COURSE SYLLABUS

JD 401-CRIMINAL LAW 1
FIRST Semester, School Year 2022-2023

Part I
PHILOSOPHY Total human development with appropriate competencies
VISION A globally competitive law graduates
MISSION To provide high quality legal instruction involving the foundations and
principles of Criminal Law
GOAL To facilitate learning of the foundations and principles of criminal
law.
Graduate Legally competent, resourceful, innovative, articulate, ethical,
Attributes responsible, conscientious law graduates.
Core Values ETHICAL. Inculcate ethics, responsibility and conscientiousness in
pursuing the legal profession
COMMITMENT. Develop the passion not only in the study of law, but in
pursuing a career involving the legal profession, with the desire for
continuous learning and self-improvement
EXCELLENCE. Develop in the students the necessity to strive for
excellence from day one of the study of law, to the bar review to
pursuing service in the field of the legal profession
SERVICE. Inculcate in the hearts and minds of the students that the
legal profession is primarily service to the people
COMPETENCE in theory and in practice. Establish to the students the
significance of careful research and study, conscientious preparation,
articulate counseling, and effective writing in pursuing the legal
profession.

Program 1. Impart among law students a broad knowledge of law and its
Outcomes various fields, and of legal institutions;
2. Enhance their legal research abilities to enable them to analyze,
articulate and apply the law effectively, as well as to allow them to
have a holistic approach to legal problems and issues;
3. Prepare law students for advocacy, counseling, problem-solving and
decision making, and develop their ability to deal with recognized
legal problems of the present and the future;
4. Develop competence in any field of law as is necessary for gainful
employment or sufficient as a foundation for future training beyond
the basic professional degree, and to develop in them the desire and
capacity for continuing study and self-improvement;
5. Inculcate in them the ethics and responsibilities of the legal
profession; and
6. Produce lawyers who conscientiously pursue the lofty goals of their
profession and faithfully adhere to its ethical norms.
Course Credit 3 units
Course Alternatively entitled as Foundations and Principles of Criminal Law.
Description It is a detailed examination into the characteristics of criminal law,
the nature of felonies, stages of execution, circumstance affecting
criminal liability, persons criminally liable; the extent and extinction
of criminal liability as well as the understanding of penalties in

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

criminal law, their nature and theories, classes, crimes, habitual

delinquency, juvenile delinquency, the Indeterminate Sentence Law
and the Probation Law.

The course covers Articles 1-113 of the Revised Penal Code and
related laws.
Contact 3 hours/week
Hours/Week
Course None
Prerequisite/s
Course Students will have acquired knowledge of the foundations and
Outcomes principles of Criminal Law and related laws and jurisprudence
Course Case digests; group assignments; quizzes; examination and
Requirements recitations; class attendance
Grading System Class Standing = 60%; Midterm/Final Exam = 40%
Midterm Grade = 60%(Class Standing) + 40%(Midterm Exam)
Final Term Grade = 60%(Class Standing) + 40%(Final Exam)
Final Grade = 40%(Midterm Grade) + 60%(Final Grade)
where:
Class Standing = 40%(Quizzes) + 20%(OCR)
OCR =Assignments, case digest, seat works, recitation, attendance
Part II. COURSE OUTLINE

TOPICS CASES
I. General Principles

A. Criminal Law

1. Definition
2. Sources of Criminal Law

3. Constitutional limitations on the Pp vs Apolonio Carlos, GR No. L-239, June 30, 1947
power of the state to enact penal -Is CAs 682 a bill of attainder?
laws:
a. equal protection clause
b. Due process
c. Non-imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment or
excessive fines
d. Ex-post facto law
e. Bill of attainder

B. Scope and Characteristics People of the Philippine Island v. Lol-lo and Saraw,
b.1. Characteristics G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922
-Can Lol-lo and Saraw be charged with a crime and
a. Generality trued before the Philippines courts despite the crime
b. Territoriality having been committed outside the Philippine
c. Prospectivity territory?

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

Joseph Estrada vs Aniano Desierto et al, GR No.

146710-15. March 2, 2001
-Why did the Supreme Court reject Estrada’s claim
that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
plunder because he is immune from suit?

Khosrow Minucher vs CA, GR No. 142396, Feb. 11,

2003
-Explain the extent and scope of immunity of a
foreign agent operating here in the Philippines.

Liang vs Pp, GR. No. 125865, January 28, 2000

-Why is Liang not immune from suit?

Inmates of New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City vs Sec.

De Lima, GR No. 212719, June 25, 2019
-Does RA No. 10592 partake the nature of a penal
law?
-Should the provisions of RA No. 10592 be given
prospective or retroactive application? Why?)
b. 2. Pro Reo Principle
b.3 Interpretation of Penal Laws
b.4 Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws
C. Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical
2. Positivist

Marbella-Bobis vs Bobis, GR No. 138509, July 31,

▪ Application of provisions
2000
-Is PD 1083 a law of preferential application?

Lito Corpuz v Pp. GR No. 180016, April 29, 2014

-What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment that
is prohibited under the Constitution?
-What is the Court’s remedy when confronted with
the obligation of imposing what it perceives to be
cruel and unusual punishment?
II. Felonies (Art. 3, RPC)

A. Crimes, Felonies Artemio Villareal v Pp, GR No. 151258, February 1, 2012

B. Three classes of crimes --What is the concept of criminal intent/malicious intent
1. Intentional Felonies as an element of an intentional felony? -
-Why were the accused in this case held liable for
2. Culpable Felonies

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)

3. Crimes punished by Special
Penal Laws
C. Elements of a Felony
D. Elements of Intentional Felony and
Culpable Felony
E. Mistake of Fact; requisites
F. General Intent/Specific Criminal
Intent
G. Good faith, Intent in Special Laws
H. Intent to commit a crime
distinguished from intent to
perpetrate the act
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide rather than
for Homicide?
Pp vs Fernando Pugay, et al, GR Noo. L-74324, November
17, 1988
-Why was Fernando Pugay held liable for the culpable
felony of Reckless Imprudence while his co-accused
Benjamin Samson was held liable for the intentional
felony of Homicide?
Edmundo Escamilla v Pp. GR No. 188551, Feb. 27, 2013
(How is intent to kill proven?)
Reynaldo Mariano v Pp, GR No. 178145, July 7, 2014
-What is reckless imprudence?
-What is the proof needed to establish the offense of
reckless driving?
-Why is it that the Supreme Court found Reynaldo
Mariano liable for reckless imprudence instead of
frustrated homicide?
Jason Ivler v Modesto San Pedro. GR No. 172716,
November 17, 2010
-Is culpa a mode of committing a felony or a felony in
itself?
Samson Calderon v Pp, GR No. L-6189, Nov. 29, 1954
-What is the rationale of the Supreme Court in hilding
that Samson Calderon is liable for intentional felony of
Homicide and not for a culpable felony?
People of the Philippines v. Antonio Oanis et al., G.R. No.
L-47722 July 27, 1943
▪ What is the criminal liability of the accused in this case,
is it for an intentional felony of murder or culpable felony
of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide? Why?
U.S. v Ah Chong, 15Phil488
(Explain why the Supreme Court ruled that Ah Chong is
not criminally liable)
People v Oanis, 74Phil257
-Why did the SC reject the plea of the accused that they
should be acquitted for having acted under a mistake of
fact?
Pp vs Esmael Gervero, et al, GR No. 206725, July 11, 2018
-Discuss why mistake of fact is not applicable in this case
Dandy Dungo, et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
209464 July 1, 2015
-Is the crime of hazing, a crime mala in se or crime mala
prohibita? Explain.
▪ Is good faith a valid defense for violation of R.A. No.
8049? Explain.)
Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y
Aceveda v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No 224469,
January 5, 2021

I. Mala in Se vs Mala Prohibita
J. Intent vs Motive
III. CRIMINAL LIABILITY, Art. 4-6,
RPC
A. Criminal Liability; elements
B. Liability for a felony not intended
1. Requisites
2. Preater intentionem
3. Error in personae (mistake in
identity)
4. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the
blow);
C. (1) Proximate cause; (2) immediate
cause); (3) efficient intervening
cause; (4) efficient cause of death
rule; (5) Blow Accelerated Death
Rule; (6) Instilling Fear Rule; (7)
supervening event rule
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
▪ What is the difference between intent to commit a
crime and intent to perpetrate the act? Why were the
accused acquitted in this case?
Ibanez vs Pp, GR No. 190798, Jan. 27, 2016
(How did the court ascertain the intent to kill of the
accused?)
People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Ortega et al., G.R.
No. 116736, July 24, 1997
▪ Why did the Supreme Court say that the accused
Manuel Garcia, had it not for the error committed by the
prosecution in charging the proper offense, should have
been held criminally liable for the death of Masangkay
even if his participation was only to help Benjamin
Ortega conceal the body of the victim?
People of the Philippines v. Roger Umawid, G.R. No.
208719, June 9, 2014
(Why is the killing of Maureen an example of a mistake in
the blow?)
People of the Philippines v. Rolly Adriano et al., G.R. No.
205228, 15 July 2015
(May the accused be held criminally liable for the death
of an unintended victim? Why?)
People of the Philippines v. Rolusape Sabalones et al.,
G.R. No. 123485, August 31, 1998
(Illustrate how there was a mistake in the identity of the
accused’s victim in this case.)
People of the Philippine Islands v. Gines Alburquergue,
G.R. No. L-38773, December 19, 1933
-What defense did Gines Alburquergue interpose in this
case? Was this defense appreciated in his favor?
People of the Philippines v. Gerardo Cornel, G.R. No.
L-204, May 16, 1947
(Why was the tetanus infection suffered by the victim
deemed a natural result of the acts of the accused?)
People of the Philippines v. Noel Sales, G.R. No. 177218,
October 3, 2011
-Why was Noel Sales held criminally liable for the death
of his son when his intention in beating his son was only
to discipline him and that he did not have an intent to
kill?
Filomeno Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 72964 January 7, 1988; People of the Philippines v.
Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011
▪ What efficient intervening cause was present in these

D. Impossible crimes
1. Legal impossibility
2. Physical impossibility
E. Duty of court where an act should
be repressed but not a punishable
offense or where penalty is
excessive
IV. STAGES OF EXECUTION (Art. 6.
RPC)
a. Attempted, Frustrated,
Consummated
b. Read: Arts. 248, 249, 262-266,
266-A, 293-304, 308, 315, 320, RPC
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
cases? How did this cause break the “cause and effect”
relation of the act of the accused and the death of the
victim?
Sulpicio Intod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119.
October 21, 1992; Gemma Jacinto v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009
-What crimes were Sulpicio Intod and Gemma Jacinto
held liable for? Why were they held criminally liable for
said crimes?
People of the Philippines v. Hesson Callao, G.R. No.
228945, March 14, 2018
-How did the Supreme Court resolve the issue raised by
the accused that the crime committed was not murder
but an impossible crime? What is the reason for such a
ruling?
People of the Philippines v. Danilo Feliciano, et al., G.R.
No. 196735, May 5, 2014
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reverse the ruling of the
Court of Appeals that the accused are liable only for
slight physical injuries and not attempted murder as
regards the injury inflicted on Lachica, Mangrobang, and
Gaston?
Giovani Serrano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
175023, July 5, 2010
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that Giovani Serrano
had the intent to kill?
Eden Etino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 206632,
February 14, 2018
▪ Why is Eden Etino not liable for frustrated homicide but
only physical injuries despite having used a gun in
injuring his victim?
Isidro Miranda v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
234528, January 23, 2019
▪ How was Isidro Miranda’s intent to kill established?
Esmeraldo Rivera et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 166326, January 25, 2006
▪ Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the claim of
the accused they are not liable for attempted murder
because there was no intent to kill since the injury
sustained by the victim was superficial and, thus, not
lifethreatening?
Rujjeric Palaganas v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
165483, September 12, 2006
▪ What is the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court
 COURSE SYLLABUS

that Rujjeric Palaganas is liable for attempted homicide

and not frustrated homicide as regards his act of
shooting Michael Ferrer?
People of the Philippines v. Oscar Mat-an, G.R. No.
215720, February 21, 2018
▪ Why is Oscar Mat-an liable only for Slight Physical
Injuries and not attempted murder as regards the injury
he inflicted upon Anthonette?
Johnny Yap v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 234217,
November 14, 2018
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reverse the decision of the
trial court convicting Johnny Yap of the crime of
Attempted Murder
Ramie Valenzuela v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
149988, August 14, 2009
▪ Why is Ramie Valenzuela not liable for frustrated
murder/homicide, but only for attempted homicide?
Aristotel Valenzuela v. People of the Philippines, G. R. No.
160188, June 21, 2007
▪ What is the rationale of the Supreme Court’s ruling that
theft does not have a frustrated stage?
▪ Why is Aristotel Valenzuela liable for consummated
theft?
People of the Philippines v. Agapito Quiñanola, G.R. No.
126148, May 5, 1999
▪ What is the reason for the Supreme Court’s ruling that
Agapito Quiñanola is guilty of consummated rape and not
frustrated rape?
People of the Philippines v. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No.
G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000
▪ Why did the Supreme Court modify the decision of the
trial court convicting Primo Campuhan of Statutory Rape
to Attempted Rape?
Felix Rait v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180425,
July 31, 2008
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject Felix Rait’s argument
that he is only liable for unjust vexation and not
attempted rape
▪ Why is Felix Rait guilty of attempted rape
People of the Philippines v. Christopher Pareja, G.R. No.
188979, September 5, 2012
▪ Why is Christopher Pareja not liable for consummated
rape?
Norberto Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
166441, October 8, 2014
▪ What is the distinction between the crimes of
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness?

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)

c. Manner of committing the
crime
d. Light Felonies
V. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit
felony
a. Definition
b. General rule; exception
c. Conspiracy as a felony
d. Conspiracy as a manner of
incurring criminal liability
e. Proposal to commit a felony
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
▪ Why is Norberto Cruz not liable for attempted rape but
acts of lasciviousness?
People of the Philippines v. Noel Bejim, G.R. No. 208835,
January 19, 2018
▪ Why was Noel Bejim’s conviction for attempted rape
changed to acts of lasciviousness?
People of the Philippines v. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724,
April 3, 1990
▪ Why is there no crime of frustrated rape?
▪ Why is Ceilito Orita liable for consummated rape?
People of the Philippines v. Hernando Dio, G.R. No.
L-36461, June 29, 1984
▪ Why did the Supreme Court convict Hernando Dio of
Attempted Robbery with Homicide instead of Robbery
with Homicide?
Benjamin Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827,
April 13, 2007
▪ How did the Supreme Court resolve the accused’s
argument that he had no intent to kill the victim and that
he should only be held liable for physical injuries?
▪ What circumstances prove intent to kill?
Pp vs Dulay, GR 194629, April 21, 2014; Marasigan vs
Fuentes, GR 201310, Jan 11, 2016 (attempted); Ibanez vs
Pp, GR 190798, Jan 27, 2016 (frustrated)
People of the Philippines v. Michael Bokingco, et al., G.R.
No. 187536, August 10, 2011
▪ Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused
Reynante Col while convicting accused Michael
Bokingco? Explain the basis of the acquittal.
People v. Armando Caballero, et al, G.R. Nos. 149028-30,
April 2, 2003
▪ Explain the basis of the Supreme Court in ruling that
only conspirator Robito is liable to the killing of Leonilo.
People v. Bacbac, G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007
▪ Accused detached from the conspiracy. Is he still liable?
People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. 44112, October 22, 1992
▪ Accused in this detached from the conspiracy during
the commission of the crime by his co-conspirators. Why
was the accused held criminally liable?
People v. Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. 168852, September 30, 2008
▪ Can a mother be held liable as a conspirator to her son
engaging in an extra marital affair?
 COURSE SYLLABUS

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016
▪ Distinguish wheel conspiracy from chain conspiracy. ▪
Did Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo conspire with her
co-accused to commit the crime of plunder? Explain.

VI. Classification of felonies

according to gravity (Art. 9 & 26),
RPC vis-à-vis Secs. 1 & 2, R.A.
10951
a. Grave felonies
b. Less grave felonies
c. Light felonies

VII. Applicability of Art.6, RPC to Evangeline Ladonga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
special laws 141066, February 17, 2005
▪ How did the Supreme Court construe and reconcile the
apparent contradictory clauses embodied in Article 10 of
the Revised Penal Code?
▪ How did the Supreme Court resolve Evangeline
Ladonga’s argument that the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on conspiracy cannot be made to apply to
special penal laws like B.P. Blg. 22?
Yu v. People, G.R. No. 134172, September 29, 2004
▪ Explain the basis of the Supreme Court in applying Art.
39 of the Revised Penal Code to a special law, B.P. 22
VIII. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
a. Justifying circumstances (Art. People of the Philippines v. Cristina Samson, G.R. No.
11, RPC) 214883, September 02, 2015
b. Battered Woman Syndrome ▪ May there still be unlawful aggression even if the
attacker was disarmed? Explain your answer in the light
of the case of Cristina Samson.
People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Olarbe, G.R. No.
227421, July 23, 2018
▪ Was Rodolfo Olarbe able to establish that he acted in
self defense? Explain comprehensively.
▪ How did the Supreme Court rule on Rodolfo Olarbe’s
invocation that he acted in defense of a stranger?
SPO2 Lolito Nacnac v. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
191913, March 21, 2012
▪ Explain the elements of self defense as discussed in the
case of Lolito Nacnac.
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Gonzales, G.R. No.
195534, June 13, 2012; People of the Philippines v. Bingky
Campos, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 201;1
People of the Philippines vs. Melanio Nugas, G.R. No.

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)

c. Exempting circumstances
d. Juvenile Justice and Welfare 216021, March 2, 2016
Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344)
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
172606, November 23, 201;1 People of the Philippines v.
Sergio Patotoy, G.R. No. 102058, August 26, 1996; People
of the Philippines vs. Mamerto Narvaez, G.R. Nos.
L-33466-67, April 20, 1983
▪ Why are the accused in these cases not entitled to self
defense?
People of the Philippines v. Ronald Credo, G.R. No.
197360, July 3, 2013; Nicolas Velasquez and Victor
Velasquez, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017
▪ Explain why the Supreme Court held that the accused in
these cases did not act in defense of a relative.
People of the Philippines v. Arturo Punzalan Jr., G.R. No.
199892, December 10, 2012; People v. Ricohermoso, G.R.
Nos. L-30527-28, March 29, 1974
▪ Did the Supreme Court appreciate the defense of
avoidance of a greater evil in favor of the accused in
these cases? Explain.
Vicky Ty v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149275,
September 27, 2004
▪ Why is it that Vicky Ty cannot validly invoke state of
necessity as a defense? SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig v.
Sandiganabayan, G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005
▪ Explain the concept of fulfillment of duty in the light of
the case of Ruperto Cabanlig.
Ruperto Ambil Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 175457, July 6, 2011
▪ Is the accused entitled to the justifying circumstance of
obedience to a lawful order issued by a superior? Why?
People of the Philippines v. Antonio Oanis et. al, G.R. No.
L-47722 July 27, 1943
▪ Why were the accused Oanis and Galanta not entitled
to the defense of having acted in fulfillment of a duty or
lawful exercise of a right?
Luis Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan and People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 103501- 03, February 17, 1997
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that Tabuena is not
criminally liable?
People of the Philippines v. Marivic Genosa G.R. No.
135981, January 15, 2004
▪ Why did the court rule that Marivic Genosa is not
afflicted with the battered woman syndrome
Solomon Verdadero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
People of the Philippines v. Roger Racal, G.R. No. 224886,
September 4, 2017
▪ Compare the cases of Verdaro and Racal. Explain why
the Supreme Court upheld Verdaro’s claim of insanity,
but not with Racal.
 COURSE SYLLABUS

People of the Philippines v. Erlindo Yam-id, G.R. No.

126116, June 21, 1999
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject Erlindo Yam-id’s
defense of insanity? People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo
Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999
▪ Explain why the Supreme Court rejected the accused’s
defense of insanity despite the accused’s admission to a
mental hospital prior to the commission of the crime and
even thereafter.
Raymund Madali, et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 180380 August 4, 2009
▪ Explain why the Supreme Court acquitted Raymund
Madali even though he committed the crime before the
effectivity of R.A. 9344. Robert Sierra v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009
▪ Explain why the Supreme Court acquitted Robert Sierra
despite his failure to present as evidence his birth
certificate to prove that he was fifteen years old when he
committed the crime.
Jerwin Dorado v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
216671, October 03, 2016 People of the Philippines v.
Joery Deliola, G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016
▪ Compare the cases of Jerwin Dorado and Joery Deliola,
explain why the Supreme Court acquitted Jerwin Dorado
but not Joery Deliola?
▪ What is the effect of the minority of Joery Deliola to his
criminal liability?
▪ In the Joery Deliola case, how should he serve his
penalty? Why was he not ordered confined in a penal
institution, even if he was already over 21 years of old
when the Supreme Court decided his case?
Roweno Pomoy v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
150647 September 29, 2004 ▪ Explain the reasoning of
the Supreme Court in holding that Roweno Pomoy
accidentally shot to death Tomas Balboa.
People of the Philippines v. Roy San Gaspar, G.R. No.
180496, April 2, 2014 People of the Philippines v. Isaias
Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007
▪ In the cases of Roy San Gaspar and Isaias Castillo, why
did the Supreme Court reject their defense of accident?
People of the Philippines v. Joselito del Rosario, G.R. No.
127755 April 14, 1999
▪ Explain why the Supreme Court acquitted Joselito del
Rosario.
People of the Philippines v. Rene Siao, G.R. No. G.R. No.
126021 March 3, 2000
▪ In the Rene Siao case, do you agree with the decision of

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

the trial court acquitting Reylan Gimena? Explain your

answer.
e. Absolutory Causes People v. Quintana, G.R. No. 83888 June 30, 1989
1. Instigation ▪ Why did the Supreme Court acquit Quintana?
1.1 Instigation distinguished People of the Philippines v. Jose Quintana, G.R. No. 83888
from Entrapment June 30, 1989 ; People of the Philippines v. Delia Bayani,
1.2 Death under exceptional G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008
circumstances ▪ Compare the cases of Jose Quintana and Delia Bayani,
explain why the Supreme Court acquitted Jose Quintana
while convicting Delia Bayani?
People of the Philippines v. Francisco Abarca, G.R. No.
74433 September 14, 1987
▪ Explain the concept of “death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstance,” as an
absolutory cause.
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De
Carungcong v. People of the Philippines et al., G.R. No.
181409, February 11, 2010
▪ Was the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of
the Revised Penal Code appreciated in favor of the
accused? Why?
f. Mitigating circumstances Benjamin Rustia v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
208351, October 05, 2016
▪ Why is Benjamin Rustia not entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense?
Bernard Lacanilao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940
June 27, 1988
▪ Explain why the Supreme held that Bernard Lacanilao is
entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
justifying circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of duty
or lawful exercise of a right under Article 69 of the
Revised Penal Code and not as an ordinary mitigating
circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
Rodel Urbano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
182750, January 20, 2009
People of the Philippines v. Noel Sales, G.R. No. 177218,
October 3, 2011
▪ Compare the decision of the Supreme Court in the said
cases. Why did the Supreme Court hold that Rodel
Urbano is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong while Noel Sales is
not?
People of the Philippines v. Marcelino Oloverio, G.R. No.
211159. March 18, 2015
▪ What are the different rules/principles regarding
passion or obfuscation as expressed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Marcelino Oloverio?

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that Marcelino

Oloverio is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation?
Arturo Romera v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
151978, July 14, 2004
▪ What is the reasoning of the Supreme Court in ruling
that sufficient provocation and passion and obfuscation
are present?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court hold that in so far as this
case is concerned, sufficient provocation and passion and
obfuscation shall be considered as just one mitigating
circumstance?
People of the Philippines v. Rosendo Rebucan, G.R. No.
182551, July 27, 2011
▪ What is the reason why the Supreme Court held that
Rosendo Rebucan is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender?
Felix Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 107383
December 7, 1994
▪ What were the mitigating circumstances that the
Supreme Court appreciated in favor of Felix Nizurtado?
People of the Philippines v. June Ignas, G.R. No. 140514,
September 30, 2003
▪ In the case of June Ignas, why is he not entitled to the
mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of a
grave offense, passion and obfuscation, and voluntary
surrender?
People of the Philippines v. Eladio Viernes, G.R. No.
136733, December 13, 2001
▪ Why is Eladio Viernes not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender?
People of the Philippines v. Noli Abolidor, G.R. No.
147231, February 18, 2004
▪ Why was Noli Abolidor’s claim of voluntary surrender
disregarded?
People of the Philippines v. Moro Macbul, G.R. No.
L-48976 October 11, 1943.
▪ What mitigating circumstance did the Supreme Court
consider in favor of Macbil and why?
Art.14-20
g. Aggravating circumstances People of the Philippines v. Elmedio Cajara, G.R. No.
122498. September 27, 2000
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the aggravating
circumstance of reiteracion is present in this case?
Gary Fantastico et. al. v. Elpidio Malicse and People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015
▪ What aggravating circumstance attended the

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

commission of the crime in this case? Explain.

▪ Why was treachery not appreciated in this case?
People of the Philippines v. Crisologo Empacis, G.R. No.
95756, May 14, 1993
▪ What aggravating circumstances were appreciated by
the Supreme Court in this case? People vs. Balansi, G.R.
77284, July 19, 1990
▪ Why did the Supreme Court appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of dwelling to a mere house
guest?
People vs. Pardo, G.R. L-562, November 19, 1947
▪ Why did the Supreme Court not appreciate the
aggravating circumstance of nightime?
People of the Philippines v. Tomas Dimacuha Jr., G.R. No.
191060, February 2, 2015;
People of the Philippines v. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos.
134777-78, July 24, 2000 People of the Philippines v, Joel
Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014 People of the
Philippines v. Robert Dinglasan, G.R. No. 101312, January
28, 1997
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that treachery
attended the commission of the crime in the said cases?
People of the Philippines v. Erlindo Yam-id, G.R. No.
126116. June 21, 1999
▪ Explain why the Supreme Court ruled that treachery is
present but not evident premeditation?
People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Latag, G.R. NO.
153213, January 22, 2004
▪ Why was treachery not appreciated in this cases?
People of the Philippines vs. Melquiades Fernandez, G.R.
No. L-62116 March 22, 1990
▪ Why did the Supreme Court hold that the correct
aggravating circumstance in this case is ignominy and not
cruelty
h. Aggravating
circumstances under
other provisions of the
Revised Penal Code and
Special Penal Laws)
i. Aggravating
Circumstances under
other provisions of
Special Penal Laws
1. R.A. 9165
Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act
2. R.A. 10591
Comprehensive Firearms

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

and Ammunition
Regulation Act
j. Alternative circumstances People of the Philippines v. Jose Audine, G.R. No. 168649,
December 6, 2006
▪ Why did the Supreme Court impose upon Jose Audine
the maximum penalty for the crime he committed?
People of the Philippines v. Andres Fontillas, G.R. No.
184177, December 15, 2010
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject the plea of Andres
Fontillas that the Court should appreciate his extreme
intoxication as a mitigating circumstance?
People of the Philippines v. Perlito Mondigo, G.R. No.
167954, January 31, 2008
▪ Why was intoxication not appreciated in this case as a
mitigating circumstance?
Pp vs ZZZ, GR 224584, Sept. 04, 2019
-How was the relationship of ZZZ to the offended party
appreciated in this case?

MIDTERM EXAMINATION
IX. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND
DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

a) Principals People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No.

202124, April 5, 2016
▪ Why were all the accused held equally liable? What is
the basis of the ruling? People of the Philippines v. Oscar
Castelo, G.R. No. L-10774 May 30, 1964
▪ What is the factual and legal basis of the decision of
the Supreme Court that accused Oscar Castelo is guilty of
the crime of murder?
Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 148965
February 26, 2002
▪ How did the Supreme Court resolve the argument of
Estrada that he should not be charged with the crime of
plunder together with the alleged conspirators, because
he is not even remotely connected with said conspirators
contrary to the principle that criminal liability is personal,
not vicarious?
▪ What kind of multiple conspiracies are present in this
case? What is the basis?
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, July
19, 2016
▪ What are the legal and factual basis of the decision that
the Prosecution failed to allege properly the elements of
the crime, and to prove that any implied conspiracy to
commit plunder or any other crime existed among Gloria
Macapagal, Arroyo, Aguas, and Uriarte?

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

People of the Philippines v. Restituto Carandang, et al.,

G.R. No. 175926, July 6, 2011
▪ Explain how did the Supreme Court resolve the
argument of accused Milan and Chua that there is
insufficient direct evidence that they conspired with
accused Carandang in the latter’s act of shooting the
three victims.
People of the Philippines v. Jerry Pepino G.R. No. 174471
January 12, 2016
▪ What is the factual and legal basis of the decision of the
Supreme Court that all the accused acted in a
conspiracy?
People of the Philippines vs. Alias Kino Lascano and
Alfredo Delabajan, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012
▪ What is the reason for the decision of the Supreme
Court that Alfredo Delabajan conspired with his
co-accused Alias Kino Loscano in raping the victim?
Jesus Typoco v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
221857, August 16, 2017
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that there was a
conspiracy between accused Reyes and Typoco despite
the acquittal of his co-accused Pandeagua and Cabrera in
this case despite the acquittal?
People of the Philippines v. Nonoy Ebet, G.R. No. 181635,
November 15, 2010
▪ Why was Nonoy Ebet convicted of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide despite not having taken part in the
killing, and that his participation in the crime was to
stand in the front door of the house that was robbed?
People of the Philippines v. Ramon Regalario et al. G.R.
No. 174483, March 31, 2009
▪ How may the existence of conspiracy be established? ▪
What factual circumstances did the Supreme Court
consider as a proof of a conspiracy between the accused?
Generros Subayco, et al., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
117267-117310, August 22, 1996
▪ Why did the Supreme Court hold that there was an
implied conspiracy between and among the accused?
People of the Philippines v. Cesario Montanez, G.R. No.
148247, March 17, 2004
▪ What is the factual basis of the Court of Appeals and
affirmed by the Supreme Court in ruling that Montanez is
a principal by direct participation?
Amado Arias v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563
December 19, 1989
▪ Explain the “Arias Doctrine” as enunciated in this case.
People of the Philippines v. Khaddafy Janjalani et al. G.R.
No. 188314, January 10, 2011

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

▪ What was the legal and factual basis of the conviction

of accused Rohmat despite him not having taken part in
the bombings perpetrated by his coaccused?
People of the Philippines v. Graciano Bolivar, et al., G.R.
No. 108174 October 28, 1999
▪ Why is Barrion not considered a principal by
inducement?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court hold that there was no
conspiracy in this case?
People of the Philippines v Jeanette Dumancas, et al., G.R.
No. 13352728. December 13, 1999
▪ Why were the accused Dumancas and Abeto acquitted
as principals by inducement?
People of the Philippines v. Dina Dulay, G.R. No. 193854,
September 24, 2012
▪ Why is Dina Dulay not liable as a principal by
indispensable cooperation?
b) Accomplices People of the Philippines v. Danilo Corbes, G.R. No.
113470, March 26, 1997
▪ What are the legal and factual basis of the Supreme
Court’s ruling that Manuel Vergel is not liable as a
principal but only as an accomplice?
People of the Philippines v. Michael Bokingco, et al., G.R.
No. 187536, August 10, 2011
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that accused Col did
not conspire with the other accused in the crime's
commission?
People of the Philippines v. Edwin De Vera et al., G.R. No.
128966 August 18, 1999
▪ When is a lookout deemed an accomplice and when a
conspirator?
▪ What is the distinction between a conspirator and an
accomplice?
▪ Why is the accused De Vera only an accomplice?
People of the Philippines v. Halil Gambao et al., G.R. No.
172707 October 1, 2013
▪ What is the reason for the Supreme Court’s ruling that
Thian Perpenian is not a principal but only an
accomplice?
People of the Philippines v. Bartolome Tampus and Ida
Monteclaros, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009
▪ What is the legal and factual basis of the ruling of the
Supreme Court that accused Monteclaro’s is liable only as
an accomplice and not a principal?
People of the Philippines v. Barangay Captain Tony Tomas
Sr., et al., G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011
▪ Why is accused Gatchalian criminally liable as an
accomplice and not a principal?

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

c) Accessories People of the Philippines v. Leonilo Cui, et al., G.R. No.

1. P.D. 1612 Anti-Fencing Law 121982, September 10, 1999
2. P.D. 1829 Obstruction of ▪ Why are the Cui’s criminally liable only as accessories,
Justice not accomplices in the kidnapping of Stephanie Lim?
People of the Philippines v. Blademir Devaras, et al., G.R.
Nos. 100938-39, December 15, 1993
▪ Why is accused Pablo Devaras liable only as an
accessory?
Norma Dizon-Pamintuan v. People of the Philippines G.R.
No. 111426, July 11, 1994
▪ One of the elements of the crime of fencing is that the
accused knows or should have known that the said
article, item, object, or anything of value has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft. What is the meaning of the term “know” and
“should have known”?
▪ Knowledge is a mental state of awareness of facts. How
can the prosecution prove that an accused knows or
should have known that an article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft?
▪ The Anti-Fencing Law creates a presumption that
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, does
this presumption not violate the constitutional
presumption of innocence? Why?
Mel Dimat v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181184,
January 25, 2012
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject Dimat’s claim that he
is not criminally liable because he did not know that he
bought a stolen vehicle and that he did not have any
criminal intent to commit the crime of Fencing?
X. COMPLEX CRIMES People of the Philippines v. Antonio Punzalan Jr., G.R. No.
1. Complex crimes 199892, December 10, 2012
2. Compound crime ▪ What crime did Punzalan commit?
3. Complex crime proper ▪ Why is he liable for this crime?
4. Special complex crime(Composite People of the Philippines v. Celerino Castromero, G.R. No.
crime) 118992, October 9, 1997
5. Continuing crimes /Continued ▪ Why is Castromero criminally liable for the complex
crimes crime of Rape with Serious Physical Injuries?
6. Transitory crimes People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No.
202124, April 5, 2016
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the crime
committed by the accused cannot be classified as a
complex crime?
▪ When should the crime be denominated as “Double
Murder or Multiple Murder” and when should it be “2

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

Counts of Murder or 4 Counts of Multiple Murder”?

▪ Does it make any difference if the nomenclature of a
crime is “Double Murder” or “2 Counts of Murder”?
People of the Philippines v. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et
al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004
▪ What complex crime did the accused commit and why?
People of the Philippines v. Jose Broniola, G.R. No. 211027
June 29, 2015
▪ What kind of complex crime did the accused commit
and why?
People of the Philippines v. Christopher Elizalde, et. al,
G.R. No. 210434, December 05, 2016
▪ What crime is committed if the victim of kidnapping is
killed? Would it matter if the killing was intentional or
just an afterthought?
People of the Philippines vs. Ramel Mores, GR No.
189846, June 26, 2013
▪ Why is Mores guilty of the complex crime of Murder
with Multiple Attempted Murder? People of the
Philippines v. Eleuterio Bragat, G.R. No. 222180,
November 22, 2017
▪ How is the crime of robbery with rape committed?
People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Mercado, et al., G.R.
No. 116239, November 29, 2000
▪ Why did the Supreme Court hold that the trial court
correctly convicted the accused with the special complex
crime of Kidnapping with Murder?
Aurora Fransdilla v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
197562, April 20, 2015
▪ What crime did the accused commit? Explain.
▪ Why did the Supreme Court impose the penalty of
Reclusion Temporal?
People of the Philippines v. Herminio Vidal, G.R. No.
229678, June 20, 2018
▪ Why are the accused liable for the complex crime of
Direct Assault with Murder?
People of the Philippines v. Antonio Sanchez, et. al., G.R.
No. 131116, August 27, 1999
▪ Does the act of shooting the victims using Armalite
rifles in automatic firing mode constitute a single act and,
thus, the felonies resulting therefrom are considered as a
complex crime? Why?
People of the Philippines v. Jeffrey Garcia, G.R. No.
141125, February 28, 2002
▪ What crime/s did the accused commit in this case?
Why?
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Toling, G.R. No.
L-27097, January 17, 1975

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

▪ Why were the eight killings and the attempted murder

not considered as constituting a complex crime under
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? People of the
Philippines vs. Crispin Lawas, L-7618-20, June 30, 1955
▪ Why were the accused found criminally liable for the
complex crime of Multiple Homicide instead of several
counts of homicide equivalent to the number of persons
who were killed?
People of the Philippines vs. Emerito Abella, et al., G.R.
No. L-32205 August 31, 1979
▪ What is the legal basis of the Supreme Court in ruling
that the accused are liable for the complex crime of
multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder instead
of fourteen separate murders and three separate
frustrated murders?
People of the Philippines vs. Wenceslao Nelmida, G.R. No.
184500. September 11, 2012
▪ Why did the Supreme Court not apply Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code and the single impulse principle
enunciated in the cases of People of the Philippines vs.
Crispin Lawas, L-7618-20, June 30, 1955, and People of
the Philippines vs. Emerito Abella, et al., G.R. No. L-32205
August 31, 1979, but instead held the accused liable for
separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven
(7) counts of attempted murder?
People of the Philippines vs. Marlon De Leon, GR No.
179943, June 26, 2009
▪ Why were the accused found liable for only one count
of Robbery with Homicide instead of four counts of
Robbery with Homicide?
People of the Philippines v. Edmundo Villaflores, G.R. No.
184926, April 11, 2012
▪ How did the Supreme Court explain the nature of Rape
with Homicide as a special complex crime?
People of the Philippines v. Melecio Robinos, G.R. No.
138453, May 29, 2002
▪ What is the proper penalty for the complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion? Why? People of
the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Aaron, G.R. Nos.
136300-02, September 24, 2002
▪ Why did the Court convict the accused of only one
count of rape even though he thrice succeeded in
inserting his penis into the private part of the victim?

People of the Philippines vs. Manolity Lucena, GR No.

190632, February 26, 2014
▪ Why did the Supreme Court not apply the single
criminal intent principle and convicted him for three

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)

d) Multiple Offenses (Differences,
Rules, Effects)
1. Recidivism
2. Habituality (Reiteracion)
3. Quasi-Recidivism
4. Habitual Delinquency
5. Decree Penalizing
Obstruction of
Apprehension and
Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders (PD 1829)
XI. PENALTIES
1. Art. 21-24- Penalties in General
2. Art. 25-26 –Classification of
Penalties (Imposable Penalties)
3. Art. 27-29 – Duration and
computation
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
counts of rape?
▪ What is the distinction between this case and the case
of People of the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Aaron, G.R.
Nos. 136300-02, September 24, 2002?
Santiago Paera vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
181626, May 30, 2011
▪ What is the foreknowledge doctrine?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court not apply the single
criminal intent rule in this case but instead ruled that
Paera is criminally liable for three counts of Grave
Threats?
Mirriam Defensor Santiago v. Hon. Francis Garchitorena,
G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993
▪ What is the legal basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling
that Santiago committed only one crime despite having
allegedly committed 32 acts of violation of R.A. 3019?
▪ Is the “continuing principle” applicable also to violation
of special penal laws?
Geruncio Ilagan, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
110617 December 29, 1994
▪ Were the accused correctly charged with eight separate
crimes of estafa or should they have been charged with
only one offense? Why?
People of the Philippines vs. Victor Abletes et. al., GR No.
L-33304, July 31, 1974
▪ Why is the penalty of life imprisonment or cadena
perpetua as imposed by the trial court erroneous?
▪ Is life imprisonment the same as reclusion perpetua?
Why?
Hernan vs Sandiganbayan, GR 217874, Dec. 5, 2017
 COURSE SYLLABUS

a. Art. 30-35- Effect of Penalties

b. Art. 36-38 – Pardon, Cost,

Pecuniary Liabilities,
Subsidiary Liabilites

b.1 In relation to Art 74 (if higher

penalty is death; to Art. 75 (if
penalty is fine), to Art. 76 (legal
duration of divisible penalties); to
Art. 77 (when penalty is complex)

c. Penalties in which other

accessory penalties are inherent in
relation to Art. 73 (Art.40-45)

4. Application of Penalties People v. Alfredo Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006
a. (Art. 46-52) ▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the penalty of ten
(10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum, for each count of attempted rape imposed by
the Court of Appeals is not correct?
▪ What is the proper penalty? State the legal basis.

People of the Philippines v. Salvador Arrojado G.R. No.

130492 January 31, 2001
▪ Why did the Supreme Court modify the penalty
imposed by the Regional Trial Court upon the accused?
People of the Philippines v. Noel Sales, G.R. No. 177218,
October 3, 2011
▪ What is the basis for imposing the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua when the crime committed which is Parricide is
punishable by Reclusion Perpetua to Death?
Arturo Romera v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
151978, July 17, 2004
▪ Why did the Supreme Court sentence the accused to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as maximum?
Pedro Ladines v. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
167333, January 11, 2016
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the penalty
imposed by the trial court upon the accused Ladines is
not correct?
People of the Philippines v. Beth Temporada, G.R. No.
173473, December 17, 2008

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

▪ Why did the Supreme Court modify the penalty

imposed by the Regional Trial Court upon the accused?
Arturo Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
L-51065-72, June 30, 1987
▪ Why is Mejorada’s claim that the penalty imposed upon
him by the Sandiganbayan which adds up to fifty-six (56)
years and eight (8) days of imprisonment and therefore
contrary to the three-fold rule and that the maximum
penalty imposable should not exceed forty (40) years not
correct?
People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo, G.R. No. No.
102984, June 30, 1993
▪ Why is it that despite two mitigating circumstances the
penalty of Takbobo cannot be lowered by one degree as
provided by paragraph 5 of Article 64 of the Revised
Penal Code?
People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Lumandong, GR NO.
132745, March 9, 2000
▪ What is the reason for the Supreme Court’s ruling that
the RTC erroneously imposed the penalty of death

People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Lumandong, GR NO.

132745, March 9, 2000
▪ What is the reason for the Supreme Court’s ruling that
the RTC erroneously imposed the penalty of death?
People of the Philippines vs. Ricarte Macariola, G.R. No.
L-40757 January 24, 1983
▪ What is quasi-recidivism?
▪ What is the effect, if any, of the presence of the
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation to the
penalty to be imposed upon Ricardo Macariola? Why?
People of the Philippines v. Allen Mantalaba, G.R. No.
186227, July 20, 2011
▪ Why is Mantalaba no longer entitled to the benefit of
suspension of sentence under Section 38 and 68 of R.A.
9344?
▪ How will Mantalaba serve his sentence?
▪ What is the proper penalty to be imposed upon
Mantalaba and why?
People of the Philippines v. Emmanuel Rocha, et al., G.R.
No. 173797, August 31, 2007
▪ Why are the two accused not qualified to apply for
parole?
Spouses Bacar v. Judge De Guzman Jr., A.M. No.
RTJ-96-1349, April 18, 1997
▪ Why is the imposition of a straight penalty of six years
erroneous?

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)

i. Subsidiary Imprisonment
ii. Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act
4301 as amended)
b. Art. 53-60. Application of
Penalties; Impossible Crime;
Exceptions
c. Art.61-65. Graduation of
Penalties
d. Art.66-69. Imposition of Fines
e. other special cases
f. Art.70-71. Scales of Penalties
g. Art.72. Preference in the payment
of Civil Liabilities
h. Provision common to the last two
preceding sections
Art. 73-77
XII. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF
SENTENCE (Art.78-88)
1) When and how; Three-fold Rule
2) Suspension of service
3) Death penalty in relation to RA 9346
4) Other penalties
5) Probation Law (PD 968 as amended)
DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
COURSE SYLLABUS
Delia Romero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
171644, November 23, 2011
▪ Why is the penalty of eight (8) years imprisonment
imposed upon the accused incorrect?
People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Gunda, G.R. No.
195525, February 5, 2014
▪ Why is Wilfredo Gunda not eligible for parole? Peter
Paul Aballe vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
L-64086, March 15, 1990
▪ Why did the Supreme Court modify the penalty
imposed by the trial court?
People of the Philippines v. Salvador Alapan, G.R. No.
199527 January 10, 2018
▪ Why can Salvador Alapan not be compelled to serve the
subsidiary imprisonment provided for in article 39 of the
Revised Penal Code even though he could not pay the
penalty of fine imposed upon him?
Pp vs Hesson Callao, GR 228945, March 14, 2018
(impossible crime; conspiracy)
In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Pete C.
Lagran, G.R. No. 147270, 15 August 2001
▪ What penalties under the Revised Penal Code can be
simultaneously served?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court reject the accused’s
contention that he has completed the service of his
sentence and thus entitled to release?
Neil Suyan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189644 July 2,
2014
▪ Was there a violation of the right of Neil Suyan to due
process when the trial court ordered the revocation of
 COURSE SYLLABUS

his probation? Why?

6) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA
9344, as amended)
7) RA 10951
8) Community Service Act (RA11362
and AM No. 20-06-14-SC)
Art.81-88
An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97-99
of the RPC (RA10592)
XIII. MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION
OF CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
a. Art. 89-93. TOTAL
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
b. Art. 94-99 as amended by
RA 10592. PARTIAL
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
▪ Was there a valid ground for the revocation of Neil
Suyan’s probation? Explain.
Michael Padua v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
168546, July 23, 2008
▪ Are persons convicted for violation of Section 5, Article
II of Rep. Act No. 9165 qualified to apply for probation?
Why?
Enrique Almero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
188191, March 12, 2014
▪ Why is Almero no longer entitled to the benefits
granted to a convicted person under the probation law?
Arnel Colinares v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
182748, December 13, 2011
▪ The general rule is that a person who appeals a
judgment is no longer entitled to apply for probation. In
this case why is Arnel Colinares entitled to apply for
probation despite having appealed the decision of the
trial court?
Santos vs. Hon. CA and Castro, G.R. No. 127899,
December 2, 1999
▪ Despite being convicted by a probationable offense,
why was the Accused denied probation?
Hernan vs Sandiganbayan, GR 217874, Dec. 5, 2017
People of the Philippines v. Gerry Lipata G.R. No. 200302,
April 20, 2016
▪ Discuss the effects of the death of Gerry Lipata to his
criminal and civil liability in connection with the killing of
Ronald Cueno.
People of the Philippines v. Nelson Bayot, G.R. No.
200030, April 18, 2012
▪ What is the rationale for the rule that the death of the
accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability, and his civil liability arising from the
crime?
People of the Philippines v. Anastacio Amistoso, G.R. No.
201447 August 28, 2013
▪ Can Amistoso still be held civilly liable despite his death
pending the appeal of his case? Why?
▪ What are those instances when civil liability may still be

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

claimed even if the accused dies during the pendency of

his case?
People of the Philippines v. Consorte G.R. No. 194068,
November 26, 2014
▪ What kind of civil liability is extinguished by the death
of an accused?
Patz Bernardo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
182210, October 05, 2015
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the civil liability
can still be enforced notwithstanding the death of the
accused?
People of the Philippines v. Leopoldo Bacang et al., G.R.
NO. 116512, July 30, 1996
▪ Why is it that the conditional pardon granted to
accused Casido and Alcorin were deemed null and void?
Herminio T. Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24
and 174764-65, September 11, 2013
▪ What is the basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling that
the crimes charged against the accused have not yet
prescribed?
Jose Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119063,
January 27, 1997
▪ Who is the offended party referred to in Article 91 of
the Revised Penal Code?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court rule that the trips of the
accused outside the Philippines did not toll the running
of the prescriptive period of the crime despite the
provision of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code which
states that “the term of prescription shall not run when
the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago”?
Rafael Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, G.R. No. L-28841, June
24, 1983
▪ If the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a
Sunday or a holiday, may the case still be filed on the
next working day? Why?
SEC v. Interport Resource Corp., et al., G.R. No. 135808,
October 6, 2008
▪ Has the crime committed by the accused already
prescribed? Why?
People of the Philippines v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, G.R.
No. 152662, June 13, 2012
▪ Will the filing of the affidavit-complaint for estafa and
violation of BP Blg. 22 with the Prosecutor’s Office stop
the running of the prescriptive period of such offenses?
Why?
People of the Philippines vs. Mizpah Reyes, G.R. No.
74226, July 27, 1989

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

▪ What is the constructive notice rule? 25 ▪ How was this

rule applied in this case?
Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation v. Judge Nelson
Lidua, G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013
▪ For crimes covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, when is the running of the prescriptive period
interrupted, is it the filing with the Prosecutor's Office or
the filing with the courts?
▪ What is the distinction between this case and the case
of People of the Philippines v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan,
G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012?
Benjamin Romualdez v. Hon. Simeon Marcelo, G.R. Nos.
165510-33, July 28, 2006
▪ What matters should be considered by a court in
resolving an issue involving the prescription of crimes?
▪ Why did the Supreme Court hold that the filing of the
case by the Office of the Solicitor General with the
Presidential Commission on Good Government did not
interrupt the running of the prescriptive period for the
crime committed by Romualdez?
▪ What is the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision that
the running of the prescriptive period of the crime
committed by Romualdez was not tolled when he went
abroad?
People of the Philippines v. Ronie De Guzman, G.R. No.
185843, March 3, 2010
▪ In what cases and what requisites must be present for
marriage between the offender and the offended party
to cause the extinction of criminal liability?
Rosalinda Serrano v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No.
123896, June 25, 2003
▪ What is novation and is it a ground for the extinction of
criminal liability? Why?
Cresencio Milla v. People of the Philippines et al., G.R. No.
188726, January 25, 2012
▪ What is the concept of novation in connection with
incipient criminal liability?
▪ Will the principles of novation apply as to extinguish the
criminal liability of Cresencio Mila? Explain.

XIV. CIVIL LIABILITIES IN CRIMINAL

CASES

1. Primary and Subsidiary Civil

Liabilities (Art. 100-103)
2. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
a. Kinds of Civil Liabilities
(104-111)

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)
 COURSE SYLLABUS

b.1. Restitution
b.2. Reparation of Damage
Caused
b.3 Indemnification of
Consequential Damage

b. Extinction and Survival of

Civil Liability (Art 112-113, RPC)

FINAL EXAMINATION

References:

Books: Revised Penal Code Book 1, Luis B. Reyes;

Criminal Law 1, Willard Riano
The Revised Penal Code. A Revolutionized Edition Book One, Conrado Berex
V. Catral, Jr.

Online Resources:
The Book Shelf - Supreme Court E-Library (judiciary.gov.ph)
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Prepared by: Recommending Approval: Approved:

MARIA PAZ I. ________________________ HONORIO G. BUCCAT, JR.

RIVERA-BASANGAN
Instructor/Professor Program Chair Dean/Director

DMMMSU-INS-F003
REV. 00 (07.15.2020)