Criminal Law Canonical Doctrines

U.
P LAW BOC FOR USE OF OFFICIAL BEDA BAROPS - MANILA ONLY CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
CANONICAL DOCTRINES
CRIMINAL LAW 1
General Principles
CASE SUB-TOPIC DOCTRINE NOTES
Cardona v. Mala in Se An act prohibited by a special law does not This doctrine is
People and Mala automatically make it malum prohibitum. consistent with the
Prohibita "When the acts complained of are inherently rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if Garcia v. CA (2006),
244544 | they are punished by a special law." Dungo v. People
July 6, 2020 (2015).
| Carandang The bench and bar must rid themselves of the
common misconception that all mala in se
crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are
provided by special laws.
The better approach to distinguish between

mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the
determination of the inherent immorality or
vileness of the penalized act.
In this case, the Court ruled that the violation

of Sec. 195 of the OEC is mala in se despite
being covered by a Special Law considering
that what the section forbids is the intentional
tearing or defacing of the ballot or the
placement of a distinguishing mark.
Felonies
People v. Criminal 3 Stages of Acts of Execution: The doctrine on the
Angeles Liabilities (1) Attempted - when the offender crime committed if one
commences the commission of a felony survives the infliction of
G.R. No. directly or over acts, and does not perform physical injuries is
224289 | all the acts of execution which should consistent with the
August 14, produce the felony by reason of some ruling in the case of
2019 | Lazaro- cause or accident other than this own Esqueda v. People
Javier spontaneous desistance (2009).
(2) Frustrated - when the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would The doctrine on the
produce the felony as a consequence but proof of intent to kill is
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by consistent with the
reason of causes independent of the will rulings in the cases of
of the perpetrator Fantastico v. People
Page 1 of 50
FOR USE OF OFFICIAL BEDA BAROPS - MANILA ONLY
U.P LAW BOC FOR USE OF OFFICIAL BEDA BAROPS - MANILA ONLY CRIMINAL LAW
(3) Consummated - when all the elements (2015), People v.

necessary for its execution and Jugueta (2016).
accomplishment are present
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but

the latter survives, the crime committed is
either consummated physical injuries, if the
offender had no intention to kill the victim, or
frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated
murder or attempted murder if the offender
intends to kill the victim.
Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of:

(a) Motive;
(b) Nature or number of weapons used in the
commission of the crime;
(c) Nature and number of wounds inflicted on
the victim;
(d) Manner the crime was committed;
(e) Words uttered by the offender at the time
the injuries are inflicted by him on the
victim; and
(f) Circumstances under which the crime
was committed.
People v. Criminal Attempted Stage This doctrine is
Bendecio Liabilities Attempted murder or attempted homicide is consistent with the
committed when the accused intended to kill ruling in the case of
G.R. No. the victim, as manifested by the use of a Palaganas v. People
235016 | deadly weapon in the assault, and the (2006).
September 8, wound/s sustained by the victim was/were not
2020 | Lazaro- fatal.
Javier
Complex Crimes
When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies (i.e., a complex
crime is committed), the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to
be applied in its maximum period.
Labosta v. Circumstan- Justifying Circumstance: Self-Defense This doctrine is
People ces Affecting When an accused invokes the justifying consistent with the
Criminal circumstance of self-defense, the burden of rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. Liability evidence shifts to him. This is because, by his Napone, Jr. v. People
243926 | June admission, he is to be held criminally liable for (2017), People v. Doca
23, 2020 | the death of the victim unless he satisfactorily (2020).
J.C. Reyes, establishes the fact of self-defense. It is
Jr. incumbent upon the accused to prove his
innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
To successfully claim self-defense, the

accused must satisfactorily prove the
concurrence of the following elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
Page 2 of 50
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part

of the person defending himself.
In the instant case, the Court rejected
petitioner’s plea of self-defense as he was in
fact, the aggressor. He pushed the victim with
the chair he was holding and while the victim
was on the ground, he stabbed the latter
multiple times.
People v. Circumstan- Justifying Circumstance: Self-Defense The doctrine on self-
Doca ces Affecting Unlawful aggression is the indispensable defense is consistent
Criminal element of self-defense. If no unlawful with the rulings in the
G.R. No. Liability aggression attributed to the victim is cases of People v.
233479 | established, self-defense is unavailing, for Fontanilla (2012),
October 16, there is nothing to repel. People v. Tanduyan
2019 | Lazaro- (1994).
Javier In the instant case, it was held that there was
no unlawful aggression emanating from the The doctrine on
victim when the appellant stabbed the victim Treachery is consistent
while the latter was simply passing him by on with the rulings in
his way home. People v. Pilpa (2018),
People v. Albino
Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance: (2019).
Treachery
The essence of treachery is that the attack is The doctrine on
deliberate and without warning and is done in Voluntary Surrender is
a swift and unexpected way, affording the consistent with the
hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim ruling in People v.
with no chance to resist or escape. Manzano (2018).
In the instant case, it was held that there was

no treachery when there are already tell-tale
signs of the impending danger. Here, the
victim was walking home when he saw the
appellant standing inside a waiting shed,
drunk, angry and specifically looking for him.
Appellant was shirtless, revealing a knife
strapped around his waist. Despite this telltale
signs of impending danger, the victim still
proceeded to walk towards the waiting shed
where he met his demise.
Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary

Surrender
Voluntary surrender requires the following:
1. Accused has not been actually arrested;
2. Accused surrenders himself to a person in
authority or the latter's agent; and
3. Surrender is voluntary.
The essence of voluntary surrender is

spontaneity and the intent of the accused to
give himself up and submit himself to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges
his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities
Page 3 of 50
the trouble and expense that may be incurred

for his search and capture.
People v. Circumstan- Justifying Circumstance: Self-Defense This doctrine is
Lagrita ces Affecting Flight (e.g., not voluntarily surrendering, but consistent with the
Criminal being arrested by the police two years after ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Liability the alleged crime) is a veritable badge of guilt People v. Japag
233194 | and negates the plea of self-defense. (2018).
September
14, 2020 | The flight of an accused, in the absence of a
Peralta credible explanation, would be a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt
may be established for a truly innocent
person would normally grasp the first
available opportunity to defend himself and to
assert his innocence.
People v. Circumstan- Exempting Circumstance: Irresistible This doctrine is
Labuguen ces Affecting Force/Uncontrollable Fear consistent with the
Criminal To avail of the exempting circumstance of ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Liability "irresistible force and/or uncontrollable fear of People v. Baron
223103 | an equal or greater injury.", the evidence must (2010).
February 24, establish:
2020 | 1. The existence of an uncontrollable fear;
Hernando 2. That the fear must be real and imminent;
and
3. The fear of an injury is greater than or at
least equal to that committed.
A threat of future injury is insufficient. The

compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity for the accused to
escape.
People v. Circumstan- Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance: The doctrine on
Dela Cruz ces Affecting Treachery treachery is consistent
Criminal The following elements must concur for the with the ruling in the
G.R. No. Liability qualifying circumstance of treachery in the case of People v.
227997 | crime of murder to be appreciated: Ampo (2019).
October 16, 1. At the time of the attack, the victim was
2019 | not in a position to defend himself or The doctrine on
Zalameda retaliate or escape; and insanity is consistent
2. The accused consciously and deliberately with the ruling in the
adopted the particular means, methods, case of People v.
or forms of attack employed by him. Bacolot (2018).
The mere suddenness of an attack does not

necessarily equate to treachery.
Even though the victim may have been

unarmed and was stabbed at the doorstep,
that it was done in broad daylight, in a house
shared with other tenants, and within the
immediate view and proximity of the witness,
negates that the attack was done deliberately
to ensure the victim would not be able to
Page 4 of 50
defend himself, or to retreat, or even to seek

help from others.
Exempting Circumstance: Insanity

For an accused to be exempted from criminal
liability under a plea of insanity, he must show
that:
1. He was completely deprived of
intelligence; and
2. Such complete deprivation of intelligence
must be manifest at the time or
immediately before the commission of the
offense.
A schizophrenic person may have non-

delusional moments, hence for insanity to be
accorded weight there must be proof of
abnormal psychological behavior
immediately before or simultaneous with the
commission of the crime.
CICL XXX v. Circumstan- Exempting Circumstance: Minority This doctrine is
People ces Affecting When a minor above 15 but below 18 years consistent with the
Criminal old is charged with a crime, it cannot be rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. Liability presumed that he or she acted with Jose v. People (2005),
237334 | discernment. During the trial, the prosecution Dorado v. People
August 14, must specifically prove as a separate (2016).
2019 | circumstance that the minor committed the
Caguioa alleged crime with discernment for the latter
to be held criminally liable.
Intent as distinguished from discernment:

Intent – a design; a determination to do a
certain thing; an aim; the purpose of the mind,
including such knowledge as is essential to
such intent; the design resolve, or
determination with which a person acts.
Discernment – mental capacity to

understand the difference between right and
wrong.
People v. Circumstan- Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance: This doctrine is
Galam ces Affecting Treachery consistent with the
Criminal That there is no surprise or sudden attack on rulings in People v.
G.R. No. Liability the victim, as in the instant case, may be Macaspac (2017),
224222 | manifested by: People v. Pilpa (2018).
October 9, 1. The immediately preceding heated
2019 | Lazaro- argument between appellants, and
Javier 2. The threat to kill the deceased as
sufficient warning of the impending fatal
attack on his person.
There is no treachery when a person is not an

“unsuspecting victim”, one who was not
completely oblivious of the impending danger
Page 5 of 50
to his life coming from his assailants. Here,

the victim even challenged the assailant to
fire the gun pointed on him.
People v. Circumstan- Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance: The doctrine on
Bendecio ces Affecting Treachery treachery in aberratio
Criminal When the accused fired his gun at his target, ictus is consistent with
G.R. No. Liability but missed and hit two other persons, the the ruling in People v.
235016 | Court may appreciate treachery as a Flora (2000).
September 8, qualifying circumstance and convict the
2020 | Lazaro- accused for murder and attempted murder. The doctrine on
Javier treachery in frontal
Even if the death and injury of the two other attacks is consistent
persons resulted from accused's poor aim, his with the ruling in
act of suddenly firing upon his victims People v. Amora
rendered the latter helpless to defend (2014).
themselves. Just because the victim was not
the intended victim does not make appellant's
sudden attack any less treacherous.
Treachery may still be appreciated in
aberratio ictus.
Also, the qualifying circumstance of treachery

does not require that the perpetrator attack
his or her victim from behind. Even a frontal
attack could be treacherous when
unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or
avoid it.
People v. Circumstan- Aggravating or Qualifying Circumstances The doctrine on
Enojo ces Affecting General allegations of the existence of aggravating or
Criminal aggravating or qualifying circumstances in the qualifying
G.R. No. Liability Information are not enough. Factual circumstances is
240231 | averments constituting not only the offense consistent with the
November 27, charged, but also the circumstances that may ruling in the case of
2019 | increase the accused's liability, must be made People v. Dasmariñas
Zalameda in the Information to ensure that the accused (2017).
is fully afforded his right to be apprised of the
nature and cause of the accusation against The doctrine on
him. treachery is consistent
with the ruling in the
Aggravating/ Qualifying Circumstance: case of People v.
Treachery Pantoja (2017).
The killing of a child is characterized by
treachery even if the manner of the assault is The doctrine on abuse
not shown in the Information, as the of superior strength is
weakness of the victim due to his tender age consistent with the
results in the absence of any danger to the ruling in the case of
accused. Hence, the mere allegation of the People v. Corpuz
victim's minority is sufficient to qualify the (2018).
crime to murder.
Page 6 of 50
Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance:
Abuse of Superior Strength
An attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless
woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse
of superior strength which his sex and the
weapon used in the act afforded him, and
from which the woman was unable to defend
herself.
People v. Circumstan- Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstance: This doctrine is
Maron ces Affecting Abuse of Superior Strength consistent with the
Criminal Abuse of superior strength and employment ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Liability of means are taken as one and the same People v. Cabiling
232339 | aggravating circumstance. Further, it appears (1976).
November 20, that employment of means to weaken the
2019 | Inting defense is, at the very least, subsumed under
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior strength.
Thus, 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. Circumstan- Qualifying Circumstance This doctrine is
HHH ces Affecting An accused cannot be convicted of a graver consistent with the
Criminal offense, even if the qualifying circumstance rulings in the case of
G.R. No. Liability for the same is established during trial, when People v. Alcoreza
248245 | such circumstance was not alleged in the (2001), People v. XYZ
August 26, Information against him. (2020).
2020 |
Carandang In the instant case, the qualifying
circumstance of relationship cannot affect the
penalty to be imposed on the accused, even
if the same was proven during trial. He cannot
be convicted of the graver offense of qualified
rape because relationship was neither
alleged nor necessarily included in the six
Information filed against him.
People v. Circumstan- Qualifying Circumstance This doctrine is
XYZ ces Affecting Qualifying circumstances must be properly consistent with the
Criminal pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not rulings in the case of
G.R. No. Liability pleaded but proved, they shall be considered People v. Alcoreza
244255 | only as aggravating circumstances since the (2001), People v. HHH
August 26, latter admit of proof even if not pleaded. (2020).
2020 |
Gesmundo
People v. Persons Conspiracy exists when two or more persons This doctrine is
Lagrita Liable and come to an agreement concerning the consistent with the
Page 7 of 50
Degree of commission of a felony and decide to commit rulings in the cases of

G.R. No. Participation; it. It comes to life at the very instant the Gurro v. People (2019),
233194 | Conspiracy plotters agree, expressly or implied, to People v. Pagapulaan
September commit the felony and forthwith, to actually (2019), People v. CA
14, 2020 | pursue it. (2020), People v.
Peralta Manzanilla (2020).
It need not be proved by direct evidence. It
may be inferred from the concerted acts of the
accused, indubitably revealing their unity of
purpose, intent and sentiment in committing
the crime. Thus, it is not required that there
was an agreement for an appreciable period
prior to the occurrence, it is sufficient that the
accused acted in concert at the time of the
commission of the offense and that they had
the same purpose or common design, and
that they were united in its execution.
One who participates in the material

execution of the crime by standing guard or
lending moral support to the actual
perpetration thereof is criminally responsible
to the same extent as the actual perpetrator,
especially if they did nothing to prevent the
commission of the crime.
People v. Persons Forms of Conspiracy: This doctrine is
Angeles Liable and (1) Express conspiracy, which requires consistent with the
Degree of proof of an actual agreement among the co- ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Participation; conspirators to commit the crime, and People v. Evasco
224289 | Conspiracy (2) Implied conspiracy which exists when 2 (2018) and People v.
August 14, or more persons are shown by their acts to Mabalato (2019).
2019 | Lazaro- have aimed toward the accomplishment of
Javier the same unlawful object, each doing a part
so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent, are in fact connected
and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association and a concurrence of
sentiments.
PO1 Delos Persons Mere presence at the scene of the crime at This doctrine is
Santos v. Liable and the time of its commission is not, by itself, consistent with the
People Degree of sufficient to establish conspiracy in the rulings in the cases of
Participation; absence of evidence of actual cooperation People v. Credo
G.R. No. Conspiracy rather than mere cognizance or approval of (2019), People v.
231765 | an illegal act is required. Raguro (2019).
August 24,
2020 | Inting In the instant case, the shooting incident
transpired during a heated argument in a
drinking spree. There was no showing that
PO1 Delos Santos actively participated in the
furtherance of the common design or purpose
since the shooting transpired and was
consummated even without his cooperation
or assistance. Thus, his mere presence near
the scene of the crime does not itself
Page 8 of 50
constitute sufficient basis for concluding that

he was in conspiracy with Galos who was the
actual perpetrator of the crime.
BDO Life Persons Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval This doctrine is
Assurance, Liable and of the act, or mere presence during the consistent with the
Inc. v. Atty. Degree of commission of the crime, without the rulings in the cases of
Palad Participation; cooperation and the agreement to cooperate, People v. Credo
Conspiracy is not enough to establish conspiracy. (2019), People v.
G.R. No. Raguro (2019)
237845 | The alleged co-conspirator being related to
October 16, the alleged mastermind (i.e., brother-in-laws,
2019 | Reyes, lawyer-client relationship) is not an indicator
Jr. of complicity or knowledge of the fraudulent
scheme.
Active participation in the entire scheme was

wanting in the case. That the alleged co-
conspirator, who was a lawyer, was asked
last-minute to join a companion of his brother-
in-law in receiving the checks, which were
actually fraudulent proceeds, was a purely
routine action on the part of an attorney. Also,
he was not present during the steady
progression of the falsification and fraud,
hence he cannot be deemed to be a co-
conspirator in the commission of the crime.
People v. Persons Although it is not an element of the crime This doctrine is
Palada Liable and charged, conspiracy, whenever alleged, must consistent with the
Degree of be proved with the same quantum of ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Participation; evidence required to establish an element of Macapagal-Arroyo v.
225640 | July Conspiracy the offense, that is, by proof beyond People (2016).
30, 2019 | reasonable doubt. Failure to establish the
Bersamin existence of the conspiracy renders each
accused only liable for his own specific acts.
Mangulabnan Persons When conspiracy is established, the This doctrine is
v. People Liable and responsibility of the conspirators is collective, consistent with the
Degree of not individual, rendering all of them equally ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Participation; liable regardless of the extent of their Sulit v. People (2019),
236848 | June Conspiracy respective participations. wherein petitioner was
8, 2020 | not excluded from
Perlas- liability although he did
Bernabe not participate in
employing fraud or
deceit upon the private
complainants when
they initially gave their
money to his cohort.
It is sufficient that the

actions of petitioner
and his cohorts were
clearly directed by a
premeditated joint
activity which is aimed
Page 9 of 50
toward a common
purpose. Since
conspiracy was shown,
the act of one is the act
of all conspirators.
People v. Persons In order for a person to be convicted as a This doctrine is
Manzanilla Liable and principal by inducement, "the inducement consistent with the
Degree of [must] be made with the intention of procuring ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Participation; the commission of the crime," and "such People v. Yanson-
235787 | June Principal by inducement must be the determining cause" Dumancas (1999).
8, 2020 | Inducement by the one executing the same.
Gaerlan
Under Article 17 of the RPC, a principal by
inducement either:
1. Directly forces, or
2. Directly induces another to commit the
crime.
There are equally two ways of committing

each mode.
Directly forcing another to commit a crime

may be accomplished by:
1. Using irresistible force; or
2. Causing uncontrollable fear.
Whereas, directly inducing the

commission of a crime may be:
1. By giving a price, reward, or promise, or
2. By using words of command.
People v. Penalties On the imposable penalty, Art. 266-B (1) of This doctrine is
XXX the RPC imposes the death penalty if the rape consistent with the
is qualified by the circumstances of the ruling in the case of
G.R. No. victim's minority and accused's relationship. People v. Bay-od
225339 | July (2019), wherein the
10, 2019 | However, RA 9346 has prohibited the Court applied RA 9346,
Lazaro-Javier imposition of the death penalty, so that the thus instead of meting
proper penalty that can be imposed upon the death sentence, it
accused, in lieu of the death penalty, is imposed upon the
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for appellant the penalty of
parole. reclusion perpetua
without eligibility of
parole.
People v. Penalties In accordance with A.M. No. 15-08-02,34 the This doctrine is
Bendecio qualification of "without eligibility for parole" consistent with the
shall be used in order to emphasize that the rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. accused should have been sentenced to People v. Silvederio III
235016 | suffer the death penalty had it not been for RA (2020).
September 8, 9346.
2020 | Lazaro-
Javier
People v. Extinction of Prescription of Crime This doctrine is
Lee, Jr. Criminal There is no more distinction between cases consistent with the
Liabilities under the RPC and those covered by special rulings in the cases of
Page 10 of 50
G.R. No. laws with respect to the interruption of the People v. Pangilinan
234618 | period of prescription. (2012), Panaguiton, Jr.
September v. Department of
16, 2019 | The period of prescription for Special Laws Justice (2008).
Peralta along with RPC felonies is interrupted by the
filing of the complaint before the fiscal's office Moreover, this doctrine
for purposes of preliminary investigation must be distinguished
against the accused. from the ruling in
Jadewell v. Judge
Lidua (2013) penned
by J. Leonen, which
involves a City
ordinance and not a
Special law. In such
case, it was held that
prescription was only
interrupted by the filing
of the information in
court, and not the filing
of the complaint before
the fiscal's office.
People v. Extinction of Death of the Accused This doctrine is
Maylon Criminal The death of the defendant pending appeal consistent with the
Liabilities totally extinguishes criminal liability. Article 89 rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that People v. Andes
240664 | June criminal liability is totally extinguished by the (2019), Cruz v. People
22, 2020 | death of the accused. (2019), People v.
Perlas- Robles (2019).
Bernabe
However, note that in
Cruz v. People (2019),
the Court additionally
noted that the claim for
civil liability survives
notwithstanding the
death of accused, if the
same may also be
predicated on a source
of obligation other than
delict.
Franco v. Extinction of Colonist This doctrine is
Director of Criminal Colonist is a prisoner who is: (1) at least a consistent with the
Prisons Liabilities first-class inmate; (2) has served one year ruling in the case of Tiu
immediately preceding the completion of the v. Dizon (2016).
G.R. No. period specified in the following qualifications;
235483 and (3) has served imprisonment with good
(Resolution) | conduct for a period equivalent to one-fifth of
June 8, 2020 | the maximum term of his prison sentence, or
J.C. Reyes, seven years in the case of a life sentence.
Jr.
A colonist is given several privileges, which
includes the automatic reduction of sentence.
However, the word "automatic" does not
imply that the reduction of sentence occurs as
Page 11 of 50
a natural consequence by the mere conferral

of a "colonist" status. Act No. 248919
specifically requires an executive approval.
The reduction of a prisoner's sentence is a
form of partial pardon, which entails the
exercise of the President's constitutionally-
vested authority.
Effects of RA 10952
R.A. No. 10592, has been given retroactive
effect.
Among the amendments introduced by R.A.

No. 10592 are the increase in the number of
days which may be credited for GCTA;
expansion of the application of GCTA for
prisoners even during preventive
imprisonment; and deduction of 15 days for
each month of study, teaching, or mentoring
service.
Section 3, Rule V and Section 1, Rule VIII of

the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. No. 10592 reposed upon the
Director of Prisons, the Chief of the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology and the
wardens the grant of allowances for good
conduct to deserving prisoners, upon
recommendation of the Management,
Screening and Evaluation Committee. The
Director, the Chief, or the warden may either
approve or disapprove the recommendation
or order the return of the same for correction.
People v. Civil Amount of Civil Liability This doctrine is
Avelino Liabilities In rape where the penalty imposed is consistent with the
Arising from reclusion perpetua, this Court has upgraded ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Criminal the amounts of civil indemnity from People v. Jugueta
231358 | July Cases P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; moral damages (2016), where the
8, 2019 | Del from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; and Court laid down the
Castillo exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to amount of civil liabilities
P75,000.00 for different crimes at
different stages of
execution, in reference
to the imposed penalty.
People v. Civil Amount of Civil Liability This doctrine is
XXX Liabilities In Qualified Rape where the penalty imposed consistent with the
Arising from is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Criminal because of RA 9346, civil indemnity, moral People v. Jugueta
225339 | July Cases damages and exemplary damages should (2016), where the
10, 2019 | each be imposed in the amount of Court laid down the
Lazaro-Javier P100,000.00. amount of civil liabilities
for different crimes at
different stages of
Page 12 of 50
People v. Civil Awarding of Exemplary Damages This doctrine is
Doca Liabilities In cases of homicide, exemplary damages consistent with the
Arising from are awarded only if an aggravating ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Criminal circumstance was proven during the trial, People v. Jugueta
233479 | Cases even if not alleged in the Information. (2016), where the
October 16, Court laid down the
2019 | Lazaro- amount of civil liabilities
Javier for different crimes at
different stages of
People v. Civil Civil Liability for Complex Crimes This doctrine is
Bendecio Liabilities Civil indemnity, moral damages, and consistent with the
Arising from exemplary damages must be awarded for ruling in the case of
G.R. No. Criminal each component of the complex crime. People v. Jugueta
235016 | Cases (2016), where the
September 8, Prevailing jurisprudence sets the award of Court laid down the
2020 | Lazaro- P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 amount of civil liabilities
Javier as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as for different crimes at
exemplary damages in murder cases where different stages of
the imposable penalty is death but due to the execution, in reference
prohibition to impose the same, the actual to the imposed penalty.
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.
CICL XXX v. Civil Civil Liability of Parents for Crimes This doctrine is
People Liabilities Committed by their Minor Children consistent with the
Arising from Just like the rule in Article 2180 of the Civil ruling in the case of Libi
G.R. No. Criminal Code, in Article 101 of the Revised Penal v. IAC (1992).
237334 | Cases Code, the civil liability of the parents for
August 14, crimes committed by their minor children is
2019 | likewise direct and primary, and also subject
Caguioa to the defense of lack of fault or negligence
on their part, that is, the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family.
People v. Civil Effect of Death of the Accused on Civil This doctrine is
Andes Liabilities Liability consistent with the
Arising from The civil liability in connection with the rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. Criminal criminal offense, is extinguished together with People v. Robles
217031 | Cases the criminal liability arising from the said (2019), Cruz v. People
August 14, felony, upon the death of the accused prior to (2019), People v.
2019 | Perlas- final judgement. Santiago (2019).
Bernabe
However, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict.
In the instant case, the accused’s civil liability

in connection with his acts against the victim,
may be based on sources other than delicts;
hence, the victim may file a separate civil
action against the estate of accused, as may
be warranted by law and procedural rules.
Page 13 of 50
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Crimes Against Public Interest
Liwanag v. Falsification Falsification of a public document is defined
People under Art. and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised
171 Penal Code. It requires the following elements:
G.R. No. 1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or
205260 | notary public;
July 29, 2. He takes advantage of his official position;
2019 | and
Lazaro- 3. He falsifies a document by committing any
Javier, J. of the aforementioned acts.
In falsification of public or official documents,

the presence of intent to gain or intent to injure
a third person is not necessary for what is
punished is the violation of the public faith and
the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.
Jayme v. Use of Elements of use of falsified document
Jayme Falsified 1. Offender knew that a document was
Documents falsified by another person;
G.R. No. 2. False document is embraced in Article 171
248827 | or in any of subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 of
August 27, Article 172;
2020 | 3. He used such document (not in judicial
Reyes, Jr., J. proceedings); and
4. The use of the false document caused
damage to another or at least it was used
with intent to cause such damage.
The prosecution must establish with moral

certainty the falsity of the document and the
defendant's knowledge of its falsity.
Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

CASE DOCTRINE NOTES
Musa v. People Variance doctrine (in Sec. 4, Rule 120).
When there is a variance between the offense
G.R. No. 242132 | charged in the complaint or information, and that
July 25, 2019 | proved or established by the evidence, and the
Perlas-Bernabe, J. offense as charged necessarily includes the
offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved included in that which is
charged.
An offense charged necessarily includes that

which is proved, when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged
in the complaint or information, constitute the
latter.
Page 14 of 50
The transport of the illegal drugs would

necessarily entail the possession thereof.
People v. Rubio RA 9165 restrictively enumerates the places This ruling is consistent with
where the inventory and photographing of the People vs. Santos (2019),
G.R. No. 239887| seized drug specimen can be done: People vs. Kundo (2019),
October 2, 2019 | 1. At the place of seizure;
Caguioa, J. 2. At the nearest police station; or
3. At the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable.
People vs. The likelihood of tampering, loss, or mistake with
Macaspac respect to a seized illegal drug is greatest when
the item is small and is one that has physical
G.R. No. 246165 | characteristics fungible in nature.
November 28, 2019
| Lazaro-Javier, J. Five hundred fifty-two (552) grams or more than
half kilo of shabu is by no means a minuscule
amount, thus, logically confirming the
improbability of planting, tampering, or alteration.
People vs. Lung (1) The defense of denial and frame-up. Such
Wai Tang defenses are invariably weak as they can be
easily fabricated and are common ploys in
G.R. No. 238517 | prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous
November 27, 2019 drugs. Such defense must be established with
| Zalameda. J. strong and convincing evidence. Without proof of
any intent on the part of the police officers to
falsely impute to appellants the commission of a
crime, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and the principle that
the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses are entitled to great respect, should
prevail over bare denials and self-serving claims.
(2) In determining whether amount of seized

drug is large or small. There should be a
distinction in the evidentiary treatment of drugs
based on its quantity. Unlike small amounts, large
quantities of drugs are less likely to be the subject
of planting and manipulation. In such
determination, courts should be guided by the
threshold amounts set in the plea-bargaining
framework. If the amount of drugs seized
precludes the availability of plea-bargaining, it
shall be deemed a large amount and should be
given strong probative value.
People v. Kamad Presumption of Regularity in the Performance This ruling is consistent with
y Pakay of Official Duty in re: Drug Cases People vs. Serabo (2020).
Presumption of regularity in the performance of
G.R. No. 238174 | official duty is made in the context of an existing
February 5, 2020 | rule of law or statute authorizing the performance
AB Reyes, Jr. J. of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the
performance thereof. The presumption applies
when nothing in the record suggests that the law
enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of
Page 15 of 50
official duty required by law; where the official act

is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot
arise. The prosecution cannot simply invoke the
saving clause found in Section 21 - that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
have been preserved - without justifying their
failure to comply with the requirements stated
therein. Even the presumption as to the regularity
in the performance by police officers of their
official duties cannot prevail when there has been
a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural
safeguards by the police officers themselves.
People v. Suarez Chain of Custody Links under RA 9165: The chain of custody doctrine
1. The seizure and marking of the illegal drug is consistent with the rulings
G.R. No. 249990 | recovered from the accused by the in the cases of People vs.
July 8, 2020 | apprehending officer; Baltazar (2019), People vs.
Perlas-Bernabe, J. 2. The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the Oropa (2019), People vs.
apprehending officer to the investigating Pajo (2019), People vs. Ison
officer; (2019), People vs. Failano
3. The turnover by the investigating officer of the (2019), People vs. Ocampo
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for (2019), People vs. Tariman
laboratory examination; (2019), People vs. Quirino
4. The turnover and submission of the marked (2019), People vs. Parto
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to (2019), People vs. Cuarte
the court. (2019), People vs. Orlando
Ramos (2019), People vs.
As to the Conduct of Marking, Physical Ancheta (2019), People vs.
Inventory and Photography Dizon (2019), People vs.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law Cabacang (2019), People vs.
requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical Bolado, People vs. Gemerga
inventory, and photography of the seized items (2019), People vs. Miranda
be conducted immediately after seizure and (2019), People vs. Lucas
confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law (2019), People vs. Mendoza
recognizes that "marking upon immediate (2019), People vs. Valdez
confiscation contemplates even marking at the (2019), People vs. Mawarao
nearest police station or office of the (2020), People vs. Tacorda
apprehending team." (2020), People vs. Baliber
(2020), People vs. Sanding
Three-Witness Rule (2020).
The law further requires that the said inventory
and photography be done in the presence of the The doctrine on the required
accused or the person from whom the items were witnesses is consistent with
seized, or his representative or counsel, as well the rulings in the cases of
as certain required witnesses, namely: Dimaala vs. People (2019),
• If prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA Limbo vs. People (2019),
10640: Oliveros vs. People (2019),
(a) Representative from the media and People vs. Lazano (2019),
(b) The Department of Justice, and People vs. Rasos (2019),
(c) Any elected public official; or People vs. Failano (2019),
• If after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA People vs. Ocampo (2019),
10640: People vs. Cuarte (2019),
(a) An elected public official and People vs. Tica (2019),
People vs. Miranda (2019),
Page 16 of 50
(b) Representative of the National People vs. Lucas (2019),

Prosecution Service OR the media. People vs. Mendoza (2019),
Tañamor vs. People (2020),
NOTE: The law requires the presence of these People vs. Cortez (2020).
witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment
of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion NOTES:
of switching, planting, or contamination of In People vs. Pajo (2019), the
evidence." court stated that "Marking"
means: (1) The apprehending
The three required witnesses is effective only officer or the poseur-buyer
prior to July 15, 2014 (NOTE the Date of placing his/her initials and (2)
effectivity of RA 10640 is on July 23, 2014, see: signature on the seized item.
People v. Doctolero, Jr. [2019], People vs. Tica The marking of the evidence
[2019]) serves to separate the
marked evidence from the
Absence of Required Witnesses corpus of all other similar or
Absence of the required witnesses must be related evidence from the
justified based on acceptable reasons, such as time they are seized from the
when: accused until they are
1. Their attendance was impossible because the disposed of at the end of the
place of arrest was a remote area; criminal proceedings, thus,
2. Their safety during the inventory and preventing switching, planting
photograph of the seized drugs was or contamination of evidence.
threatened by an immediate retaliatory action
of the accused or any person acting on his/her
behalf;
3. The elected official themselves were involved
in the punishable acts sought to be
apprehended;
4. Earnest efforts to secure the presence of a
DOJ and media representative and elected
public official within the period required under
RPC Art. 125 proved futile, through no fault of
the arresting officers, who face the threat of
being charged with arbitrary detention; or
5. Time contracts and urgency of the anti-drug
operations, which often rely on tips of
confidential assets, prevented the law
enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders
could escape. (People vs. Lumen [2019], De
Leon vs. People [2019], People vs. Edto
[2019], People vs. Kundo [2019])
In case the presence of any or all the insulating

witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution
must allege and prove not only the reasons for
their absence, but also the fact that earnest
efforts were made to secure their attendance
[People vs. Cequenia (2020)].
People v. Anicoy Rule in Compliance with the Chain of Custody This doctrine is consistent
Requirements with the rulings in the cases of
General Rule: Strict compliance with the Chain People vs. Flores (2019),
of Custody requirements is mandatory. People vs. Capeda (2019),
Page 17 of 50
G.R. No. 240430 | Exception: Following the IRR of RA 9165, the People vs. Saavedra (2019),
July 6, 2020 | Delos courts may allow a deviation from these People vs. Gustaham (2019),
Santos, J. requirements if the following requisites are People vs. Jao (2019),
availing: People vs. Loreña (2019),
1. The existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing Paguio vs. People (2019),
departure from the rule on strict compliance; Oliveros vs. People (2019),
and People vs. Reyes (2019),
2. The integrity and the evidentiary value of the People vs. Tariman (2019),
seized items are properly preserved by the People vs. Palma (2019),
apprehending team. If these two elements Menor vs. People (2019),
concur, the seizure and custody over the People vs. Rasos (2019),
confiscated items shall not be rendered void People vs. Moreno (2019),
and invalid; ergo, the integrity of the corpus People vs. Revil (2019),
delicti remains untarnished. People vs. Gonzales (2019),
People vs. Galisim (2019),
People vs. Talisic (2019),
People vs. Santos (2019),
People vs. Vertudes (2019),
People vs. Dela Cruz (2019),
People vs. Littaua (2019),
People vs. Ilusorio (2019),
Briones vs. People (2019),
People vs. Kundo (2019),
People vs. Miranda (2019),
Matabiles vs. People (2019),
De Leon vs. People (2019),
People vs. Zapanta (2019),
People vs. Ladigaran (2019),
People vs. Cotura (2019),
Tolentino vs. People (2020),
People vs. Niebres (2020).
NOTE:
In People vs. Flores (2019)
and People vs. Casero
(2020), the court additionally
stated that anent the witness
requirement, non-compliance
may be permitted if the
prosecution proves that the
apprehending officers
exerted genuine and
sufficient efforts to secure the
presence of such witnesses,
albeit they eventually failed to
appear. While the
earnestness of these efforts
must be examined on a case-
to-case basis, the
overarching objective is for
the Court to be convinced that
the failure to comply was
reasonable under the given
circumstances.
Page 18 of 50
Also termed as the saving

clause or saving mechanism.
People v. Lopez Under Section 36 (Authorized Drug Testing) of
RA 9165, 2 distinct drug tests are required:
G.R. No. 247974 | 1. A screening test and
July 13, 2020 | 2. A confirmatory test.
Caguioa, J.
(1) A positive screening test must be confirmed
for it to be valid in a court of law. A screening test
is statutorily defined as "a rapid test performed to
establish potential/presumptive positive result. It
refers to the immunoassay test to eliminate a
"negative" specimen.
Under existing regulations of the Dangerous

Drugs Board, the TLC is a screening test that is
subject to further confirmatory examinations if it
yields a positive result. When the urine sample
recovered yielded a positive result, the specimen
should have been subjected to a second test —
the confirmatory test.
(2) Confirmatory test is "an analytical test using

a device, tool or equipment with a different
chemical or physical principle that is more
specific which will validate and confirm the result
of the screening test." Considering that the
Chemistry Report merely contains the results of
the screening test conducted, the same cannot
be valid before any court of law absent the
required confirmatory test report. Without the
requisite confirmatory test, the accused-appellant
cannot be held criminally liable for illegal use of
dangerous drugs.
Plan v. People To qualify possession of illegal drugs during
parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings as
G.R. No. 247589 | warranting the imposition of stiffer penalties
August 24, 2020 | pursuant to Section 13, Article II of RA 9165, such
Perlas-Bernabe, J. possession must have occurred:
1. during a party; or
2. at a social gathering or meeting; or
3. in the proximate company of at least 2
persons.
The law does not qualify that said instances must

have been intended for the purpose of using
illegal drugs. In such instances, the possessor
does not only become an imminent threat to his
own safety and well-being, but also to other
people within his close proximity; hence, the
stiffer penalties.
Pascua vs. People Plea bargaining is not allowed under Section Refer to AM No. 18-03-16
5 (Sale, Trading, etc. of Dangerous Drugs) (Adoption of Plea Bargaining
Framework in Drug Cases) on
Page 19 of 50
G.R. No. 250578 | involving all other kinds of dangerous drugs, the guidelines set by the
September 7, 2020 except shabu and marijuana. Supreme Court on Plea
| Perlas-Bernabe, J. Bargaining Agreements in
Illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of Drug Cases.
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) is very
light enough to be considered as necessarily
included in the offense of violation of Section 12
(Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs), while 1.00 gram and above is
substantial enough to disallow plea bargaining.
The Court holds the same view with respect to
illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 9.99 grams of
marijuana, which likewise suffices to be deemed
necessarily included in the same offense of
violation of the same Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165,
while 10.00 grams and above is ample enough to
disallow plea bargaining. It is clear from both
Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 and the
provisions of the Probation Law that in applying
for probation, what is essential is not the offense
charged but the offense to which the accused is
ultimately found guilty of.
Thus, upon acceptance of a plea bargain, the

accused is actually found guilty of the lesser
offense subject of the plea. Regardless of what
the original charge was in the Information, the
judgment would be for the lesser offense to which
the accused pled guilty. The penalty to be meted
out, as well as all the attendant accessory
penalties, and other consequences under the
law, including eligibility for probation and parole,
would be based on such lesser offense.
People v. Buesa Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs: In the case of People vs.
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller, Dadang (2020), the Supreme
G.R. No. 237850 | 2. The object of the sale and its consideration; Court added that in the
September 16, and conviction for illegal
2020 | Lazaro 3. The delivery of the thing sold and the possession of drug
Javier, J. payment therefor. paraphernalia to prosper, it is
primordial to show that the
Additionally, in the illegal sale of dangerous accused was in possession or
drugs, it is necessary that the sale transaction control of any equipment,
actually happened and that "the (procured) object paraphernalia, and the like,
is properly presented as evidence in court and is which was fit or intended for
shown to be the same drugs seized from the smoking, consuming, and
accused." administering, among other
acts, dangerous drugs into
Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs: the body; and, such
1. Accused was in possession of dangerous possession was not
drugs; authorized by law.
2. Such possession was not authorized by law;
3. Accused was freely and consciously aware of The doctrine is People v.
being in possession of dangerous drugs. Buesa (2020) consistent with
Page 20 of 50
In both cases involving illegal sale and illegal the rulings in the cases of
possession, illicit drugs confiscated from the People vs. Advincula (2019),
accused comprise the corpus delicti of the People vs. Besmonte (2019),
charges. People vs. Robels (2019),
People vs. Loreña (2019),
People vs. Permejo (2019),
People vs. Cabacang (2019),
People vs. Catubag (2019),
People vs. Zapanta (2019),
People vs. Miranda (2019,
People vs. De Dios (2020),
People vs. Dadang (2020),
People vs. Dayo (2020),
People vs. Alwaddin (2020),
People vs. Sanding (2020),
People vs. Rominimbang
(2020), People vs. Cano
(2020), People vs. Sanico
(2020), People vs. Sioson
(2020), People vs. Pis-an
(2020).
People v. Sanding Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is a crime Exclusive possession or
that is mala prohibita. As such, criminal intent is control is not necessary
G.R. No. 247558 | not an essential element. (Comprado vs. People
February 19, 2020 | [2019])
Lazaro Javier, J. The prosecution, however, must prove that the
accused had the intent to possess (animus
possidendi). Possession, under the law, includes
not only actual possession, but also constructive
possession.
People v. Cano In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and
G.R. No. 233533 | the receipt by the seller of the marked money
June 30, 2020 | consummate the illegal transaction.
Peralta, C.J.
What matters 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.
Moreover, regardless of the amount of the

consideration, in the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the most important part of the buy-bust
operation is the actual exchange of the buy-bust
money and the subject drug.
People v. Baterina The essential element of illegal transporting of This doctrine is consistent
dangerous drugs is the movement of the with the ruling in the case of
G.R. No. 236259 | dangerous drugs from 1 place to another. Musa vs. People (2019),
August 16, 2020 | People vs. Runana (2020)
Lazaro Javier, J. To establish the guilt of the accused, it must be
proved that: In the case of People vs.
1. The transportation of illegal drugs was Amago (2020), the court
committed; and added that the very act of
2. The prohibited drug exists. transporting a prohibited drug
Page 21 of 50
There is no definitive moment when an accused is a malum prohibitum since it

"transports" a prohibited drug. When the is punished as an offense
circumstances establish the purpose of an under a special law.
accused to transport and the fact of transporting
itself, there should be no question as to the The mere commission of the
perpetration of the criminal act. The fact that there act constitutes the offense
is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding and is sufficient to validly
that the act of transporting was committed. charge and convict an
individual committing the act,
regardless of criminal intent.
Since the crime is malum
prohibitum, it is
inconsequential to prove that
the illegal drugs were
delivered or transported to
another person. The only
thing that had to be proven
was the movement of the
illegal drugs from one place to
another.
Crimes Committed by Public Officers

Catubao v. Bribery Elements of Direct Bribery:
Sandiganba- 1. Accused is a public officer;
yan 2. He received directly or through another
some gift or present, offer or promise;
G.R. No. 3. Such gift, present or promise has been
227371 | given in consideration of his commission
October 2, of some crime, or any act not constituting
2019 | a crime, or to refrain from doing something
Caguioa, J. which is his official duty to do; and
4. The crime or act relates to the exercise of
his functions as a public officer.
Mangulabnan Bribery Elements of bribery are:
v. People 1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts an offer or promise or receives
G.R. No. a gift or present by himself or trough
236848 | June another;
8, 2020 | 3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift
Perlas- or present be received by the public officer
Bernabe, J. with a view to committing some crime, or
in consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime but the
act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing
something which it is his official duty to do;
and
4. The act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes is
connected with the performance of his
official duties.
Corpuz v. Malversation Elements of malversation are:
People of Public 1. Offender is a public officer;
Funds
Page 22 of 50
G.R. No. 2. He or she had custody or control of funds

227371 | or property by reason of the duties of his
October 2, or her office;
2019 | 3. That those funds or property were funds or
Caguioa, J. property for which he or she was
accountable; and
4. That he or she appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them. In addition,
in the crime of malversation of public
funds, all that is necessary for conviction
is proof that the accountable officer had
received the public funds and that such
officer failed to account for the said funds
upon demand, without offering a justifiable
explanation for the shortage.
Malversation is committed either

intentionally or by negligence.
The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is
only a modality in the perpetration of the
felony. Hence, even if the mode charged
differs from the mode proved, the same
offense of malversation is involved and
conviction thereof is proper.
Crimes Against Persons

People vs. Murder – Elements of Murder: In People v. Deplomo
Almasora Art. 248 1. A person was killed; (2019), the Court
2. The accused killed him or her; additionally noted that
G.R. No. 3. The killing was attended by any of the the following elements
223512 | July qualifying circumstances mentioned in must concur, for the
24, 2019 | Article 248; and qualifying
Lazaro-Javier, 4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide. circumstance of
J. treachery in the crime
of murder to be
appreciated: (1) At the
time of the attack, the
victim was not in a
position to defend
himself or retaliate or
escape; and (2) The
accused consciously
and deliberately
adopted the particular
means, methods, or
forms of attack
employed by him.
The doctrine in this

case is consistent with
the case of People vs.
Page 23 of 50
Albino (2019), People

vs. Torres (2019),
People vs. Gaurin
(2019), People vs.
Jaurigue (2019),
People vs. Dongall
(2020), People vs.
Atamosa (2020),
People vs. Silvederio
(2020), People vs.
Manansala (2020).
People v. Murder – Once it appears that the victim was

Archivido Art. 248 forewarned of the danger he was in, and
instead of fleeing from it, met it and was killed
G.R. No. as a result, then the qualifying circumstance
233085 | of treachery cannot be appreciated.
September Treachery presupposes a sudden,
21, 2020 | unexpected, and unforeseen attack on the
Gaerlan, J. victim.
Naag Jr. v. Homicide – Elements of frustrated homicide: This doctrine is
People Art. 249 1. Accused intended to kill his victim, as consistent with the
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon case of People vs.
G.R. No. in his assault; Albino (2019), People
228638 | July 2. Victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s vs. Torres (2019),
13, 2020 | but did not die because of timely medical People vs. Gaurin
Reyes, J. assistance; and (2019), People vs.
3. None of the qualifying circumstance for Jaurigue (2019),
murder under Article 248 of the RPC is People vs. Dongall
present. (2020), People vs.
Atamosa (2020),
People vs. Silvederio
(2020), People vs.
Manansala (2020)
People v. Infanticide – Elements of Infanticide:
Adalia Art. 255 1. A child was killed;
2. Deceased child was less than three (3)
G.R. No. days old; and
235990 | 3. Accused killed the child.
January 22,
2020 | Lazaro Note that Art. 255, in relation to Art. 248
Javier, J. (Murder) of the RPC, provides that the
offense of infanticide is punishable by
reclusion perpetua in its maximum period to
death.
Applying Article 63 (2) of the RPC, the lesser

of the two (2) indivisible penalties shall be
imposed when there is no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance which attended the
killing.
Mora v. Rape In deciding Rape cases, it is well to
People emphasize that such crime is a serious
transgression with grave considerations and
consequences both to the accused and the
Page 24 of 50
G.R. No. complainant. On the one hand, the accused

235799 | July is presumed innocent and shall not be
29, 2019 | convicted unless his guilt is proven beyond
Lazaro-Javier, reasonable doubt, in which case, he shall be
J. meted with a severe penalty. On the other
hand, the Court is ever mindful that a young
woman would not publicly announce that she
was raped if it were not true. No woman would
want to expose herself to the process, the
trouble, and the humiliation of a rape trial
unless she actually has been a victim of
abuse and her motive is but to seek
atonement for her abuse. In these lights, a
painstaking review of the judgment of
conviction is required.
In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided

by three (3) principles:
1. An accusation of rape can be made with
facility, and while the accusation is difficult
to prove, it is even more difficult for the
person accused, although innocent, to
disprove;
2. Considering the intrinsic nature of the
crime, only two persons being usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant
should be scrutinized with great caution;
and
3. The evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
People v. Rape Elements of Rape:
Cubay 1. Offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and
G.R. No. 2. Offender accomplished such act through
224597 | July force or intimidation, or when the victim
29, 2019 | was deprived of reason or otherwise
Lazaro-Javier, unconscious, or when she was under
J. twelve (12) years of age or was
demented.
Surely, being a deaf-mute does not
necessarily take the place of the element of
force or intimidation or having been deprived
of reason, unconscious, or demented.
In this case, the court ruled that the

informations conspicuously lack the second
element of rape, i.e. the accused employed
force or intimidation, or that the victim was
deprived of reason, unconscious, under
twelve (12) years of age, or was demented.
Page 25 of 50
Moreover, even though the complainant is a

deaf-mute and certified to be only at Grade 2
level in formal sign language education, it
does not mean she is suffering from mental
abnormality, deficiency, or retardation which
has the effect of hindering her capacity to give
consent.
People v. Rape Statutory Rape
XXX The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape
is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12
G.R. No. years old. The law presumes that the victim
225339 | July does not and cannot have a will of her own on
10, 2019 | account of her tender years.
Lazaro-Javier,
J. Moreover, rape is qualified under Article 266-
B of the RPC by if complainant is under 18
years of age and the accused is a relative by
consanguinity within the third civil degree of
complainant.
Thus, for a conviction of statutory rape with

the aforementioned qualifying circumstance
to prosper, the prosecution must allege and
prove the following elements:
1. Accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman;
2. Offended party is under 12 years of age, a
minor at the time of the rape; and
3. Offender is a relative within the third civil
degree.
People v. Rape It is important to stress that the gravamen of The Court also ruled
Nievera the crime of rape under Art. 266-A (1) is that in rape cases, the
sexual intercourse with a woman against her accused may be
G.R. No. will or without her consent. convicted on the basis
242830 | of the lone,
August 18, As the Court held in the case of People v. uncorroborated
2019 | Joson, the failure of the victim to shout for testimony of the rape
Caguioa, J. help or resist the sexual advances of the victim, provided that
rapist is not tantamount to consent. Physical her testimony is clear,
resistance need not be established in rape convincing, and
when threats and intimidation are employed otherwise consistent
and the victim submits herself to her attackers with human nature.
of because of fear. Besides, physical
resistance is not the sole test to determine This is a matter best
whether a woman voluntarily succumbed to assigned to the trial
the lust of an accused. court which had the
first-hand opportunity
to hear the testimonies
of the witnesses and
observe their
demeanor, conduct,
and attitude during
cross-examination.
Page 26 of 50
People v. Rape The action of placing an x-rated film which

Bautista both he and AAA (13 years old) watched, if
any, amounts to inducement or enticement
G.R. No. under sexual abuse cases under RA 7610 but
235783 | not to force or intimidation as an element of
September rape under the RPC.
25, 2019 |
Carpio, Acting
CJ
People v. Rape Elements of the special complex crime of
Villegas Rape with Homicide:
1. Appellant had carnal knowledge of a
G.R. No. woman;
218210 | 2. Carnal knowledge of a woman was
October 9, achieved by means of force, threat or
2019 | intimidation; and
Hernando, J. 3. By reason or on occasion of such carnal
knowledge by means of force.
People v. Rape The existence of a romantic relationship
XXX between two persons does not discount the
commission of rape for it can be committed by
G.R. No. one spouse against the other.
229677 |
October 2,
2019 | Lazaro-
Javier, J.
People v. Rape There is no standard behavior for rape victims This doctrine is
XXX People react to similar situations differently consistent with the
and there is not standard form of human cases of People v.
G.R No. behavioral response when one is confronted Nievera (2019) and
219093 | with a startling or frightful experience when People vs. Cabales
January 8, intimidation is employed, physical resistance (2019).
2020 | Notice need not be established.
The test is whether the intimidation produces

a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that
if she resists or does not yield to the desires
of the accused, the threat would be carried
out. When resistance would be futile, offering
none at all does not amount of consent to
sexual assault.
People v. Rape In rape cases, the accused may be convicted This is consistent with
Dolandolan on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated the ruling in the case of
testimony of the rape victim, provided that her People v. AAA (2020)
G.R. No. testimony is clear, convincing, and otherwise and People v.
232157 | consistent with human nature. Moreover, Gentorani (2020). In
January 8, inconsistencies and contradictions in the the latter case, the
2020 | complainant's testimony do not necessarily court explained that
Caguioa, J. impair her credibility, "for said inconsistencies since rape is a crime
to be dismissed so as to give full credence to that is almost always
the alleged victim, they must be minor, trivial committed in isolation
and as far as practicable, few and far or in secret, an
between.". accused may be
convicted of rape on
Page 27 of 50
This is a matter best assigned to the trial court the basis of the victim's
which had the first-hand opportunity to hear sole testimony
the testimonies of the witnesses and observe provided it is credible,
their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during consistent and
cross-examination. Hence, the trial court's convincing.
findings carry very great weight and
substance. However, it is equally true that in
reviewing rape cases, the Court observes the
following guiding principles:
1. An accusation for rape can be made with
facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove;
2. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime
where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
3. The evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
This must be so as the guilt of an accused
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Before he is convicted, there should be
moral certainty — a certainty that
convinces and satisfies the reason and
conscience of those who are to act upon
it.
People v. Rape It is not required for a rape victim to undergo
Genteroni a comprehensive medical examination so as
to prove that the victim is a mental retardate.
G.R. No. The court has repeatedly pronounced that
225729 | mental retardation can be proven by evidence
March 11, other than medical/clinical evidence, such as
2020 | the testimony of witnesses and even the
Hernando, J. observation by the trial court.
However, the conviction of an accused of

rape based on the mental retardation of the
victim must be anchored on proof beyond
reason able doubt of the same.
People v. Rape Carnal knowledge, the other essential This doctrine is
Gaspar element in consummated statutory rape, consistent with the
does not require full penile penetration of ruling in the case of
G.R. No. the female. People vs. Agan
239892 | June (2020).
10, 2020 | Rape is consummated once the penis of the
Peralta, C.J. accused capable of consummating the sexual
act touches the labia of the pudendum. The
conclusion that touching the labia majora or
the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape proceeds from the
physical fact that the labias are physically
situated beneath the mons pubis or the
Page 28 of 50
vaginal surface, such that for the penis to

touch either of them is to attain some degree
of penetration beneath the surface of the
female genitalia. It is required, however, that
this manner of touching of the labias must be
sufficiently and convincingly established.
Absence of external signs of physical

injuries does not necessarily negate rape.
In rape, force need not always produce
physical injuries. What is important is that the
victim was able to give a credible and clear
testimony as to the presence of the
intimidation that was employed.
People v. Rape If the victim is 12 years or older, the
QuInto offender cannot be accused of both rape
under Art. 266-A par. 1(a) of the RPC and
G.R. No. sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of RA No. 7610
246460 | June (Special Protection of Children Against
8, 2020 | Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
Reyes, Jr., J. because it may violate the right of the
accused against double jeopardy.
Furthermore, under Section 48 of the RPC, a

felony, in particular rape, cannot be
complexed with an offense penalized by a
special law, such as RA No. 7610. It is basic
in statutory construction that in case of
irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the
later enactment must prevail. Hence, Art.
266-B of the RPC must prevail over Sec. 5(b)
of RA No. 7610.
Even if it were true that the accused and

the victim were sweethearts, this fact does
not necessarily negate rape because love
is not a license for lust.
People v. Rape Robbery with Rape This doctrine is
Yumol It is a special complex crime that consistent with the
contemplates a situation where the accused's rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. original intent was to take, with intent to gain, People vs. Evardone
225600 | July personal property belonging to another, and (2020)
7, 2020 | rape is committed on the occasion thereof or
Lazaro-Javier, as an accompanying crime.
J.
It requires the following elements:
1. The taking of personal property is
committed with violence or intimidation
against persons;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking is characterized by intent to
gain or animus lucrandi; and
4. The robbery is accompanied by rape.
Page 29 of 50
Note that intent to gain, oranimus lucrandi, as

an element of the crime of robbery, is an
internal act, hence, presumed from the
unlawful taking of things.
People v. Rape Qualifying circumstances must be The doctrine of the
XYZ properly pleaded in the indictment. elements of qualified
If the same are not pleaded but proved, they rape is consistent with
G.R. No. shall be considered only as aggravating the rulings in the cases
244255 | circumstances since the latter admit of proof of People vs. XXX
August 26, even if not pleaded. Relationship as a (2019), People vs. XXX
2020 | qualifying circumstance in rape must not only (2019) [G.R. 225339],
Gesmundo, J. be alleged clearly. It must also be proved People vs. XXX (2019)
beyond reasonable doubt, just as the crime [G.R. No. 225793],
itself. People vs. ZZZ (2019),
People vs. XXX (2020)
Elements of qualified rape under 266-B, [G.R. No. 244288],
especially incestuous rape:
1. Victim is a female over 12 years but under NOTE:
18 years of age; • In People vs. ZZZ
2. Offender is a parent, ascendant, (2019) the court
stepparent, guardian, relative by noted that in
consanguinity or affinity within the third incestuous rape
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of cases, the father's
the parent of the victim; and abuse of the moral
3. Offender has carnal knowledge of the ascendancy and
victim either through force, threat, or influence over his
intimidation. daughter can
subjugate the
latter's will thereby
forcing her to do
whatever he
wants. Otherwise
stated, the moral
and physical
dominion of the
father is sufficient
to cow the victim
into submission to
his beastly desires.
• In People vs.
Manlolo (2020),
the court stated
that in Qualified
Rape, absence of
free consent is
conclusively
presumed when
the victim is below
the age of 12.
People v. Rape A rape victim has no burden to prove that

DDD she did all within her power to resist the
force or intimidation employed upon her.
Page 30 of 50
G.R. No. As long as the force or intimidation is present,

243583 | whether it was more or less irresistible is of no
September 3, moment. It is not necessary for the place to
2020 | be ideal or the weather to be fine, for rapists
Peralta, J. bear no respect for local and time when they
carry out their evil deed.
Rape can be committed anywhere, even in

places where people congregate.
People v. Rape Sweetheart Theory The sweetheart
Fruelda The sweetheart theory is an affirmative doctrine is consistent
defense raised to prove the non-attendance with the case of People
G.R. No. of force or intimidation. vs. Duran (2020).
242690 | Thus, it appears that
September 3, When an accused in a rape case claims that the court has
2020 | he is in a relationship with the complainant, recognized that the
Caguioa, J. the burden of proof shifts to him to prove the sweet heart doctrine as
existence of the relationship and that the a possible defense for
victim consented to the sexual act. The the commission of
defense must be proven by compelling rape.
evidence, not merely by testimonial evidence
in support of the theory. Independent proof is Nevertheless, to
required, such as tokens, mementos and prosper as a defense,
photographs. the "sweetheart"
defense must be
proven by compelling
evidence:
1. That the accused
and the victim were
lovers; and,
2. That she consented
to the alleged
sexual relations.
The second is as
important as the first,
because love is not a
license for lust.
People v. Rape (1) Ordinary human experience would tell us
XXX that it is not impossible for a young child to not
be awakened while being dragged because
G.R. No. those who have children know that most
244609 | young children, and even those in their pre-
September 8, teens, can be transferred, moved, or even
2020 | Reyes, lifted from one place to another by their
Jr. parents and can even be undressed and
dressed up without waking up.
(2) Lust respects no time and place; rape

defies constraint of time and space, The
abominable crime of rape can be committed
even in places where people congregate, in
parks, along the roadside, within school
premises, inside a house where there are
Page 31 of 50
other occupants, and even in the same room

where other members of the family are also
sleeping. It is known to happen even in the
most unlikely places. Hence, it is not
impossible or incredible for the members of
the victim's family to be in deep slumber and
not to be awakened while a sexual assault is
being committed.
(3) Comparing rape under the RPC with child

prostitution and other sexual abuse under
R.A. 7610, both are committed by a man.
However, rape consists in the carnal
knowledge of a woman, and is committed
through force, threat or intimidation; when the
offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority. Meanwhile, child prostitution and
other sexual abuse is committed when one
indulges in sexual intercourse with a female
child exploited in prostitution or other sexual
abuse, who is 12 years old or below 18 or
above 18 under special circumstances. It is
committed through coercion or influence of
any adult, syndicate, or group is employed
against the child to become a prostitute.
People v. Rape Statutory Rape The doctrine under (1)
Jagdon, Jr. (1) Statutory rape is committed by sexual is consistent with the
intercourse with a woman below 12 years of rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. age regardless of her consent, or the lack of People vs. XXX (2019),
242882 | it, to the sexual act. The elements necessary People vs. Celope
September 2, in every prosecution for statutory rape are: (2019), People vs.
2020 | Delos 1. the offended party is under 12 years of Bernabe (2019),
Santos, J. age; and People v. ABC (2019)
2. the accused had carnal knowledge of the People vs. De Vera
victim, regardless of whether there was (2020), People vs.
force, threat, or intimidation or grave Fetalco (2020), People
abuse of authority. vs. HHH (2020),
People v. Sulawat
Proof of force, intimidation or consent is (2020), People vs.
unnecessary as they are not elements of Rapiz (2020), People
statutory rape, considering that the absence vs. Tamano (2020).
of free consent is conclusively presumed
when the victim is below the age of 12. In People vs. XXX
(2019), the court also
(2) In statutory rape cases, the best evidence ruled that "In statutory
to prove the age of the offended party is the rape, time is not an
latter's birth certificate. But in certain cases, essential element
the Court admits of exceptions. In the except to prove that the
absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic victim was a minor
document, or the testimony of the victim's below twelve years of
mother or relatives concerning the victim's age at the time of the
age, the complainant's testimony will suffice
Page 32 of 50
provided that it is expressly and clearly commission of the

admitted by the accused. offense."
(3) Testimonies of rape victims who are

young and immature deserve full credence,
considering that no young woman, especially
of tender age, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by
being subject to a public trial, if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice
for the wrong committed against her. In fact,
youth and immaturity are generally badges of
truth.
(4) Rapists are not deterred from committing

the odious act of sexual abuse by the mere
presence of people nearby or even family
members; rape is committed not exclusively
in seclusion. Several cases instruct that lust
is no respecter of time or place and rape
defies constraint of time and space.
People v. Rape The crime is Statutory Rape under Art. This doctrine is
XXX 266-A (1) (d) when the victim is either (1) consistent with the
below the chronological age of 12 years rulings in the case of
G.R. No. old; or (2) has a mental age of a person People vs. De Vera
242988 | below 12 years old. (2020).
August 27,
2020 | Lopez, The term "deprived of reason," is associated
J. with insanity or madness. A person deprived
of reason has mental abnormalities that affect
his or her reasoning and perception of reality
and, therefore, his or her capacity to resist,
make decisions, and give consent.
The term "demented," refers to a person who

suffers from a mental condition called
dementia. Dementia refers to the
deterioration or loss of mental functions such
as memory, learning, speaking, and social
condition, which impairs one's independence
in everyday activities. We are aware that the
terms, "mental retardation" or "intellectual
disability," had been classified under
"deprived of reason." The terms, "deprived of
reason" and "demented," however, should be
differentiated from the term, "mentally
retarded" or "intellectually disabled."
Page 33 of 50
Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security

People v. Kidnapping Elements of Kidnapping This doctrine is
Mendoza y 1. Offender is a private individual or a public consistent with the
David officer who has no duty under the law to case of People vs.
detain a person; Mendiola (2020)
G.R. No. 2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
247712 | June other manner deprives the latter of his NOTE: The deprivation
10, 2020 | liberty; required under Article
Reyes Jr., J. 3. Detention or kidnapping is killing; and 267 means not only
4. In the commission of the offense, any of imprisonment in, but
the following circumstances is present: also the deprivation of
a. Kidnapping lasts for more than 3 complainant's liberty in
days; whatever form and for
b. It is committed simulating public whatever length of
authority; time.
c. Any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped It involves a situation
or detained or threats to kill him are where the victim
made; or cannot leave the place
d. Person kidnapped or detained is a of confinement or
minor, female, or a public officer. detention or is
restricted or impeded in
Significantly, if the person is kidnapped or his or her liberty to
detained for ransom, the duration of his move around. In other
detention is immaterial. words, the essence of
serious illegal
detention is the actual
deprivation of the
victim's liberty, coupled
with indubitable proof
of the intent of the
accused to effect such
deprivation. (People
vs. Mendiola [2020])
People v. Kidnapping Elements of kidnapping for ransom under
Reotutar Article 267 of the RPC:
1. Intent on the part of the accused to deprive
G.R. No. the victim of his/her liberty;
218915 | 2. Actual deprivation of the victim of his/her
February 19, liberty; and
2020 | 3. Motive of the accused, which is extorting
Hernando, J. ransom for the release of the victim.
In the special complex crime of

Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide,
the person kidnapped is killed in the course of
the detention, regardless of whether the
killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought.
Page 34 of 50
Crimes Against Property

Rosario v. Robbery Elements of robbery are:
People 1. There is a taking of personal property;
2. The personal property belongs to another;
G.R. No. 3. The taking is with animus lucrandi; and
235739 | July 4. The taking is with violence against or
22, 2019 | intimidation of persons or with force upon
Caguoia, J. things.
On the other hand, theft is committed by any

person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take the personal
property of another without the latter's
consent.
Thus, the distinguishing element between the

crimes of robbery and theft is the use of
violence or intimidation as a means of taking
the property belonging to another; the
element is present in the crime of robbery and
absent in the crime of theft.
People v. Robbery Robbery with Homicide
Francisco A conviction for robbery with homicide
requires certitude that the robbery is the main
G.R. No. purpose and objective of the malefactor, and
246580 | June the killing is merely incidental to the robbery.
23, 2020 | The intent to rob must precede the taking of
Lazaro-Javier, human life. The killing, however, may occur
J. before, during, or after the robbery. It is only
the result obtained, without reference to the
circumstances, causes, or modes or persons
intervening in the commission of the crime,
that has to be taken into consideration. It is
irrelevant if the victim of homicide is one of the
robbers. The felony would still be robbery with
homicide. Once a homicide is committed by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
felony committed is robbery with homicide.
As to conspiracy
When homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion of robbery, all those who took
part as principals in the robbery would also be
held liable as principals of the single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide
although they did not actually take part in the
killing. If a robber tries to prevent the
commission of homicide after the commission
of the robbery, however, he is guilty only of
robbery. All those who conspire to commit
robbery with homicide are guilty as principals
Page 35 of 50
of such crime, although not all profited and

gained from the robbery.
People v. Robbery (1) Robbery with homicide is an indivisible This doctrine is
Paran offense, a special complex crime. It carries a consistent with the
severe penalty because the law sees in this case of People vs.
G.R. No. crime that men place lucre above the value of Mancao (2019),
241322 | human life, thus justifying the imposition of a People vs. Sabaniya
September 8, harsher penalty than that for simple robbery (2019), People vs.
2020 | Peralta, or homicide. Robbery with homicide exists Sarmiento (2019),
J. when a homicide is committed either by People vs. Francisco
reason or on occasion of the robbery. (2020),
Homicide is said to have been committed by

reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for
instance, it was committed to:
1. Facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit;
2. Preserve the possession by the culprit of
the loot;
3. Prevent discovery of the commission of
the robbery; or (d) eliminate witnesses in
the commission of the crime.
(2) To sustain a conviction for robbery with

homicide, the following elements must be
proven by the prosecution:
1. The taking of personal property belonging
to another;
2. Taking was with intent to gain or animus
lucrandi;
3. It was with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person; and
4. It was on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in
its generic sense, was committed.
A conviction requires certitude that the

robbery is the main purpose and 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. Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi is
an internal act; hence, presumed from the
unlawful taking of things.
People v. Robbery Robbery with Rape
Yumol Robbery with rape is a special complex crime
that contemplates a situation where the
G.R. No. accused's original intent was to take, with
225600 | July intent to gain, personal property belonging to
7, 2020 | another and rape is committed on the
Lazaro-Javier occasion thereof or as an accompanying
crime. It requires the following elements:
Page 36 of 50
1. Taking of personal property is committed

with violence or intimidation against
persons;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking is characterized by intent to
gain or animus lucrandi; and
4. The robbery is accompanied by rape.
Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an

element of the crime of robbery, is an internal
act, hence, presumed from the unlawful
taking of things.
The natural reaction of victims of criminal

violence is to strive to see the appearance of
their assailants and observe the manner the
crime was committed.
People v. Robbery The crime of Robbery with Rape covers
Evardone multiple rapes accompanying the robbery and
all the rapes shall be merged in a single crime
G.R. No. of robbery with rape.
248204 |
August 24,
2020 |
Carandang, J.
Ledesma v. Robbery Elements of Robbery with Physical
People Injuries:
1. The taking of personal property;
G.R. No. 2. The property taken belongs to another;
238954 | 3. The taking is characterized by intent to
September gain or animus lucrandi;
14, 2020 | 4. the taking is with violence or intimidation
Delos Santos against the person; and
5. on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivisions 1 or 2, Article
263 of the Revised Penal Code shall have
been inflicted.
Puroc v. Estafa Elements of Estafa by postdating a check:
People 1. Postdating or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation contracted at the time the
G.R. No. check was issued;
221836 | 2. Lack of sufficient funds to cover the check;
August 14, 3. Knowledge on the part of the offender of
2019 | Reyes, such circumstances; and
Jr. 4. Damage to the complainant.
What sets apart the crime of estafa from the

other offense of this nature (i.e., Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22) is the element of deceit.
Deceit has been defined as "the false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by
words or conduct by false or misleading
allegations or by concealment of that which
Page 37 of 50
should have been disclosed which deceives

or is intended to deceive another so that he
shall act upon it to his legal injury." To
constitute estafa, deceit must be the efficient
cause of the defraudation; the issuance of the
check must have been the inducement for the
surrender by the party deceived of his money
or property. While it is true that no criminal
liability under the RPC arises from the mere
issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee
of repayment, this is not true in the instant
case where the element of deceit is attendant
in the issuance of the said checks. The
liability therefore is not merely civil, but
criminal.
Ibañez v. Estafa (1) Elements of Estafa with unfaithfulness Doctrine (1) is
People or abuse of confidence: consistent with the
1. Receipt of items in trust or under an ruling in the case of
G.R. No. obligation to return them or the proceeds Reside vs. People
198932 | of an authorized transaction; (2020).
October 9, 2. Misappropriation, conversion for personal
2019 | benefit or denial of such receipt;
Bersamin, J. 3. Entrustor or owner was prejudiced; and
4. Demand was made by the offended party.
(2) When the transaction entered into is a

contract of sale, the vendee does not receive
the property subject of the sale in trust or
under the obligation to return but as an owner
of the same. Vendee's failure to pay the
purchase price made the complainants
unpaid vendors whose right of action was
only to demand fulfillment or cancel the
obligation. The vendee does not incur
criminal liability for estafa.
Favis- Estafa Elements of Estafa by means of False
Velasco v. Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts:
Gonzales 1. There must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power,
G.R. No. influence, qualifications, property, credit,
239090 agency, business or imaginary
(Resolution) | transactions;
June 17, 2020 2. Such false pretense or fraudulent
| Inting, Jr. representation was made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;
3. The offended party relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means and was induced to part with his
money or property; and
4. As a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
Page 38 of 50
Co v. People Estafa Elements of Falsification of Private

Document
G.R. No. 1. That the offender committed any of the
233015 | acts of falsification, except those in
October 16, paragraph 7, enumerated in Article 171 of
2019 | the RPC;
Bersamin, J. 2. That the falsification was committed in any
private document; and
3. That the falsification caused damage to a
third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such
damage.
There is no complex crime of estafa

through falsification of a private
document, considering that the damage
essential to both is the same. The intent to
defraud in using the falsified private
document is part and parcel of the crime, and
cannot give rise to the crime of estafa,
because the damage, if it resulted, was
caused by, and became the element of, the
crime of falsification of private document. The
crime of estafa in such case was not
committed, as it could not exist without its
own element of damage.
When the information charges the accused to

have forged a private document to commit
fraud against another, the crime is falsification
of a private document instead of estafa. It is
the recital of the facts constitutive of the
offense, not the designation of the offense in
the information, that determines the crime
being charged against the accused.
If the falsification of a private document is

committed as means to commit estafa, the
proper crime to be charged is falsification. If
the estafa can be committed without the
necessity of falsifying a document, the proper
crime to be charged is estafa.
Soriano v. Estafa Elements of Falsification of Public, Official Note the difference as
People or Commercial Document: compared to Co v.
1. That the offender is a private individual or People (2019). In Co v.
G.R. No. a public officer or employee who did not People, the falsification
240458 | take advantage of his official position; was made to a private
January 8, 2. That he committed any of the acts of document and one of
2020 | Reyes, falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the elements of the
Jr., J. the RPC; and crime of such
3. That the falsification was committed in a falsification includes
public, official or commercial document. causing damage to a
third party or at least
Page 39 of 50
Falsification of Public, Official or the intent to cause

Commercial Document as Means to such damage.
Commit Estafa
The falsification of a public, official, or On the other hand, in
commercial document may be a means of this case, the crime
committing estafa, because before the was falsification of a
falsified document is actually utilized to public, official or
defraud another, the crime of falsification has commercial document,
already been consummated, damage or where the damage or
intent to cause damage not being an element the intent to cause
of the crime of falsification of public, official or such damage to a third
commercial document. In other words, the party is not an element.
crime of falsification has already existed.
Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or

commercial document to defraud another is
estafa. But the damage is caused by the
commission of estafa, not by the falsification
of the document. Therefore, the falsification of
the public, official or commercial document is
only a necessary means to commit estafa.
Quiambao v. Estafa The precise date of the commission of the
People offense is not required to be stated in the
information, unless it is a material ingredient.
G.R. No. In estafa, the time of occurrence is not a
195957 | material ingredient of the crime.
January 15,
2020 | Reyes,
Jr. J.
Arriola v. Estafa Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to
People comprise anything calculated to deceive,
including all acts, omissions, and
G.R. No. concealment involving a breach of legal or
199975 | equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly
February 24, reposed, resulting in damage to another, or
2020 | by which an undue and unconscientious
Hernando J. advantage is taken of another.
Gallardo v. Estafa Elements of Swindling:
People 1. There must be a false pretense, fraudulent
acts or fraudulent means;
G.R. No. 2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or
235724 | fraudulent means must be made or
Peralta, CJ executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud;
3. The offended party must have relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means and was thus induced to
part with his money or property; and
4. As a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
Grana v. Malicious Elements of malicious mischief:
People Mischief 1. The cause of deliberate destruction to the
property of another;
Page 40 of 50
G.R. No. 2. The destruction did not constitute arson or

202111 | other crime involving destruction; and
November 25, 3. The act of damaging another's property
2019 | was committed merely for the sake of
Hernando, J. damaging it.
Crimes Against Chastity

XXX v. Acts of Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under [SEE Special Penal
People Lascivious- the RPC: Laws – RA 7610 in
ness 1. The offender commits any act of relation with Art. 336 of
G.R. No. lasciviousness or Lewdness; the RPC ]
243151 | 2. That it is done:
September 2, a. By using force and intimidation; or
2019 | b. When the oﬀended party is deprived
Caguioa, J. of reason or otherwise unconscious;
or
c. When the oﬀended party is under 12
years of age; and
3. That the offended party is another person
of either sex.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

RA 9029 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003)
CASE DOCTRINE NOTES
People v. Mora Sec. 3 (a) of RA 9208 defines the term
"Trafficking in Persons" as the "recruitment,
G.R. No. 242682 | transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of
July 1, 2019 | persons with or without the victim's consent or
Perlas-Bernabe, J. knowledge, within or across national borders by
means of 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 benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the 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."
Case law instructs that "the victim's consent is

rendered meaningless due to the coercive,
abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking. 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."
Arambullo v. Qualified Trafficking in Persons
People Sec. 3 (a) of RA 9208 merely provides for the
general definition of "Trafficking in Persons" as
Page 41 of 50
G.R. No. 241834 | the specific acts punishable under the law are
July 24, 2019 | found in Sections 4 and 5 of the same (including
Perlas-Bernabe Sections 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C if the amendments
brought about by RA 10364 are taken into
consideration). This is evinced by Section 10
which provides for the penalties and sanctions for
committing the enumerated acts therein. Notably,
Section 10 (c) of RA 9208 also provides for
penalties for "Qualified Trafficking in Persons"
under Section 6. Nonetheless, since Section 6
only provides for circumstances which would
qualify the crime of "Human Trafficking,"
Elements of "Qualified Trafficking in

Persons":
1. Commission of any of the acts provided under
Sections 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, or 5; and
2. The existence of any of the circumstances
listed under Section 6.
People v. Lopez A conviction for qualified trafficking in persons This doctrine is consistent
may stand even if it does not involve any of the with the ruling with the cases
G.R. No. 234157 | means set forth in the first paragraph of Sec. 3 (a) of People vs. Maycabalong
July 15, 2020 | of R.A. No. 9208. (2019)
Gaerlan, J.
If the person trafficked is a child, we may do away
with discussions on whether or not the second
element was actually proven. It has been
recognized that even without the perpetrator's
use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a
minor's consent is not given out of his or her own
free will.
Elements of “Trafficking in Persons”:

1. The act of "recruitment, transportation,
transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons
with or without the victim's consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders";
2. The means used which may 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 benefits to achieve
the consent of a person having control over
another"; and
3. The purpose of trafficking 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." The crime is then qualified
when the trafficked person is a child below 18
years of age or one over 18 but is unable to
fully take care or protect himself/herself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
Page 42 of 50
discrimination because of a physical or mental

disability or condition.
People v. Although the actual performance of an act of

Leocadio prostitution or sexual exploitation does not affect
the consummation of the offense of qualified
G.R. No. 237697 | trafficking in persons, it makes a difference in the
July 15, 2020 | award of moral damages.
Peralta, J.
RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

CASE DOCTRINE NOTES
Chipoco v. R.A. No. 10660 provides that the reckoning
Sandiganbayan period to determine the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan in cases involving violations of
G.R. No. 239416 | R.A. No. 3019 is the time of the commission of
July 24, 2019 | the offense (not the time of the institution of the
Reyes, Jr. J action).
However, it is clear from the transitory provision

of R.A. No. 10660 that the amendment introduced
regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
shall apply to cases arising from offenses
committed after the effectivity of the law.
In this case, while the Informations were filed on

July 14, 2017, the alleged offenses were
committed by petitioner on November 3, 2014,
which was six months before the effectivity of
R.A. No. 10660 on May 5, 2015. Hence, the
Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion when
it denied the motion to quash the Informations
since R.A. No. 10660 finds no application to
petitioner's case.
To stress, Section 4 (a) of P.D. No. 1606, as

amended by R.A. No. 8249, provides, among
others, that officials of the executive branch
occupying positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and
higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 and those specifically
enumerated positions therein, i.e. , without regard
to salary grade, which include the position of,
among others, Vice Mayors, are within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan if these public officials commit
crimes involving: (a) violations of R.A. No. 3019,
as amended, R.A. No. 1379, and Chapter II,
Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;
and (b) other offenses or felonies committed in
relation to their office.
Page 43 of 50
Ampongan v. In order to be liable for violation of Section 3(h) of

Sandiganbayan R.A. No. 3019, the prosecution must also
sufficiently show that the accused has a
G.R. Nos. 234670- pecuniary interest over the contracts which she
71 | August 14, intervened in.
2019 | Peralta, J.
The existence of relationship per se does not
automatically translate to having direct or indirect
financial interest in the subject contracts. Mere
allegation that the parties are related to each
other is not conclusive proof of such pecuniary
interest. The assistance rendered to a sibling
maybe by reason of love or some other concept
of familial duty, without not necessarily
contemplating any monetary gain.
Dormido v. The Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct
Ombudsman the necessary investigation of any administrative
act or omission complained of if it believes that:
G.R. No. 198241 | 1. The complainant has an adequate remedy in
February 24, 2020 | another judicial or quasi-judicial body;
Hernando, J. 2. The complaint pertains to a matter outside the
jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman
(RA No. 6770, Sec. 20.)
Canlas v. People Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found
G.R. Nos. 236308- guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under
09 (Resolution) | Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019.
February 17, 2020 |
Inting, J. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of
the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public
officers and private persons alike constituting
graft or corrupt practices act or which may lead
thereto.
Villanueva v. Elements of Sec. 3 (d) of RA 3019, Corrupt
People Practices of a Public Officer:
1. Accused is a public officer;
G.R. No. 237864 | 2. He or she accepted or has a member of his or
July 8, 2020 | Delos her family who accepted employment in a
Santos, Jr. private enterprise; and,
3. Such private enterprise has a pending official
business with the public officer during the
pendency of official business or within one
year from its termination.
Roy v. Elements of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, Corrupt This is consistent with the
Ombudsman Practices of a Public Officer: ruling in People vs.
1. Accused must be a public officer discharging Sandiganbayan (2019),
G.R. No. 225718 | administrative, judicial, or official function; Cabrera vs. SB (2019), and
March 4, 2020 | AB 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, People v. Bacaltos (2020).
Reyes, Jr. evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence;
and
3. His action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or gave any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Page 44 of 50
Non v. Three (3) modes by which Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. This doctrine is consistent
Ombudsman 3019 may be committed by a public officer - with the rulings in the cases of
through: People vs. Bacaltos (2020),
1. Manifest partiality, Roy vs. Ombudsman (2020)
G.R. No. 239168 | 2. Evident bad faith; or
September 15, 3. Gross inexcusable negligence.
2020 | Reyes, Jr. J.
"Partiality" connotes bias which excites a
disposition to see and report matters as they are
wished for rather than as they are.
"Bad faith" meanwhile does not simply connote

bad judgment or negligence. It imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn
duty through some motive, or intent, or ill will, and
partakes of the nature of a fraud.
"Gross negligence" refers to negligence

characterized by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there
is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and
intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected. It is that omission of care which even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take
on their own property.
Sombrero v. Elements of Plunder: This doctrine is consistent
Ombudsman and 1. Offender is a public officer, who acts by with the rulings in the cases of
NBI himself or in connivance with members of his Coloma vs. People (2020)
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
G.R. No. business associates, subordinates or other
237888/237904 | persons;
July 28, 2020 | 2. He amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
Reyes, Jr. gotten wealth through a combination or series
of overt or criminal acts described in Section 1
(d) of the law; and
3. The aggregate amount or total value of the ill-
gotten wealth amassed, accumulated, or
acquired is at least P50 Million Pesos.
Sideño vs. People Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No.
10660 provides that: "The Sandiganbayan shall
G.R. No. 235640 | exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
September 3, 2020 judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial
| Peralta, J. courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction as herein provided. "
In this case, Sideño, through his counsel, had

taken a wrong procedure. upon his conviction,
Sideño's remedy should have been an appeal to
the SB pursuant to the above law. However, the
peculiar circumstances of the case at bench
constrain the Court to relax and suspend the rules
Page 45 of 50
to give Sideño a chance to seek relief from the

SB. The Court has the power to except a
particular case from the operation of the rule
whenever the purpose of equity and substantial
justice requires it.
Other elements that are to be considered are the

following:
1. Existence of special or compelling
circumstances,
2. Merits of the case,
3. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules,
4. Lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory,
5. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby. All these factors are attendant in this
case.
RA 7610 (Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special

Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination)
CASE DOCTRINE NOTES
Capueta v. People Elements of Sexual Abuse under Sec. 5, This doctrine is consistent
Article III of RA 7610: with the rulings in the cases of
G.R. No. 240145 | 1. Accused commits the act of sexual People vs. BBB (2019), Mora
September 14, intercourse or lascivious conduct; vs. People (2019), Plaintiff vs.
2020 | Delos 2. Said act is performed with a child exploited in BBB (2019), People vs.
Santos, J. prostitution or subjected to other sexual Celope (2019), People vs.
abuse; and Villareal (2019), XXX vs.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 People (2019), People vs.
years of age. ZZZ (2019), People vs. ABC
(2019), People vs. ZZZ
(2019) [G.R. No. 232500],
People vs. Chavez (2019),
People vs. Bernabe (2019),
People vs. Cleope (2019),
People vs. Pueyo (2020),
People vs. Jagdon, Jr. (2020),
Mendoza vs. People (2020).
Additionally, the Court
discussed the elements of the
crime in the case of People v.
Francisco (2020) as follows:
For Element 1 - RA 7610 IRR

defines lascivious conduct as
a crime committed through
the intentional touching,
either directly or through the
clothing of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh or
buttocks with the intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass,
Page 46 of 50
degrade, or arouse or gratify

the sexual desire of any
person, among others.
For Element 2 – the law

requires that the lascivious
conduct be committed on a
child who is either exploited in
prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse. This
second element requires
evidence proving that: (a) the
victim was either exploited in
prostitution or subjected to
sexual abuse; and (b) the
victim is a child as defined
under RA 7610 (People vs.
Francisco [2020])
People v. Ybiosa (1) Statutory rape and statutory acts of The doctrine in (1) is
lasciviousness are punishable under the RPC consistent with the ruling of
G.R. No. 242512 | and RA 7610. RA 8353, amending the RPC, the Court in People vs.
August 14, 2019 | should now be uniformly applied in cases Avelino (2019) where the
Reyes, Jr., J. involving sexual intercourse committed against court ruled that RA 7610 is
minors, and not Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610. only applicable where the
victims are children exploited
Indeed, while RA 7610 has been considered as a in prostitution or other sexual
special law that covers the sexual abuse of abuse. Hence, when the
minors, RA 8353 has expanded the reach of our victim was not an exploited
already existing rape laws. These existing rape child who indulged in sexual
laws should not only pertain to the old Article 335 intercourse for money or profit
of the RPC but also to the provision on sexual or any other consideration,
intercourse under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610 which, the provisions of the RPC
applying Quimvel's characterization of a child (Art. 266) shall apply.
"exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
abuse," virtually punishes the rape of a minor.
(2) In People v. Ladra, the Court held that "before

an accused can be held criminally liable for
lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610,
the requisites of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of
the RPC must be met."
People v. XXX (1) An accused may be held guilty of acts of The doctrine under (2) is
lasciviousness performed on a child, i.e., consistent with the rulings in
G.R. No. 233463 | lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610, the cases of XXX vs. People
February 19, 2020 | which was the offense proved, because it is (2019), People vs. XXX
Zalameda, J. included in rape, the offense charged. (2020), and People v. Nocido
(2020).
(2) Factors to consider the proper penalty under
Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610 in relation with rape via Note: A comprehensive table
carnal knowledge and sexual assault in the RPC, of penalties for sexual assault
as amended by RA 8353: and rape is found in the case
1. The age of the victim is taken into of People vs. Tulagan, G.R.
consideration in designating or charging the
Page 47 of 50
offense, and in determining the imposable No. 227363, March 12, 2019
penalty. (People vs. Mabajen [2020]).
2. If the victim is under 12 years of age, the
nomenclature of the crime should be "Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC
in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610."
Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b)
of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
3. If the victim is exactly 12 years of age, or more
than 12 but below 18 years of age, or is 18
years old or older but is unable to fully take
care of herself/himself or protect
herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition, the
crime should be designated as "Lascivious
Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,"
and the imposable penalty is reclusion
temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua.
RA 8042 (Migrant and Overseas Act of 1995)

CASE DOCTRINE NOTES
People v. Section 6(m) of RA 8042 (Large Scale Illegal
Catagbui Recruitment) criminalizes the failure to reimburse
documentation and processing expenses
G.R. No. 226140 | incurred by the applicant in case of non-
February 26, 2020 | deployment, and not the failure to deploy, which
Caguioa, J. is covered by a different provision. Thus, making
it incumbent upon recruitment agencies, under
pain of criminal sanction, to promptly reimburse
applicants when they are not deployed without
their fault, as it is the agency itself that knows of
the schedule of deployment, persons to be
deployed, failure to deploy, and the reasons
therefor.
The offense of illegal recruitment is malum

prohibitum where the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction, while
estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of
the accused is crucial for conviction.
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code

does not bar conviction for offenses punishable
by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa
under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the RPC does not
bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code. It follows that one's acquittal of the
crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his
acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale, and vice versa. In the same manner, a
conviction for Illegal Recruitment does not
Page 48 of 50
automatically result to a conviction for Estafa. The

prosecution must still prove the elements of the
offense.
People v. David Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either
non-license or license holders. Non-license
G.R. No. 233089 | holders are liable by the simple act of engaging in
June 29, 2020 | recruitment and placement activities, while
Inting, J. license holders may also be held liable for
committing the acts prohibited under Section 6 of
RA 8042.
People v. Bautista An illegal recruiter may be held liable for the This doctrine is consistent
crimes of illegal recruitment committed in large with the ruling in the case of
G.R. No. 218582 | scale and estafa without risk of being put in People vs. Palicpic (2020).
September 3, 2020 double jeopardy, for as long as the accused has
| Caguioa, J. been so charged under separate Informations.
Elements of illegal recruitment:

1. The person charged with the crime must have
undertaken recruitment activities, or any of the
activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor
Code, as amended; and
2. Said person does not have a license or
authority to do so.
Elements of Illegal Recruitment in a large

scale:
1. The accused engaged in acts of recruitment
and placement of workers defined under
Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities
under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
2. The accused has not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment, particularly with respect to
the securing of a license or an authority to
recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
overseas; and
3. The accused commits the unlawful acts
against three or more persons, individually or
as a group.
BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

CASE DOCTRINE NOTES
Saulo v. People Elements for violation of B.P. 22:
1. The making, drawing and issuance of any
G.R. No. 242900 | check to apply for account or for value;
June 8, 2020 | 2. the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer
Reyes, Jr., J. that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; and
3. the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
Page 49 of 50
bank to stop payment. Under B.P. 22, the

mere issuance of a worthless check is already
the offense in itself.
Ongkingco vs. As to the second element of B.P. 22:
People Inasmuch as the second element [knowledge at
time of issuance that he/se has insufficient
G.R. No. 217787 | credit/funds in drawee bank] involves a state of
September 18, mind of the person making, drawing or issuing the
2019 | Peralta, J. check which is difficult to prove, Section 2 of B.P.
22 creates a prima facie presumption of such
knowledge For this presumption to arise, the
prosecution must prove the following:
1. The check is presented within ninety (90) days
from the date of the check;
2. The drawer or maker of the check receives
notice that such check has not been paid by
the drawee; and
3. The drawer or maker of the check fails to pay
the holder of the check the amount due
thereon or make arrangements for payment in
full within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by
the drawee.
In other words, the presumption is brought into

existence only after it is proved that the issuer
had received a notice of dishonor and that within
five (5) days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay
the amount of the check or to make arrangements
for its payment. The presumption or prima facie
evidence, as provided in this Section, cannot
arise if such notice of nonpayment by the drawee
bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there
is no proof as to when such notice was received
by the drawer, since there would simply be no
way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
Page 50 of 50

Criminal Law Canonical Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Canonical Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.

The better approach to distinguish between

In this case, the Court ruled that the violation

(3) Consummated - when all the elements (2015), People v.

If one inflicts physical injuries on another but

Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of:

To successfully claim self-defense, the

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part

In the instant case, it was held that there was

Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary

The essence of voluntary surrender is

the trouble and expense that may be incurred

A threat of future injury is insufficient. The

The mere suddenness of an attack does not

Even though the victim may have been

defend himself, or to retreat, or even to seek

Exempting Circumstance: Insanity

A schizophrenic person may have non-

Intent as distinguished from discernment:

Discernment – mental capacity to

There is no treachery when a person is not an

to his life coming from his assailants. Here,

Also, the qualifying circumstance of treachery

Thus, in determining whether the qualifying

Degree of commission of a felony and decide to commit rulings in the cases of

One who participates in the material

constitute sufficient basis for concluding that

Active participation in the entire scheme was

It is sufficient that the

There are equally two ways of committing

Directly forcing another to commit a crime

Whereas, directly inducing the

a natural consequence by the mere conferral

Among the amendments introduced by R.A.

Section 3, Rule V and Section 1, Rule VIII of

In the instant case, the accused’s civil liability

In falsification of public or official documents,

The prosecution must establish with moral

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

An offense charged necessarily includes that

The transport of the illegal drugs would

(2) In determining whether amount of seized

official duty required by law; where the official act

(b) Representative of the National People vs. Lucas (2019),

In case the presence of any or all the insulating

Also termed as the saving

Under existing regulations of the Dangerous

(2) Confirmatory test is "an analytical test using

The law does not qualify that said instances must

Thus, upon acceptance of a plea bargain, the

Moreover, regardless of the amount of the

There is no definitive moment when an accused is a malum prohibitum since it

Crimes Committed by Public Officers

G.R. No. 2. He or she had custody or control of funds

Malversation is committed either

Crimes Against Persons

The doctrine in this

Albino (2019), People

People v. Murder – Once it appears that the victim was

Applying Article 63 (2) of the RPC, the lesser

G.R. No. complainant. On the one hand, the accused

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided

In this case, the court ruled that the