duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the
8. Destierro, length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him” — “the duration of perpetual penalties (pena
9. Perpetual absolute disquali cation,
perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.”
10. Temporal absolute disquali cation.
It was thus incorrect for the Trial Court to specify the duration of
11. Suspension from public o ce, the right to vote and be voted thirty (30) years in relation to the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and imposed by it on the accused in this case.
12. Public censure.
Thus, the imputation of a thirty-year duration to reclusion
Juridical accumulation system perpetua in Articles 27 and 70 only serves:
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the 1. as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for
maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall NOT be pardon; or
more than three-fold the length of time corresponding 2. for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of
to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No multiple penalties.
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be in icted after
AND NOT as basis for the duration of the penalty which is
the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum
period. intended to be perpetual.
2. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40) Probation Law
years. b
Probation Law, as amended by RA No 10707
3. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at
Application
thirty (30) years.
1) The trial court may,
a Three-fold rule a. after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant
for a probationable penalty and
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
b. upon application by said defendant within the period for
perfecting an appeal,
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant
on probation for such period and upon such terms and
conditions as it may deem best.
2) No application for probation shall be entertained or granted
if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment
of conviction:
Provided, That when a judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such
judgment is modi ed 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 nal. (Colinares v. People
2011 En Banc)
3) 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.
4) Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a
term of imprisonment or a ne only. The ling of the
application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
5) An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable.
Disqualified offenders
a. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than six (6) years;
b. convicted of any crime against the national security;
46 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
c. who have previously been convicted by nal judgment of
an o ense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6)
months and one (1) day and/or a ne of more than one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00);
d. who have been once on probation; and
e. who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this Decree became applicable.
c Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006
1) "Child" refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
2) "Child at Risk" refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at
the risk of committing criminal o enses because of personal,
family and social circumstances.
3) "Child in Con ict with the Law" or CICL refers to a
child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an o ense under Philippine laws.
4) The exemption from criminal liability herein established does
not include exemption from civil liability.
5) The CICL shall enjoy the presumption of minority. The
age of a child may be determined
a. from the child's birth certi cate, baptismal certi cate
or any other pertinent documents.
b. In the absence thereof, from the child himself/herself,
testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance
of the child and other relevant evidence.
Reviewer
In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in
his/her favor.
6) "Status O enses" refers to o enses which discriminate
only against a child, while an adult does not su er any
penalty for committing similar acts. These shall include curfew
violations; truancy, parental disobedience and the like.
Any conduct not considered an o ense or not penalized if
committed by an adult shall not be considered an o ense and
shall not be punished if committed by a child. (Section 57)
7) Automatic Suspension of Sentence. — Once the child is
found guilty of the o ense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability. However, instead of
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place
the CICL under suspended sentence, without need of
application.
Suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile
is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt. (Section 38)
8) Probation for CICLs. — The court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a CICL, and upon application at any
time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her
sentence taking into account the best interest of the child.
9) Other benefits of convicted CICLs
a. Shall be credited in the services of his/her sentence
with the full time spent in actual commitment and
detention;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
b. Be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of
con nement in a regular penal institution, in an
agricultural camp and other training facilities.
People v. Sarcia read together with Lababo
Sec 68 of RA 9344 allows the retroactive application of the Act
to those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the
time of the e ectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age
of 18 years at the time of the commission of the o ense.
Since RA 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been
convicted of a capital o ense and another who has been convicted of
a lesser o ense, the Court should also not distinguish and should
apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in
con ict with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous
crime.
Nonetheless, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension
of sentence until the said child reaches the maximum age of
21. To date, accused-appellant is about 31 years of age. Thus, the
application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is
now moot and academic.
People v. Lababo 2018
The CA correctly took into account FFF's minority, he being 17
years old at the time of the commission of the crime, in reducing
the period of imprisonment to be served by him. Being of said age,
FFF is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority under Article 68(2) of the RPC.
FFF may thus be con ned in an agricultural camp or any other
47 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

training facility in accordance with Section 51 of RA No. 9344. sentence will be in lieu of service in the regular penal 3rd - 5th year 23 days
The case shall thus be remanded to the court of origin to e ect institution.
appellant's con nement in an agricultural camp or other training
6th - 10th year 25 days
facility, following the Court's pronouncement in People v. Sarcia.
People v. Ancajas 2015 11th year onwards 30 days

Rosal Hubilla v. People 2014 People v. Wile 2016 Allain acted with discernment as shown by his act of covering
AAA's mouth with a handkerchief to prevent her from shouting +15 days for each month of study, teaching
Any time
If the CICL has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under and conspired with appellant Vergel in raping AAA. Allain was only or mentoring service time rendered
suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether 17 years old when he committed the crime; he is, therefore, entitled
➔ An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement
1. to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under
to the above allowances for good conduct.
Article 68(2) of the RPC.
2. to order execution of sentence, or Disqualified
Hence, the imposable penalty must be reduced by one degree,
3. to extend the suspended sentence for a certain speci ed The following shall not be entitled to any GCTA during
i.e., from reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal. Being a
period or until the child reaches the maximum age of preventive imprisonment:
divisible penalty, the ISLaw is applicable.
twenty-one (21) years. a. Recidivists;
Section 38 of RA No. 9344 provides that when the child below 18
A review of the provisions of RA No. 9344 reveals that years of age who committed a crime and was found guilty, the court b. An accused who has been convicted previously twice or
imprisonment of CICL is by no means prohibited. While Section 5 shall place the child in con ict with the law under suspended more times of any crime;
(c) of RA No. 9344 bestows on CICL the right not to be unlawfully sentence even if such child has reached 18 years or more at the time c. An accused who, upon being summoned for the execution
or arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; imprisonment as a proper of judgment. of his sentence has failed to surrender voluntarily before
disposition of a case is duly recognized, subject to certain
a court of law;
restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment, namely:
d. Habitual Delinquents;
a) the detention or imprisonment is a disposition of last d Republic Act No. 10592
resort, and e. Escapees; and
Good Conduct Time Allowance f. PDL charged of Heinous Crimes.
b) the detention or imprisonment shall be for the shortest
shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his
appropriate period of time. The following shall not be entitled to any GCTA during service
sentence:
Lastly, following Section 51 of RA No. 9344, the petitioner, of sentence and Time Allowance for Study, Teaching and
although he has to serve his sentence, may serve it in an Mentoring (TASTM):
During the A deduction of
agricultural camp or other training facilities in a manner a. Recidivists;
consistent with the o ender child's best interest. Such service of First 2 years 20 days, for each month of good behavior b. Habitual Delinquents;

By RGL 48 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
c. Escapees; and
d. PDL convicted of Heinous Crimes.
Special time allowance for loyalty
A deduction of one fth (⅕) of the period of his sentence
shall be granted to any prisoner who,
1. having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service
of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in
Article 158 of this Code,
2. gives himself up to the authorities
3. within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the
calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article.
A deduction of two- fths (⅖) of the period of his sentence shall
be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his
confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving sentence.
Who Grants Time Allowances
Whenever lawfully justi ed, the following o cials shall grant time
allowances:
a. Director General of the Bureau of Corrections;
b. Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology;
and/or
c. Warden of a Provincial, District, City or Municipal Jail.
Reviewer
How sentence served is reduced
1. Conditional pardon;
2. Commutation of sentence;
3. GCTA;
4. Special conduct and workmanship allowance;
5. Loyalty allowance;
6. Preventive imprisonment (Art 29);
7. Con nement in a rehabilitation center.
Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima 2019 En Banc
The prospective application of the bene cial provisions of R.A. No.
10592 actually works to the disadvantage of petitioners and those
who are similarly situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty
attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay;
thus, making more onerous the punishment for the crimes they
committed. Depriving them of time o to which they are justly
entitled as a practical matter results in extending their sentence and
increasing their punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear
mandate of Article 22 of the RPC.
Community Service Act
e Guidelines in the Imposition of Community Service as
Penalty in Lieu of Imprisonment
1) The court in its discretion may, in lieu of service in jail,
require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto
mayor be served by the defendant by
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
a) rendering community service in the place where the
crime was committed,
b) under such terms as the court shall determine,
c) taking into consideration the gravity of the o ense
and the circumstances of the case,
d) which shall be under the supervision of a probation
o cer.
2) The defendant shall likewise be required to undergo
rehabilitative counseling under the social welfare and
development o cer of the city or municipality concerned with
the assistance of the DSWD.
3) In requiring community service, the court shall consider the
welfare of the society and the reasonable probability that the
person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering the
service.
4) Community service shall consist of
a) any actual physical activity
b) which inculcates civic consciousness, and
c) is intended towards the improvement of a public
work or promotion of a public service.
5) If the defendant violates the terms of the community service,
a) the court shall order his/her re-arrest and
b) the defendant shall serve the full term of the penalty,
as the case may be,
i) in jail, or
ii) in the house of the defendant as provided
under Article 88.
49 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

6) However, if the defendant has fully complied with the terms ➔ The period for prescription of penalties begins only when The term of prescription shall not run when the o ender is
of the community service, the court shall order the release of the convict evades service of sentence by escaping during absent from the Philippines.
the defendant unless detained for some other offense. the term of his sentence. ➔ What is taken into account is the penalty imposable under
7) The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service the law.
Prescription of Crime Penalty Fine
in jail shall be availed of only once. ➔ The highest penalty which may be imposed for the crime
Death, RP, RT 20Y 20Y should be the basis, even if accused was subsequently
6 Extinction of criminal liability sentenced to a lower penalty.

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as Reclusion temporal 20Y 15Y ➔ Any possible subsidiary imprisonment, however, should NOT
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only be considered.
Other afflictive 15Y 15Y >1.2m
when the death of the o ender occurs before nal judgment.
Computation of the prescription of penalties
2. By service of the sentence; Correctional 10Y 10Y >40k – 1.2m
The period of prescription of penalties
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and exc Arresto mayor 5Y 5Y 1. shall commence to run from the date when the culprit
all its e ects; should evade the service of his sentence, and
Libel 1Y
4. By absolute pardon; 2. it shall be interrupted if
5. By prescription of the crime; Light 2M 1Y ≤40k a. the defendant should give himself up,
6. By prescription of the penalty; b. be captured,
Computation of prescription of o enses
7. By the marriage of the o ended woman. c. should go to some foreign country with which this
The period of prescription
Government has no extradition treaty, or
Prescription 1. shall commence to run from the day on which the crime
d. should commit another crime before the expiration
is discovered by the o ended party, the authorities, or
of crime of the period of prescription.
their agents, and
➔ the crime itself is extinguished because of failure to le a
case. 2. shall be interrupted by the ling of the complaint or Pardon vs Amnesty
information, and
Pardon Amnesty
of penalty
3. shall commence to run again when such proceedings
➔ The prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the terminate without the accused being convicted or ONLY AFTER Usually BEFORE
Granted
RPC, applies only to those who are convicted by final acquitted, or are unjusti ably stopped for any reason not conviction conviction
judgment and are serving sentence which consist of imputable to him.
deprivation of liberty.

By RGL 50 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Applies to ALL kinds of o enses Political o enses Article 26, should be made only when a ne is imposed either as a period of the crime had not yet elapsed at the time the information
single or as alternative penalty; and that no such was led in 1991. Thus, the crime had not prescribed at the time
Granted The President at his sole The President concurred of the ling of the information.
classi cation should be made where the ne is imposed in
by discretion by Congress
conjunction with another penalty.
Does not erase e ect of
Effect penalty for purposes of Erases such e ect Pangan v. Gatbalite re Prescription of Penalty
recidivism People v. Reyes
Article 93 provides when the prescription of penalties shall
The crime of falsi cation of a public document carries with it an commence to run. Under said provision, it shall commence to run
Partial extinction from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence.
imposable penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
1. By conditional pardon; maximum periods and a ne of not more than P5K. Being Pursuant to Article 157, evasion of service of sentence can be
punishable by a correctional penalty, this crime prescribes in ten committed only by those who have been convicted by nal
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
(10) years. judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence.
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn
Here, the public document allegedly falsi ed was a notarized deed of "Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157
while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his
sale registered on May 26, 1961 with the Register of Deeds in the of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of
sentence
name of the accused. The two informations were, however, led his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
only on October 18, 1984. The complainants claim that they cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
People v. Basalo
discovered the falsi ed notarized deed of sale in June 1983.
To determine the prescriptibility of an o ense penalized with a
The rule is well-established that registration in a public registry is a
ne, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, such
notice to the whole world. The record is constructive notice of its
7 Civil liability in criminal cases
ne should not be reduced or converted into a prison term, but
contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.
rather it should be considered as such ne under Article 26 of the Rules regarding civil liability
All persons are charged with knowledge of what it contains. Thus,
RPC; and that for purposes of prescription of the o ense, denned 1. In case of insane, imbecile or minors, primary liability
the criminal informations having been led for more than ten (10)
and penalized in Article 319, the ne imposable therein if devolves upon those with legal authority or control
years, the crime for which the accused was charged has prescribed.
correctional or a ictive under the terms of Article 26, should be
made the basis rather than that of arresto mayor, also imposabie in unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their
said Article 319. part.
Recebido v. People
Absent any person with legal authority or control, or if they be
Even granting arguendo that the deed of sale was executed by the insolvent, the own property of the accused shall be
People v. Crisostomo private complainant, delivered to the petitioner-accused in August secondarily liable.
13, 1983 and registered on the same day, the ten-year prescriptive 2. In case of avoidance of greater evil or state of necessity,
The classi cation of ne into a ictive, correctional or light, under

By RGL 51 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
the persons for whose bene t the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the bene t
which they may have received.
3. In cases of compulsion of an irresistible force or impulse
of an uncontrollable fear,
the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be
primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such
persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the
latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
Who are subsidiarily liable
a) Persons causing damages under the compulsion of an
irresistible force or the impulse of an uncontrollable fear used
or created by the person primarily liable;
b) innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of establishments.
c) employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants,
pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of
their duties; and
d) Principals, accomplices and accessories, for the unpaid civil
liability of their co-accused in the other classes (Art 110).
Inclusions
Restitution
of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance
for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the
court.
Reviewer
Inapplicable
1. If the thing was purchased in good faith at a public sale (Art
559 NCC);
2. The movable property was acquired by prescription by the
third person (Art 1133, ibid.);
3. The thing was purchased under factors or recording laws, or
under a sale authorized by law or by the court, or in a
merchant’s store, fairs or markets (Art 1502, ibid.);
4. It is in the possession of a holder in due course of a negotiable
document of title (Art 1518, ibid.);
5. It is in the hands of a holder in due course of a negotiable
instrument (Sec 57 NIL); and
6. The property is covered by a Torrens title and was purchased
for value in good faith (PD 1529).
➔ May be demanded even from third persons.
Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent
to the extent of such participation. (Art 111)
Reparation
of the damage caused
The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its
special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall
be made accordingly.
Indemnification
for consequential damages
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
shall include not only those caused the injured party, but also those
su ered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
➔ Reparation and indemni cation can be required ONLY from the
accused or his heirs.
Civil liability if several accused
If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts
shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
1. However, the principals, accomplices, and accessories,
each within their respective class, shall be liable
solidarily among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable.
2. The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, rst against
the property of the principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
3. Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability
has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been
made shall have a right of action against the others for
the amount of their respective shares.
Civil liability in spite of acquittal of the crime
1. Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
2. Court declares that accused’s liability is only civil in nature;
3. Civil liability did not arise from the criminal act.
Acquittal bars civil liability
1. Accused did not commit the act;
2. He was not guilty of criminal or civil negligence.
52 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Ozoa v. Madula
Before the employer's subsidiary liability is exacted, there must be
adequate evidence establishing that
1) he is indeed the employer of the convict;
2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry;
3) the crime was committed by the employee in the discharge
of his duties; and
4) execution against the employee is unsatis ed.
People v. Velasco 2014
What was the extent of Inovero’s civil liability?
The nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the
commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may
be compelled to pay the entire obligation. As a co-conspirator, then,
Inovero’s civil liability was similar to that of a joint tortfeasor
under the rules of the civil law.
Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages cannot be
apportioned among them, except by themselves. They cannot
insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an
aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the whole
amount. Hence, Inovero’s liability towards the victims of their
illegal recruitment was solidary, regardless of whether she actually
received the amounts paid or not, and notwithstanding that her
co-accused, having escaped arrest until now, have remained untried.
Gosiaco v. Ching and Casta Navarra v. People 2016
Reviewer
While the RPC imposes subsidiary civil liability to corporations for
criminal acts engaged in by their employees in the discharge of their
duties, said subsidiary liability applies only to felonies, and
not to crimes penalized by special laws such as B.P. Blg. 22. And
nothing in B.P. Blg. 22 imposes such subsidiary liability to the
corporation in whose name the check is actually issued. Clearly then,
should the check signatory be unable to pay the obligation incurred
by the corporation, the complainant would be bereft of remedy
unless the right of action to collect on the liability of the corporation
is recognized and given esh.
Rimando v. Aldaba 2014
Rimando’s acquittal in the estafa case does not necessarily absolve
her from any civil liability to private complainants, Sps. Aldaba. It is
well-settled that “the acquittal of the accused does not automatically
preclude a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case. The
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil liability where:
a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required;
b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only
civil; and
c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not
based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
In this case, Rimando’s civil liability did not arise from any
purported act constituting the crime of estafa as the RTC clearly
found that Rimando never employed any deceit on Sps. Aldaba to
induce them to invest money in Multitel. Rather, her civil liability
was correctly traced from being an accommodation party to
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
one of the checks she issued to Sps. Aldaba on behalf of Multitel.
The CA is also correct in holding that Rimando’s acquittal and
subsequent exoneration in the BP 22 cases had no e ect in the estafa
case, even if both cases were founded on the same factual
circumstances.
People v. Tampus and Montesclaros supra
We deem it necessary and proper to award ABC civil indemnity of
P50K. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon nding
of the fact of rape. This is distinct from moral damages awarded
upon such nding without need of further proof, because it is
assumed that a rape victim has actually su ered moral injuries.
The victim in simple rape cases is entitled to an award of P50K as
civil indemnity ex delicto and another P50K as moral damages.
However, Tampus' civil indemnity ex delicto has been
extinguished by reason of his death before the nal judgment, in
accordance with Article 89. Thus, the amount of civil indemnity
which remains for accomplice Ida to pay is put at issue.
The courts have the discretion to determine the
apportionment of the civil indemnity which the principal,
accomplice and accessory are respectively liable for, without
guidelines with respect to the basis of the allotment.
Article 109 provides that "if there are two or more persons civilly
liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which
each must respond." Article 110 provides that "the principals,
accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective class, shall
be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas,
and subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable."
53 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Each principal should shoulder a greater share in the total amount of

114 Treason Conspiracy: In time of war, two or more persons agree and decide to
commit treason.
indemnity and damages than every accomplice, and each accomplice Acts punished
should also be liable for a greater amount as against every accessory. Proposal: A person has decided to commit treason and proposes its
1) By levying war against the Government; execution to others.
2) By adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
116 Misprision of Treason
II Crimes Under the Revised Penal Code Elements
1) Filipino o ender owes allegiance to the Government;
1) O ender is either a Filipino or a resident alien;
Crimes against national security and laws of nations 2) Has knowledge of any conspiracy to commit treason;
2) There is a war where the Philippines is involved;
Crimes against the fundamental law of the State 3) Conceals or does not disclose the same ASAP to the
3) The o ender either:
governor, mayor, or scal.
Crimes against public order a) levies war against the Government; or
117 Espionage
Crimes against public interest b) adheres to the enemy, giving them aid or comfort

Crimes against public morals Acts punished with corresponding elements

NOTES
1) (Any person) Enters w/o authority a warship, fort, or naval
Crimes committed by public o cers 1. Treachery is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed or military establishment or reservation to obtain any info,
Crimes against persons by a person who owes allegiance to it. plans, photographs of a con dential nature relative to the
2. Levying war requires: defense of the PH
Crimes against personal liberty and security
a) actual assembling of men; and a) Enters any of the places aforementioned;
Crimes against property
b) for the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force. b) Unauthorized;
Crimes against chastity Mere enlistment of men is not sufficient. c) Purpose is to obtain con dential information
Crimes against the civil status of persons 3. Can't be complexed and is a continuous crime. Since treason relative to Philippine defense.
is a political crime, the Political O ense Doctrine nds 2) (Public o cer) Disclosing to the representative of a foreign
Crimes against honor application. nation information obtained in the rst act, which he
Quasi-o enses 4. If the alien is a co-conspirator, he need not be a resident of possessed by reason of his public o ce.
the Philippines. General rule: Alien o ender must be a) Public o cer;
Crimes against national security and resident, except if co-conspirator. (Regalado)
A b) possesses any of the articles by reason of his public
laws of nations 115 Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason o ce;

By RGL 54 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

c) Discloses contents to a representative of a foreign
nation.
118 Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
Provocation or giving occasion for a war involving or liable to involve
the RP or expose Filipinos to reprisals.
1) Performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2) Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or
liable to involve the RP or expose Filipinos to reprisals.
119 Violation of neutrality
Violation of a regulation for neutrality
1) There is a war wherein PH is not involved;
2) Competent authority has issued regulation of neutrality;
3) O ender violates such regulation.
120 Correspondence with hostile country
1) There is a war involving PH;
2) O ender makes correspondence with the enemy;
3) Correspondence is either:
a) prohibited by Government; or
b) carried on in signs or ciphers; or
c) might be useful to the enemy.
121 Flight to enemy's country
Filipino or a resident alien
1) There is a war involving PH;
2) O ender owes allegiance to the Government;
3) O ender attempts to ee or go to the enemy country;
4) Going to enemy country prohibited by competent authority.
122 Piracy
Acts punished
1) Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in PH
waters;
2) Seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in PH waters
the whole or part of its cargo, its equipment or personal
belongings of its complement or passengers.
Elements
1) A vessel is on the high seas or PH waters;
2) O enders are strangers to the vessel;
3) O enders commit any of the acts punishable.
Mutiny
Acts punished
1) Unlawful resistance to a superior o cer;
2) Raising of commotions on board against the authority of its
commander.
Element
1) O enders are members of the crew or are passengers.
123 Quali ed Piracy
Qualifying circumstances
1) Seizing the vessel by boarding or ring upon the same;
2) Pirates have abandoned their victims helpless;
3) Accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or
rape.
Elements
1) O ender committed Piracy;
2) Any of the qualifying circumstances is present
Considered as Terrorism under RA 9372
➔ when it results to a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
NOTES RE PIRACY AND MUTINY
1. PD 532 or the Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law
punishes an attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking
away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the
personal belongings of the complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
2. Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas,
without lawful authority and done with animo furandi and in
the spirit and intention of universal hostility. Intent to gain is
essential in piracy.
3. Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior o cer, or the
raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship against
the authority of its commander. Intent to gain is not essential
in mutiny. Ignoring authority is su cient, and may be

By RGL 55 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

prompted by a desire to commit plunder.

e. Abduction (Art 342) - victim is a woman detained with 1) O ender is a public o cer or employee;
lewd designs
2) There is a judicial or executive order of release, or a
Crimes against the fundamental law of
B 2. Juridical existence of a crime committed by the victim is not proceeding upon a petition of release;
the State essential. What is determinative is the good faith and the purpose
3) O ender baselessly delays.
1. These are crimes that violate the Bill of Rights under the of the public o cer under the circumstances of the case as they
Constitution. appeared to him. If it turns out the person detained was 127 Expulsion
innocent, the o cer acted under a mistake of fact. (Regalado)
2. O enders are generally public o cers (exc Art 133 on Acts punished
O ending Religious Feelings) who must act in the exercise of 125 Delay in delivery to judicial authorities
1) Expels a person from PH;
public functions.
Failure to deliver a detained person to the proper judicial authorities 2) Compels him to change residence
3. Private persons may be held liable as co-conspirator, or be an
for a speci c period of time.
accomplice or accessory thereto. Elements
1) O ender is a public o cer or employee;
1) Public o cer or employee;
124 Arbitrary Detention 2) Person detained for some legal ground;
2) Does either acts punished;
1) O ender is a public o cer or employee; 3) There is no warrant of arrest.
3) Not authorized by law.
2) Detains a person; 4) Fails to deliver such person to proper judicial authorities
within: 128 Violation of domicile
3) Detention is without legal grounds.
a) 12 hours for light; Acts punished
NOTES b) 18 hours for correctional; 1) Entering a dwelling against owner's will;
1. Variations: c) 36 hours for a ictive or capital o enses. 2) Searching without owner's previous consent;
a. Arbitrary detention - No ground, intent is just to detain
126 Delaying release 3) Refusing to leave when so required.
without intent to deliver to judicial authorities.
Elements
b. Unlawful arrest (Art 269) - Detention of no legal ground, Delaying:
purpose to deliver to judicial authorities 1) O ender is a public o cer or employee;
1) Performance of a judicial or executive order of release;
c. Delay of delivery (Art 125) - there is legal ground, but 2) No judicial order.
2) Service of notice; or
unduly delays delivery.
3) Proceedings upon any petition for release. Search warrants maliciously obtained
129
d. Coercion (Art 286) - no intention to detain but victim was and abuse in the service of those legally obtained
restricted of freedom of movement Elements

By RGL 56 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Acts punished with corresponding elements
1) Procuring search warrant without just cause;
a) O ender is a public o cer or employee;
b) Procures a search warrant;
c) No just cause.
2) Excess in executing search warrant;
a) O ender is a public o cer or employee;
b) Search warrant legally procured;
c) Exceeds authority, or unnecessary severity.
130 Searching domicile without witnesses
Conduct of judicially authorized search without witnesses present
1) O ender is a public o cer or employee
2) Valid search warrant;
3) Searches the domicile;
4) No witness present.
Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of
131
peaceful meetings
1) Prohibiting or interrupting the holding of a peaceful
meeting without legal ground, or dissolving same;
2) Hindering any person from joining lawful associations or
from attending their meetings;
3) Prohibiting or hindering any person or group from
petitioning for redress of grievances.
Reviewer
132 Interruption of religious worship
1) Public o cer or employee;
2) Religious ceremonies or manifestation of religion are about
to take place or are ongoing;
3) Prevents or disturbs the same.
133 O ending the religious feelings
Performs acts notoriously o ensive to the feelings of the faithful.
1) Acts performed in
a) a place devoted to religious worship; OR
b) during religious ceremony;
2) Acts are notoriously o ensive to the feelings of the faithful.
Soria v. Desierto
Was there a delay in the delivery of detained person to the proper
judicial authorities under the circumstances? The answer is in the
negative. The complaints against him were seasonably led in the
court of justice within the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by
law. The duty of the detaining o cers is deemed complied
with upon the ling of the complaints. Further action, like
issuance of a Release Order, then rests upon the judicial authority.
⭐Medina v. Orozco
November 7 was a Sunday; November 8 was declared an o cial
holiday; and November 9 (election day) was also an o cial holiday.
These are considerations su cient enough to deter us from
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
declaring that Arthur Medina was arbitrarily detained. For, he was
brought to court on the very rst o ce day following arrest.
Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila
For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an o cer
detaining a person for more than six hours prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code, the means of communication as well as the
hour of arrest and other circumstances, such as the time of
surrender and the material possibility for the scal to make the
investigation and le in time the necessary information, must be
taken into consideration.
⭐IBP v. DOJ 2017 En Banc
The waiver of Article 125 of the RPC does not vest upon the DOJ,
PPO, BJMP, and PNP the unbridled right to inde nitely incarcerate
an arrested person and subject him to the whims and caprices of the
reviewing prosecutor of the DOJ. The waiver of Article 125
must coincide with the prescribed period for preliminary
investigation as mandated by Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court. Detention beyond this period violates the accused's
constitutional right to liberty.
Accordingly, the Court rules that a detainee under such
circumstances must be promptly released to avoid violation of
the constitutional right to liberty, despite a waiver of Article
125, if the 15-day period (or the thirty 30-day period in cases of
violation of R.A. No. 9165) for the conduct of the preliminary
investigation lapses. This rule also applies in cases where the
investigating prosecutor resolves to dismiss the case, even if such
57 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
dismissal was appealed to the DOJ or made the subject of a motion
for reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review.
C Crimes against public order
134 Rebellion or insurrection
Public uprising and taking arms against the government
1) There be a
a) public uprising, and
b) taking arms against the Government.
2) Purpose is either:
a) to remove from the allegiance thereto or its laws:
i) PH territory or any part thereof; or
ii) any body of land, naval or other armed
forces; or
b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly
or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
NOTES
1. Rebellion is to overthrow and supersede the existing
Government.
2. Insurrection merely seeks to e ect some change of minor
importance, or to prevent the exercise of governmental
authority with respect to particular matters or subjects.
3. Considered as Terrorism under RA 9372 when it results to a
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic, in
The allegations in the a davits are far from the proof needed to
order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against
demand.
the government. What these documents prove, at best, is that
Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on 20 February 2006
People v. Lovedioro and that 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP
Plenum. None of the a davits stated that Beltran committed
The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public
speci c acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a rebellion as
uprising against the government. Political motive should be
found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 February 2006. None of the
established before a person charged with a common crime —
a davits alleged that Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltran's
alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty
alleged presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum does not
— could bene t from the law's relatively benign attitude towards
automatically make him a leader of a rebellion.
political crimes. In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and
mere membership in an organization dedicated to the
furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, su ce. Enrile v. Amin
In the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence pointing to a
The attendant circumstances in the instant case, however constrain
political motive for the killing of SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, we are satis ed
us to rule that the theory of absorption in rebellion cases must
that the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime of
not con ne itself to common crimes but also to o enses under
murder.
special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the
political o ense.
Prosecutor of Zamboanga v. CA Intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce Enrile is not
charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel
The political motivation for the crime must be shown in order to
Honasan simply because the latter is a friend and former associate,
justify nding the crime committed to be rebellion. Otherwise, as in
the motive for the act is completely di erent. But if the act is
People v. Ompad, although it was shown that the accused was an
committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of
NPA commander, he was nonetheless convicted of murder for the
rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the crime of
killing of a person suspected of being a government informer.
rebellion instead of being punished separately.
Beltran, et al v. Gonzalez
Ocampo v. Abando, et al 2014 En Banc
Petitioners are party-list representatives charged with Rebellion.
The political o ense doctrine is not a ground to dismiss the charge
By RGL 58 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

against petitioners prior to a determination by the trial court that insurrection

2) Employ force, intimidation, and illegal means;
the murders were committed in furtherance of rebellion.
1) Conspiracy to commit rebellion; 3) Purpose is either to:
Under the political o ense doctrine, “common crimes,
2) Proposal to commit rebellion. a) Prevent the promulgation or execution of any law
perpetrated in furtherance of a political o ense, are divested of their
character as “common” o enses and assume the political or the conduct of elections;
137 Disloyalty of public o cers or employees
complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, b) Prevent the Government, national or local, or any
and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal 1) O ender is a public o cer; public o cer from freely exercising its or his
o ense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a 2) Fails to resist a rebellion; functions, or prevent the execution of an
graver penalty.” administrative order;
3) Continues to discharge o cial duties under the control of
The burden of demonstrating political motivation must be the rebels; c) In ict hate or revenge upon the person or property
discharged by the defense, since motive is a state of mind which of any public o cer or employee;
only the accused knows. If it is shown that the proper charge against 4) Accepts appointment under them.
d) Commit any act of hate or revenge against private
petitioners should have been simple rebellion, the trial court shall
138 Inciting to rebellion persons or social classes, for any political or social
dismiss the murder charges upon the ling of the Information for
end;
simple rebellion, as long as petitioners would not be placed in Inciting to rebel through speeches, proclamations, writings,
double jeopardy. emblems, banners, etc. e) Despoil, for any political or social end, the
Government, national or local of all or any part of
1) Does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the
its property.
134-A Coup d'etat Government;

1) O ender belongs to the military or police or holding public 2) Incites others to rebel; NOTES
o ce or employment; 3) Inciting done by means of speeches, and others tending to 1. Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the
2) Swift attack with violence, intimidation, threat, strategy the same end. State.
or stealth; 2. Art 153 de nes tumultuous as an act if committed by more
139 Sedition
3) Attack is directed against duly constituted authorities of than three (3) persons who are armed or provided with means of
RP, or any military camp or installation, communication Public and tumultuous uprising employing force, intimidation, or violence.
networks, public facilities or others needed for the exercise other means outside of legal methods.
3. Act 3 must have been motivated only by the fact that the victim
and continued possession of power. 1) O enders rise is a public o cer, otherwise it would be a case of malicious
4) Purpose is to seize or diminish state power. mischief or any other ordinary crime. (Regalado)
a) publicly, and

136 Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup, rebellion or b) tumultuously; 141 Conspiracy to commit sedition

By RGL 59 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

142 Inciting to sedition comm., subcomm., constitutional comm. or divisions

Acts punished
1) Inciting others to sedition through speeches, proclamations,
writing, emblems, etc.
2) Uttering seditious words or speeches that tend to disturb
the public peace;
3) Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against 145
the Government or any of its duly constituted authorities,
Committed by any person
which tend to disturb the public peace.
4) Knowingly concealing such evil practices.
Elements
1) O ender does not take direct part in the crime of sedition;
2) Incites other to accomplish any of the acts constituting
sedition;
3) Inciting is done through speeches, proclamations, writings, Committed by a public officer
emblems, cartoons, banners, etc.
Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and
143
similar bodies
1) There be a projected or actual meeting of Congress, its
comm., subcomm., constitutional comm. or divisions
thereof, or any LG council;
146
2) Such is prevented by force or fraud.
Acts punished with corresponding elements
Disturbance of proceedings of congress or similar
144
bodies
1) There be a projected or actual meeting of Congress, its
thereof, or any LG council;
2) O ender either:
a) disturbs such meeting; or
b) behaves in such an interruptive manner, or to
impair the respect due it.
Violation of parliamentary immunity
1) O ender uses force, intimidation, threats, or fraud;
2) Purpose is to prevent a member of Congress from
a) attending any of its meetings;
b) expressing his opinions; or
c) casting his vote.
1) Public o cer or employee;
2) Arrests or searches a member of Congress;
3) Congress is in session;
4) Member arrested has not committed a crime punishable by
a penalty higher than PM under the Code.
Illegal assemblies
1) Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of
committing a crime under the RPC
a) There is a meeting, either in a xed place or
moving;
b) Attended by armed persons;
c) Purpose is to commit a crime under the RPC;
2) Any meeting in which the audience is incited to commit
TRISA.
a) There is a meeting;
b) The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to
commit TRISA.
NB: Treason, Rebellion or Insurrection, Sedition, or Assault upon a
person in authority or his agents (TRISA).
147 Illegal associations
Founders, directors, presidents, forming or organizing, and members
in an association totally or partially organized for:
1) the purpose of committing a crime; or
2) some purpose contrary to public morals
Elements
1) An association is formed or organized;
2) The purpose of which is to commit a crime or contrary to
public morals.
NOTES
1. If the assembly was called for the purpose of committing a crime
other than TRISA, there must be armed persons in
attendance therein; otherwise, the o ense will be public

By RGL 60 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

disorder (Art 153) or unlawful utterances (Art 154[2]). authority or his agent.
(Regalado) NOTES
e) No public uprising.
148 Direct assaults 1. Important points from Regalado:
NOTES
a) Victim of DA is PIA, attack against person coming to his
Without public uprising: 1. If the o ended party is a mere agent, force employed must be aid will be Direct Assault, Resistance or disobedience
1) by employing force or intimidation, for the attainment of of a serious character as to indicate determination to defy the depending on the degree of force or violence against him.
any of the purpose of rebellion or sedition; law and its representative at all hazards. Otherwise, o ense is
b) Victim of DA is Agent, attack against person coming to his
simple resistance or disobedience under Art 151.
a) O ender employs force or intimidation; aid will be Indirect Assault; resistance or disobedience will
2. Force employed need not be serious when o ended party is a only be physical injuries or coercion depending on the act
b) Aim is the same as rebellion or sedition;
person in authority. against him.
c) No public uprising.
3. Agent of a person in authority is one who, 150 Disobedience to summons issued by Congress
2) by attacking, employing force, or by seriously intimidating
a. by direct provision of law or
or seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his Refusing:
agents, while engaged in the performance of o cial duties, b. by election or
1) Without legal excuse, to obey summons of Congress or any
or on the occasion of such performance. c. by appointment of competent authority, part thereof, or the Constitutional Commissions, or any
a) O ender is charged with the maintenance of public order and the part thereof;
i) attacks, protection and security of life and property. 2) To be sworn or placed under a rmation;
ii) employs force, 4. Knowledge of the accused that o ended party is a person in 3) To answer any legal inquiry or to produce any documents in
authority or his agent, essential and must be alleged in the his possession, when so required; or
iii) makes a serious intimidation, OR
information.
iv) serious resistance; 4) Restraining another from attending as a witness;
149 Indirect assaults 5) Inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be
b) Person assaulted is a person in authority or his
agent; sworn.
Using force or intimidation upon any person aiding a person in
c) O ended party authority or his agent under direct assault. Elements

i) is performing o cial duties, OR 1) A person in authority or his agent is a victim of Direct 1) A person has been duly summoned by Congress or the
Assault; Constitutional Commissions;
ii) that he is assaulted, by reason of the past
performance of o cial duties; 2) A person comes to the aid of the o ended party; 2) Commits any of the acts punishable.

d) O ender knows the o ended party as a person in 3) O ender makes use of force or intimidation upon him. 151 Resistance and serious disobedience

By RGL 61 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

1) A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the Unlawful use of means of publication 156 Delivering prisoners from jails
154
performance of o cial duty or gives a lawful order to the and unlawful utterances
o ender; Acts punished
1) Publishing or causing to be published as news any false 1) Removal of a person from jail;
2) Resists or seriously disobeys;
news which may endanger the public order, or cause
3) Act of the o ender not included in Arts 148, 149, 150. damage to the interest or credit of the State. 2) Assists in the escape of a prisoner.

2) Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted Elements

151 Simple disobedience
1) An agent of a person in authority is engaged in the
performance of o cial duty or gives a lawful order to the
o ender;
2) O ender disobeys;
3) Disobedience not serious.
153 Tumults and other disturbances of public order
1) Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, o ce,
establishment;
155
2) Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions,
gatherings, peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in
Arts 131 and 132;
3) Making an outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in
any gathering;
4) Displaying placards or emblems which provoke disturbance;
5) Burying with pomp the body of a legally executed person.
Qualified: If the disturbance or interruption is tumultuous.
➔ May commit a separate crime, i.e. serious physical injuries.
➔ May also be complexed, i.e. assault and tumultuous
disturbance.
authorities or by praising, justifying or extolling any act
punished by law;
3) Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any
o cial resolution or document without proper authority,
or before they have been o cially published.
4) Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same)
books, pamphlets, periodicals, or lea ets which do not bear
the real printer's name, or which are classi ed as
anonymous.
Alarms and scandals
1) Discharging any rearm, rocket, recracker, or other
explosive, within any town or public place, calculated to
cause (which produces) alarm or danger;
2) Instigating or taking an active par in any charivari or other
disorderly meeting o ensive to another or prejudicial to
public tranquility;
3) Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night
or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements;
4) Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while
intoxicated or otherwise, provided Art 153 is not applicable.
1) There is a person con ned in a jail;
2) O ender removes therefrom such person, or helps him
escape.
NOTES
1. Separate and distinct from Bribery:
a) Briber - Art 156 + Art 212, corruption of a public o cer;
b) Jailer, if public o cer - Art 223, in delity in the custody of
prisoners + Art 210, bribery;
if private person - Art 225, next lower that Art 223 + Art
210;
c) Prisoner, if convict - Not liable in Art 156, but in Art 157;
if detention - no liability, but if convicted, shall not avail of
ISLAW.
157 Evasion of service of sentence
Escape of a prisoner by nal judgment from jail.
1) O ender is a convict by nal judgment;
2) He is serving sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty;
3) He escapes.

By RGL 62 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

159 Violation of conditional pardon direct assault with unintentional abortion. On the day of the 1) Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the
commission of the assault, Gemma was engaged in the performance signature or stamp of the Chief Executive was forged by
Conditionally pardoned convict violates any of the conditions set another person;
of her o cial duties, that is, she was busy with paperwork while
forth in the pardon.
supervising and looking after the needs of pupils. Lydia was already 2) O ender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery;
1) O ender was a convict; angry when she entered the classroom and accused Gemma of
calling her son a "sissy". Gemma then proceeded towards the 3) He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.
2) Granted conditional pardon by Chief Executive;
principal's o ce but Lydia followed and resorted to the use of force
3) Violated any of the conditions of the pardon. Counterfeiting or Mutilating coins
by slapping and pushing her against a wall divider. The violent act
resulted in Gemma's fall to the oor. 163 Making, importing and uttering false coins.
NOTES RE EVASION
Gemma, being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of 1) There be false or counterfeited coins;
1. Art 157, Quali ed: persons in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the RPC.
2) O ender either made, imported, or uttered such coins;
1) means of unlawful entry;
3) In case of uttering, he connived with the counterfeiters or
2) breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or oors;
Pangan v. Gatbalite importers.
3) using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or
intimidation; or "Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of
164
the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of mutilated coins
4) connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
institution. cannot be said to have escaped therefrom. 1) Mutilating coins with intent to damage or defraud.

160 Quasi-recidivism 2) Importing or uttering such mutilated coins with

D Crimes against public interest connivance with the mutilator or importer.
Convict by nal judgment commits a new felony punishable by the
RPC before beginning to serve or while serving a sentence. 165 Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance
161 Counterfeiting or forging
1) O ender is a convict by nal judgment; Acts punished with corresponding elements
Forging the:
2) Committed a new felony before beginning to serve such 1) Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another
sentence, or while serving the same. 1) Great Seal of the Government of the PH;
a) Possession
2) signature of the President;
b) With intent to utter
3) stamp of the President.
Gelig v. People 2010 c) Knowledge.
162 Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp
RTC convicted Lydia Gelig for committing the complex crime of 2) Actually uttering

By RGL 63 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
a) Actually uttering
b) Knowledge.
False Treasury or Bank notes
Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents
166 payable to bearer, importing, and uttering of such false
or forged notes and documents
1) Forging or falsi cation of treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer;
2) Importation;
3) Uttering in connivance with the forgers or importers.
Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments
167
not payable to bearer
1) There be an instrument payable to order or other document
not payable to bearer;
2) O ender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument;
3) In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.
Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank
168
notes and other instruments of credit
1) Any treasury or bank note or certi cate or other obligation
and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable
to order or other document of credit not payable to
bearer is forged or falsi ed by another person.
2) Knowledge;
3) Performs any of these acts:
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
who takes advantage of his o cial position.
a) Using any such forged or falsified instruments; or
Acts punished with corresponding elements
b) Possessing with intent to use.
1) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
169 How forgery is committed rubric.
1) Giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable Two ways:
to bearer or to order mentioned therein the appearance of a
1) Counterfeiting, requisites are:
true and genuine document.
a) intent or attempt to imitate,
e.g. Writing the word "Victory" in ink at the back of the
one-peso bill which accused gave as payment. (PP v b) genuine and forged bear some resemblance;
Galano). and
2) Erasing, Substituting, Counterfeiting, or Altering by any 2) Feigning which is simulating something that does
not exist.
means the gures, letters, words, or sign contained therein.
e.g. A wrote B's name on the back of said treasury Making it appear that a person who does not know
warrant as if B had indorsed it, and then presented it for how to write has signed the document is feigning.
payment. (US v. Solito) 2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding.
Falsi cation
a) Causing it to appear that a person participated in an
170 Falsi cation of legislative documents act; and
1) There be a bill, resolution, or ordinance of any stage and b) Such person did not in fact participate.
of any legislative body; 3) Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
2) O ender alters;
them.
3) He has no proper authority;
a) A person participated in an act;
4) Alteration has changed the meaning.
b) He made statements in that act; and
Falsi cation by public o cer, employee or notary or
171 c) Statements other than those made by such person
ecclesiastical minister
were attributed to him.
Any public o cer, employee, or notary, or ecclesiastical minister, 4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
By RGL 64 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

a) In a document, there be a narration of facts;
b) O ender has legal obligation to disclose the truth;
c) Facts are absolutely false;
d) Wrongful intent of injuring a third person.
172
➔ Person making the narration of facts must have
knowledge of its falsity.
Acts punished with corresponding elements
5) Altering true dates
➔ Date must be essential.
➔ Must a ect either the veracity or the e ects of the
document.
➔ Altering dates in o cial receipts to prevent
discovery of malversation is falsi cation.
6) Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning.
a) There be an alteration or intercalation;
b) Made on a genuine document;
c) Meaning of document has changed; and
d) Change made the document speak something false.
7) Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be
a copy of an inexistent document.
➔ Including in a copy a statement contrary to, or
different from that of the genuine original - Civil
registrar stating that a person is legitimate contrary
to that stated in the original.
Falsi cation by private individuals and use of falsi ed
documents
1) Falsi cation of public, official or commercial documents.
a) O ender is private individual or public o cer who
did not take advantage of his o cial position;
b) Committed any acts in Art 171;
c) Falsi cation committed in public, o cial, or
commercial documents.
2) Falsi cation of private documents.
a) O ender committed act in Art 171 except par 7;
b) Committed in any private document;
c) Caused or with intent to cause damage to a third
party.
3) Use of falsi ed documents.
in a judicial proceeding
d) Used such document;
e) Caused or with intent to cause damage.
False medical certi cates, false certi cates of merit or
174
service
Punishable act committed by offender
1) Physician falsi es medical certi cate,
2) Public O cer falsi es certi cate of merit or service,
good conduct, etc,
3) Private person falsi es either.
175 Using false certi cates
1) Art 174 has been committed;
2) O ender knew of the falsity;
3) He used the same.
177 Usurpation
1) Usurpation of authority
knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an o cer,
agent, rep of the PH or any foreign gov't
2) Usurpation of official functions

➔ Purporting to be a copy of an inexistent document - a) Knowledge; performing any act pertaining to any person in authority,
Making a copy of a deed of sale which was never under pretense of o cial position, and without being
b) False document embraced in Art 171 or 172 pars
executed; lawfully entitled to.
1-2;
8) Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance c) Introduced in evidence in any judicial proceeding. False testimony
thereof in a protocol, registry or o cial book.
in any other transaction 180 False testimony against a defendant

By RGL 65 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

1) There be a criminal proceeding;

2) Such was made before a competent officer, authorized to 2) Intent to cause reduction of price
2) O ender testi es falsely under oath against defendant; receive and administer oath;
Acts punished with additional elements
3) Knows of falsity; 3) Willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood;
1) Soliciting any gift or promise
4) Defendant is either acquitted or convicted by nal 4) Statement or a davit required by law.
a) Solicited gift or promise;
judgment.
184 O ering false testimony in evidence b) To refrain bidders from taking part.
181 False testimony favorable to the defendant
2) Attempting bidders to stay away
1) O ered in evidence a false witness or testimony;
1) There be a criminal proceeding; a) Attempted to cause bidders to stay away;
2) Knows of falsity;
2) O ender testi es falsely under oath with intent to favor b) By threats, gifts, promises or other arti ce.
defendant; 3) Made in a judicial or o cial proceeding.

3) Knows of falsity; Common bid manipulation practices:

NOTES RE FALSE TESTIMONY
1. Bid cover happens when a competitor submits a bid that is
182 False testimony in civil cases 1. Material matter is the main fact which is the subject of the
either
inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or
1) Civil case; a) higher than that of the designated winner,
any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or
2) Testimony is relevant, and strengthen the testimony, or which legitimately a ects the credit b) too high to be accepted, or
3) False; of any witness who testi es.
c) contains special terms that are known to be
4) Knows of falsity; 2. Subornation of perjury is committed by procuring another to unacceptable by the purchaser.
swear falsely.
5) Malicious with intent to a ect the issues presented. 2. Bid suppression happens when a company does not submit
3. O er of testimonial evidence, begins the moment a witness is a bid for nal consideration.
183 False testimony in other cases and perjury called to the witness stand and interrogated by counsel.
3. Bid rotation, takes turns winning bids.
Acts punished 4. If the false witness desists, he is not liable. The o eror however is
4. Market allocation, agree not to compete for certain
liable for attempted o ering false testimony in evidence.
1) Falsely testifying under oath; and customers or in certain areas.

2) Making a false a davit.

185 Machinations in public auctions
Has been repealed by RA 10667 or the Philippine
186
Elements Common elements Competition Act

1) Made statement under oath, or executed an a davit upon a 1) There be public auction;
material matter;

By RGL 66 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Layug v. Sandiganbayan
E Crimes against public morals
There is authority to the e ect that a fourth requisite, i.e., that the
act of falsi cation was committed to the damage of a third party or 200
with intent to cause such damage, may be dispensed with as
regards falsi cation of public or o cial documents. In the
prosecution of cases involving falsi cation of daily time records, it
is imperative that there be proof of damage to the government.
Such damage may take the form of salary paid to the accused for
services not rendered.
2017 re Falsi cation of public documents
Tepoco v. People
201
Wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third
person is NOT an essential element of the crime of
falsi cation of public document.
Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan 2017
O enders are considered to have taken advantage of their o cial
position in falsifying a document if
1) they had the duty to make or prepare or otherwise
intervene in the preparation of the document; or
2) they had o cial custody of the falsi ed document
In cases of falsi cation, we have interpreted that the criminal intent
to pervert the truth is lacking in cases showing that
1) the accused did not bene t from the falsi cation; and
2) no damage was caused either to the government or to a
third person.
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
3) Sell, give away, or exhibit o ensive displays.
Grave scandal Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove 2015
1) Act is performed; The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral
involves a two-step process: first, a consideration of the totality of
2) Such be highly scandalous as o ending against decency or the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and second, an
good customs; assessment of the said circumstances vis-à-vis the prevailing norms
3) Not under any other article; of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and
respectable.
4) Done in a public place or within public knowledge or view.
The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily
Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and secular, not religious.
exhibitions
(as amended by PD 969)
Madrilejos v. Gatdula 2019 En Banc
1) Publicly proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals; Ordinance No. 7780 is a local legislation which criminalizes
2) a. Authors or publishers of, or owners of establishment obscenity. Obscenity is unprotected speech.
selling obscene literature; Under the circumstances, the proper recourse for petitioners
b. Exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or would have been to go to trial to allow the RTC, as the trier of fact,
shows which: to judicially determine whether the materials complained of as
obscene were indeed proscribed under the language of Ordinance
i) glorify criminals or condone crimes; No. 7780. As part of their defense, petitioners can probably argue
ii) serves no other purpose but to satisfy market for for the adoption of the Miller standards, which requires the trier of
violence, lust or pornography; fact to ascertain:
iii) o end any race or religion; a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary
community standards" would nd that the work, taken as a
iv) tend to abet us of prohibited drugs; and
whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
v) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good
b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees
o ensive way, sexual conduct speci cally de ned by the
and edicts;
applicable state law; and
By RGL 67 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

1) O ender is a judge; law.

c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scienti c value. 2) Renders judgment; Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor —
209
3) Such is manifestly unjust; revelation of secrets
F Crimes committed by public o cers 4) Due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance. 1) Causing damage to his client, by

Who are public o cers 206 Rendering unjust interlocutory order a) any malicious breach of professional duty, or
1) Taking part in the performance of public functions in the b) inexcusable negligence or ignorance;
1) O ender is a judge;
Government, or
2) Revealing secrets he has learned from his client in his
2) (a) knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order; or
Performing in said Government public duties as an employee, professional capacity, to which damage is not necessary;
agent or subordinate o cial, of any rank or class; (b) Renders manifestly unjust one through inexcusable
3) Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the
negligence or ignorance.
2) His authority must be by same case without consent from the rst one, after having
a) direct provision of law; 207 Malicious delay in the administration of justice undertaken the defense or received con dential information
from said client.
b) popular election; or 1) O ender is a judge;
c) appointment by competent authority. 2) There is a proceeding in his court;
210 Direct bribery

For purposes of RPC, there is no distinction between a public o cer 3) Delays administration of justice; Acts punished
and a public employee. What is determinative is not the nature of 1) Agree to perform, or perform a criminal act;
4) It is malicious, with intent to cause damage to either.
appointment but of the duties he performs.
208 Dereliction of duty in prosecution of o enses 2) Accepting a gift in consideration of executing an unjust
Crimes Committed by Judges act that is not criminal;
O cer of the law who maliciously
204 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment 3) Agree to refrain, or refrain from doing an o cial duty.
1) Refrains prosecution; or
Common Elements
1) O ender is a judge;
2) Tolerates o enses.
1) O ender is a public o cer;
2) Renders judgment;
Elements
2) Accepts an o er or a promise, or receives gift personally or
3) Such is unjust;
1) O ender is a public o cer or o cer of the law; through third person;
4) Knows it is unjust.
2) There is dereliction of duty; 3) Does the act;
205 Rendering judgment through negligence 3) With malice and deliberate intent to favor violator of 4) Agreed act in connection with the performance of o cial

By RGL 68 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

duties. 1) O ender is a public o cer; 214 Other frauds

211 Indirect bribery 2) Intervened in his o cial capacity; 1) O ender is a public o cer;
3) Entered into an agreement with an interested party or 2) Takes advantage of o cial position;
1) O ender a public o cer; speculator with regards to
3) Commits any of the frauds or deceits in Arts 315-318.
2) Accepts gift; a) furnishing supplies,
a) estafa,
3) By reason of his o ce. b) making of contracts, OR
b) other forms of swindling,
★ There must be clear intention on the part of the public o cer to c) the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to
take the gift and consider it as his from then on. public property or funds; c) windling a minor, OR

211 4) Intent to defraud the Government. d) other deceits.

Quali ed bribery
A RTC has jurisdiction when this article is involved because MTCs
Illegal Exactions
have no jurisdiction to impose the penalty of DQ.
1) Public o cer entrusted with law enforcement;
a) Public o cer entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses,
2) Refrains from arresting or prosecuting o ender punishable 215 Prohibited transactions
fees and other imposts;
by RP and/or Death;
b) Acts or omissions: 1) O ender is an appointive PO.
3) In consideration of any promise, gift.
1) Demanding the payment of sums different from or 2) Becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any transaction
212 Corruption of public o cials larger than those authorized by law; or of exchange or speculation;

2) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided 3) Transaction takes place within the territory subject to his
1) O ers or promises or gives gifts to public o cer; jurisdiction;
by law, for any sum of money collected by him
2) Will make the public o cer liable for Direct or Indirect o cially; or 4) Becomes interested during incumbency.
bribery.
3) Collecting or receiving by way of payment or
Malversation
NOTES otherwise, things or objects of a nature di erent
from that provided by law. 217 Malversation of public funds or property
1. If o er is not accepted by public o cer, only o eror criminally
liable for attempted corruption of public o cer in relation to NOTES Acts punished
Art 6. 1) Appropriating public funds or property.
1. A tax collector who collects a sum larger than that authorized
Frauds and spends it is guilty of two crimes: Malversation, and Illegal 2) Taking or misappropriating the same.
Exaction.
213 Frauds against the public treasury 3) Consenting, or by abandonment or negligence,

By RGL 69 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
permitting any other person to take same.
4) Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of same.
Elements
1) O ender is a public o cer;
2) Had the custody or control of funds or property by reason
of his o ce;
3) Those were public funds or property for which he was
accountable;
4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or,
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another to
take them.
NOTES
1. If a subordinate PO, whose only responsibility is towards his
superior, who is in turn accountable to the government, takes or
misappropriates public funds or property, the crime is theft, not
malversation (Webster and Wickersham cases).
2. But where the PO had the authority to receive money due to the
Government, notwithstanding he had no authority to disburse
the same, is liable for malversation when he misappropriated it.
3. In malversation not committed through negligence, lack of
criminal intent, good faith is a defense.
4. Conviction may be had even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation because the shortage in account that has
not been able to be satisfactorily explained is prima facie
evidence.
5. The return of the funds malversed is only a mitigating
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
circumstance similar and analogous to voluntary surrender has been appropriated.
(Art 13 par 7 in rel to par 10).
NOTES
218 Failure of accountable o cer to render accounts
1. No technical malversation if there is no law or ordinance
1) Public o cer, in the service or separated; appropriating public funds or property for a particular purpose.
2) Accountable for public funds or property; 2. Criminal intent is not an element. The o ense is a mala
prohibita.
3) Required by law or regulations to render accounts to COA,
or to a provincial auditor; Technical Malversation and Malversation distinguished:
4) Fails to do so two months after such accounts should be 1) In both, o enders are public o cers;
rendered.
2) In first, no personal gain or pro t; in second, there is pro t in
Demand for accounting not necessary, as long as there is a law certain cases;
requiring same. Misappropriation also not necessary.
3) In first, the fund is applied to another public use; in second, it
Failure of a responsible public o cer to render is for the personal use and bene t of o ender or another.
219
accounts before leaving the country
221 Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
1) Public o cer;
Acts punished
2) Accountable for public funds or property;
1) Failing to make payment;
3) Unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving) PH without
2) Refusing to make delivery after being ordered by competent
securing from COA a certi cate showing that his accounts
authority;
have been fully settled.
Elements
Illegal use of public funds or property or Technical
220 1) Public o cer has Government funds in his possession;
Malversation
2) Obliged to make payment from such;
1) Public o cer;
3) Fails to pay maliciously.
2) There is public fund or property under his administration.
3) Such has been appropriated by law or ordinance;
In delities
4) Applies the same to a public use other than that for which it 223 Conniving with or consenting to evasion
By RGL 70 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

1) O ender is a public o cer; 1) O ender is a public o cer;

d) Damage be caused to public interest.
2) Had custody of prisoner; 2) In charge of a prisoner;
2) Wrongfully delivers papers or copies, of which he may have
3) Such prisoner escaped; charge and which should not be published. 3) Maltreats such either:
4) There was connivance. ⭐ a) O ender is a public o cer; a) by Overdoing correction or handling either by

224 Evasion through negligence b) Has charge of papers; i) imposing punishments not authorized by
regulations, OR
c) Should not be published;
1) O ender is public o cer;
ii) in icting punishments in a cruel and humiliating
d) Delivers to third persons;
2) Charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner; manner; OR
e) Wrongful delivery;
3) Such prisoner escapes through negligence. b) to extort a confession or to obtain some information.
f) Damage be caused to public interest.
Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a 239 Usurpation of legislative powers
225 230 Public o cer revealing secrets of private individual
public o cer
1) O ender is a judicial or executive o cer;
1) O ender is a private person; 1) O ender is a public o cer;
2) O ender
2) Conveyance or custody of a prisoner or a person under arrest 2) Knows of secrets of a private person by reason of his o ce;
a) makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope
is con ded to him; 3) Reveals same without authority or unjusti able reasons. of his authority, or
3) Prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
Other O enses or Irregularities b) attempts to repeal a law, or
4) There was either consent or negligence.
231 Open disobedience c) suspends the execution thereof.

229 Revelation of secrets by an o cer 1) O ender is a judicial or executive o cer; 240 Usurpation of executive functions

Acts punished with corresponding elements 2) There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior; 1) O ender is a judge;

1) Reveals any secrets known to o ender by reason of his 3) Such was made within scope of jurisdiction and legally 2) O ender
o cial capacity. issued;
a) assumes a power pertaining to executive authorities,
a) O ender is a public o cer; 4) O ender openly refuses to execute without any legal or
justi cation.
b) Knows a secret through o cial capacity; b) obstructs the executive in the lawful exercise of their
235 Maltreatment of prisoners powers.
c) Reveals without authority or justi able reasons;
241 Usurpation of judicial functions

By RGL 71 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
1) O ender is an executive o cer;
2) O ender
a) assumes judicial powers, or
b) obstructs the execution of any order or decision
rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
245 Abuses against chastity
1) O ender is a public o cer;
2) Solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman;
3) Such woman must be:
a) interested in matters pending before the o ender;
b) under the custody of the o ender who is a warden
or of similar position and duty;
c) the wife, daughter, sister, or relative within the same
degree of a nity of the person in the custody of
o ender.
Lumauig v. People 2014
A prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is
not a condition sine qua non before an accountable public
o cer may be held liable under Article 218.
Legrama v. Sandiganbayan 2012
Mere absence of funds is not su cient proof of conversion; neither
is the mere failure of the public o cer to turn over the funds at any
given time su cient to make even the prima facie case. In ne,
Reviewer
conversion must be proved. However, an accountable o cer may
be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof
of misappropriation so long as there is evidence of shortage in
his account which he is unable to explain.
Under Article 217, a presumption was installed that upon
demand by any duly authorized o cer, the failure of a public o cer
to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property – with
which said o cer is accountable – should be prima facie evidence
that he had put such missing funds or properties to personal use.
When these circumstances are present, a “presumption of law”
arises that there was malversation of public funds or properties.
G Crimes against persons
Destruction of Life
246 Parricide
1) A person is killed;
2) Deceased is killed by the accused;
3) Deceased is:
a) the father mother, or child, regardless of legitimacy; or
b) a legitimate other ascendant, descendant or spouse of
accused.
The law does not require knowledge of relationship.
Death or physical injuries under exceptional
247
circumstances
1) A legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse
or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another.
2) He or she kills, or in icts any serious physical injuries upon
any or both, in the act or immediately thereafter.
3) He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his
wife or daughter, nor has consented to the in delity of the
spouse.
248 Murder
Any of the following aggravating circumstances are present
1) Treachery (16), taking advantage of superior strength (15),
with the aid of armed men (8), or employing means to
weaken the defense (15), or of means or persons to insure or
a ord immunity (8);
2) In consideration of a price, reward, or promise (11);
3) By means of inundation, re, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad,
fall of an airship (12), by means of motor vehicles, or with
the use of great waste and ruin (20);
4) On occasion of any of the preceding, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity (7);
5) Evident premeditation (13);
6) With cruelty (21), by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the su ering of the victim, or outraging or
sco ng at his person or corpse (not in Art 14).
Rules for the application of circumstances to qualify murder
72 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

a) Only one of the circumstances required; others considered as 5) It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; 2) No intention to kill.
generic aggravating;
6) Those who in icted serious physical injuries or who used 255 Infanticide
b) When the other circumstances are absorbed or included in violence:
the one that quali es, they cannot be considered as generic 1) Child was killed;
a) can be identi ed. - PM;
aggravating; 2) Less than 72 hours of age;
b) cannot be determined - PC med-max.
c) Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged. 3) Accused killed the child.
Otherwise, the crime is only homicide with the qualifying
NOTES
only considered as generic aggravating. NOTES
1. Tumultuous a ray exists when at least four persons took part;
249 Homicide 1. Penalty is same as that for parricide or murder.
2. The person killed in the course of the a ray need not be one of
1) A person was killed; the participants in said a ray. 2. Concealing dishonor mitigates liability for the mother (PM
med-max) and maternal grandparents (RT).
2) Without any justifying circumstance; 252 Physical injuries in icted in a tumultuous a ray
3) With intention to kill, which is presumed; Abortion
1) There is a tumultuous a ray;
4) Not murder, parricide, nor infanticide. 256 Intentional abortion
2) There are those who su ered serious or less serious
physical injuries only; Acts punished
NOTES
3) Those responsible can not be identi ed; 1) Using violence against a pregnant woman (RT).
1. When victim is under 12 years of age: RP (Sec 10 RA 7610);
4) Those that have used violence upon the o ended party are 2) Without violence and without consent of the woman (PM).
2. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. (US known.
v Gloria) 3) With consent (PC med-max).
253 Giving assistance to suicide Elements
251 Death caused in a tumultuous a ray
1) By assisting another to commit suicide, whether it is 1) There is a pregnant woman;
1) There be several persons; consummated (PM) or not (AMay med-max);
2) Violence exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or
2) Did not compose groups organized for the common 2) By lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the acts upon the woman;
purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; extent of doing the killing himself (RT).
3) As a result, fetus dies;
3) Quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and
254 Discharge of rearms 4) Abortion is intended.
tumultuous manner;
4) Someone was killed; 1) Discharges a rearm against or at another; 257 Unintentional abortion

By RGL 73 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

1) There is a pregnant woman;

1) become insane, imbecile, impotent or blind 2) Did not prevent o ended party from his habitual work or
2) Violence is used without intending an abortion; did not require medical attendance. (AMen or Fine <=200
2) have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to
and Censure);
3) Violence intentionally exerted; smell, an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, or lost the
use of any such principal member, or have become 3) Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.
4) Fetus dies.
incapacitated for the work he was habitually engaged. (AMen min or Fine <=50)
260 Duel 3) have become deformed, or have lost any other body part, Rape
or the use thereof, or have been ill or incapacitated to 266-A Rape by sexual intercourse (Ordinary)
1) Killing one's adversary in a duel; (RT)
perform the work he was habitually engaged in for
2) In icting physical injuries upon such adversary; (Penalty more than 90 days. Penalty is RP when:
according to the nature)
4) have become ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 1) O ender is a man;
3) Making combat although no physical injuries have been 30 days. 2) Had carnal knowledge with a woman;
in icted. (AMay)
264 Administering injurious substances or beverages 3) Accomplished
Physical Injuries
1) O ender in icted upon another any serious physical a) using force or intimidation;
262 Mutilation injury; b) when the woman is deprived of reason, or
2) By knowingly administering any injurious substances or unconscious;
Acts punished
beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or c) through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
1) Castration - depriving another, either totally or partially,
credulity. authority; OR
of some essential organ for reproduction.
3) No intent to kill. d) when woman is under 12 years of age (statutory rape)
a) There is mutilation of penis or ovarium.
or demented.
265 Less serious physical injuries
b) It was purposeful and deliberate, to deprive the
Penalty is RP to Death when:
o ended party of reproducing. 1) Incapacitated for labor for 10-30 days; or needs medical
1) with the use of a deadly weapon or by at least 2 persons;
2) Mayhem - lopping or clipping o any other part of the attendance for same period.
body. 2) the victim has become insane;
2) Injuries not those described in Art 263-264.
3) special complex crime of attempted rape with homicide;
263 Serious physical injuries 266 Slight physical injuries and maltreatment
Penalty is Death when:
If in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, injured 1) Incapacitated o ended party for labor from 1-9 days, or
1) special complex crime of rape with homicide.
person shall: required medical attendance during same period; (AMen)

By RGL 74 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

ori ce. aggravating circumstance. (Pp v. Lucena)

2) with any of the following:
a) victim is minor and the o ender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative within the 3rd civil
degree, or the common law spouse of the parent.
b) under the custody of the police, military or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution.
c) in full view of the spouse, parent, child, or other
relatives within the 3rd degree of consanguinity.
d) o ender knows victim as religious;
e) victim is below 7 years old;
f) o ender knows he has HIV/AIDS or other STD and
transmits to victim;
g) o ender belongs to AFP, PNP, para-military, other law
enforcement agency or penal institution and takes
advantage of position.
h) permanent mutilation/disability;
i) o ender knows victim is pregnant;
j) o ender knows victim has mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap.
266-A Rape through sexual assault (Object)
3) Accomplished 2. Is resistance by the victim required to prove lack of consent
to the rape? Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against
a) using force or intimidation; the rape in any degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of
lack of consent. Tenacious resistance, however, is not required.
b) when the woman is deprived of reason, or
unconscious; Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle on the part
of the victim necessary. (Pp v. Gondaway)
c) through fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority; or when woman is under 12 years of 3. Force as an element of rape need not be irresistible; it need but
age or demented. be present. Intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim’s
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the
Qualified
crime and not by any hard and fast rule.
a) with the use of a deadly weapon or by at least 2 persons; PM
4. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by
to RT
threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. (Pp v. Frias)
b) the victim has become insane; RT
5. The victim’s moral character is immaterial, there being absolutely
c) special complex crime of attempted rape with homicide; RT no nexus between it and the odious deed committed. Even a
to RP prostitute or a woman of loose morals can be the victim of rape,
for she can still refuse a man’s lustful advances. (Pp v. Agsaoay)
d) special complex crime of rape with homicide. RP
6. Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of rape
e) any of the 10 qualifying of par 1. RT
a) any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of
NOTES RE RAPE rape in any degree from the o ended party; or
1. Indemnity and Damages b) where the o ended party is so situated as to render him/her
incapable of giving consent.
a. Civil indemnity is mandatory. (Pp v. Lascano)

Penalty is PM b. If quali ed, increased to not less than P75K, (Pp v. Victor) Ricalde v. People 2015

1) O ender commits sexual assault;
2) Committed by inserting
a) his penis into another's mouth or anus; or
b) any instrument or object into the genital or anal
c. In rape with homicide: P100K as civil indemnity + P75K as
moral + P25K as temperate + P100K as exemplary damages.
(Pp v. Cumimba)
d. Award of moral damages, automatic. Exemplary damages
justi ed under Art 2230 of Civil Code if there is an
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as
“instrument or object rape,” “gender-free rape,” or “homosexual
rape.” The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is “the
insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or anal ori ce, or
any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal

By RGL 75 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
ori ce.”
In People v. Soria, the court discussed that a victim need not
identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal ori ce for
the court to nd that rape through sexual assault was committed.
Baleros v. People
Whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a
chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt act of
rape.
NO. It would be too strained to construe petitioner's act of pressing
a chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou which would induce
her to sleep as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen
into rape. As it were, petitioner did not commence at all the
performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape
Malou. It cannot be overemphasized that petitioner was fully
clothed and that there was no attempt on his part to undress Malou,
let alone touch her private part. For what reason petitioner wanted
the complainant unconscious, if that was really his immediate
intention, is anybody's guess.
Perez v. CA
Perez was found guilty of attempted rape. However, a careful
review of the records of the case shows that the crime committed by
petitioner was acts of lasciviousness not attempted rape.
There is no showing in this case that petitioner’s sexual organ had
even touched complainant’s vagina nor any part of her body.
Although the information led against petitioner was for
Reviewer
attempted rape, he can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness
because the crime of acts of lasciviousness is included in rape.
People v. Aca-ac
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the
female organ because not all acts of execution were performed. The
o ender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements, and manner of
execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is
hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.
People v. Dalisay
The presence of either hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on
Lanie's private part is not an essential element of rape. In People v.
Parcia, we held that the absence of sperm does not disprove the
charge of rape. Likewise, in People v. Regala, we ruled that an
intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of sexual
intercourse.
People v. Lining
RTC found Gerry Lining guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of forcible abduction with rape, and for another count
of rape.
The medical nding that the victim was already a non-virgin, nor
the fact that she had sexual relations before, would not matter. Even
a woman of loose morals could still be a victim of rape, for the
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her will
and without her consent.
Nevertheless, accused-appellant could only be convicted for the
crime of rape, instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape. Indeed, it would appear from the records that the main
objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the house of
Mila Salvacion was to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape.
People v. Monticalvo 2013
A mental retardate can be classi ed as a person “deprived of
reason,” not one who is “demented” and carnal knowledge of a
mental retardate is considered rape under subparagraph (b), not
subparagraph (d) of Article 266-A(1) of the RPC.
Nonetheless, the mistake would not exonerate appellant.
In People v. Dalandas, citing People v. Dumanon, this Court
held that mental retardation can be proven by evidence other than
medical/clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and
even the observation by the trial court.
2018 re Rape
People v. YYY
A medico-legal report is NOT indispensable in rape cases as it
is merely corroborative in nature. Thus, even without it, an
accused may still be convicted on the sole basis of the testimony of
the victim. As such, the credibility of the witness should be assessed
independently regardless of the presence or absence of a
medico-legal report. Trial courts are expected to scrutinize the
76 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
victim's testimony with great caution, with or without a
medico-legal report to corroborate the same.
Crimes against personal liberty and
H 1) O ender is a private individual;
security
Illegal Detention
267 Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Penalty is RP to Death
1) O ender is a private individual;
2) Kidnaps or detains another, depriving the latter of his
liberty;
3) Act is illegal;
4) Any of the following circumstance is present:
a) lasts for more than 3 days;
b) simulating public authority;
c) any serious physical injuries are in icted or threats
to kill detainee are made;
d) detainee is a minor, female, or a public o cer; OR
e) Person is kidnapped for ransom.
Maximum penalty of Death
1) if the purpose is to extort money;
2) victim is killed or dies as a consequence; special complex
crime
3) victim is raped; special complex crime
Reviewer
4) victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
268 Slight illegal detention
2) Kidnaps or detains another, depriving the latter of his
liberty;
3) Act is illegal;
4) Without any of the circumstances in Art 267.
Penalty lowered to PM min-med when o ender
a) voluntarily releases captive within 3 days, when he was in the
position to prolong detention;
b) without having attained the purpose intended; and
c) before the institution of criminal proceedings.
269 Unlawful arrest
1) O ender arrests or detains another;
2) Purpose is to deliver him to the proper authorities;
3) Not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground
therefor.
NOTES RE ILLEGAL DETENTION
1. The essence of the crime of kidnapping is
a. the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty
b. coupled with an indubitable proof of intent on the
part of the malefactor to e ect such restraint on
the o ended party's liberty.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
2. A public o cer must have duty under the law to detain persons,
otherwise he may be liable for kidnapping and not arbitrary
detention.
3. When the victim is female, detention is under Art 267. Voluntary
release is not mitigating in that article.
Kidnapping of minors
270 Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
1) O ender is entrusted with the custody of a minor;
2) Deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents or
guardians.
271 Inducing a minor to abandon his home
1) The minor is living in the home of his parents or guardian or
the person entrusted with is custody;
2) Induces said minor to abandon such home.
Abandonment and Exploitation
Abandonment of persons in danger and of one's own
275
victim
1) Failing to render assistance to any person o ender nds:
a) In an uninhabited place,
b) wounded or in danger of dying,
c) whilst he can render assistance without detriment to
himself,
d) he fails to render such, and
77 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

285 Other light threats

e) such omission shall not constitute a more serious 4) Has not secured the permission of the owner or caretaker.
o ense. Acts Punished
Threats and Coercion
2) Failing to help or assist another whom o ender accidentally 1) (a) Threatening another with a weapon, or
wounded or injured. 282 Grave threats
(b) by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
3) Failing to deliver a child under 7 years whom o ender found 1) Where offender attained his purpose lawful self-defense;
abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or by failing to
a) Threatening another with the in iction upon his 2) Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with
take him to a safe place.
person, honor or property or that of his family of some harm constituting a crime, without persisting in the
276 Abandoning a minor any wrong idea involved in his threat;
b) amounting to a crime and 3) Orally threatening another to do any harm not constituting
1) O ender has custody of a child;
c) demanding money or imposing any other a felony.
2) Who is under 7 years of age;
condition, even though not unlawful, and
286 Grave coercions
3) Abandons such child;
d) the o ender attained his purpose.
4) Has no intent to kill when child is abandoned. Acts punished
2) Where offender did not attain his purpose;
1) Preventing another, by means of violence, threats or
Trespass 3) Not subject to a condition intimidation from doing something legal.
280 Trespass to dwelling a) Threatening another of in iction upon his person, 2) Compelling another, by means of violence, threats or
honor or property or that of his family of any intimidation, to do something against his will, may it be
1) O ender is a private person;
wrong right or wrong.
2) Enters the dwelling of another;
b) amounting to a crime and Qualified if the coercion is committed
3) Against the latter's will.
c) not subject to a condition. 1) in violation of the right of su rage;
Qualified: By means of violence or intimidation
283 Light threats 2) compel another to perform or
281 Other forms of trespass
1) Makes a threat to commit a wrong; 3) prevent another from performing any religious act.
1) O ender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of Elements
2) Does not amount to a crime;
another;
3) There is demand for money or imposing any other 1) A person is prevented from doing something legal, or
2) It is uninhabited; compelled to do something against his will;
condition, even though not unlawful; and
3) Prohibition to enter be manifest; 2) E ected through violence, threats or intimidation; and
4) O ender has or has not attained his purpose.

By RGL 78 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
3) The restraint shall not be authorized or not in the exercise
of a lawful right.
287 Light coercions
1) O ender is a creditor;
2) Seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
3) By means of violence, or display of material force producing
intimidation;
➔ If no violence or intimidation, unjust vexation
4) Purpose is to apply same to the payment of debt.
288 Other similar coercions
1) Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly
permitting such be done to the laborer or employee of the
o ender to purchase merchandise of any kind from him.
a) O ender is any person, agent or o cer of any
association or corporation;
b) Employed laborers or employees; and
c) Forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits such be done to the employee of
the o ender to purchase merchandise of any kind
from him.
2) Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of
tokens or objects other than the legal tender, unless expressly
requested by the employee.
a) O ender pays the wages due a laborer by means of
tokens or objects;
Reviewer
b) Not legal tender;
c) Not expressly requested by the employee.
Formation, maintenance and prohibition of
289 combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats
1) O ender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as to
compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and
legal exercise of their industry or work.
2) Purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of
capital or labor, strike of laborers or lockout of employers.
People v. Benedicto Ramos
For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offended
party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom of
locomotion. It is enough that, as in the instant case, she was in any
manner deprived of her liberty, unable to move - and get out - as she
pleased.
The rule now is: 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, the kidnapping and
murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor
be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special
complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended.
People v. Anticamara 2011
The last paragraph of Article 267 of the RPC provides that if the
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped
or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed. In People v. Larrañaga, this provision gives rise
to a special complex crime. Thus, We hold that appellant Lando is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape.
However, the Court does not agree with the CA and trial court's
judgment nding appellant Al liable for Rape. In People v. Suyu,
We ruled that once conspiracy is established between several accused
in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally
culpable for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion
of the robbery, unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored to
prevent the others from committing rape.
There is no evidence to prove that appellant Al was aware of the
subsequent events that transpired after the killing of Sulpacio and
the kidnapping of AAA. Appellant Al could not have prevented
appellant Lando from raping AAA, because at the time of rape, he
was no longer associated with appellant Lando.
People v. Dionaldo 2014
The Court is, however, constrained to modify the ruling of the
RTC and the CA, as the crime the accused-appellants have
committed does not merely constitute Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention, but that of the special complex crime of
Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide. This is in view of the
victim’s (i.e., Edwin's) death, which was (a) speci cally charged in
the Information, and (b) clearly established during the trial of this
case.
Further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was
79 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, accused-appellants’
conviction must be modi ed from Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom with Homicide, which carries the penalty of death.
People v. Bandoquillo 2016
Bandoquillo is a private individual who, along with his cohorts,
kidnapped Hung Yee Chua (Yee) and 5 minors. The abductors
simulated public authority by misrepresenting themselves as
PDEA agents when they forcibly took the victims. In kidnapping
and serious illegal detention for ransom, the purpose of extorting
ransom is a qualifying circumstance which must be alleged in the
Information and proved by the prosecution as the crime itself by
words and overt acts of the accused before, during and after the
kidnapping and detention of the victim. In the case at bench, the
Information did not contain an allegation that Bandoquillo
and his cohorts intended to extort ransom to obtain the
release of the victims. Accordingly, Bandoquillo should be
convicted only of simple kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
People v. Borja 2017
A public o cer who detains a person for the purpose of
extorting ransom cannot be said to be acting in an o cial
capacity. In People v. Santiano, this Court explained that public
o cials may be prosecuted under Article 267 of the RPC if they act
in their private capacity. The burden is on the accused to prove
that he or she acted in furtherance of his or her o cial
functions.
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
any person, or force upon anything.
In this case, Ronalyn was clearly deprived of her liberty. She was
2) Classi cation of robbery
forcibly taken inside a vehicle by accused-appellant and his cohorts
and was driven around Quezon City for at least ve (5) hours. a) With violence against, or intimidation of persons
(Arts 294, 297, 298);
People v. Concepcion 2018 re kidnapping absorbed in rape b) By the use of force upon things (Arts 299, 302)
Accused abducted the victim and then raped her. Thereafter, he NOTES
prevented her from leaving by placing electric wire around the room
1. Where the taking was lawful and the unlawful
where she was in to prevent anyone who might come to release her.
misappropriation was subsequent thereto, the crime is estafa or
The abduction of the victim by the accused is absorbed in the crime
malversation. But if intent from the very beginning was to gain
of rape since it was resorted to in order to commit the latter crime.
from the prohibited material, even with lawful taking, then it is
The continued detention of AAA after the rape cannot be deemed robbery.
absorbed in it. The detention was illegal and not attended by the
2. Unlawful taking complete from the moment the offender gains
circumstances that would render it serious illegal detention. Thus,
possession of the thing as to robbery with violence against or
this Court nds accused-appellant guilty of the crime of slight
intimidation of persons. The thing must be taken out of the
illegal detention.
building as to robbery with force upon things.
3. In order for the element of violence or intimidation to be
I Crimes against property appreciated, it must be present before the taking of personal
property is complete. Except, when the violence results in (a)
Robbery
homicide, (b) rape, (c) intentional mutilation, (d) or serious
293 Robbery, in general physical injuries under pars 1 and 2.
4. Robbery at a glance
1) Elements of robbery in general
a) If there is violence against or intimidation of any person,
a) there be (1) personal property, (2) belonging to always robbery.
another;
b) In the rst type of robbery, the value of robbed property is
b) there is (3) unlawful taking of that property; immaterial. Penalty depends on (1) the result of the violence
c) such must be (4) with intent to gain; and used, and (2) on the existence of intimidation.
d) there is (5) violence against or intimidation of c) On the second type, penalty is based on (1) value, (2)
By RGL 80 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

carrying of arms, if carried out in inhabited buildings.
d) Penalty based solely on value if carried out in uninhabited
buildings.
5. If robbery was e ected by employing both violence against or
intimidation of persons and force upon the things, the latter will
be absorbed by the former. Thus, the proper crime to be charged
is under Art 294, not Art 299.
6. RA 10883, the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016, which
lapsed into law on July 17, 2016, is the law applicable when
property taken in robbery is a motor vehicle.
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
294
persons
Par 1. Robbery with homicide
1) Robbery with homicide is taken in its generic sense and
absorbs all other crimes, i.e. serious physical injuries,
contemporaneous thereto. If committed by a band, such
becomes only a generic aggravating circumstance.
2) One of the following must be proven that the homicide
was committed:
a) to facilitate the robbery or escape of culprits;
b) to preserve the possession of the loot;
c) to prevent discovery; or
d) to eliminate witnesses or suppress evidence.
Par 1. Robbery with rape
3) The rape must be consummated.
Pars 2-3. Robbery with serious physical injuries
1) The injuries were in icted in the course of the robbery; and
2) In icted upon those not responsible for the crime.
Par 4. Robbery with unnecessary violence and intimidation
1) If the violence or intimidation employed in the commission
of the robbery
2) shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime, or
3) when in the course of its execution, the o ender shall have
in icted upon any person not responsible for its commission
any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4
of Article 263.
Par 5. Robbery with the use of violence and intimidation
➔ Simple robbery.
Robbery under subdivisions 3, 4, 5 of Art 294 qualified if
committed in:
a) an uninhabited place, or
b) by a band, or
c) by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or
airship, or
d) by entering the passengers' compartments in a train, or
e) on a street, road, highway, or alley, and with the use of
1) At least four armed malefactors take part in committing
robbery.
2) When any of the arms used is unlicensed, the penalty upon
all robbers shall be the maximum corresponding penalty,
without prejudice to the criminal liability of illegal possession
of such firearms.
3) Any member present shall be punished as principal of any of
the assaults, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent
the same.
4) A band member is liable for any assaults committed when
the following concur:
a) He was a member;
b) Present at the commission of robbery;
c) Others committed the assault;
d) Did not attempt to prevent assault.
298 Robbery by execution of deeds ⭐
1) O ender intends to defraud another;
2) Compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public
instrument or document;
3) By means of violence or intimidation.
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building, or
299
edi ce devoted to public worship
Elements of subdivision A

1) The intent to gain must precede the rape. rearms. 1) O ender entered

2) Committed when the robbery is accompanied by rape. 296 Robbery by a band a) an inhabited place, or

By RGL 81 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

b) public building, or 4. Art 299 is quali ed when both circumstances concur. In 1) O ender has possession;
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons,
c) edi ce devoted to religious worship. 2) Such are specially adapted to commit robbery; and
either may qualify (Art 295).
2) The entrance e ected by: 3) Possession was unlawful.
What is an inhabited house and their dependencies
a) an opening not intended for entrance or egress;
1) Dependencies must be False keys
b) breaking any wall, roof, or oor or breaking any
a) Contiguous, 1) (a) Art 304; (b) Genuine keys stolen from owner; (c) Any
door or window;
keys.
b) have an interior entrance connected therewith, and
c) using false keys, picklocks or similar tools;
d) using any ctitious name or pretending the
c) form part of the whole. Brigandage
exercise of public authority. 2) Orchards and lands used for cultivation, not dependencies. 306 Brigandage
3) Once inside, takes personal property of another with intent Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private Exists when
to gain. 302
building
1) There are at least four armed men.
Elements of subdivision B
1) O ender enters an uninhabited or a private building. 2) Forming a band of robbers;
1) O ender is inside regardless of how he entered;
2) Any was present: 3) Purpose is to
2) The unlawful taking done by
a) entrance was e ected through an opening not a) commit robbery in the highway,
a) breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other
intended for egress; b) kidnap for ransom, or
kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; OR
b) a wall, roof, oor, or outside door or window was c) attain by means of force and violence any other
b) by taking such away to be broken or forced open
broken; purpose.
outside.
c) false keys, picklocks, were used to e ect entrance;
300 Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band 307 Aiding and abetting brigands
d) a door, wardrobe, chest, was broken;
1. Quali es Art 299. Punished by the maximum period of the 1) There is a band of brigands;
e) a closed or sealed receptacle was removed, and be
penalty therefor. 2) O ender knows;
broken open elsewhere.
2. That the place be uninhabited, and committed by a band 3) Does any:
3) Personal property of another was taken with intent to gain.
must concur.
a) aids, abets, protects
3. The inhabited house, public building, edi ce for religions 304 Possession of picklocks or similar tools
b) gives info on police movement;
worship must be located in an uninhabited place.

By RGL 82 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

c) acquires or receives property taken by such 2) with grave abuse of confidence; 1) taking possession of any real property of another by means
brigands. of violence against or intimidation of persons.
3) property stolen is a
Theft 2) usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by
a) motor vehicle,
308 Theft means of VAIP.
b) mail matter,
Elements
Who are liable for theft c) large cattle;
1) takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights
1) With intent to gain, but without violence against or 4) consists of coconuts taken from plantation; thereof;
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, take,
5) sh taken from shpond or shery; 2) belongs to another;
personal property, of another, without the latter's consent.
6) on the occasion of re, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic 3) violence against or intimidation of persons is used;
2) Having found lost property, fail to deliver same to the local
eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, civil
authorities or its owner. 4) with intent to gain.
disturbance.
3) After having maliciously damaged the property of another,
313 Altering boundaries or landmarks
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage Quali ed Theft
caused by them. 1. Penalty is two degrees higher. 1) There be boundary marks or monuments, or estates;
4) Enter an enclosed estate or a eld where trespass is forbidden 2. Grave abuse of confidence is a mere circumstance which 2) O ender alters same.
and without consent, hunt or sh upon the same or gather aggravates and quali es the crime. It is not necessary for said
fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products. circumstance to be premeditated in order to be taken into 314 Fraudulent insolvency

Elements consideration. Its presence in the commission of the crime is 1) O ender is a debtor with due and demandable obligation;
su cient.
1) Taking of personal property; 2) He absconds with his property;
3. Theft by domestic servant always quali ed. Not so for
2) belonging to another; 3) To the prejudice of his creditors.
housemate. Not for laborer.
3) done with intent to gain;
4. Theft by truck driver or by shepherd or by one who had Swindling and Other Deceits
4) without consent of owner; access to the place where the stolen property is kept is
315 Swindling or Estafa
quali ed theft.
5) be accomplished without violence against or, intimidation
of persons, or force upon things. Fraud committed by these means:
Usurpation
310. Qualified Theft if (par 1) WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR ABUSE OF
312 Occupation of real property
CONFIDENCE
1) theft committed by a domestic servant;
Acts punished a) altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of

By RGL 83 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
value;
b) misappropriating or converting any personal property
received in trust, or denying to having received same.;
c) taking undue advantage of the signature in blank, and by
writing any document above such.
(par 2) BY FALSE PRETENSES
a) using ctitious names, or falsely pretending to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other
similar deceits.
b) altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business.
c) pretending to have bribed any Government employee.
(maximum penalty)
d) postdating or issuing a bouncing check.
e) obtaining any food or accommodation, or credit of such.
(par 3) BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FRAUDULENT
MEANS
a) inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign a document;
b) resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a
gambling game;
c) removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole or in part, any
court record, o ce les, document, or any other papers.
Elements in general
1) Accused defrauded another by
a) abuse of confidence, or
Reviewer
b) means of deceit; and
2) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation caused
upon injured party.
Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness (sub 1[a])
1) O ender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of
value;
2) He alters its substance, quality or quantity;
3) Damage or prejudice is caused.
Elements of estafa with abuse of confidence (sub 1[b])
1) Money, goods, or other personal property be received in trust, or
on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return.
2) Such has been misappropriated or converted;
3) To the prejudice of another;
4) There is demand from o ended party (not required when
there is evidence of misappropriation)
➔ Three (3) ways of committing
1) misappropriating or
2) converting the thing received; or
3) denying that the thing was received.
1. Estafa by conversion. Pledging a thing which was received only
to be sold on commission. It presupposes that the thing has been
devoted to a purpose or use di erent from that agreed upon.
2. Estafa by misappropriation. Appellant took the sum of
P8.3K out of the funds of the Manila Railroad Company,
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
replacing it with his personal check. He directed the cashier to
hold the check until end of month. He used the amount for his
personal use. It was found out he had insu cient funds to cover
the check, though later, he was able to replenish said account. He
is still guilty because the law does not distinguish between
permanent and temporary misappropriations.
3. In estafa, damage to the o ended party, not the gain of the
o ender, is the important consideration.
4. Demand is not legally required, but is necessary to show
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation after failing to
account upon demand.
5. There is no estafa through negligence.
6. Estafa through falsi cation of public documents (FPD) is
necessarily included in a charge of malversation through FPD.
7. Misappropriation of policeman of rearms received is: estafa,
when it is not involved in the commission of a crime, and
malversation, if it is involved.
Elements of estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature
in blank (sub 1[c])
1) The paper with the signature of the o ended party be in
blank;
2) O ended party should have delivered it to the o ender;
3) A document is written above the signature without
authority;
4) Liability or damage is caused to another.
Elements of estafa by means of DECEIT (subs 2, 3)
84 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
1) There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means;
2) Must be made prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud;
3) O ended party relied on it, or was induced by it to part with
his property.
4) There is damage.
Three (3) ways of committing Art 315 No. 2[a]
1) using fictitious name;
2) falsely pretending to possess: power, in uence, quali cations,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
or
3) through similar deceits.
Elements of estafa by postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation. (No 2[d])
1) O ender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of
an obligation;
2) Done when the o ender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds deposited therein were not su cient to cover the
amount.
Elements of estafa by inducing another to sign any document.
(No 3[a])
1) O ender induced o ended party to sign a document;
2) Deceit be employed;
3) O ended party personally signed;
Reviewer
4) Prejudice be caused.
There should be proof that defendant made statements tending to
mislead the complainant as to the character of the document
executed by him.
Elements of estafa by removing, concealing, or destroying
documents (No 3[c])
1) There be court record, o ce les, documents or any other
papers;
2) O ender removed, concealed or destroyed any of them;
3) With intent to defraud another.
Element of damage or prejudice may consist in:
1) O ended party being deprived of his money or property, as
result of the defraudation;
2) Disturbance in property right; or
3) Temporary prejudice.
NOTES RE ESTAFA
1. Disturbance in property rights. Though the typewriter was
later recovered after it was sold to another by accused,
complainant su ered disturbance of his property right over said
typewriter.
2. The basis of penalty is the amount or value misappropriated and
not delivered or returned before the institution of criminal
action. Payment subsequent to the commission of estafa does
not distinguish the criminal liability.
3. Temporary prejudice. Complainant bought a lter from an
agent through a check. The lter was not delivered, and found
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
agent to be bogus. He called bank to suspend payment. Thus, he
could not dispose of the amount in the check possessed by the
accused bogus agent.
4. If a person procures a loan through a falsi ed public document,
but settles said loan in due time, there is no estafa, only
falsi cation.
5. There is a complex crime of theft and estafa.
316 Other forms of swindling
Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any
real property, pretending to be the owner of the same.
1) Thing be immovable;
2) O ender falsely represents to be the owner;
3) Executed an act of ownership;
4) To the prejudice of owner or a third person.
Par 2. By disposing of real property as free from encumbrance,
although such be not recorded.
1) Thing disposed is real property;
2) O ender knew of the encumbrance, recorded or not.
3) There is express representation that the property is free from
any encumbrance;
4) There is damage to another.
Par 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner his personal
property from its lawful possessor
1) O ender is the owner of personal property;
2) It is in the lawful possession of another;
85 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
3) O ender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor;
4) Prejudice is caused upon the possessor or a third person.
Par 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of
another
Par 5. By accepting any compensation for services not
rendered or for labor not performed.
Par 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering real property or
properties with which the offender guaranteed the
fulfillment of his obligation as surety.
1) O ender is a surety in a bond;
2) He guaranteed with his real property/ies;
3) He encumbers said guaranty;
4) Such encumbrance is
a) without express authority from court,
b) made before the cancellation of his bond, OR
c) before being relieved from the bond.
There must be damage caused under Art 316.
317 Swindling a minor
1) O ender takes advantage of the inexperience, emotions, or
feelings of a minor;
2) Induces such minor
a) to assume an obligation,
b) to give release, OR
c) to execute a transfer of any property right;
Reviewer
3) Consideration be
a) some loan of money,
b) credit, OR
c) other personal property;
4) To the detriment of the minor.
318 Other deceits
1) Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not
PD 1613. Simple Arson
mentioned in the preceding articles.
2) Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, telling fortunes, or
by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any
other similar manner, for profit or gain.
Arson
320 Destructive Arson
Penalty of RP to Death to any person who burns the following
1) One or more buildings, consequent to 1 single act of
burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings or
committed on several or di erent occasions.
2) Any building of public or private ownership where people
usually congregate, regardless of whether o ender knows
that there are persons in said building at the time it is set on
re, and whether it is inhabited or not.
3) Train, ship, vessel, airship, plane;
4) Building, factory, warehouses, devoted to the service of
public utilities;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
5) Any building burnt to conceal evidence of another
violation of law, to conceal bankruptcy or defrauding
creditors or to collect from insurance.
6) Arsenal, shipyard, storehouse, military power or reworks
factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives, general museum of
the Government;
7) In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
in ammable or explosive materials.
➔ Arson is the malicious destruction of property by re.
➔ Kinds of arson:
1) Simple arson;
2) Destructive arson;
3) Other cases of arson.
➔ Simple arson. Burning or setting re to the property of
another, or his own under circumstances which expose to
danger the life or property of another. PM.
➔ Other cases of arson. Punished by RT-RP
1) Any government building;
2) Inhabited house or dwelling;
3) Industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well, mine
shaft, platform or tunnel;
4) Plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop, grain
eld, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5) Rice, sugar, cane mills, or mill central;
86 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

6) Railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
➔ Special aggravating circumstances. MAX
1) Intent to gain;
2) For the bene t of another;
3) Motivated by spite or hate towards owner or
occupant;
4) By a syndicate (at least 3 persons).
NOTES RE ARSON
1. Attempted arson. Placing the rags soaked in gasoline beside the
wooden wall of the building and lighting a match.
2. Frustrated arson. The rags were set on re, but were put out
before any part of the building was burned.
3. If main objective is burning, but death results, arson.
4. If purpose is to kill a person in the building, and setting it on re
was the means resorted, murder.
5. If killing has been committed, then the building is burnt to cover
it up, murder/homicide AND arson.
Malicious Mischief
327 Malicious mischief
1) O ender deliberately caused damage to the property of
another;
2) Such act does not constitute arson;
3) Be done merely for the sake of damaging it.
328. Special cases or Qualified malicious mischief
1) To obstruct performance of public function.
2) Using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
3) Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle.
4) Causing damage to property of the National Museum,
Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in common by the
public.
332 Persons exempt from criminal liability
Crimes involved
a) Theft;
b) Estafa;
c) Malicious mischief.
Persons exempted
a) Spouses, ascendants, descendants, or relatives by a nity in
the same line;
b) Widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into
the possession of another.
c) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if
living together.
People v. Soriano re Arson
Arson is the malicious burning of property.
1) Destructive Arson (Art. 320) and
2) other cases of arson (PD 1613).
This classi cation is based on the kind, character and location of
the property burned, regardless of the value of the damage
caused.
Article 320 of the RPC, aab RA 7659, contemplates the malicious
burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings,
edi ces, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military,
government or commercial establishments. If as a consequence
of the commission of any of the acts penalized under Art. 320,
death should result, the mandatory penalty of death shall be
imposed.
On the other hand, PD 1613 remains the governing law for Simple
Arson. If special aggravating circumstances are present, the penalty
under Sec. 3 shall be imposed in its maximum period:
a) If committed with intent to gain;
b) If committed for the bene t of another;
c) If the o ender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the
owner or occupant of the property burned; and,
d) If committed by a syndicate, or group of three (3) or more
persons.
If by reason, or on the occasion of Simple Arson death results, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
Here, the applicable provision of law should be Sec. 3, par. 2, of
PD 1613, which imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua for other cases of arson as the properties
burned by accused are speci cally described as houses,
contemplating inhabited houses or dwellings under the aforesaid
law. The 3rd special aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated
in the present case where it appears that he was acting more on

By RGL 87 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
impulse, heat of anger or risen temper. Thus, accused-appellant
must be held guilty of Simple Arson.
People v. Buebos
The legal basis of the trial court in convicting petitioners of arson is
Section 3[2] of P.D. No. 1613. The elements of this form of arson
are:
a) there is intentional burning
b) of an inhabited house or dwelling.
Admittedly, there is a con uence of the foregoing elements here.
However, the information failed to allege that what was
intentionally burned was an inhabited house or dwelling.
That is fatal. In ne, petitioners can be convicted only of simple
arson, under Section 1[1] of P.D. No. 1613, punishable by prision
mayor.
People v. Macabando 2013
The Information alleged that the appellant set re to his own house,
and that the re spread to other inhabited houses. That the
appellant’s act a ected many families will not convert the crime
to destructive arson, since the appellant’s act does not appear to
be heinous or represents a greater degree of perversity and
viciousness when compared to those acts punished under Article
320 of the RPC. The established evidence only showed that the
appellant intended to burn his own house, but the conflagration
spread to the neighboring houses.
Reviewer
People v. Abayon 2016
There is no complex crime of arson with (multiple) homicide.
In cases where both burning and death occur, it is de rigueur to
ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or
edi ce, but death results by reason or on the occasion of
arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed;
b) if, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a
particular person who may be in a building or edi ce, when
re is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the
crime committed is murder only; lastly,
c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in
fact the o ender has already done so, but re is resorted to
as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two
separate and distinct crimes committed —
homicide/murder and arson.
Abayon is charged with the crime of arson because his intent was
merely to destroy his family's apartment through the use of re. The
resulting deaths that occurred, therefore, should be absorbed by
the crime of arson and only increases the imposable penalty to
reclusion perpetua to death.
2018 re Estafa through false checks vis-a-vis
Batac v. People
BP 22
The CA a rmed the decision of the RTC nding Batac guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa de ned under Article 315,
paragraph 2(d) committed against Frias. Jurisprudence has
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
consistently held that such estafa consists of the following elements:
1) the o ender has postdated or issued a check in payment of
an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
issuance;
2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the
o ender has no funds in the bank or insu cient; and
3) the payee has been defrauded.
In People v. Reyes, the Court ruled that for estafa under the above
provision to prosper, the issuance of the check must have been
the inducement for the other party to part with his money or
property.
The prosecution su ciently demonstrated Batac's deceit when it
established that the latter induced Frias into buying the checks at a
rediscounted rate by representing to him that she had enough funds
in her account to cover them.
Deceit and damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d), but
are not required in BP 22. Other di erences between the two also
include the following:
1) a drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under BP
22 even if he had issued the same for a preexisting
obligation, while under Article 315 (2-d), such
circumstance negates criminal liability;
2) speci c and di erent penalties are imposed in each of the
two o enses;
3) estafa is essentially a crime against property, while
violation of BP 22 is principally a crime against public
interest as it does injury to the entire banking system;
4) violations of Article 315 are mala in se, while those of BP
88 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
22 are mala prohibita.
People v. Cahilig 2014 re Qualified Theft
The elements of Quali ed Theft, committed with grave abuse of
con dence, are as follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owner’s consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things;
6. That it be done with grave abuse of con dence.
Cahilig took money from WPESLAI and its depositors by taking
advantage of her position as cashier. Her intent to gain is clear in the
use of a carefully planned and deliberately executed scheme to
commit the theft.
Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Quali ed Theft,
“must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence,
guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the o ended
party that might create a high degree of con dence between them
which the appellant abused.”
Brokmann v. People 2012
Brokmann was convicted of the crime of estafa, under Art 315, par
1(b). The o ense of estafa, in general, is committed either by
Reviewer
a) abuse of con dence (Par 1) or
b) means of deceit (Par 2).
Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa by abuse of
confidence; the breach of con dence takes the place of fraud or
deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas. In this case, the
charge against the petitioner and her subsequent conviction was for
estafa committed by abuse of con dence. Thus, it was not necessary
for the prosecution to prove deceit as this was not an element of the
estafa that the petitioner was charged with.
Espino v. People 2013
The crime charged was estafa under Art 315, par 1(b). However,
the crime the accused was convicted of was estafa under par 2(a).
Estafa under paragraph 2(a) is swindling by means of false
pretense. In this case, there was no use of a ctitious name, or a
false pretense of power, in uence, quali cations, property, credit,
agency, or business. The Court deems it wiser to give the o ense its
true, formal name – that of estafa through abuse of
con dence under paragraph 1(b).
First, personal property in the form of the checks was received
by the o ender in trust or on commission, with the duty to
deliver it to Mr. Banaag.
Second, the accused rediscounted the checks to his aunt-in-law.
Third, this rediscounting resulted in the wrongful encashment
of the checks by someone who was not the payee and therefore
not lawfully authorized to do so.
Finally, this wrongful encashment prejudiced KN Inc., which
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
lost the proceeds of the check.
Thus, the Information in this case may be interpreted as charging
the accused with both estafa under paragraph 1(b) and estafa under
paragraph 2(a).
Guzman v. CA
As appellant converted to his own use proceeds of sales of
merchandise delivered to him as agent, which he received in trust for
and under obligation to deliver and turn over to his principal, he is
guilty of the crime of estafa as de ned by Article 315, paragraph
1, subparagraph (e). The next question is whether the present
information for qualified theft alleges sufficient facts to sustain a
conviction for estafa.
An essential element of the crime of estafa is that the money or
goods misappropriated or converted by the accused to the prejudice
of another was received by him "in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to retain the same". No such allegation
appears in the above information. Consequently, we agree with
appellant that he can not be convicted thereunder of the crime
of estafa.
People v. Maglaya
Under the facts proven, appellant is guilty of the crime of theft.
It is true that the machines speci ed in the information were
delivered to him by his prospective customers, but the physical
possession thus secured by him did not vest in him the juridical
possession necessary for the crime of estafa.
89 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Although appellant had taken advantage of his position in
committing the crime aforementioned, We do not believe he had
acted with grave abuse of con dence and can be convicted of
quali ed theft, because his employer had never given him the
possession of the machines involved in the present case or allowed
him to take hold of them, and it does not appear that the former had
any special con dence in him.
People v. Nery
The accused in the present case insists that there is no prohibition in
our law to prevent the parties to a contract to novate it so that any
incipient criminal liability under the rst is thereby avoided.
The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the ling of
the criminal information in court by the state prosecutors. But
after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and
instituted action in court, the o ended party may no longer divest
the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as
distinguished from the civil. The crime being an o ense against the
state, only the latter can renounce it.
Lito Corpuz v. People 2014 En Banc
No speci c type of proof is required to show that there was
demand. Demand need not even be formal; it may be verbal. The
speci c word “demand” need not even be used to show that it has
indeed been made upon the person charged, since even a mere
query as to the whereabouts of the money [in this case,
property], would be tantamount to a demand.
The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements
Reviewer
of the Estafa under Article 315 par(1)(b). Private complainant gave
petitioner the pieces of jewelry in trust, or on commission basis with
an obligation to sell or return the same within sixty (60) days, if
unsold. There was misappropriation when petitioner failed to remit
the proceeds of those pieces of jewelry sold, or if no sale took place,
failed to return the same pieces of jewelry within or after the agreed
period despite demand from the private complainant, to the
prejudice of the latter.
People v. Fernandez 2014
We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal
recruitment does not preclude punishment under the RPC for
the crime of estafa.
The appellant’s act of falsely pretending to possess power and
quali cations to deploy the complainants to Hongkong, even if he
did not have the authority or license for the purpose, undoubtedly
constitutes estafa under Article 315(2)(a). The elements of deceit
and damage are clearly present; the appellant’s false pretenses were
the very cause that induced the complainants to part with their
money.
Ablaza v. People 2018 re Robbery
Paragraphs one to four of Article 294 indisputably involve the use of
violence against persons. The actual physical force in icted results in
death, rape, mutilation or the physical injuries therein enumerated.
The simple robbery under paragraph ve may cover physical injuries
not included in paragraphs two to four. Thus, when less serious or
slight physical injuries are inflicted upon the offended party on the
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
occasion of a robbery, the accused may be prosecuted for and convicted
of robbery under paragraph five. It seems obvious that intimidation
is not encompassed under paragraphs one to four since no actual
physical violence is in icted; evidently then, it can only fall under
paragraph ve.
People v. Domasig 2018 re Robbery with homicide
A conviction of robbery with homicide requires certitude that the
robbery is the main purpose, and the objective of the malefactor and
the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob
must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur
before, during or after the robbery. What is crucial for a
conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the
prosecution to firmly establish the offender's intent to take
personal property before the killing, regardless of the time when
the homicide is actually carried out.
People v. Layug 2017 re Robbery with homicide
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or
that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or
that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide,
rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is
committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise
immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the
robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a
homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the
felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are
integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with
90 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
homicide. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense.
Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide.
People v. Mejares 2018 re Theft
The SC has been consistent in holding that intent to gain or animus
lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking
by the o ender of the thing subject of asportation. Thus, actual
gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to
gain.
The value of personal property in quali ed theft must be proven
during trial. Since the penalty in cases of theft is dependent on the
value of stolen personal properties, it is critical to ensure that the
penalty is based on the value proven during trial, and not merely on
the Information or uncorroborated testimonies presented by the
prosecution.
2016 re Estafa by misappropriation or
Cheng v. People
conversion
Jewelries were delivered to the accused by the owner for her to sell
them and remit the proceeds to the latter. The accused failed to
remit the proceeds to the owner. Instead she issued her checks to pay
for the jewelries but the checks bounced upon being presented for
payment in the bank. Is the accused liable for estafa?
YES. The essence of this kind of Estafa is the appropriation or
conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the
entity to whom a return should be made. To misappropriate for
one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal
advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of
Reviewer
another without right. In proving the element of conversion or
misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation
arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to
return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their
whereabouts.
People v. Baladjay 2017 re Syndicated Estafa
Clearly, all the elements of Syndicated Estafa obtain in this case,
considering that:
a) more than ve (5) persons are involved in Multitel's grand
fraudulent scheme, including Baladjay and her co-accused -
who employed deceit, false pretenses and representations to
the private complainants regarding a supposed lucrative
investment opportunity with Multitel in order to solicit
money from them;
b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior
to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud;
c) relying on the false promises and misrepresentations thus
employed, private complainants invested their hard-earned
money in Multitel; and
d) Baladjay and her co-accused defrauded the private
complainants, obviously to the latter's prejudice.
People v. Aquino 2018 re Civil Fraud
Not all proposals to invest in certain business ventures are tainted
with fraud. To be sure, an actionable fraud arises when the accused
has knowledge that the venture proposed would not reasonably
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
yield the promised results, and yet, despite such knowledge,
deliberately continues with the misrepresentation.
As case law instructs, "the gravamen of the crime of Estafa is the
employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of
another. When fraud pertains to the means of committing a crime
or the classes of crimes under Estafa; otherwise, if fraud merely
causes loss or injury to another, without being an element of a
crime, then it may only be classi ed as civil fraud from which an
action for damages may arise.
J Crimes against chastity
333 Adultery
1) There is a married woman;
2) She has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
3) As to the paramour, that he knows the woman is married.
NOTES
1. Where the o ended party in an adultery case obtains a divorce in
his country before the adultery proceedings are commenced, he
no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the
o ender. (Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera)
2. It is not necessary that there be a valid marriage.
3. Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary.
4. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery. It is not
a continuing o ense.
334 Concubinage
91 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Acts Punished
1) Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
2) Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances,
with a woman who is not his wife;
3) Cohabiting with her in any other place.
Elements
1) There is a married man;
b) when the o ended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority;
d) when the o ended party is below 12 (penalty is
RT med as per RA 7610) or is demented.
Seduction and Abduction
1) O ender commits acts of lasciviousness;
2) Upon a woman who is a virgin or single or widow of good
reputation, over 12 but under 18, or a sister or descendant
regardless of reputation or age.
3) Through abuse of authority, con dence, relationship, or
deceit.
340 Corruption of minors

2) He committed any of the acts punished; 337 Quali ed seduction 1) O ender promotes or facilitate the prostitution or
3) As to the concubine, that she knows the man to be married. corruption of persons under age;
1) Of a virgin, over 12, under 18, by a person in authority,
priest, teacher, etc; 2) Such is to satisfy the lust of another.
NOTES
2) Of a sister by her brother, or descendant by ascendant. 341 White slave trade
1. Scandal is produced when:
Elements Acts penalized
a) the man and his mistress live in the same room of a house,
1) O ended party is a virgin; 1) Engaging in the business of prostitution;
b) they appear together in public, and
2) Over 12, under 18; 2) Pro ting from it;
c) perform acts in sight of the community which gives rise to
criticism and general protest among the neighbors. This is 3) He has sexual intercourse with her; 3) Enlisting the services of women for such purpose.
best proven by people in the vicinity. 4) There is abuse of authority, con dence or relationship on
342 Forcible abduction
2. When spies are employed, there is no evidence of scandalous the part of the o ender.
circumstances. 1) Person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status
338 Simple seduction
or reputation;
336 Acts of lasciviousness
1) O ended party is over 12, under 18; 2) It is against her will;
1) O ender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2) Of good reputation, single or widow; 3) With lewd designs.
2) Such act is committed against any person of either sex; 3) O ender has sex with her;
3) It is done: NOTES
4) By means of deceit.
a) by using force or intimidation; 1. There can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction
339 Acts of lasciviousness with consent with rape. Thus, the succeeding rapes should each be counted

By RGL 92 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
separately against the accused.
2. There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with
attempted rape, as the latter is deemed absorbed by the former.
There is only forcible abduction.
343 Consented abduction
1) O ended party must be a virgin;
2) Over 12, under 18;
3) Taking away must be with consent after solicitation or
cajolery from o ender;
4) With lewd designs.
Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction,
abduction, and acts of lasciviousness
1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon
complaint signed by the o ended spouse.
2. Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness must be
prosecuted upon complaint signed by -
a) o ended party,
b) her parents,
c) grandparents, or
d) legal guardians in the order in which they are named above.
3. Pursuant to RA 8353, Rape may be prosecuted de oficio.
4. In adultery and concubinage, criminal proceeding can not be
instituted without including both the guilty parties, if they are
both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the o enders. (Sec 5 Rule 110, Art 344)
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
acts, as well as adultery and concubinage. The parents of the
5. When complexed with another crime, can be prosecuted de
female seduced, abducted, raped or abused may also recover
oficio.
moral damages.
Rules on Pardon
3. If there are multiple o enders in rape, all must support the
1. It is a bar to prosecution for adultery and concubinage. It may be o spring.
expressed or implied. Must come before the institution of the
4. Only indemnity is allowed in rape of a married woman.
criminal action and both o enders must be pardoned.
Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are punished as
2. Express pardon is a bar to prosecution for seduction, abduction,
principals
rape or acts of lasciviousness. (par 3)
1) Ascendants;
3. Pardon must rst be granted by the o ended party. Only when
she is incapacitated, or dead, can the parents, grandparents, 2) Guardians;
guardians take her place in pardoning the o ender. Pardon by
3) Curators;
the parent, must be accompanied with that of the girl and
vice-versa. 4) Teachers; and
4. Marriage between the parties bene ts all accused. This does not 5) Any other person who cooperates as an accomplice with
apply when there are multiple principals by direct participation. abuse of authority or con dential relationship.
5. For rape, marriage only bene ts the principal.
Crimes against the civil status of
Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity K
persons
a) To indemnify the o ended woman.
b) To acknowledge the o spring, unless the law should prevent Simulation of births, substitution of one child for
him from doing so. 347 another, and concealment or abandonment of a
legitimate child
c) In every case to support the o spring.
Acts punished
1. Only indemnity is possible in adultery or concubinage. Children
born from such o enses may not be recognized and are born 1) Simulation of births.
from the o enders themselves. Thus, they may not be granted
2) Substitution of one child for another.
support.
3) Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent
2. Art 2219 of the Civil Code provides that moral damages may be
to cause such child to lose its civil status.
recovered in seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
By RGL 93 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
a) There is a legitimate child;
b) O ender conceals or abandons him;
c) Has the intent to cause the loss of civil status of
such child.
NOTES
1. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child, requisites:
a) There is a legitimate child;
b) O ender conceals or abandons him;
c) Has the intent to cause the loss of civil status of such child.
2. The unlawful sale of a child by its father is not a crime under Art
347.
348 Usurpation of civil status
1. The crime is committed when a person represents himself to
be another and assumes the liation or the parental or
conjugal rights of such another person.
2. Civil status includes one's public station, or the rights,
duties, capacities and incapacities which determine a person
to a given class.
3. Thus, usurpation of profession may be punished under
Art 348.
4. There must be intent to enjoy the rights arising from the
civil status of another.
5. The purpose of defrauding qualifies the crime.
349 Bigamy
Reviewer
1) O ender has been legally married.
2) Marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead.
3) Contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
4) Such second marriage is deemed valid.
350 Marriage contracted against provisions of laws
1) O ender contracted marriage.
2) He knew at the time that —
a) the requirements of the law were not complied
with; or
b) the marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.
352 Performance of illegal marriage ceremony
1) O ender is a priest or minister, or civil authority.
2) He is authorized to solemnize marriages.
3) He performs an illegal marriage ceremony.
NOTES
1. Validity of second marriage is a prejudicial question. Judgment
of annulment of second marriage precludes the verdict of guilt.
2. The second spouse is not necessarily liable for bigamy. But, if
such spouse knew of the rst marriage, he/she is an accomplice.
One who vouched for the capacity of either is also an
accomplice.
3. There is no double jepoardy if concubinage is led after
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
bigamy.
4. If accused contracted a second marriage that is void for lack of
marriage license, but he knows of this missing requisite, then he
is liable under Art 350, and not Art 349.
Mercado v. Tan
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary
before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters
into a subsequent marriage without rst obtaining such judicial
declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the
earlier union is characterized by statute as “void.”
That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the
nullity of the rst marriage was immaterial. To repeat, the
crime had already been consummated by then.
Montañez v. Cipriano 2012
In Tenebro v. CA, we declared that although the judicial
declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of
the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is
concerned, it is signi cant to note that said marriage is not
without legal e ects. Among these legal consequences is
incurring criminal liability for bigamy.
Bangayan v. Bangayan 2013
For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must
have all the essential requisites for validity except for the
94 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
existence of a prior marriage. In this case, there was really no
subsequent marriage. Benjamin and Sally just signed a purported
marriage contract without a marriage license. The supposed
marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the
National Statistics O ce. In short, the marriage between Benjamin
and Sally did not exist. They lived together and represented
themselves as husband and wife without the bene t of marriage.
Santiago v. People 2015
The crime of bigamy does not necessary entail the joint liability of
two persons who marry each other while the previous marriage of
one of them is valid and subsisting. As explained in Nepomuceno:
In the crime of bigamy, both the rst and second spouses may
be the o ended parties depending on the circumstances, as
when the second spouse married the accused without being
aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had
knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused
could she be included in the information as a co-accused.
Given that petitioner knew of the rst marriage, this Court concurs
with the ruling that she was validly charged with bigamy. However,
we disagree with the lower courts’ imposition of the principal
penalty on her.
Her punishment as a principal to the crime is wrong. Archilla
holds that the second spouse, if indicted in the crime of bigamy, is
liable only as an accomplice.
⭐Pulido v. People 27 July 2021 En banc
Reviewer
Parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of a void ab initio rst and subsequent
marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The
same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil
Code and the Family Code. Article 40 of the Family Code did not
amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused
the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage
in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
However, if the rst marriage is merely voidable, the accused
cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy since the voidable rst marriage is
considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was
contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when
the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the
voidable rst marriage. The same rule applies if the second
marriage is merely considered as voidable.
It is time to abandon the earlier precedents and adopt a more
liberal view that a void ab initio marriage can be used as a defense in
bigamy even without a separate judicial declaration of absolute
nullity. The accused may present testimonial or documentary
evidence such as the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the
rst and/or subsequent void ab initio marriages in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy. Therefore, the absence of a "prior valid
marriage" and the subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity
of his rst marriage, Pulido is hereby acquitted from the crime of
Bigamy charged against him.
L Crimes against honor
353 Libel
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
Elements of defamation
1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstance.
2) The imputation is made publicly.
3) Malicious.
4) Directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
5) Must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of
the person defamed.
NOTES
Defamation, defined
a) Which includes libel and slander, means the o ense of
injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through
false and malicious statements.
b) It tends to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or
con dence in the plainti or to excite derogatory feelings or
opinions about him.
c) It is the generic term to libel and slander, the former being
in written, while the latter in the oral form.
1ST ELEMENT: Imputation
a) Criminal Act - May be implied from the acts and
statements of the accused. Imputation of criminal
intention, not libelous. An expression of opinion by one
a ected by the act of another and based on actual fact is not
libelous. Such must be made however, in the performance of
a legal, moral or social duty.
95 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
b) Vice or defect - such as lascivious or immoral habits.
c) Act or omission - e.g. o ended party used to borrow money
without intention to pay.
d) Condition, status or circumstance - calling a person a
bastard or leper; mangkukulam.
2ND ELEMENT: Publicity — is the communication of the
defamatory matter to some third person or persons. Delivering
the article to the typesetter is sufficient publication. Sending a
sealed letter is not publication. If it is unsealed or not shown to
be sealed, there is publication. There is no crime if the
defamatory imputation is not published.
3RD ELEMENT: Malice
a) Malice in fact - express malice, actuated by a desire to
impeach the reputation, integrity and honesty of the
o ended.
b) Malice in law - presumed from a defamatory imputation
(Art 354 par 1). Proof of malice not required. Presumption
does not arise in privileged communication.
4TH ELEMENT: Directed at a person, dead or alive.
a) Identi cation of the o ended party is required, and a third
person could identify him as subject of the libelous
publication. It is essential that the victim be identi able,
although not necessarily named. If the article is impersonal,
does not single out individuals, this element is wanting.
5TH ELEMENT: Cause dishonor, discredit, contempt
a) There are as many o enses as there are persons defamed.
PRESUMPTION OF MALICE
Reviewer
1. Malice in law presumed from every defamatory imputation
even if it is true. Can be rebutted if accused can show
a) good intention,
b) justi able motive, and
c) it is true in case the law allows proof of the truth.
2. Not presumed in privileged communications:
a) private communication made by any person to another in
the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty.
b) fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks
i) of any judicial, legislative, or other o cial proceedings
which are not of con dential nature or
ii) of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or
iii) of any other act performed by public o cers in the
exercise of their functions.
3. Prosecution must prove malice in fact in privileged
communication. May be absolute, and conditional or quali ed.
a) said to be absolute if it is not actionable even if the author
acted in bad faith.
i. members of Congress in the discharge of their
functions.
ii. o cial communication made by public o cer in the
performance of his duties.
iii. allegations and statements in judicial proceedings.
b) it is conditionally privileged if it is not actionable unless
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
made in bad faith.
Paragraph 1: Performance of duty
4. Requisites:
a) Person who made the communication has a legal, moral
and social duty to make such, or, at least, had an interest to
be upheld.
b) Such is addressed to an o cer or a board, or superior having
some interest or duty in the matter.
c) Done in good faith without malice in fact.
5. When a copy of a privileged communication is sent to a
newspaper publication, the privilege is destroyed. It is a matter of
defense and must be established by the accused. Except, if
contained in an appropriate pleading in a court proceeding, the
privilege becomes at once apparent.
6. Defense overcome if it is shown that
a) defendant acted with malice in fact, or
b) there is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to be
true.
7. If there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the
charge is made in good faith, privilege applies. Must be made
under an honest sense of duty; a self-seeking motive is
destructive.
Paragraph 2: Fair and true report
8. Doctrine of Fair Comment, when the discreditable imputation
is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable.
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
96 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

a) Who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or
exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means.
b) Author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
c) Editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or
serial publication.
d) Owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous
article, with his consent and all other persons who in any
way participate in or have connection with its publication.
1. The prime requisite of libel is not the composing of the article
but its publication.
2. Venue is determined where
a) the libelous article is printed and rst published; or
b) any of the o ended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the o ense.
3. Where one of the o ended parties is a public o cer, venue may
be had at his place of designation.
2. If defendant proves the truth of his imputation, he shall be c) Circumstances, such as social standing and position of
acquitted. Proof of his good motive and justi able ends are no o ended party.
longer necessary. Probable cause for belief in the truth of the
statement is su cient. NOTES
3. Three requisites of defense: 1. The word "puta", being a common expression in the dialect, may
not be slander.
a) if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true;
2. The slander need not be heard by o ended party, but by other
b) it was published with good motives;
people, as the reputation of the former has been besmirched.
c) and for justi able ends.
359 Slander by deed
4. Retraction may mitigate damages. The retraction should
contain an admission of the falsity of the libelous publication 1) Performs any act not included in any other crime against
and evince a desire to repair a wrong occasioned thereby. honor;
5. Honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to 2) In the presence of other person/s;
mitigate.
3) Casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the o ended
LIBELOUS REMARKS party.
1. On privileged matters, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt
the author and editor. NOTES

4. O ended party must le complaint for defamation imputing a 2. There is liability when facts are distorted, or remarks are added 1. Gravity may depend on the social standing of o ended party,
crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. (Art 344) thereon. circumstances, the occasion, etc.

5. Libel imputing vice or defect can be prosecuted de oficio 2. Slapping is slander by deed if the intention is to cause shame and
358 Slander or oral defamation
humiliation.
PROOF OF TRUTH
Two kinds: 3. Kissing a girl in public and touching her breasts without lewd
1. Admissible in any of the following:
a) Simple slander; and design but only to cast dishonor upon the girl, is slander by deed
a) When imputation constitutes a crime whether o ended and not acts of lasciviousness.
b) Grave slander.
party is a private person or a public o cer.
4. The nature and e ects of the maltreatment determine the crime
Gravity is determined through:
b) Even if imputation is not constitutive of a crime, but against committed. If o ended party su ered from shame and
a Government employee related to the discharge of his a) Expressions used; humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it is slander by deed.
o cial duties. b) Personal relations between parties; 5. Common denominator in unjust vexation, slander by deed, and

By RGL 97 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
acts of lasciviousness is irritation or annoyance.
Incriminatory Machinations
363 Incriminating innocent persons
1) O ender performs an act;
2) By such he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent
person the commission of a crime;
3) Such act is not perjurious.
364 Intriguing against honor
1) Committed by any person who shall make an intrigue which
has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or
reputation of another.
2) It may consist of some trickery, ingenious, crafty and secret
plot.
Pader v. People
Pader was convicted of grave oral defamation. In Reyes v.
People, we ruled that the expression “putang ina mo” is a
common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed, not
really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. Here, the
intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily
to insult the latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor,
occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike of his person
are not uncommon. Rogelio Pader is guilty only of slight oral
defamation.
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
Chavez v. CA when the defamatory imputation quali es as privileged
communication.
Agbayani supplies a comprehensive restatement of the rules of
venue in actions for criminal libel, following the amendment. The In the cases at bar, although the open letter was primarily addressed
to then President Aquino, the communication thereof was not
rules on venue in Article 360 may be restated thus:
limited to her alone. It was also published in several newspapers of
1. Whether the o ended party is a public o cial or a private
general circulation and was thus made known to the general
person, the criminal action may be led in the Court of
public. Thus, the statements made by Brillante during the press
First Instance of the province or city where the libelous
conference and in the open letter do not qualify as privileged
article is printed and rst published.
communication.
2. If the o ended party is a private individual, the criminal
It is likewise settled that a single defamatory statement, if published
action may also be led in the Court of First Instance of the
several times, gives rise to as many o enses as there are publications.
province where he actually resided at the time of the
This is the “multiple publication rule” which is followed in our
commission of the o ense.
jurisdiction, as explained in Soriano v. IAC.
3. If the o ended party is a public o cer whose o ce is in
Manila at the time of the commission of the o ense, the
action may be led in the Court of First Instance of Fortich v. CA
Manila.
Nothing in the evidence on record would suggest that the key
4. If the o ended party is a public o cer holding o ce elements of publicity are present in the case before us.
outside of Manila, the action may be led in the Court of
Firstly, the assailed letter was obviously part and parcel of the initial
First Instance of the province or city where he held o ce
investigation surrounding the non-remittance of collections by
at the time of the commission of the o ense.
petitioner. Secondly, petitioner was unable to prove that the letter
was circulated or publicized, much less read by o cers of the
corporation other than those involved in the investigation or those
Brilliante v. CA
directly supervising the petitioner's work.
The determination of Brillante’s culpability for libel hinges on the
question of whether his statements were made with malice.
Magno v. People
Article 354 states, as a general rule, that every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no Dolores Magno was found guilty of two (2) counts of libel.
good intention and justi able motive is shown. As an Publication, in the law of libel, means the making of the
exception to the rule, the presumption of malice is done away with
By RGL 98 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone
other than the person to whom it has been written. If the statement
is sent straight to a person for whom it is written there is no
publication of it.
In People v. Silvela, the Court ruled that sending an unsealed
libelous letter to the o ended party constitutes publication. In the
present case, there is no dispute that the unsealed envelope
containing the libelous letter was handed by Dolores to Evelyn
Arcartado. Inasmuch as Cerelito voluntarily disclosed the contents
of Dolores' libelous letter to Evelyn, the act of publication cannot be
ascribed to Dolores insofar as Evelyn is concerned. However, it
could not be said that there was no publication with respect to
Cerelito's wife, Fe. While the letter in question was addressed to
"Mr. Cerelito & Fe Alejandro," the invectives contained therein were
directed against Cerelito only. Fe, the wife, is, in context, a third
person to whom the publication was made.
In all, we nd all the elements of libel to have been su ciently
established.
M Quasi-o enses
365 Reckless imprudence
1) O ender does or fails to do an act;
2) Voluntary;
3) Without malice;
4) Material damage results;
5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution taking into
consideration the
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
their commission results in damage, either to person or property.
a) employment or occupation,
2. Imprudence indicates de ciency of action, failure in precaution,
b) degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
and can be avoided by taking the necessary precaution once they
c) other circumstances regarding persons, time and are foreseen.
place.
3. Negligence indicates de ciency of perception, failure in
advertence, and can be avoided by paying proper attention and
Simple imprudence
due diligence in foreseeing them.
1) There is lack of precaution on the part of o ender;
4. Illustrations of inexcusable lack of precaution
2) The damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the
a) Overtaking notwithstanding there was no room to pass,
danger is not clearly manifest.
resulting to collision with a car approaching from the
Medical negligence opposite direction.
1) There must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the b) Overspeeding, overloading. Two of the passengers standing
surgeon; on the right running board of the car died when his car
collided with another.
2) Causal connection of such breach and the resulting death or
injury of patient. c) Disregarding tra c sign to slow down as he was about to
traverse a school zone.
Imprudence and Negligence
d) It was incumbent upon accused to reduce his speed to allow
Par 1. Reckless imprudence resulting in grave, less grave or light the car ahead of him to safely negotiate a left turn at the
intersection.
felony;
Par 2. Simple imprudence or negligence resulting in grave or less 5. Rules on overtaking:
serious felony ; a) Always drive on the right side of the road;
Par 3. Reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence b) Overtake only if the highway is clearly visible and free from
causing damage to property (Fine); oncoming vehicle.
Par 4. Simple imprudence or negligence resulting in light felony. c) Overtaking while approaching a curve in the highway, where
the driver's view is obstructed is not allowed.
NOTES
d) One who overtakes is charged with a high degree of care
1. The technically correct way to allege quasi-crimes is to state that and diligence to avoid collision.
By RGL 99 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
6. Doctrine of last chance is to the e ect that:
a) both parties are negligent;
b) the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that
of the other; or
c) when it is impossible to determine who's at fault;
d) the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable.
7. Emergency doctrine applies only
a) where the situation which arises to confront the actor is
sudden and unexpected, and
b) such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation.
8. The emergency doctrine may not be applied simultaneously with
the doctrine of last chance. Thus, if the case be that of the
former, then the latter is inapplicable.
9. The failure to render assistance on the spot constitutes a
qualifying circumstance. Penalty will be one degree higher.
10. The operator does not owe to the trespasser the duty of ordinary
or reasonable care but merely the duty to refrain from wantonly
or willfully causing injury to him.
11. Inexcusable lack of precaution in medical practice is
determined according to the standard of care observed by other
members of the profession in good standing under similar
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the
profession at the time of treatment or the present state of
medical science.
12. For a reasonable conclusion of medical negligence:
Reviewer
a) there must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the
surgeon;
b) causal connection of such breach and the resulting death or
injury of patient. (proximate cause)
Ivler v. Modesto 2010
Reckless Imprudence is a Single
Crime, its Consequences on Persons
and Property are Material Only to
Determine the Penalty
Quizon rejected Faller's conceptualization of quasi-crimes by
holding that quasi-crimes under Article 365 are distinct species
of crimes and not merely methods of committing crimes. Indeed,
the Quizonian conception of quasi-crimes undergirded a related
branch of jurisprudence applying the Double Jeopardy Clause to
quasi-o enses, barring second prosecutions for a quasi-o ense
alleging one resulting act after a prior conviction or acquittal of a
quasi-o ense alleging another resulting act but arising from the
same reckless act or omission upon which the second prosecution
was based.
Article 48 Does not Apply to Acts
Penalized Under Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code
Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under
Article 365. Hence, prosecutions under Article 365 should
proceed from a SINGLE charge regardless of the number or
severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will
do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each
consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting
of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be led
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
in the same rst level court.
Esteban v. People 2017
Esteban was convicted of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide.
The records of the case point to the fact that the petitioner who was
then driving an Isuzu pick-up in a zigzag manner and was trying to
overtake a jeep which he was tailing up, suddenly encroached the
opposite lane, thereby colliding against the tricycle which caused the
death of Manuel and serious physical injuries to Felix.
The MCTC did not err in convicting petitioner of three separate
quasi-o enses of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,
reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries, and
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, and in
imposing three separate penalties therefor.
Sevilla v. People 2014
The proper designation of the felony should be reckless
imprudence resulting to falsi cation of public documents and
not falsi cation of public documents through reckless imprudence.
There is no dispute that a variance exists between the o ense alleged
against Sevilla and that proved by the prosecution. Reckless
imprudence resulting to falsi cation of public documents is an
o ense that is necessarily included in the willful act of falsi cation
of public documents, the latter being the greater o ense. As such, he
can be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsi cation of
public documents notwithstanding that the Information only
100 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, oral to anal, whether between persons of the
charged the willful act of falsi cation of public documents.
same or opposite sex;
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act
b) bestiality;
Swindling by Syndicate
III Special Penal Laws c) masturbation;
d) sadistic or masochistic abuse;
Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
A e) lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts,
Secs. 3[a-c], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9775
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 pubic area and/or anus; or

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 1) Child refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age OR f) use of any object or instrument for lascivious acts
over, but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from
Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 5) Syndicated Child Pornography. — The crime of child
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because
pornography is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
of a physical or mental disability or condition.
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
2) A child shall also refer to: confederating with one another. (Sec 5)
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
a) a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted
Anti-Plunder Act or portrayed as a child as de ned herein; and
Prohibited acts
a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to
Anti-Torture Act of 2009 b) computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted
perform in the creation or production of any form of child
images or graphics of a person who is represented or
Anti-Tra cking in Persons Act of 2003 pornography;
who is made to appear to be a child as de ned herein.
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child
3) Child pornography refers to any representation, whether
pornography;
of 2004 visual, audio, or written combination thereof, by electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of c) To publish o er, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise,
Anti-Wire Tapping Act child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual promote, export or import any form of child pornography;

Bouncing Checks Law activities. d) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to
4) Explicit Sexual Activity includes actual or simulated - sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided, that possession
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 of three (3) or more articles of child pornography of the
a) As to form: same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell,
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
i) sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, distribute, publish or broadcast;
New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 but not limited to, contact involving genital e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for
to genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or the commission of prohibited acts;

By RGL 101 of 131

Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
f) For lm distributors, theaters and telecommunication
companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;
g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or
control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child pornography;
h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;
i) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;
j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;
k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in
this section; and
l) To possess any form of child pornography.
Jurisdiction
Shall be vested in the Family Court which has territorial
jurisdiction over the place where the o ense or any of its essential
elements was committed.
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
B
Secs. 2 to 6, P.D. No. 1612
1) Fencing is the act of any person who,
a) with intent to gain for himself or for another,
b) shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell
or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of
value
c) which he knows, or should be known to him,
Reviewer
d) to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft.
2) Fence includes any person, rm, association corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the act
of fencing.
3) Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. — If the fence is
a partnership, rm, corporation or association, the president
or the manager or any o cer thereof who knows or should
have known the commission of the o ense shall be liable.
Elements
(based from the 2016 case of Lim v. People)
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is NOT a principal or accomplice in the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or
anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds
of the said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article,
item, object has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and
4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself
or for another.
Presumption of Fencing
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of
value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be
prima facie evidence of fencing.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
Clearance or Permit to Sell Used Second Hand
Articles
The clearance stated in Sec. 6 of PD 1612 is only required if several
conditions are met:
1. first, that the person, store, establishment or entity is in the
business of buying and selling of any good, article, item,
object, or anything of value;
2. second, that such thing of value was obtained from an
unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof; and
3. third, that such thing of value is to be o ered for sale to the
public.
Dimat v. People 2012
Dimat was found guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing Law for
selling to Sonia Delgado for gain the Nissan Safari that was earlier
carnapped from Mantequilla.
Dimat claims lack of criminal intent as his main defense. But PD
1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as
malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent. Dimat
knew that the Nissan Safari he bought was not properly
documented. He said that Tolentino showed him its old certi cate
of registration and o cial receipt. But this certainly could not be
true because, the vehicle having been carnapped, Tolentino had no
documents to show.
Lim v. People 2016
The prosecution failed to establish that theft had been committed.
102 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
While the CA correctly ruled that conviction of the principal in
the crime of theft is not necessary for an accused to be found
guilty of the crime of fencing, we disagree with its ruling that the
prosecution su ciently proved the DPWH's ownership of the
Komatsu Grader. Thus, it cannot be said that the rst element of
fencing had been established.
Even assuming arguendo that theft had been committed, the third
element of fencing is wanting in this case. On the presumption that
fencing had been committed as provided by Sec. 5 of PD 1612, we
rule that petitioner was able to overcome the same upon his
presentation of the A davit of Ownership which he secured
from Petronilo Banosing.
It appears that both the RTC and the CA ruled that petitioner
should have rst secured a Clearance or a permit from the police.
However, said provision is inapplicable to the present case. Nowhere
was it established that petitioner was engaged in the business of buy
and sell.
⭐NB: This case modi es the Dimat ruling in that an accessory
of the theft or robbery may be held liable under the Anti-Fencing
Law.
Uypitching v. Quiamco
Quiamco was approached by Gabalan to settle the civil aspect of a
case by leaving with Quiamco a motorcycle and its photocopied CR.
It turned out that the motorcycle was bought on installment from
RUSI by Gabalan who defaulted in his payments, and the object of
a chattel mortgage foreclosure. Is there fencing? NO, the
motorcycle was not the object of theft.
Reviewer
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
C R.A. No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 3047, P.D. No. 677,
P.D. No. 1288, B.P. Blg. 195 and R.A. No. 10910
§3 Corrupt practices of public o cers
a) Persuading, inducing or in uencing another public
o cer to violate rules and regulations;
b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift for
himself or another in connection with a contract or
transaction between Gov't and any other party.
c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift for
himself or another in consideration for securing or
having secured any Government permit or license.
d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise
1) within one year after termination of o cial
business therewith, OR
2) which he has pending o cial business.
e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
Government, or giving any private party unwarranted
advantage in the discharge of the o cial functions, with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
Elements
1. that the accused must be a public o cer
discharging administrative, judicial, or o cial
functions, or a private individual acting in
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
conspiracy with such public o cers;
2. that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
3. that his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted bene ts, advantage, or
preference in the discharge of his functions.
f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without su cient justi cation, to act within a reasonable
time on any matter pending before him.
g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and disadvantageous to
the same.
Elements
1. that the accused is a public o cer;
2. that he entered into a contract or transaction on
behalf of the government; and
3. that such contract or transaction is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
h) Directly or indirectly having pecuniary interest in any
business in connection with which he intervenes, or he is
prohibited.
Elements
1. that the accused is a public o cer;
2. he has a direct or indirect nancial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract, or transaction;
3. he either:
103 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
a) intervenes or takes part in his o cial
capacity in connection with such interest,
OR
b) is prohibited from having such interest by
the Constitution or by law.
i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having material interest in any act requiring the
approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a
member.
j) Knowingly approving permits to unquali ed or not
legally entitled persons.
k) Divulging valuable, con dential info to unauthorized
persons, or releasing same in advance.
NOTES
1. Private individuals. Capitalizing or exploiting such
relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift from the person having transaction with Government.
2. Relation with public o cer includes familial within 3rd
degree, or a close personal one, i.e. social, fraternal,
employment.
3. Relatives. Prohibit relatives within 3rd degree of the four
highest o cials from intervening in any business with the
Government.
EXC:
1) Already transacting prior to assumption of o ce;
2) Not within discretion of o cial;
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or
3) O cial act or profession.
usage.
4. Congressmen. Receiving any pecuniary interest from
business that bene ted from an act he had previously
Canlas v. People 2020 reiterating Go v. Sandiganbayan
authored or adopted by Congress in that term.
The well-settled rule is that "private persons, when acting in
5. SAL.The accuracy of the entries in SAL becomes material
in criminal and administrative proceedings for violating Sec conspiracy with public o cers, may be indicted and, if found guilty,
7. held liable for the pertinent o enses under Section 3 of RA 3019, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress
6. Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to unexplained
certain acts of public o cers and private persons alike constituting
wealth
graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto."
Ground for admin suspension pending investigation.
7. Competent court. within original jurisdiction of
Estarija v. People
Sandiganbayan (SB)
8. RA 10910 which lapsed into law on July 21, 2016, now Decisions of the RTC — convicting an accused who occupies a
provides that the prescription period for crimes punished position lower than that with salary grade 27 or those not
under RA 3019 is 20 years. otherwise covered by the enumeration of certain public o cers in
Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249 — are to be
9. Termination of Office. Not allowed to resign, retire
appealed exclusively to the Sandiganbayan.
pending investigation or prosecution for any o ense under
this Act or for bribery. Because of Estarija's failure to perfect his appeal to the
Sandiganbayan within the period granted therefor, the Decision of
10. Suspension and loss of benefits. O cer with pending
the RTC convicting him of violating Section 3(a) of Republic Act
prosecution shall be suspended by RTC (now SB). If
No. 3019 has thus become nal and executory.
convicted, shall lose all retirement or gratuity bene ts. If
acquitted, shall be reinstated with salaries and bene ts
which he failed to receive while being suspended. If Anti-Hazing Act of 2018
convicted o cer already received such bene ts he shall D
R.A. No. 8049, as amended by R.A. No. 11053
restitute same.
11. Maximum of 90 days. — Dismissal of case != to Hazing refers to any act that
acquittal.
12. Exception. Gifts of insigni cant value or as ordinary token
By RGL 104 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
1. Results in physical or psychological su ering or tends to
embarrass, degrade, abuse or endanger the neophyte, member
or applicant;
2. In icted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member;
3. In icted as part of an initiation rite or practice;
4. Made as a prerequisite for admission or a requirement
for continuing membership;
5. Involves a fraternity, sorority, or organization;
6. Likely to adversely a ect the physical and psychological health
of such recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member.
This shall also include any activity, intentionally made or otherwise, by
one person alone or acting with others, that tends to humiliate or
embarrass, degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit,
neophyte, applicant, or member to do menial, silly, or foolish tasks.
Who are liable for hazing
a. RP + 3M Fine. Those who actually planned or participated
in the hazing if, as a consequence of the hazing, death, rape,
sodomy, or mutilation results therefrom;
b. RP + 2M Fine.
1) All persons who actually planned or participated in the
conduct of the hazing;
2) All o cers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization
who are actually present during the hazing;
3) The adviser of a fraternity, sorority, or organization who
is present when the acts constituting the hazing were
committed and failed to take action to prevent the same
from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to
Reviewer
the law enforcement authorities if such adviser or adviser
or advisers can do so without peril to their person or their
family;
4) All former o cers, nonresident members, or alumni
of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are also
present during the hazing.
5) O cers or members of a fraternity, sorority, or
organization who knowingly cooperated in carrying out
the hazing by inducing the victim to be present
thereat; and
6) members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who
are present during the hazing when they are intoxicated
or under the in uence of alcohol or illegal drugs;
c. RT Max + 1M Fine. All persons who are present in the
conduct of the hazing;
d. RT + 1M Fine. Former o cers, nonresident member,
alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after
the commission of any of the prohibited acts proscribed
herein, will perform any act to hide, conceal, or otherwise
hamper or obstruct any investigation that will be
conducted thereafter.
e. PC Min. Any person who shall intimidate, threaten, force, or
employ, or administer any form of vexation against another
person for the purpose of recruitment in joining or
Prima facie evidence
promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or organization;
and
f. 1M Fine. The school, if the fraternity, sorority, or
organization led a written application to conduct an
initiation which was subsequently approved by the school and
hazing occurred during the initiation rites or when no
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
representatives from the school were present during the
initiation.
g. The owner or lessee of the place where hazing is
conducted shall be liable as principal when such owner or
lessee has
i. actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
ii. but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring or
iii. failed to promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities if they can do so without
peril to their person or their family.
h. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the o cers or
members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, the
parents shall be held liable as principals (same requisites as
above)
i. The school authorities including faculty members as well
as barangay, municipal, or city o cials shall be liable as an
accomplice and likewise be held administratively
accountable (same requisites as in [g])
j. The incumbent o cers of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization concerned shall be jointly liable with those
members who actually participated in the hazing.
The presence of any person, even if such person is not a member
of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, during the hazing is
prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless
such person or persons
1. prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein or
105 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
2. promptly reported the same to the law enforcement
authorities if they can do so without peril, to their person
or their family.
Praeter intentionem inapplicable
Any person charged under this Act shall not be entitled to the
mitigating circumstances that there was no intention to commit so
grave a wrong.
Dungo v. People 2015
The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the law deems
the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited.
Accordingly, the existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the
crime of hazing. Also, the defense of good faith cannot be raised
in its prosecution.
Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law
provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be
entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no
intention to commit so grave a wrong. Also, the framers of the
law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a
defense in hazing.
R.A. No. 8049 presents a novel provision that introduces a
disputable presumption of actual participation; and which
modi es the concept of conspiracy. The presence of any person
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation as
principal, unless he prevented the commission of the punishable
acts.
Bayabos v. People 2015
Reviewer
Failure by school authorities to take any action to prevent the
o enses as provided by the law exposes them to criminal liability
as accomplices in the criminal acts. Thus, the institution and its
o cers cannot stand idly by in the face of patently criminal acts
committed within their sphere of responsibility.
First, we reject the contention of respondents that PMMA should
not be considered an organization. It is included in the term
organization within the meaning of the law.
We also disagree with the Sandiganbayan ruling that the quashal of
the Information was warranted for failure to allege that the
purported acts were not covered by the exemption relating to the
duly recommended and approved “testing and training procedure
and practices” for prospective regular members of the AFP and the
PNP. This exemption is an a rmative defense in, not an
essential element of, the crime of accomplice to hazing. It is an
assertion that must be properly claimed by the accused, not by
the prosecution.
However, the indictment merely states that psychological pain and
physical injuries were in icted on the victim. There is no allegation
that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for
admission or entry into the organization. Thus, the
Information must be quashed.
Villareal v. People 2012
Prior to the 1995 Anti-Hazing Law, there was to some extent a
lacuna in the law; hazing was not clearly considered an intentional
felony. And when there is doubt on the interpretation of criminal
laws, all must be resolved in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean,
however, that the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid
of criminal liability. Reckless imprudence or negligence consists
of a voluntary act done without malice, from which an immediate
personal harm, injury or material damage results by reason of an
inexcusable lack of precaution or advertence on the part of the
person committing it. In this case, the danger is visible and
consciously appreciated by the actor. In contrast, simple
imprudence or negligence comprises an act done without grave
fault, from which an injury or material damage ensues by reason of a
mere lack of foresight or skill. Here, the threatened harm is not
immediate, and the danger is not openly visible.
People v. Feliciano 2016
1. Death or injuries caused by fraternity rumbles are not treated as
separate or distinct crimes, unlike deaths or injuries as a result of
hazing. They are punishable as ordinary crimes of murder,
homicide, or physical injuries under the RPC.
2. The prosecution of fraternity-related violence, however, is
harder than the prosecution of ordinary crimes. Most of the
time, the evidence is merely circumstantial. The reason is
obvious: loyalty to the fraternity dictates that brods do not turn
on their brods. A crime can go unprosecuted for as long as the
brotherhood remains silent.
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001
E
R.A. No. 9160
106 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Money laundering is committed by any person who, knowing
that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity:
a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;
b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses
or uses said monetary instrument or property;
c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location,
disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with
respect to said monetary instrument or property;
d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering
o enses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the
money laundering o enses referred to in paragraphs (a),
(b) or (c) above; and
f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the o ense of money laundering referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
Money laundering is also committed by any covered person who,
knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under
this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), fails to do so.
Covered persons
natural or juridical, refers to:
1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, foreign exchange
dealers, pawnshops, money changers, remittance and transfer
companies and other similar entities and all other persons and
their subsidiaries and a liates supervised or regulated by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
Reviewer
2) insurance companies, pre-need companies and all other
persons supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission
(IC);
3)
a) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment
houses and other similar persons managing securities
or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or
consultant,
b) mutual funds, closed-end investment companies,
common trust funds, and other similar persons, and
c) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in
currency, commodities or nancial derivatives based
thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other
similar monetary instruments or property supervised
or regulated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC);
4) jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a business, trade in
precious metals, for transactions in excess of Php1M;
5) jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a business, trade in
precious stones, for transactions in excess of Php1M;
6) company service providers which, as a business, provide any of
the following services to third parties:
a) acting as a formation agent of juridical persons;
b) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a
The term 'covered persons' shall exclude lawyers and accountants
director or corporate secretary of a company, a partner
of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to
other juridical persons;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
c) providing a registered o ce, business address or
accommodation, correspondence or administrative
address for a company, a partnership or any other legal
person or arrangement; and
d) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a
nominee shareholder for another person;
7) persons who provide any of the following services:
a) managing of client money, securities or other assets;
b) management of bank, savings or securities accounts;
c) organization of contributions for the creation,
operation or management of companies; and
d) creation, operation or management of juridical
persons or arrangements, and buying and selling
business entities.
8) casinos, including internet and ship based casinos, with respect
to their casino cash transactions related to their gaming
operations. (as added by RA No 10927)
9) Real estate developers and brokers; (as added by RA No
11521)
10) O shore gaming operation, as well as their service providers,
supervised, accredited or regulated by the Philippine
Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) or any
government agency; (as added by RA No 11521)
1) acting as independent legal professionals in relation to
information concerning their clients or
2) where disclosure of information would compromise client
con dences or the attorney-client relationship:
107 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
3) Provided, That these lawyers and accountants are authorized
to practice in the Philippines and
4) shall continue to be subject to the provisions of their
respective codes of conduct and/or professional responsibility
or any of its amendments.
Covered transaction
1) is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary
instrument involving a total amount in excess of Php500K
within one (1) banking day;
2) for casinos, a single casino cash transaction involving an
amount in excess of Php5M or its equivalent in any other
currency;
3) for real estate developers and brokers, a single cash
transaction involving an amount in excess of Php7.5M or its
equivalent in any other currency.
Suspicious transaction
are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the
amounts involved, where any of the following circumstances
exist:
1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or
economic justi cation;
2) the client is NOT properly identi ed;
3) the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or
nancial capacity of the client;
4) taking into account all known circumstances, it may be
perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to
Reviewer
avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under the
Act;
5) any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed
to deviate from the pro le of the client and/or the client's past
transactions with the covered institution;
6) the transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or
o ense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been
committed; or
7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the
foregoing.
Bank Inquiry Order vs Freeze Order
1) By authority of the Council, the AMLC Secretariat shall le
before the Court of Appeals, through the O ce of the
Solicitor General, an Ex Parte Application for the Issuance of
Bank Inquiry Order to examine or inquire into any
particular deposit or investment account that is related an
unlawful activity or ML o ense.
2) Freeze Order refers to a provisional remedy aimed at
blocking or restraining monetary instruments or properties in
any way related to an unlawful activity, as herein de ned, from
being transacted, withdrawn, deposited, transferred, removed,
converted, concealed, or otherwise moved or disposed without
a ecting the ownership thereof.
3) The following requirements shall be observed in the issuance
of freeze orders:
a) No prior criminal charge, pendency of a case, or
conviction for an unlawful activity or ML o ense is
necessary for the commencement or the resolution of
a petition for freeze order.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
b) No asset shall be frozen to the prejudice of a candidate
for an electoral o ce during an election period.
c) No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a
writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the
Supreme Court.
4) The CA shall resolve the petition to freeze within
twenty-four (24) hours from ling thereof.
5) After determination that probable cause exists that any
monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an
unlawful activity, the CA may issue a freeze order, which shall
be e ective immediately, for a period of twenty (20) days.
6) Meaning of “probable cause” as a requirement for the
issuance of a freeze order. — such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious
man to believe that an unlawful activity and/or money
laundering o ense is about to be, is being or has been
committed and that the account or any monetary instrument
or property subject thereof sought to be frozen is in any way
related to said unlawful activity and/or money laundering
o ense.
7) Before the expiration of the twenty (20)-day freeze order, the
CA shall conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the
parties, to determine whether or not to modify or lift the
freeze order, or to extend its e ectivity. Pending resolution by
the CA, the freeze order shall remain e ective.
8) The freeze order shall take e ect immediately and shall remain
e ective for a total period not exceeding six (6) months.
This is without prejudice to an asset preservation order that
the RTC having jurisdiction over the appropriate AMLC case
or civil forfeiture case may issue on the same account
108 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
depending upon the circumstances of the case, where the CA
will remand the case and its records.
9) No prior criminal charge, pendency of a case, or conviction for
an unlawful activity or ML o ense is necessary for the ling or
the resolution of an application for issuance of bank inquiry
order.
Ligot v. AMLC 2013
Based on Section 10, there are only two requisites for the
issuance of a freeze order:
1) the application ex parte by the AMLC and
2) the determination of probable cause by the CA.
The six-month extension period is ordinarily su cient for the
government to act against the suspected money launderer and to le
the appropriate forfeiture case against him, and is a reasonable
period as well that recognizes the property owner’s right to due
process. In this case, the period of inaction of six years, under
the circumstances, already far exceeded what is reasonable.
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of
F 2009
Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995
1) Broadcast means to make public, by any means, a visual image
with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.
2) Capture with respect to an image, means to videotape,
photograph, lm, record by any means, or broadcast.
3) Female breast means any portion of the female breast.
Reviewer
4) Photo or video voyeurism means the act of taking photo or
video coverage of a person or group of persons performing
sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of
the private area of a person or persons without the latter's
consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling,
copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or
exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and similar means or device without the
written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that
consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was
given by such person's.
5) Private area of a person means the naked or undergarment
clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast of an
individual.
6) Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy means believe that he/she could
disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a
private area of the person was being captured; or
circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that
a private area of the person would not be visible to the public,
regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
7) Prohibited Acts
a) Take photo or video of a sexual act or capture image
of private area of a person without consent;
b) Copy or reproduce, or
c) Sell or distribute, or
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
d) Publish or broadcast, or cause same such photo or
video, in means of print, broadcast media, or through
VCD/DVD, internet, cellphone, or other devices.
8) The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video
coverage of the same was given by such person/s.
9) Exemption. — Any peace o cer who is authorized by a
written order of the court to use the record or any copy as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime
of photo or video voyeurism is not liable. Such written order
shall only be issued
a) upon written application and
b) the examination under oath of the applicant and his
witnesses, and
c) upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that photo or video voyeurism has been
committed or is about to be committed, and
d) that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution or
prevention of such.
Anti-Plunder Act
G
Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659
Elements
1) O ender is a public o cer;
2) Committed a series of overt acts;
3) By himself or in connivance with relatives and/or cronies;
109 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
4) Of which he has amassed a wealth of at least Php50M;
5) Which are deemed ill-gotten.
Rule of Evidence
There is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the
alleged act. What is important is to prove a series of pattern that
led to the accumulation of at least Php50M in ill-gotten wealth.
Ill-gotten wealth
Any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession
acquired directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees,
agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift,
share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary bene t from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the o ce or position of the public o cer
concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of
assets belonging to the Government;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly
any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including promise of future employment in
any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or
Reviewer
implementation of decrees and orders intended to bene t
particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of o cial position, authority,
relationship, connection or in uence to unjustly enrich
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage
and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of
the Philippines.
Forfeiture
The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their
interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and
shares of stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.
Prescription
Plunder prescribes in 20 years. However, the right of the State
to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public o cers from
them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel.
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People 2017 En Banc
The law on plunder requires that a particular public o cer must
be identi ed as the one who amassed, acquired or accumulated
ill-gotten wealth becau
se it plainly states that plunder is committed by any public o cer
who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by a nity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires
ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least
P50M through a combination or series of overt criminal acts.
Surely, the law requires in the criminal charge for plunder against
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
several individuals that there must be a main plunderer and her
co-conspirators. In other words, the allegation of the wheel
conspiracy or express conspiracy in the information was
appropriate because the main plunderer would then be identi ed in
either manner. Of course, implied conspiracy could also identify the
main plunderer, but that fact must be properly alleged and duly
proven by the Prosecution.
Dichaves v. Ombudsman 2016
The O ce of the Ombudsman correctly found probable cause to
charge petitioner with plunder in conspiracy with the former
President. Thus:
The evidence indicates that the former President exerted
in uence over Arellano and Pascual to push through with the
transactions, and that the transactions pushed through under
that condition that the commission or pro t would be given to
the former President; that it was Dichaves who orchestrated the
consummation of the transactions and received from Ocier the
check representing the commission; and that Dichaves
deposited the check to the "JOSE VELARDE" account which
was shown to be that of the former President.
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
H
Secs. 3 [a, b], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9745
Elements of torture
"Torture" refers to an act by which
1. severe pain or su ering, whether physical or mental,
110 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
2. is intentionally in icted on a person
3. for such purposes as
a. obtaining from him/her or a third person
information or a confession;
b. punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person
has committed or is suspected of having committed;
or
c. intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or
d. for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
4. when such pain or su ering is in icted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority.
It does not include pain or su ering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
Acts of Torture
Torture shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
in icted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe
pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body; and
b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed
by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
which are calculated to a ect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale.
Reviewer
Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment
refers to a deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment not
enumerated as acts of torture, in icted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority against a person under his/her
custody, which attains a level of severity causing su ering, gross
humiliation or debasement to the latter.
Prohibited Detention
1. Secret detention places,
2. solitary con nement,
3. incommunicado or
4. other similar forms of detention, where torture may be carried
out with impunity are hereby prohibited.
Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule; Exception
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of
torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except
if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused
of committing torture.
Who are criminally liable
1. Any person who actually participated or induced another in
the commission of torture or who cooperated in the execution
of the act of torture by previous or simultaneous acts shall be
liable as principal.
2. Any superior military, police or law enforcement o cer
or senior government o cial who issued an order to any
lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever
purpose shall be held equally liable as principals.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
3. The immediate commanding o cer of the unit
concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public
o cial of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies
shall be held liable as a principal for any act or omission, or
negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted,
abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the
commission thereof by his/her subordinates.
4. If he/she has knowledge of or should have known that acts
of torture is being or has been committed by his/her
subordinates and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action shall also be liable as
principals.
5. Any public o cer or employee shall be liable as an
accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture is being
committed and without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner:
a. By themselves pro ting from or assisting the
o ender to pro t from the e ects of the act of
torture;
b. By concealing the act of torture and/or destroying
the e ects or instruments thereof in order to prevent
its discovery; or
c. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of
the principal/s in the act of torture: Provided, That
the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the
o cial's public functions.
111 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

As a Separate and Independent Crime Anti-Tra cking in Persons Act of 2003 k) Baring and/or selling a child.
I
Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed Secs. 3 to 12, R.A. No. 9208
§4-A Attempted Tra cking
by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a
Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment, obtaining,
means in the conduct or commission thereof. In case victim is a child:
hiring, providing, o ering, transportation, transfer, maintaining,
Exclusion from the Coverage of Special Amnesty Law or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without victim's a) Facilitating solo travel of child;
In order not to depreciate the crime of torture, persons who have consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by b) Executing an a davit of consent;
committed any act of torture shall not bene t from any special means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power of position, taking c) Recruiting a woman to bear child;
amnesty law or similar measures that will have the e ect of
exempting them from any criminal proceedings and sanctions. advantage of vulnerability, or the giving or receiving of payments d) Simulating birth;
or bene ts for the purpose of exploitation.
Applicability of Refouler e) Soliciting a child and acquiring custody thereof.
§4 Acts of Tra cking in Persons
No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State §5 Acts that Promote Tra cking
where there are substantial grounds to believe that such person a) Under pretext of employment or training or apprenticeship;
shall be in danger of being subjected to torture. a) Lease or sublease house, or building;
b) Matching Filipino women to foreign nationals for marriage
Applicability of the RPC b) Issuing fake certi cates as pre-departure requirements;
(RA 6955);
c) Propaganda promoting tra cking;
The provisions of the RPC insofar as they are applicable shall be c) O er or contract marriage, real or simulated;
suppletory to this Act. Moreover, if the commission of any crime d) Assist in conduct of fraud;
d) Undertake, organize tours and travel plans that utilizes
punishable under Title Eight and Title Nine of the RPC is
prostitution; e) Facilitate exit and entry of tra cked;
attended by any of the acts constituting torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as de ned e) Maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or f) Con scate, conceal destroy passport;
herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum pornography; g) Bene t from, or make use of the labor or services of
period. f) Adopt persons; tra cked;
Non-prescription of torture g) Adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons; h) Tamper, destroy evidence, in uence witnesses in an
investigation of a case under this Act;
The statute of limitation or prescription period shall NOT apply h) For the purpose of removal or sale of organs;
to torture cases. (Sec 45 of IRR) i) Destroy, conceal remove, con scate or possess any traveling
i) Adopt a child to engage in armed activities in PH;
documents;
Non-derogability of torture
j) For the purpose of slavery, forced labor with threat of
j) Use the o ce to impede investigation.
Torture is non-derogable and can never be justi ed by any state of physical harm to victim;
emergency. §6 Quali ed Tra cking in Persons

By RGL 112 of 131

Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
a) Tra cked is a child;
b) Adoption e ected through RA 8043;
c) Committed by a Syndicate - 3 or more persons; or in large
scale - against 3 or more;
d) O ender is spouse, ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian,
with authority over tra cked; or a public o cer or
employee.
e) To engage in prostitution with member of miltary or law
enforcer;
f) O ender is a member of military or law enforcer;
g) Victim dies, becomes insane, su ers mutilation, a icted
with HIV or AIDS;
h) O ender commits one or more violations of Sec 4 over a
period of 60 days or more, whether continuous or not; and
i) O ender directs or through another manages the tra cking
victim.
§12 Prescriptive Period
1) Tra cking cases under this Act shall prescribe in ten (10)
years:
2) If committed by a syndicate or in a large scale, or against a
child, shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.
3) The prescriptive period shall commence to run
a) from the day on which the tra cked person is
delivered or released from the conditions of
bondage, or
Reviewer
b) in the case of a child victim, from the day the child
reaches the age of majority, and
shall be interrupted by the ling of the complaint or
information and shall commence to run again when the
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted or are unjusti ably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.
People v. Lalli 2011
Even if it is true that Lolita had been traveling to Malaysia to work in
bars, the crime of Tra cking in Persons can exist even with the
victim's consent or knowledge under Section 3(a) of RA
9208.
Tra cking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not
only limited to transportation of victims, but also includes the act of
recruitment of victims for tra cking. In this case, all three accused
conspired and confederated with one another to illegally recruit
Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia. Thus, they are also guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in
Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the
crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes tra cking.
When an act or acts violate two or more di erent laws and
constitute two di erent o enses, a prosecution under one will not
bar a prosecution under the other.
People v. Casio 2014 People v. Bandojo, Jr 2018
The ⭐elements of tra cking in persons can be derived
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
from its de nition under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, as amended,
thus:
1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing,
o ering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring,
or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders;”
2) The means used which include “threat or use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse
of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of
payments or bene ts to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another; and
3) The purpose of tra cking is exploitation which
includes “exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs.”
Knowledge or consent of the minor is NOT a defense under
Republic Act No. 9208.
The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive,
abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human
tra cking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive
means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will.
The act of “sexual intercourse” need not have been
consummated for the mere “transaction” i.e. that ‘solicitation’ for
sex and the handing over of the “bust money” of Php.1,000.00
already consummated the said act of tra cking in persons,
quali ed by the fact that one of the victims was a child.
113 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

People v. Ramirez 2019 People v. Maycabalong 2019
This Court in People v. Rodriguez acknowledged that, as with
Casio, the corroborating testimonies of the arresting o cer and the
minor victims were su cient to sustain a conviction under the law.
In People v. Spouses Ybanez, et al., this Court likewise a rmed
the conviction of tra ckers arrested based on a surveillance report
on the prostitution of minors within the area. In People v. XXX
and YYY, this Court held that the exploitation of minors, through
either prostitution or pornography, is explicitly prohibited under the
law.
Here, Ramirez cannot use as a valid defense either BBB's and AAA's
consent to the transaction, or that BBB received the payment on her
behalf, following Casio. People v. De Dios, bolstered Casio in
ruling that tra cking in persons may be committed also by means of
taking advantage of the persons' vulnerability as minors.
⭐People v. Dela Rosa 2019
Ruth Dela Rosa was convicted of quali ed tra cking in
persons.
This Court maintains that "recruitment" also contemplates an
accused's act of providing the conditions for prostituting AAA.
Prostitution is de ned under Section 3(c) of RA 9208 as
1. any act, transaction, scheme or design
2. involving the use of a person by another,
3. for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
4. in exchange for money, pro t or any other consideration.
Here, it was through the accused that Kim Caben knew AAA. The
accused was the one who brought AAA to Coa Hotel where they
met Kim Caben. It was the accused who instructed AAA on what
to do while in the hotel. The accused was even present when Kim
Caben and AAA had sex. Without the accused bringing AAA to
Coa Hotel, the February 2013 incident would not have happened.
In other words, it was the accused who provided AAA to Kim
Caben.
Planteras, Jr v. People 2018
To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house,
building or establishment for the purpose of promoting tra cking
in persons constitutes the o ense of promoting or facilitating
tra cking in persons. In order for one to be convicted thereof the
accused must, among others, knowingly lease or sublease, or allow
to be used any house, building or establishment for the purpose of
promoting tra cking in persons.
Anti-Violence Against Women and their
J Children Act of 2004
Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A. No. 9262
Who can be victims of VAWC
1. woman who is
a. o ender’s wife,
b. former wife, or a
2. woman with whom the o ender
a. has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or
b. has a common child with, or against
3. The woman’s child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode.
Who can commit VAWC
1. VAWC may likewise be committed “against a woman with
whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.”
2. The use of the gender-neutral word “person” who has or had a
sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses
even lesbian relationships.
3. It does not preclude the application of the principle of
conspiracy under the RPC. Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v.
Spouses Tan, the parents-in-law of the victim, were held to be
proper respondents in the case.
Kinds of abuses against women
1. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or
physical harm;
2. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature,
committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is
not limited to:
a. rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness xxx;
b. acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in
any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or
other harm or threat of physical or other harm or
coercion;
c. Prostituting the woman or child.
3. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing
or likely to cause mental or emotional su ering of the victim

By RGL 114 of 131

 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital
infidelity. xxxx
4. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to
make a woman nancially dependent which includes, but is
not limited to the following:
a. withdrawal of nancial support or preventing the
victim from engaging in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the
other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral
grounds as de ned in Article 73 of the Family Code;
b. deprivation or threat of deprivation of nancial resources
and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal,
community or property owned in common;
c. destroying household property;
d. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely
controlling the conjugal money or properties.
Battered Woman Syndrome
has three phases
1. The tension-building phase — minor batterings, verbal or
slight physical abuse occurs. The victim either paci es the
batterer or stays out of his way;
2. Acute battering phase — characterized by brutality,
destructiveness or death. The victim realizes that she cannot
reason with him and resistance would only exacerbate her
condition;
Reviewer
3. Tranquil period — batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior.
Requisites for BWS as a Defense
1. Cycle of violence — “each of the phases of the cycle of
violence must be proven to have characterized at least two
battering episodes”
2. The nal acute episode preceding the killing of the batterer
must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual
fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest
belief that she needed to use force to save her life.
3. At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed
probable — not necessarily immediate and actual — grave
harm to the woman, based on the history of violence. (People
v. Genosa)
Extraterritoriality
AAA v. BBB 2018
May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an offense constituting
psychological violence under RA 9262 committed through marital
infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring
outside the country?
YES. In Dinamling v. People, this Court already had occasion to
enumerate the elements of psychological violence under Section
5(i) of R.A. No. 9262:
1) The o ended party is a woman and/or her child or
children;
2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the
o ender, or is a woman with whom the o ender has or had
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom
such o ender has a common child;
3) The o ender causes on the woman and/or child mental or
emotional anguish; and
4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of
nancial support or custody of minor children or access to
the children or similar such acts or omissions.
What R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per
se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional
su ering on the wife. Marital in delity as cited in the law is
only one of the various acts by which psychological violence
may be committed. Thus, the mental or emotional suffering of the
victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the
o ense.
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the
law contemplates that acts of violence against women and their
children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes. Even if
the alleged extra marital a air causing the o ended wife mental and
emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a
prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach
of Philippine courts.
Dabalos v. RTC 2013
In Ang v. Court of Appeals, the Court enumerated the elements
of the crime of violence against women through harassment, to
wit:
1. The o ender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with
115 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
the o ended woman;
2. The o ender, by himself or through another, commits an
act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to her.
Notably, while it is required that the o ender has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with the o ended woman, for RA 9262 to be
applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of such relationship. It is immaterial whether the
relationship had ceased for as long as there is su cient evidence
showing the past or present existence of such relationship between
the o ender and the victim when the physical harm was committed.
Araza v. People 2020
The law does not require proof that the victim became
psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her
abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and
mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or
mental su ering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of
the victim be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to
this party.
Melgar v. People 2018 re Denial of financial support
Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator,
while mental or emotional anguish is the e ect caused to or the
damage sustained by the o ended party. To establish psychological
violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of
Reviewer
commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) or similar
acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to
present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal
to this party." Thus, in cases of support, it must be first shown
that the accused's denial thereof — which is, by itself, already a
form of economic abuse — further caused mental or emotional
anguish to the woman-victim and/or to their common child.
Anti-Wire Tapping Act
K Gaanan v. CA
Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No. 4200
It shall be unlawful for any person,
a) not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word,
b) to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement,
c) to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word
d) by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder,
or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not
in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to
a) knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record,
or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or
after the e ective date of this Act in the manner prohibited
by this law;
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
b) or to replay the same for any other person or persons;
c) or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or
in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person:
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of o enses shall
not be covered by this prohibition.
SC ruled that the use of an extension telephone line is not
prohibited under RA 4200. Applying ejusdem generis, the
prohibited devices are used for illegal purposes, but an extension
telephone line is not intended for an illegitimate purpose. It was a
common practice to allow extension wires.
Ramirez v. CA
Involves 2 friends, or maybe not so. One day, they had a meeting,
Garcia lambasted Ramirez, calling her names, and unleashed her
vilifying words against Ramirez. Ramirez got o ended and sued
Garcia for damages arising from defamation.
Ramirez presented a recording of the altercation hoping to nail
Garcia, but ended up being nailed by it. Ramirez contended that she
could not be liable since she was a party to the conversation. SC
disagreed saying that the literal language of the law says that ANY
person not being authorized is liable.
Bouncing Checks Law
L
B.P. Blg. 22
116 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
May be violated in 2 ways:
1) Making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on
account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he
does not have su cient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, and was subsequently dishonored;
2) Failing to keep su cient funds or to maintain a credit to
cover the full amount of the check if presented within a
period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon.
Elements of Sec 1 par 1
1) A person makes or draws and issues any check;
2) To apply on account or for value;
3) Knows at the time of issue that he does not have su cient
funds;
4) Subsequently dishonored, or would have been dishonored
had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
Elements of Sec 1 par 2
1) A person has su cient funds when he makes or draws and
issues a check;
2) Fails to keep such funds or maintain a credit to cover the full
amount if presented within 90 days;
3) Subsequently dishonored.
Exceptions to the presumption of knowledge of insufficient
funds
a) Check is presented after 90 days from the date of the check;
Reviewer
b) When drawer pays the amount or makes arrangement within
5 banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.
c) No proof that notice was received by drawer.
NOTES RE BP 22
1. Gravamen is the issuance of a check.
2. The elements of estafa and BP 22 are distinct. One could be
held liable for estafa and violation of BP 22 without double
jeopardy.
3. If the drawer stopped payment due to a valid reason, i.e.
wrong name of payee, then he is not liable.
4. But if he had no valid reason to do so, violation of BP 22 has
been consummated.
5. Written notice of dishonor is essential.
6. Absence of proof of notice and giving her 5 days to make
necessary arrangements to replenish funds destroys the
presumption that she had knowledge of the su ciency of
funds.
7. The burden then shifts to prosecution to prove such
knowledge; otherwise, drawer cannot be liable.
8. Notice of dishonor to corporation is not notice of dishonor
to o cer who issued the check. Thus, constructive notice to
the corporation is not enough to satisfy due process.
9. Penalty is IMP of 30d-1y OR ne of not less than but
not more than double the amount of the check, which
in no case shall exceed P200K, OR BOTH.
10. Rule of preference in imposing penalties emphasizes
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
discretion over the judge to determine whether a FINE
su ces the penalty, or whether IMPRISONMENT is also
in order.
11. A drawer who was acquitted or convicted under the RPC
for estafa may also be prosecuted under BP 22.
Rosa Lim v. People
B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris tantum that
the second element prima facie exists when the rst and third
elements of the o ense are present. If not rebutted, it su ces to
sustain a conviction.
The gravamen of B.P. No. 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check or one that is dishonored upon its presentment
for payment. And the accused failed to satisfy the amount of the
check or make arrangement for its payment within ve (5) banking
days from notice of dishonor. The act is malum prohibitum,
pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Why and to whom the
check was issued is irrelevant in determining culpability.
Gosiaco v. Ching and Casta
1. When a corporate o cer issues a worthless check in the
corporate name he may be held personally liable for violating a
penal statute.
In the recent case of Bautista v. Auto Plus Traders Inc., the
Court ruled decisively that the civil liability of a corporate
o cer in a B.P. Blg. 22 case is extinguished with the criminal
liability. The rule of stare decisis precludes the Court to
discharge Ching of any civil liability arising from the B.P. Blg.
117 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

22 case against her, on account of her acquittal in the The drawer is given 3 days from The drawer is given 5 days
criminal charge. receipt of demand letter or
Brodeth v. People 2017 re BP 22 as a continuing crime
notice of dishonor to pay the
2. Nowhere in B.P. Blg. 22 is it provided that a juridical person
Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 cases is categorized as transitory or amount due
may be impleaded as an accused or defendant in the prosecution
continuing crimes. A criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
for violations of that law, even in the litigation of the civil aspect Failure to pay within said period Failure to pay within said period
therefore may be led in any of the places where any of its elements
thereof. is prima facie evidence of deceit is prima facie evidence of
occurred — in particular, the place where the check is drawn,
B.P. Blg. 22 imposes a distinct civil liability on the signatory of issued, delivered, or dishonored (Yalong v. People) or where the knowledge of drawer of
the check which is distinct from the civil liability of the check was deposited or presented for encashment. insu ciency of funds
corporation for the amount represented from the check.
Payment is NOT a defense Payment is a defense if made
before the filing of information
Pilipinas Shell v. 2017 re Liability of corporate o cers in
Cu v. Small Business Guaranty 2017 Caguioa, J Duque BP 22 cases

In Gidwani, there was an SEC order of suspension of payments Whether or not respondents, as corporate officers, may still be held
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
after a petition to that e ect was led, which had the e ect of civilly liable despite their acquittal from the criminal charge of M of 2002
suspending the collection of the loan obligation of the debtor violation of BP 22. R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640
therein. In the present cases, the closure of G7 Bank by the
NO. In the case of Gosiaco v. Ching, this Court enunciated the rule
Monetary Board, the appointment of PDIC as receiver and its Acts punished
that a corporate o cer who issues a bouncing corporate check can
takeover of G7 Bank, and the ling by PDIC of a petition for 1) Importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
only be held civilly liable when he is convicted.
assistance in the liquidation of G7 Bank, had the similar e ect of and essential chemicals;
suspending or staying the demandability of the loan obligation of BP 22 vs Estafa through issuance of false checks 2) Sale, trade, administration, dispensation, delivery,
G7 Bank to SB Corp. with the concomitant cessation of the
distribution and transportation (STA3DT) of dangerous
former's obligation to pay interest to the latter upon G7 Bank's Art 315(2)(d) BP 22
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals;
closure.
Malum in se Malum prohibitum 3) Maintenance of a dangerous drug den, dive or resort;
Therefore, applying Gidwani by analogy, at the time SB Corp.
presented the subject checks for deposit/encashment in October Deceit is an element Deceit is NOT an element 4) Being employees or visitors of a dangerous drug den, dive or
2008, it had no right to demand payment because the underlying resort;
obligation was not yet due and demandable from Cu and he could If check issued in payment of a There is a violation regardless of
5) Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
not be held liable for the civil obligations of G7 Bank covered by the pre-existing obligation, NO the purpose of issuance
and essential chemicals;
subject dishonored checks on account of the Monetary Board's violation
closure of G7 Bank and the takeover thereof by PDIC.

By RGL 118 of 131

Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
6) Illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors and
essential chemicals;
7) Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument, apparatus
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals;
8) Possession of dangerous drugs;
9) Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus & other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs;
10) Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings
or meetings;
11) Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs during parties, social
gatherings or meetings;
12) Use of dangerous drugs;
13) Cultivation or culture of plants classi ed as dangerous drugs
or are sources thereof;
14) Failure to maintain and keep original records of transactions
on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals;
15) Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs;
16) Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs.
Elements of sale of dangerous drugs
1) Identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and
2) The delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
Reviewer
People v. Fernandez 2014
The accused were charged not only with the sale of cocaine but also
with the delivery and distribution thereof, which is committed by
the mere delivery of the prohibited drug. The consideration
therefor is of no moment. The law has de ned “deliver” as “any
act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or
otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.”
People v. Jaime de Motor 2019
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by
the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction. What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as
evidence.
Elements of possession of dangerous drug
1) Actual or constructive possession;
2) Unauthorized by law;
3) Free and conscious possession.
Chain of custody
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and con scation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the DO), and any elected
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
public o cial who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof;
2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon con scation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the
same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for
a qualitative and quantitative examination;
3) A certi cation of the forensic laboratory examination results,
which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after
the receipt of the subject item/s.
Chain of Custody Procedure
1) Police o cer to place his marking on the plastic container
containing the suspected substance.
2) Turns over to supervising o cer.
3) Sends by courier to the police crime lab for testing.
4) After testing and verifying nature of substance, technician
puts his own mark on new container and seal.
EXC
1. What is imperative is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
2. Prosecution must recognize and explain the lapse or lapses
in the prescribed procedure. (saving mechanism under
Sec 21[a])
Physical Inventory, Photograph, Marking of Seized Evidence
119 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
1. In seizures covered by search warrants, physical inventory
and photograph must be done where the warrant was served.
2. In warrantless seizures, such as buy-busts, may be done at
the nearest police station or o ce of the apprehending
team/o cer.
3. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-
coordination with the PDEA.
People v. Reyes 2016
The apprehending o cer/team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and con scation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of
1. the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel,
2. a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and
3. any elected public o cial who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?
NO. First of all, the con scated items were not marked
immediately after the seizure. Secondly, the law speci cally
required that the marking must be witnessed by the accused.
Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned
the absence of any representative of the media or of the DOJ,
and of the elected public o cial during the buy-bust
operation and at the time of the con scation of the dangerous
Reviewer
drugs from the accused in the area of operation. And, lastly, the
arresting o cers did not prepare any inventory of the con scated
items, and did not take photographs of the items.
People v. Alon-Alon 2019
The chain of custody rule requires testimony as to every link in the
chain, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was
received, its condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.
People v. Ruiz 2019
Under R.A. 10640, the marking, physical inventory and
photographing of the seized items by the apprehending team shall
be conducted immediately after seizure and con scation, and in the
presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were
con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel. The
law also mandates that the foregoing be witnessed by speci c
persons, namely:
a) an elected public o cial; AND
b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media.
People v. De Lumen 2019 re Saving Mechanism Clause
The IRR of the law provides that noncompliance with the
requirements of Section 21, under justi able grounds, will not
render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team. Accordingly, the
prosecution must satisfactorily prove that:
a) there is justi able ground for noncompliance; and
b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved.
Place of marking versus place of inventory
Lescano v. People 2016
As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1)
of RA 9165, as amended, requires the performance of two (2)
actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21(1) is
speci c as to when and where these actions must be done. As to
when, it must be "immediately after seizure and con scation." As to
where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a search
warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and
photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search
warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, these actions must
be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest o ce of the
apprehending o cer/team, whichever is practicable."
Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be
present during the physical inventory and photographing.
These persons are:
1. the accused or the person/s from whom the items were
seized;
2. an elected public o cial; and
3. a representative of the National Prosecution Service.
There are, however, alternatives to the rst and the third. As to the
120 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
rst, there are two (2) alternatives:
1. his or her representative; and
2. his or her counsel.
As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a
representative of the media may be present in his or her place.
People v. Garcia underscored that the mere marking of seized
paraphernalia, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of
photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Section
21 to be present, does not su ce.
Who may be witnesses during search and inventory
People v. Castillo 2019
The requirement of conducting inventory and taking of
photographs immediately after seizure and con scation necessarily
means that the required witnesses must also be present during the
seizure and con scation. The presence of third-party witnesses
is not an empty formality in the conduct of buy-bust
operations.
The seizure and marking of the dangerous drugs from the accused
to the apprehending o cer form the rst crucial link in the chain of
custody. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence
from the time they are seized from the accused until they are
disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing
switching, planting or contamination of evidence.
In People v. Tomawis, this Court declared that the third-party
witnesses required by Section 21 must be present as early as
the time of apprehension.
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
9) In case of juridical persons, the partner, president, director,
Here, the absence of witnesses during seizure and marking
manager, trustee, estate administrator, or o cer who consents
casts reasonable doubt on the actual origin and identity of the drugs
and knowingly tolerates shall be co-principal.
introduced in evidence.
10) Unless penalty is death, alien o ender is immediately
NOTES deported after service of sentence.
1) Constructive possession – when the drug is under the 11) Accessory penalty of DQ from exercising civil and political
dominion and control of the accused or he has the right to rights, or suspension of such rights pending appeal.
exercise such dominion or control over the place where it is
12) Voluntary submission of a drug dependent to
found. Exclusive possession or control of the place is not
con nement, treatment and rehabilitation:
necessary. PP vs. Tira, May 28, 2004
a) By himself or through parent, spouse, guardian,
2) Any person convicted for drug tra cking or pushing
relative within 4th degree, apply to Board;
cannot avail of Probation Law.
b) Board submits to Court which orders examination for
3) Positive nding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a
dependency;
qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of
any crime. c) DOH-accredited physician issues certi cation of
dependency;
4) Attempt or conspiracy penalized by same penalty in Nos 1,
2, 3, 5 and 13. d) Court orders treatment and rehab in a
Board-designated Center for at least 6 months;
5) Criminal liability of public o cer or employee for
Provided, may be placed under care of
misappropriation, misapplication or failure to account
DOH-accredited physician, if (1) no available Center,
con scated, seized and/or surrendered articles is Life-Death
or (2) o ender is below 18 and a 1st-time o ender.
and 500K-10M + Absolute Perpetual DQ.
e) Con nement not to exceed 1 year. The Board and
6) Any elective o cial who bene ted from proceeds shall be
Court shall be apprised by the head of the Center of
removed from o ce and perpetually DQ from holding
the status.
position in government.
f) Determine whether further con nement required.
7) Government o cials and employees meted with MAX
penalty + Absolute Perpetual DQ. 13) Exemption from Criminal Liability under Voluntary
Submission Program
8) Planting Evidence = Death.
a) Complied with rules and regulations;
By RGL 121 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
b) Has never been charged or convicted of any o ense
under this Act, RPC, or any special penal laws;
c) No record of escape, Provided in case of escape, shall
surrender 1 week from said escape.
d) Poses no serious danger to himself, family, and
community.
14) The period of prescription under the compulsory
submission program shall not run during the time the drug
dependent is under con nement, or under treatment and
rehabilitation approved by the Board.
15) Provisions Applicable to First-Time O enders
1) Suspension of sentence - over 15 yrs old at the time of
commission but not more than 18 at the
promulgation of judgment, Provided:
a) not been previously convicted,
b) not been previously committed to a Center or
care of a DOH-accredited physician; and
c) Board favorably recommends so.
2) Discharge After Compliance with Conditions of
Suspended Sentence - expunge all records, restore the
accused to his status prior to the case.
3) Privilege of Suspended Sentence to be Availed Only
Once
4) Promulgation of Sentence - should the o ender violate
any condition.
5) Probation or Community Service in Lieu of
Imprisonment.
Reviewer
16) Parent, spouse, guardian who refuses to cooperate may be
cited for contempt.
17) Required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs
under Sec 21(1) Art II RA 9165: Shall, immediately after
seizure and con scation, physically inventory and
photograph, the same in the presence of the accused, or his
counsel, a representative from media and the DOJ, and any
elected o cial, who shall sign said inventory, and be given a
copy of.
18) Chain of custody establishes the identity of the substance
from the moment item is seized up to the time it is o ered in
evidence.
19) There can be no crime of illegal possession of prohibited drug
if nagging doubts persist on whether the item con scated is
the same specimen examined.
2019 re Illegal Transport of Dangerous
People v. Macaspac
Drugs
The core element of illegal transporting of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.
"To transport" means "to carry or convey from one place to
another." There was no de nitive moment when an accused
"transports" a prohibited drug. When the circumstances establish
the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transporting
itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the
criminal act. The fact that there is actual conveyance su ces to
support a nding that the act of transporting was committed. The
law does not dictate the threshold how far the drugs should have
been transported to fall within the limits of illegal transporting of
dangerous drugs. Further, in cases of illegal transporting of
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
prohibited drugs, it is immaterial whether or not the place of
destination is reached.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
N
R.A. No. 10175
Computer crimes, or Cybercrimes are crimes that involve a
computer and/or a network.
1. The computer device or network as target;
2. The computer device or network as a tool.
Acts punished
The following acts constitute the o ense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:
1. O enses against the con dentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems;
2. Computer-related O enses;
3. Content-related O enses.
O enses against computer data and systems
1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a
computer system without right.
2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical
means without right of any non-public transmission of
computer data to, from, or within a computer system
including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system
carrying such computer data.
3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration,
damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data,
122 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
electronic document, or electronic data message, without
right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
4) System Interference. — The intentional alteration or
reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a
computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting,
damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing
computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic
data message, without right or authority, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.
5) Misuse of Devices.
6) Cybersquatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over
the internet in bad faith to pro t, mislead, destroy reputation,
and deprive others from registering the same.
Computer-related O enses
1) Computer-related Forgery. —
a. The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data
without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent
that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if
it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is
directly readable and intelligible; or
b. The act of knowingly using computer data which is the
product of computer-related forgery as de ned herein, for
the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest
design.
2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input,
alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or
interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing
damage thereby with fraudulent intent:
Reviewer
Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty
imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional
acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or
deletion of identifying information belonging to another,
whether natural or juridical, without right:
Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty
imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
Content-related O enses
1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control,
or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition
of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer
system, for favor or consideration.
2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts
de ned and punishable by RA 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer
system:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one
degree higher than that provided for in RA 9775.
3) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as de ned in
Article 355 of the RPC, as amended, committed through a
computer system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future.
All crimes de ned and penalized by the RPC, and special laws, if
committed by, through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant
provisions of this Act:
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree
higher than that provided for by the RPC and special laws.
Liability under Other Laws
A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any
liability for violation of any provision of the RPC, as amended, or
special laws.
Tolentino v. People 2018 re prescriptive period of cyberlibel
Section 6 of RA No. 10175 provides that the "penalty to be
imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and special laws, as the case
may be." As such, the former penalty of prision correccional in it its
minimum and medium periods is increased to prision corrreccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period.
The new penalty, therefore, becomes a ictive, following Section 25
of the RPC. Corrolarily, following Article 90 of the RPC, the crime
of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in fteen (15)
years. Thus, respondent Eva Rose Pua's ling of the complaint on
August 8, 2017 against petitioner's Facebook post dated April 29,
2015 was well within the prescriptive period for libel in relation to
RA 10175.
2019 re higher standard of malice for cyberlibel
In re Kapunan
directed at public figure
Atty. Patajo-Kapunan's statement "it (RA No. 9995) covers everyone
yung violation of the rights of the privacy eh, the lawyer of Katrina
has been suspended by the Supreme Court" by itself cannot be
considered a malicious statement against petitioner. For remarks
123 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
directed against a public gure are privileged. In order to justify a
conviction for libel involving privileged communication, the
prosecution must establish that the libelous statements were
made or published with actual malice or malice in fact – the
knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard as to
whether or not it was true.
To prove actual malice, it must be shown that the statement was
made with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless
disregard for the truth. To be considered to have reckless
disregard for the truth, the false statements must have been made
with a de nite awareness that they are untrue. That the accused was
negligent of the facts is not enough. The accused must have doubted
the veracity of the statements that he or she was making. Thus,
errors and inaccuracies may be excused so long as they were made
with the belief that what was being stated is true.
New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016
O The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the
Secs. 3 to 4, R.A. No. 10883
1) Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another
a) without the latter's consent, OR
b) by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, OR
c) by using force upon things.
2) Any person charged with carnapping or
a) when the crime of carnapping is committed by
criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of
Reviewer
violence or intimidation of any person or persons or
forced upon things; or
b) when the owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the
carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of
the carnapping
shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.
3) Concealment of Carnapping. — Any person who conceals
carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6)
years up to twelve (12) years and a ne equal to the amount of
the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, or any other part involved in the violation.
People v. Bustinera
Bustinera was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of quali ed
theft for the unlawful taking of a Daewoo Racer GTE Taxi.
anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on quali ed theft
or robbery. While the anti-carnapping law penalizes the unlawful
taking of motor vehicles, it excepts from its coverage certain vehicles
1. roadrollers, trolleys, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn
mowers, amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public
highways,
2. vehicles which run only on rails and tracks, and
3. tractors, trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used
exclusively for agricultural purposes.
By implication, the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would
be covered by Article 310 of the RPC and the provisions on
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
robbery.
The designation in the information of the o ense committed by
appellant as one for quali ed theft notwithstanding, appellant may
still be convicted of the crime of carnapping.
While the nature of appellant’s possession of the taxi was initially
lawful as he was hired as a taxi driver and was entrusted possession
thereof, his act of not returning it to its owner, which is contrary to
company practice and against the owner’s consent transformed the
character of the possession into an unlawful one. Appellant himself
admits that he was aware that his possession of the taxi was no
longer with Cipriano’s consent as the latter was already demanding
its return.
People v. Patistes 2018 also see People v. Cariño 2018
Patistes was convicted for the crime of carnapping.
Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from
the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as
the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" is
not merely limited to pecuniary bene t but also includes the bene t
which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act
which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was
taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.
Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation, and
P Discrimination Act
Secs. 3(a), 5 and 10, R.A. No. 7610
124 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
De nition of Child
"Children" refers to
a) person below eighteen (18) years of age or
b) those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves
or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
Children, whether male or female, who for money, pro t, or any
other consideration or due to the coercion or in uence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution which include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by
means of written or oral advertisements or other similar
means;
3) Taking advantage of in uence or relationship to procure a
child as prostitute;
4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage
him as a prostitute; or
Reviewer
5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary
Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
bene t to a child with intent to engage such child in
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
prostitution.
Child's Development
b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
or subject to other sexual abuse; and
c) Those who derive pro t or advantage therefrom, whether as
manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution
takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which
engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which
the license has been issued to said establishment.
1. Under Section 5(a) when any person who, not being a relative
of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or
cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house,
apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any
other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is
about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
2. Under Section 5(b) when any person is receiving services
from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health
club and other similar establishments.
3. A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for
the consummated felony under Section 5 hereof shall be
imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the
crime of child prostitution.
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
those covered by Article 59 of PD 603, as amended, but not
covered by the RPC, as amended, shall su er the penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum period.
b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor
sixteen (16) years of age or under or who is ten (10) years or
more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel,
beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or
massage parlor, beach, and/or other tourist or similar places
shall su er the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
and a ne;
Provided, That this provision shall NOT apply to
1. any person who is related within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or a nity or
2. any bond recognized by law, local custom and
tradition or
3. acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal
duty. (As amended by RA No 11648)
c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or o er a minor to any
one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a
minor as provided in the preceding paragraph shall su er the
penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a ne;
Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an
ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to
125 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

be imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a

3. Over 18 Rape under RPC; Intercourse Article 266-A(1) under Section
ne, and the loss of parental authority over the minor.
committed of the RPC: 5(b) of R.A. No.
Acts of Lasciviousness under RPC (prision correccional).
d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the against reclusion perpetua, 7610: reclusion
operation of any public or private place of accommodation, Designation of the Crime & Imposable children except when the temporal in its
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including Penalty from Tulagan v. People 2019 En Banc exploited in victim is below 7 medium period to
residential places, who allows any person to take along with prostitution or years old in which reclusion perpetua
him to such place or places any minor herein described shall be Age of Victim 12 years old or other sexual case death
18 years
imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a Under 12 years below 18, or 18 abuse penalty shall be
Crime old and
ne, and the loss of the license to operate such a place or old or demented under special imposed
Committed above
establishment. circumstances
Rape under
e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street Acts of Article 266-A(1)
Acts of Rape
child or any other child to: Lasciviousness in relation to Art.
Lasciviousness Rape under under
i) Beg or use begging as a means of living; under Article 336 266-B of the
committed Article 266-A(1) Article
of the RPC in Rape by RPC: reclusion
ii) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug tra cking or against in relation to Art. 266-A(1)
relation to carnal perpetua, except
pushing; or children NA 266-B of the of the
Section 5(b) of knowledge when the victim is
exploited in RPC: reclusion RPC:
iii) Conduct any illegal activities, shall su er the penalty R.A. No. 7610: Lascivious
prostitution or below 7 years old
of prision correccional in its medium period to reclusion temporal conduct under perpetua reclusion
other sexual in which case
reclusion perpetua. in its medium Section 5(b) of perpetua
abuse death penalty
period R.A. No. 7610:
Rape under RPC from sexual child abuse shall be imposed
reclusion temporal
1. Under 12 prosecute as Statutory Rape under RPC; penalty Sexual Assault in its medium Sexual Assault Sexual
Sexual Assault Lascivious
is RP under Article period to under Article Assault
committed Conduct under
266-A(2) of the reclusion perpetua 266-A(2) of the under
prosecute as Acts of Lasciviousness under RPC, but against Section 5(b) of
RPC in relation RPC in relation Article
penalty provided under Sec. 5 (b), RA 7610 which is RT med. children Rape by R.A. No. 7610:
to Section 5(b) of NA to Section 5(b) of 266-A(2)
exploited in Sexual Assault reclusion temporal
2. Over 12 but Under 18 either Rape under RPC (if any of 4 R.A. No. 7610:
prostitution or R.A. No. 7610: of the
circumstances occur) reclusion temporal in its medium
other sexual reclusion temporal RPC:
in its medium period to
or RA 7610 if victim is “subjected to other sexual abuse” or abuse in its medium prision
period reclusion perpetua
under persuasion, inducement, enticement, coercion or period mayor
in uence (PIECI) where penalty is RT medium to RP.
Sexual Rape under Sexual Abuse NA

By RGL 126 of 131

Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
Tulagan v. People 2019 En Banc
If the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against a victim
under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the
o ense should now be "Sexual Assault” under paragraph 2, Article
266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The
imposable penalty is still reclusion temporal in its medium period,
and not prision mayor.
Whereas if the victim is 12 years old and under 18 years old, or
18 years old and above under special circumstances, the
nomenclature of the crime should be "Lascivious Conduct under
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610" with the imposable penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, but it
should not make any reference to the provisions of the RPC.
It is only when the victim of the sexual assault is 18 years old and
above, and not demented, that the crime should be called as "Sexual
Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC" with
the imposable penalty of prision mayor.
People v. Tubillo 2017
Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353,
if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the o ender
should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape
under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC and penalized with reclusion
perpetua.
On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the o ender
should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of
RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except par 1 [d]) of the RPC.
However, the o ender cannot be accused of both crimes for the
Reviewer
same act because his right against double jeopardy will be
prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability
for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with
a violation of Section 5 (b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the
RPC, a felony under the RPC such as rape cannot be complexed
with an o ense penalized by a special law.
People v. Basa, Jr 2019
Before an accused can be held criminally liable for lascivious
conduct under Section 5(b) R.A. No. 7610, the Court held in
Quimvel v. People that the requisites for Acts of Lasciviousness, as
penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, must be met in addition
to the requisites for sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610.
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct
a) for money, pro t or any other consideration; or
b) under the coercion or any in uence of any adult, syndicate
or group.
In the case of Olivarez v. CA, the Court explained that the phrase
"other sexual abuse," covers not only a child who is abused for pro t,
but also one who engages in lascivious conduct through the
coercion or intimidation by an adult. In the latter case, there
must be some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which
subdues the free exercise of the o ended party's will.
Calaoagan v. People 2019
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 penalizes an act when it constitutes as
child abuse. In relation thereto, Sec. 3(b) highlights that in child
abuse, the act by deeds or words must debase, degrade, or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being.
When the in iction of physical injuries against a minor is done at
the spur of the moment, it is imperative for the prosecution to
prove a speci c intent to debase, degrade, or demean the
intrinsic worth of the child; otherwise, the accused cannot be
convicted under Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Sanchez v. People
Here, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 and Section
10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The use of "or" in Section 10(a) of RA
7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there are four
punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child
cruelty; third, child exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for
conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth
penalized act cannot be interpreted as a qualifying condition for the
three other acts.
Araneta v. People
The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and
separately de ned child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show
that these three acts are di erent from one another and from the act
prejudicial to the child's development.
127 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
An accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a)
if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not
prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child
exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an
act prejudicial to the development of the child is di erent from the
former acts.
Bongalon v. People 2013
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the
crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No.
7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable
doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should
it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the
RPC.
People v. Baraga 2014
Sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 has
three elements:
1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct;
2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
3) the child is below 18 years old.
The penalty for sexual abuse performed on a child under 18 years
old but over 12 years old under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 is
Reviewer
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The
Court likewise considers the alternative circumstance of
relationship against Baraga as an aggravating circumstance.
Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period,
i.e., reclusion perpetua. Besides, Section 31 of R.A. No. 7610
expressly provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter alia, the parent
of the victim.
People v. Carlos Alhambra 2014
The prosecution was able to establish Alhambra’s criminal liability
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. First, AAA testi ed that,
whilst clad only in towel after having taken a bath, her father
forcibly removed her towel covering her body, kissed her on the
neck, removed her undergarments, and kissed her on the other parts
of her body. Second, Alhambra used his moral ascendancy and
in uence over his daughter AAA to consummate his lascivious
design. Third, AAA was only 17 years old when the said incident
happened.
Alhambra’s assertion that he is not liable for sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) since AAA is not a child engaged in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse is plainly without merit. The law
covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for
pro t but also one in which a child, through coercion or
intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct. A child is
deemed subjected to “other sexual abuse” when he or she indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or in uence of any adult. As
established by the prosecution, Alhambra was only able to
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
consummate his lascivious design towards AAA through coercion
and with the use of his in uence over the latter as her father.
Swindling by Syndicate
Q
P.D. No. 1689
1) Estafa or its other forms is committed;
2) By a syndicate of at least ve persons;
3) Defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys
contributed by
a) stockholders, or
b) members of rural banks, cooperatives, samahang
nayons, or
c) farmers' associations or
d) of funds solicited by corporations/associations from
the general public.
Debuque v. Nilson 2021
The case of Remo v. Devanadera 2016 clari es the standards on
what constitutes a syndicate under PD 1689, to wit:
1) The group must be at least ve (5) in number.
2) The group must have formed or managed a rural bank,
cooperative, "samahang nayon," farmer's association or any
other corporation or association that solicits funds from
the general public.
3) The group formed or managed such association with the
128 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises
intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme i.e., they used the very
association that they formed or managed as the means to
defraud its own stockholders, members and depositors.
People v. Mateo 2017
In the present case, it is clear that all the elements of syndicated
estafa, are present, considering that:
a) the incorporators/directors of MMG comprising more
than ve (5) people, including herein accused-appellant,
made false. pretenses and representations to the investing
public - in this case, the private complainants - regarding a
supposed lucrative investment opportunity with MMG in
order to solicit money from them;
b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior
to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud;
c) relying on the same, private complainants invested their
hard-earned money into MMG; and
d) the incorporators/directors of MMG ended up running
away with the private complainants' investments, obviously
to the latter's prejudice.
People v. Aquino 2018
The courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of Syndicated
Estafa are present in the instant case, as shown in the following
circumstances:
Reviewer for the 2022 Bar
a) the o cers/directors of Ever ow, comprising of Felix and Drafting of Complaint, Information,
A
his co-accused who are more than ve (5) people, made false A davits of Desistance, etc.
pretenses and representations to the investing public, i.e.,
private complainants, regarding a lucrative investment
Complaint
opportunity with Ever ow in order to solicit money from REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
them; Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
to and simultaneous with the commission of fraud, which [City]
is made more apparent by the fact that Ever ow was not
authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission to PEOPLE OF THE
solicit investments from the public in the rst place; PHILIPPINES
Criminal Case No.: 123984
c) relying on the same, private complainants invested various Plainti ,
amounts of money into Ever ow; and
-versus-
For: [CRIME]
d) Felix and his co-accused failed to deliver their promised
[ACCUSED],
returns and ended up running away with private
complainants' investments, obviously to the latter's Accused.
prejudice. x------------------------------------------x
.
People v. Baladjay 2017 COMPLAINT
The special law is typically invoked by those who fall prey to the The Undersigned accuses _____________________ of the crime
too-good-to-be-true promises of a Ponzi scheme, wherein the of [CRIME], committed as follows:
purported investment program o ers impossibly high returns and
That on or about ________ 200_, in the City of ________ and
pays these returns to early investors out of the capital contributed by
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
later investors.
then ___ years old and without any known address, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, without force upon
things or violence upon persons and without the knowledge and
IV Practical Exercises consent of _____________________, the owner, took a
_____________ valued at __________________ Pesos
By RGL 129 of 131
Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer
(P________.00) to the prejudice of said owner.
The Undersigned accuses _____________________ of the crime
of [CRIME], committed as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW. FOR BIGAMY:
____________________________ That on or about ________ 200_, in the City of ________ and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
Complainant
being then legally married to _____________________, and
without such marriage having been legally dissolved and thus valid
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __th day of and existing, did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a
_________ 200_ in ________ City. second marriage with _____________________ in the City of
________.
____________________________
FOR THEFT:
Assistant City Prosecutor
That on or about ________ 200_, in the City of ________ and
Information within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
then ___ years old and without any known address, willfully,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, without force upon
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
things or violence upon persons and without the knowledge and
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
BRANCH [#], [VENUE] consent of _____________________, the owner, took a
_____________ valued at __________________ Pesos
PEOPLE OF THE (P________.00) to the prejudice of said owner.
PHILIPPINES FOR ATTEMPTED RAPE:
Criminal Case No.: 123984
Plainti , That on or about ________ 200_, in ________ City, the accused
-versus- did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the
For: [CRIME]
house of _____________________, a married woman, and nding
[ACCUSED],
that her husband was away, with lewd designs and by means of force
Accused. and intimidation, commenced directly by overt acts to commit the
x------------------------------------------x crime of attempted rape upon her person, to wit: while
. _____________________ was cooking lunch, the accused seized
her from behind, threw her to the oor, raised her skirt, pulled
INFORMATION down her underwear and attempted to penetrate her with his sexual
By RGL
for the 2022 Bar
organ and would have succeeded in doing so had not her loud
protests and vigorous resistance brought her neighbors to her
assistance, causing the accused to ee from the premises without
completing all the acts of execution.
FOR FRUSTRATED MURDER:
That on or about ________ 200_, in ________ City, the accused
did then and there take a loaded ________ pistol, directly aim the
same rearm at the person of _____________________, an invalid
septuagenarian, and, at point-blank range, with intent to kill,
discharge the rearm twice against the person of said
_____________________, in icting on said
_____________________ two (2) wounds on his chest and
stomach, which wounds would have been fatal had not timely
medical assistance been rendered to the said
_____________________.
CONTRARY TO LAW [with the aggravating circumstance of
(AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE)].
____________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor
CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation in this case was
conducted by me in accordance with law; that I examined the
Complainant and her witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to
believe that the o ense charged had been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of
the Complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and was
given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and that
the ling of this Information is with the prior authority and
approval of the City Prosecutor.
130 of 131
 Criminal Law and Practical Exercises Reviewer for the 2022 Bar

____________________________ [City] [ID No.] [ID No.]

Assistant City Prosecutor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __th day of
_________ 200_ in ________ City.
____________________________
City Prosecutor
Bail Recommended: P10,000.00
Replace Certificate of PI to this if necessary
CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF INQUEST
I hereby certify that the accused was lawfully arrested without a
warrant and that, upon being informed of his rights, refused to
waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and,
for this reason, an Inquest was conducted; that based on the
complaint and the evidence presented before me without any
countervailing evidence submitted by the accused, despite
opportunity to do so, there is reasonable ground to believe that the
accused has committed the crime of theft and should, thus, be held
for said crime; that this Information was with the prior authority of
the City Prosecutor.
____________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this __th day of
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
_________ 200_ in ________ City.
WE, [Name of A ant 1] and [Name of A ant 2], both of legal age, Notary Public
Filipino, married, and residents of [Address], after having been duly
Atty.
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:
Notary Public for
1. We are the private complainant in a criminal case for
Appointment No. Until ,20
[Nature of Crime] against [Name of Accused] docketed as
IS No. [No.] before the O ce of the City Prosecutor, Roll of Attorney No.
IBP
[City].
PTR No. No.
2. In this regard, the accused has already paid the damage to MCLE Compliance No.
our vehicle;
3. In view of the payment by the accused and considering that
Rowena A. Castro was not injured, we would like to
manifest that we now completely and absolutely exonerate
the accused from any liability in connection with the
above-mentioned criminal case and that we are no longer
interested, and we hereby desist, in prosecuting the said
criminal case;
4. As such, we respectfully pray that the aforementioned case
against [Name of Accused] be withdrawn and/or dismissed.

A davit of Desistance IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this
___________________ in _______________, Philippines.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Department of Justice ___________________ ___________________
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR A ant A ant

By RGL 131 of 131