Atty. Yebra - UPDATED Criminal Law Hernando Doctrines 2023 Bar

Atty. Alloysius R.
Yebra
“Think of the life you have lived until now as over
and, as a dead man, see what’s left as a bonus
and live it according to Nature. Love the hand
that fate deals you and play it as your own, for
what could be more fitting.”
-Marcus Aurelius
a. In mala in se, by itself the act is inherently wrong (ex. killing another person) while in mala
prohibitum the act is merely prohibited by law (ex. smoking or jay walking);
b. In acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in those mala prohibitum the only inquiry is whether the
law has been violated
c. Stages of commission under Art. 6 of RPC are considered in mala in se but not in mala prohibitum;
(Unless the offense malum prohibitum specifically provides for stages, e.g., RA9165)
d. Degree of participation under Title II of RPC is considered in mala in se but not in mala Prohibitum;
e. In mala in se, modifying circumstances are considered in determining imposable penalty but not
mala prohibitum; and
f. In mala in se, the crimes are generally defined and punished under RPC while crimes considered
mala prohibitum are generally defined and punished under special penal laws.
Illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A.
No. 9165 is a crime malum prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because
there is a law prohibiting it.
Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime malum prohibitum, the degree
of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited
act are penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory
to consider.
The degree of participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the
penalty on all of them are the same whether they are principals or merely accomplices
or accessories.
G.R. No. L-5272; March 19, 1910
In the Ah Chong case, defendant therein after having gone to bed was
awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, "who is
there," but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he
leaped from his bed and called out again., "If you enter the room I will kill
you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by a chair which had been
placed against the door and believing that he was then being attacked, he
seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who
turned out to be his room-mate.
Valid Defense of Good Faith PROVIDED there be No Negligence.

G.R. No. 251636; February 14, 2022; Hernando, J.
Although an act prohibited by a special law does not automatically make it malum
prohibitum, the act of unauthorized occupancy of seashore without the necessary permit
punished under Article 91 (B) (3) of PD 1067 is considered malum prohibitum. The test to
determine when the act is mala in se and not malum prohibitum is whether it is
inherently immoral or the vileness of the penalized act. The mere occupancy and
construction of various structures by Constantino et.al. on the subject foreshore land
without the necessary permit is not inherently immoral but constitutes a violation of and
penalized by Article 91 (B) (3) of PD 1067. Hence, as malum prohibitum, Constantino et al.'s
pending foreshore lease application over the subject area with the DENR is not a defense
to exculpate them of the criminal charge
G.R. No. 251636; February 14, 2022; Hernando, J.
To reiterate, Constantino et.al. admitted that they occupied and constructed

various structures on the foreshore land without the necessary permit, and
during the pendency of their foreshore lease application with the DENR. Intent
is immaterial. Hence, despite their good intention, the pendency of their foreshore
lease application, or the restoration of their possession in a forcible entry case, the
offense is already committed which warrants the application and implementation of
PD 1067.
G.R. No. 214960; June 15, 2022; Hernando, J.
The Court stated that the offense of violation of the Trust Receipts Law is malum
prohibitum; mere failure to turn over the proceeds of the sale, or to return the goods
themselves is not sold, amounts to the violation. Moreover, intent to defraud is
immaterial.
In their defense, Chua et al. alleged that NF ABC was severely affected by the Asian
Financial Crisis in 1999 to 2000, and by the successive typhoons that hit the
Philippines. The goods covered by the trust receipts were perishable. They
encountered difficulties in looking for buyers, so they had to sell the goods at a non-
profitable price, while some of the goods perished.
Will apply to people who Philippines will have No felony shall be
commit any criminal act jurisdiction over crimes punishable by any
committed within the committed inside its penalty not prescribed
territory of the territory except as by law prior to its
Philippines and will provided for in treaties commission (Art. 21,
generally deal with the and laws of preferential RPC). Penal laws shall
characteristic of the application and will have a retroactive effect
person accused of normally deal with the in so far as (a) they are
committing the crime characteristic of the favorable to the
(Art. 14, Civil Code). place where the crime accused; and (b) if the
was committed (Art. 2, accused is not a habitual
RPC). delinquent (Art. 22,RPC).
Penal laws and those of public (a) Generally accepted
security and safety shall be principles of international law;
obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory,
(b) Treaty stipulations; and
subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty
stipulations (Art. 14, NCC).
(c) Laws of preferential
Regardless of nationality, color, application.
race, religion, creed or other
personal circumstances.
General Rule: Art. 2, RPC – Except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential
application, Penal laws shall have force and effect within the Philippine
archipelago including its atmosphere, interior waters, and maritime zones.
Art. 1, 1987 Constitution - The National Territory comprises the Philippine

archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed,
the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Exception; Extra-Territoriality Principle: (a) should commit an offense while
on a Philippine ship or airship; (b) should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued
by the Government of the Philippine Islands; (c) should be liable for acts
connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number; (d) while being public officers
or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
(e) should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code – these crimes affects
national peace, security and economy of the country.
Exception; Ex-territoriality Principle: Philippine Embassies
Abroad, Government and Military Vessels and Aircrafts.
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless Retroactive Application will be favorable to
the contrary is provided (Art. 4, NCC). Other the accused unless he is a habitual
sources of this principle – (a) Constitutional delinquent.
guarantee against Ex Post Facto Law, (b)
Constitutional guarantee against deprivation Art. 22, RPC – Penal laws shall have a
of liberty without due process of law, (c) Art. retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
21, RPC – No felony shall be punishable by any persons guilty of a felony, who is not a
penalty not prescribed by law prior to its habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
commission, (d) Art. 366, RPC – Felonies and Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at
misdemeanors, committed prior to the date the time of the publication of such laws a final
of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished sentence has been pronounced and the
in accordance with the Code or Acts in force convict is serving the same.
at the time of their commission.
Penal laws and laws penal in
nature are to be construed and
applied in a way lenient or liberal
to the offender, constant to and
consistent with the
constitutional guarantee that an
accused shall be presumed
innocent until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable
doubt.
431 SCRA 266, 284 [2004]
Following the Pro Reo Doctrine, under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, crimes are complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e.,
that prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its
maximum period), The rationale being, that the accused who
commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser
perversity that when the crimes are committed by different acts and
several criminal resolutions.
REMEMBER!
Art. 48 shall be applied only
when it would bring about the
imposition of a penalty lesser
than the penalties if prosecuted
separately instead of being
complexed.
G.R. No. L-1563, July 31, 1947
A crime is complex when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other,
where the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.
1. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a

complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified
but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the
necessary means to commit the other.
G.R. No. L-1563, July 31, 1947
2. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is
specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to
the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period.
3. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony

that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the
subject of a separate information
A complex crime is defined under A special complex crime is defined
Article 48 and is committed by with by law and, by nature, does not
the offender performing only one consist of only one act but is
act that results in: (a) either two or punished with only one penalty.
more grave or less grave felonies, or The penalty for a complex crime is
(b) that one felony becoming the the maximum of the most serious
means to commit another felony offense in its maximum period,
regardless of the classification. while the penalty for a special
complex crime is the penalty that
the law prescribes.
GR No. 218210 | October 9, 2019 | Hernando, J.
It is a known criminal law concept that rape with homicide is a special complex crime or
"two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the
product of a single criminal impulse." The said felony is penalized by Articles 266-A, paragraph
(1), and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code
The elements of the special complex crime of rape with homicide are as follows:
(1) The appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) Carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation;
and
(3) By reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation,
the appellant killed a woman.
G.R. No. 218915 | February 19, 2020 | Hernando, J.
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended,
are as follows:
1. Intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his/her liberty;
2. Actual deprivation of the victim of his/her liberty; and
3. Motive of the accused, which is extorting 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.
GR No. 223103 | February 24, 2020 | Hernando, J.
There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and

double frustrated homicide. The offense should have been
designated as robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed. These other felonies
have, at the most and under appropriate circumstances, been
considered merely as generic aggravating circumstances which
can be offset by mitigating circumstances.
If no death supervenes, the accused should be held liable for

separate crimes of robbery and frustrated or attempted
homicide or murder (provided that there was intent to kill) if the
latter offenses were not necessary for the commission of the
robbery, or for a complex crime of robbery and frustrated or
attempted homicide or murder under Article 48 of the Code if
the latter offenses were the necessary means for the
commission of robbery.
Proximate cause is the civil law
principle which underpins
Article 4(1) and makes one
liable for all the natural and
continuous results of his act if
the same produces a sequence
that is unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause.
Mistake in the identity Mistake in the blow where Occurs when the injury is
the offender intends the on the intended victim but
of the victim. There is
injury on one person but the resulting consequence
only one offended party the harm fell on another. is so grave a wrong than
but the offender There are three persons what is intended. It is a
committed a mistake in present: the offender, the mitigating circumstance
ascertaining the intended victim and the under Art. 13, RPC unless
identity of the victim. actual victim. The act may the acts performed by the
result in a complex crime accused are sufficient to
or in two or more separate bring out the graver
felonies depending on offense in which case
whether the resulting there is no recourse to
felonies are grave, less praeter intentionem.
grave or light.
ABERRATIO ICTUS Mistake in the Blow
ERROR IN PERSONAE Mistake in the Identity
Consequence Went Beyond The

PRAETER INTENTIONEM
Intention
ABERRATIO ICTUS
G.R. No. 235016, September 8, 2020
Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied in Article 4 of the

RPC, criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed in violation of
law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
Thus, while it may not have been appellant's intention to shoot Jonabel,
this fact alone will not exculpate him of his criminal liability. Jonabel's
death was unquestionably the natural and direct consequence of
appellant's felonious deadly assault against Gerry.
ERROR IN PERSONAE
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
G.R. No. 189834; March 30, 2011
Praeter intentionem is obtaining when there is a

notable disparity between the means employed by
the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting
crime committed.
An exempting circumstance affects
the actor, not the act, which remains
wrongful. The actor is not liable due to
the impairment of his freedom,
intelligence, and will thus precluding
the formation of a criminal intent, thus
ruling out dolo. Because the act
remains a crime, civil liability remains
except for the circumstance under
Article 12(4) (“accident”).
G.R. No. 151085
The basic reason behind the enactment of exempting

circumstances is the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused.
To avail of exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish:
1. The existence of an uncontrollable fear;

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.
The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the

accused to escape
Version of Defense
Labuguen and Zuñiga argue that the appellate court erred in not considering in favor of appellant Zuñiga the
exempting circumstance of irresistible force and/or uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Zuñiga
posits that he was compelled or forced at gunpoint by Albano to join them in robbing the house of Padre, and if
he will resist, something bad will happen to him and his family.
As the CA found, there was no genuine, imminent, and reasonable threat to his life and his family as he was
an active participant in the commission of the crime charged. He acted on his own free will and was not
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear as he claims. Moreover, as correctly argued by the Office of the
Solicitor General, Zuñiga had every opportunity to escape while they were passing through the cornfields on
their way to the Padre's house. However, he did not avail of the said chance. He did not perform any overt act to
dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.
While he refused to kill Rachel, he nonetheless delivered the fatal blow to Manuel's head and stabbed Nenita at
her back using a chopping knife without any prodding or compulsion from his companions.
Those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to
increase the penalty without
however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty .
Aggravating circumstances are

situations intentionally pursued
by the offender or violator to
insure the successful conclusion
of his or her criminal design, plan,
and/or execution.
A generic aggravating A qualifying aggravating
circumstance increases the penalty circumstance gives the crime its
which should be imposed upon the proper and exclusive name and
accused to the maximum period places the author thereof in such a
but without exceeding the limit situation as to deserve no other
prescribed. penalty than that specially
prescribed by law for said crime.
Morover, it may be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance Moroever, itcannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance
since it is considered as an
ingredient of the crime.
GR No. 191759 | March 02, 2020 | Hernando, J.
In order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following

requisites must be shown:
1. The employment of means, method, or manner of execution that would ensure the safety
of the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, and
2. The means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the
offender.
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.
Appellant's sudden attack on Mijares while asleep in his own home amply demonstrates
treachery in the commission of the crime. Mijares had no inkling of the impending attack
that night; or any peril to his person as he felt secured in his home. Mijares was not able to put
up an effective defense.
Although he kicked and pushed the appellant out of their room, this did not negate the
presence of treachery. In People v. Baltazar, it was ruled that treachery must still be
appreciated even if the victim was able to retaliate as a result of his reflexes, so long as he did
not have the opportunity to repel the initial assault. The appellant consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods or form of attack in order to ensure the execution of
the crime.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim, denying the latter any chance to protect himself, and thereby
ensuring its commission without posing any risk to the aggressor.
Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or that
were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of
opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. Stated
otherwise, there can be no treachery when the attack is preceded by a heated exchange
of words between the accused and the victim, or when the victim is aware of the hostility
of the assailant towards the former.
G.R. No. 234780 | March 17, 2021 | Hernando, J.
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there is

treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.
In People v. Calinawan, the Court enumerated the following elements that must
be established for treachery to be appreciated:
(1) At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
2) The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,

methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
Mere conspiracy or proposal Conspiracy and proposal to
to commit a felony is not commit felony are punishable
punishable since they are only in cases in which the law
only preparatory acts. They specially provides a penalty
are not the overt acts that therefore (RPC, Art.8)
amount to the
commencement of a felony.
1. Two or more persons came to an
agreement;
2. The agreement concerned the

commission of a felony; and
3. The execution of the felony be

decided upon
• Treason
• Rebellion
• Insurrection
• Coup d' etat
• Sedition
• Monopolies (and combinations in
restraint of trade)
• Selected acts committed under the
Dangerous Drugs Act
• Arson
• Terrorism under the Human
Security Act
• Espionage
• Anti-Child Pornography Act
• Access Device Fraud
• Money Laundering
Unity of Design and
Common Purpose
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. While it is true that the elements of
conspiracy must be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt — necessary to establish
the physical acts constituting the crime itself, this is not to say that direct proof of such
conspiracy is always required.
The existence of conspiracy need not, at all times, be established by direct evidence; nor is
it necessary to prove prior agreement between the accused to commit the crime
charged. Thus, the rule is well-settled that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, where such conduct
reasonably shows community of criminal purpose or design.
July 31, 1974
In implied conspiracy where the conspiracy is instantaneous at the

moment of the commission of the crime - it is essential for criminal
liability that the conspirator participated in the commission of the
crime. His mere presence or approval of the crime, without more,
will not make him liable, since there would be no basis for
deducing conspiracy as to him, as there is absence of criminis
particeps (a partner in crime; one who take part in a crime; a co-
conspirator).
G.R. No. 62359; November 14, 1991
Mere knowledge, asquiescence to, or approval of the act

without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy absent
the intentional participation in the act with a view to the
furtherance of the common design and purpose.
G.R. No. 211053; November 29, 2017
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is

often resorted to in order to prove its existence. absent of any direct
proof, as in the present case, conspiracy may be deduced from the mode,
method, and manner the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the
acts of the accused themselves, when such acts point to a joint purpose
and design, concerted action, and community of interest. an accused
participates as a conspirator if he or she has performed some overt act as a
direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be
committed.
G.R. No. 211053; November 29, 2017
The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission
of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-
conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime, or by
exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. stated
otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement and
decision to commit the crime; it is sufficient that the malefactors acted in
concert pursuant to the same objective.
G.R. Nos. 215104, 215120, 215147, 215212, 215354-55, 215377, 215923 & 215541; March 18, 2021
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. in a catena of cases decided by the court, it has
been consistently ruled that a mere signature or approval
appearing on a document does not meet the required
quantum of proof to establish the existence of conspiracy.
G.R. NO. 175926 JULY 6, 2011
Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for

conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time
to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and
reflection. instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
subject felony.
• Death • Reculsion • Prision • Arresto
Perpetua
Correctional Menor
• Reclusion
Temporal • Arresto • Public
• Perpetual or mayor Censure
Temporary • Suspension
Absolute
Disqualification
• Destierro
• Perpetual or
Temporary
Special
Disqualification
• Prision mayor
Fine whether imposed as single or as an
AFFLICTIVE alternative penalty is, if such is over
P1,200,000

CORRECTIONAL alternative penalty is, if such is from P40,000
to P1,200,000

LIGHT PENALTY alternative penalty is, if less than P40,000
RECLUSION PERPETUA 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
RECLUSION TEMPORAL 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
6 years and 1 day to 12 years, except when

PRISION MAYOR AND
disqualification is accessory penalty, in which its
TEMPORARY DISQUALIFICATION
duration is that of the principal penalty
6 years and 1 day to 6 years, except when

PRISION CORRECTIONAL,
disqualification is accessory penalty, in which its
SUSPENSION AND DESTIERRO
duration is that of the principal penalty
ARRESTO MAYOR 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
ARRESTO MENOR 1 month to 30 days
The period during which the bond shall be

BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
effective is discretionary on the court
When a convict is to serve more than
one sentence, the rule is that he must
serve them simultaneously if possible
but successively if not possible. In the
latter situation, the order of severity of
penalties in Article 70 would
determine the order of service. The
three fold rule qualifies the actual
length of service of successive
sentences to three times the length of
the time corresponding the most
severe of the penalties under Article 70
but in no case to exceed 40 years.
• The maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than 3 times the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
• But in no case to exceed 40 years.
• This rule shall apply only when the convict is to serve 4 or more sentence successively.
• Subsidiary imprisonment form part of the penalty.
• All of the penalties, even if imposed for difference crimes by different courts at different times,
cannot exceed three-fold the most severe penalty.
• Inf the sum total of all the penalties does no exceed the most severe of all the penalties multiplied
by three, the three-fold rule does not apply.
A person is sentenced to suffer- 14 years, 8 months and 1 day for
homicide; 17 years, 4' months and 1 day in another case; 14 years and
8 months in the third case; and in a case of frustrated homicide, he is
sentenced to 12 years, or a total of 59 years, 8 months and 2 days.
The most severe of those penalties is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day.

Three times that penalty is 52 years and 3 days. But since the law has
limited the duration of the maximum term of imprisonment to not
more than 40 years, the accused will have to suffer 40 years only.
Good conduct time allowance or
GCTA is a sentence reduction
provision afforded prisoners who
show good behavior. It has been
in existence since 1906. Act 1533
provided for the “diminution of
sentences imposed upon
prisoners” in consideration of
good conduct and diligence.
The benefit of Article 97 is extended to detention
prisoners as long as they are qualified for credit for
preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29.
• Recidivists or convicted previously twice or more of
any crime;
• When upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence they failed to voluntarily surrender;
• Habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged
with heinous crimes added by R.A. 10592 as excluded
from the coverage of the provision.
20 days for each month of good behavior
FIRST TWO YEARS during detention
THIRD TO FIFTH YEAR, INCLUSIVE, 23 days for each month of good behavior
OF HIS IMPRISONMENT during detention
SIXTH UNTIL TENTH YEAR, 25 days for each month of good behavior
INCLUSIVE, OF HIS IMPRISONMENT during detention
ELEVENTH AND SUCCESSIVE 20 days for each month of good behavior

YEARS OF HIS IMPRISONMENT during detention
Another deduction of 15 days, in addition to
AT ANY TIME DURING THE
numbers 1-4 hereof for each month of service time
PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT rendered for: study; teaching; or mentoring.
UDK-15368 | September 15, 2021| Hernando, J.
The last paragraph of Section 1 of the GCTA Law reads: “... Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of
this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.”
"Heinous Crimes" — Crimes which are grievous, odious and hateful to the senses and which, by
reason of their inherent and/or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a
just, civilized and ordered society, including crimes which are mandatorily punishable by Death
under the provisions of RA No. 7659, as amended, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and
those crimes specifically declared as such by the Supreme Court.
I
UDK-15368 | September 15, 2021| Hernando, J.
It is evident that the crime of Murder is one that is mandatorily punishable by

death, in accordance with the Death Penalty Law. Being as such, it falls within the
definition of "heinous crimes" in the 2019 Revised IRR and is therefore considered
as a heinous crime. Murder is considered a heinous crime in so far as the GCTA
Law is concerned, and persons charged with and/or convicted of such are
disqualified from availing of the benefits of the law.
To be qualified to murder, the killing must be committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
b. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise
c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a

vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship,
by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin.
d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
e. With evident premeditation.
f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the

suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
(Art. 248, RPC)
G.R. No. 115835, July 22, 1998
It is a settled rule that the circumstances qualifying a killing to murder must be proven as indubitably as the
crime itself.
The trial court did err in holding that the crimes were “qualified by treachery, abuse of superior strength
and use of armed men.” Only treachery was present.
• Abuse of superior strength: the records of the case do not contain evidence sufficient to conclude that
appellants took advantage of excessive force notoriously out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the persons attacked.
• Aid of armed men: neither is there enough evidence to support, beyond reasonable doubt, a finding
that appellants had purposely sought and used the aid of armed men in attacking their victim.
G.R. No. 115835, July 22, 1998
• Treachery: Initially, the circumstances might negate the presence of treachery

(they were drinking, arguing). However, the subsequent acts of accused-
appellants were definitely treacherous.
After the initial shot, Appellant Veriato, despite seeing his helpless victim on his last
legs and pleading to be spared of any more shooting, still fired his automatic rifle at
the unarmed mayor.
The victim was already defenseless when Veriato attacked him the second time.
G.R. No. 233104 | September 2, 2020 | Hernando, J.
The elements of murder are as follows: (1) That a person was killed; (2)
That the accused killed him; (3) That the killing was attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) That the
killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Thus, for the charge of Murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) The offender killed the victim; (2) Through
treachery, or by any of the other five qualifying circumstances, duly alleged
in the Information.
G.R. No. 233104 | September 2, 2020 | Hernando, J.
The above circumstances are not present in the case at bar. The only basis for the RTC and the appellate
court in finding evident premeditation as attendant to the crime was the confrontation between the
victim and Manansala one day before the killing. The trial court merely surmised that Manansala must
have harbored feelings of resentment towards the victim and has clung to that thought and killed the
victim. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. When it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was
hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.
"Evident premeditation must be based on external acts and must be evident, not merely suspected,
indicating deliberate planning."
Nevertheless, despite the absence of evident premeditation, the killing remains to be murder in view of the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there is

treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
In People v. Calinawan, the Court enumerated the following elements that must be
established for treachery to be appreciated:
• At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
• The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
Hitting someone at the back in a sudden fashion and without any provocation on the
part of the victim is considered treacherous.
The fact that Santiago was positioned at a particular location and

particular time while holding a rifle, showed that the consciously
and deliberately adopted the means to commit the crime. Thus,
Santiago's sudden attach on Artemio, Sr. constitutes treachery
thereby qualifying the killing to the crime of Murder
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced,
or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or
material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit
or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section
thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise
which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year
after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act
within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining,
directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material
benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue
advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will
profit thereby.
h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or

transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or
in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material
interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes
against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel
or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for
the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the
board, panel or group to which they belong.
j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in
favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license,
permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his

office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
The corrupted The private Both the
public officer is individual who inducing public
liable for direct corrupted the officer and
bribery. public officer is induced public
liable. officer is liable.
(BOADO, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law 2019)

• There must be material • There must be material
consideration consideration
• The public officer agreed to • The public officer is induced,

commit a crime, or an act not persuaded or influenced to
constituting. a crime, or to refrain commit an offense or to violate
from doing a function-related act. rules and regulations. in
connection with his duty.
• The person corrupting the public
officer must be a private • The person inducing, persuading
individual. or influencing a public officer is
also a public officer.
(BOADO, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law 2019)
G.R. No. 193236, September 17, 2018
Co-conspirators are liable collectively and equally for the common

design of their criminal acts. When a contract that is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government is entered into, the
persons involved whether public officers or private persons may be
charged for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and
suffer the same penalty if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
GR No. 252258 | April 6, 2022 | Hernando, J.
The elements of the crime of Corrupt practices of public officers are the following:
1. The offender is a public officer;

2. The offender persuades, induces, or influences another public officer to perform
an act, or the offender allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit an act; and
3. The act performed by the other public officer, or committed by the offender,
constitutes a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority, or an offense in connection with the official duty of the latter.
GR No. 252258 | April 6, 2022 | Hernando, J.
Conveniently, the Sandiganbayan provided the definitions of the words "persuade," "induce," and "influence"
in its Decision: (1) Persuade — to induce to act; to incline the will; to prevail upon by argument, advice,
expostulations or reasons; to induce one by argument, entreaty, or expostulation into a determination,
decision, conclusion, belief or the like; (2) Induce — to bring on or about, to affect, cause, influence to an act or
course of conduct, lead by persuasion or reasoning, incite by motive, prevail on; to lead on, to influence
reasons; (3) Influence — to alter, move, sway of (sic) affect reasons most frequently used in connection with
"undue" and refers to persuasion, machination or constraint of will presented or exerted to procure a
disposition of property, by gift, conveyance or will.
Simply put, such terms can be taken to mean as the act of convincing or causing someone, by some kind of effort
such as reasoning or argument, to do something that he or she may otherwise not do.
GR No. 226167 | October 11, 2021 | Hernando, J.
The crime of violation of Section 3(a) of RA 3019 may be committed in either of the following
modes:
• When the offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or
an offense in connection with the official duties of the public officer; or
• When the public officer allowed himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to perform
said act which constitutes a violation of rules and regulations promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the public officer.
G.R. Nos. 245931-32 | April 25, 2022 | Hernando, J.
The Court first explained that in Falsification of Public Documents under

paragraph 2, Article 171 of the RPC, the prosecution must prove the existence of
the following elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

2. That he takes advantage of his official position;
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding; and
4. That such persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76 | March 21, 2022 |
Hernando, J.
Falsification of Public Documents is an intentional felony committed by means of “dolo” or “malice” and
could not result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. The elements of Falsification
of Public Documents are:
• 1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

• 2. The offender takes advantage of his or her official position; and
• 3. The offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC.
The offender is considered to have taken advantage of his or her public position in making the falsification when:
• 1 . He or she has the duty to make or prepare or, otherwise, to intervene in the preparation of a document; or
• 2. He or she has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76 | March 21, 2022 |
Hernando, J.
In every criminal case where the accused enjoys the presumption of
innocence, an acquittal is warranted unless the accused's guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt.
It is settled that the prosecution must establish the fact of falsification or

forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, as the same is never
presumed.
June 26, 1992
Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of falsification

under Article 171 and 172(1). It is the violation of the faith or trust of
the public and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed
in the document that is penalized. Thus, intent to gain or to cause
injury is immaterial. Even more so, the gain or damage is not
necessary.
G.R. No. 114138; August 16, 2000
Good faith is a VALID defense in falsification. There is no

falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused
are consistent with good faith.
1 3 5 7
2 4 6
1 - Inventory 2 - Examination 3 - Certification 4 - Results 5 - Inspection 6 - Destruction 7 - Observation

G.R. No. 258077 | June 15, 2022 | Hernando, J.
In cases involving Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is
essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering
that it is the corpus delicti of the crime.
To ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must account for each link in the
chain of custody, as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn-over of the seized illegal
drug to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn-over and submission of the
illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
G.R. No. 258077 | June 15, 2022 | Hernando, J.
In sum, the foregoing lapses in the chain of custody of the illegal drug
purportedly seized from Donato, fatally compromised its integrity and
evidentiary value. Hence, Hernandez’ acquittal is warranted.
Finally, given the obvious evidentiary gap in the chain of custody, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this
case. When challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the
presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of the
accused.
G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017
To establish whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper

procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is
incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are
clearly and adequately laid out through relevant, material and competent
evidence. More so, as in this case where the seized quantities of shabu are
merely 0.12 grams and 0.59 grams, it is important that all details are clear.
Hence, the miniscule quantities of dangerous drugs allegedly confiscated
magnify the uncertainties with regard their integrity .
G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017
The miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens the

importance of a more stringent conformity with Section 21, which
the police officers in this case miserably failed to do so. The significant
lapses committed, as well as their failure to explain their non-
compliance with the directives of the law, cast doubt on the integrity of
the corpus delicti.
G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018
The chain of custody requirements in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act are cast in precise, mandatory language. They are not stringent for
stringency's own sake. Rather, they are calibrated to preserve the even greater
interest of due process and the constitutional rights of those who stand to suffer
from the State's legitimate use of force, and therefore, stand to be deprived of
liberty, property, and, should capital punishment be imposed, life.
G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017
The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an essential

part of the chain of custody. Absent this step, a gap is created which casts a
shadow of doubt on the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug
presented as evidence, creating reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in
favor of the accused. Otherwise stated, non- observance of the mandatory
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 casts doubt on the integrity of the
drugs supposedly seized from accused. This creates reasonable doubt in the
conviction of accused for violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A. 9165.
G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019; G.R. No. 206614, July 26, 2017; G.R. No. 205871, June 27, 2016)
Complete and utter non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements

of R.A. 9165, or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”,
inescapably leads to an accused's acquittal. Conviction cannot be sustained by
a mere presumption of regularity and the approximation of compliance. A
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the
context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an
act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof.
G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019; G.R. No. 206614, July 26, 2017; G.R. No. 205871, June 27, 2016)
The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law
enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law;
where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.
Moreover, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties will
never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined
right of an accused to be presumed innocent.
G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 provides that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer or team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items. While it may be true that non-compliance with Sec. 21 of
R.A. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officers, this exception will only be triggered by the existence of a ground that justifies
departure from the general rule.
G.R. No. 216014, March 14, 2018; G.R. No. 206965, November 29, 2017
Human memory is not infallible. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution

witnesses in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
may be excused so long as the identity of the dangerous drugs is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and the chain of custody is established with moral certainty. In
addition, Section 21 cannot be used to thwart the legitimate efforts of law
enforcement agents. Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the
prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an
otherwise guilty defendant. Thus, "substantial adherence" to Section 21 will suffice.
GR No. 231796 | August 24, 2020 | Hernando, J.
The Court has held that the presence of the required number
of witnesses (three [3]) at the time of the apprehension and
inventory, is mandatory, and that their presence serves an
essential purpose.
It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of
Section 21. In case of deviation from or non-compliance with the said requirements, the prosecution must
provide a sufficient explanation why Section 21 was not complied with. The Court has held in People v. Lim
that the following are justifiable reasons for not securing three witnesses during the inventory and photograph
taking: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety
during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action
of the accused or any person/s acting for and in 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 or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being
charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints 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.
In this case, the prosecution did not explain the absence of the three required
witnesses nor did it try to justify the police's deviation from the mandatory
procedure outlined in Section 21. Without the three witnesses, there is reasonable
doubt on the identity of the seized drugs itself. Without the three witnesses, the
Court is unsure whether there had been planting of evidence and/or contamination
of the seized drugs. Because of this, the integrity and evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti had been compromised. Consequently, Arellaga must be
acquitted.
G.R. No. 207396, August 9, 2017; G.R. No. 205695, September 27, 2017; G.R. No. 207992, August 11,
2014; G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014; G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016)
Although strict compliance with the chain of custody rule may be

excused provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are preserved, a more exacting standard is required of law
enforcers when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs are
alleged to have been seized from the accused.
G.R. No. 207396, August 9, 2017; G.R. No. 205695, September 27, 2017; G.R. No. 207992, August 11,
2014; G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014; G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016)
Otherwise stated, law enforcers should not trifle with the legal
requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized
dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when
only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken
from the accused. Such a miniscule amount of drugs is highly susceptible to
tampering and contamination.
G.R. No. 243390 | October 5, 2020| Hernando, J.
To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the
following elements must be present:
• 1. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and
• 2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the
poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt
by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. What matters is the proof
that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus
delicti, as evidence.
G.R. No. 93028; July 29, 1994
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited

drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling
transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives
the drug from the seller.
According to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for a successful prosecution of Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs, the following elements must be present:
• the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug;

• such possession was not authorized by law; and
• the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug, for the illegal possession charge.
Meanwhile, the elements required for the prosecution of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia are: (a)
possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body;
and (b) such possession is not authorized by law.
Although the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug

Paraphernalia were present, the integrity of the confiscated items were
compromised because the police officers did not follow the stringent
requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 as well as its IRR. Hence, the
Supreme Court Granted the petition and the Resolution rendered by the Court
of Appeals was reversed and set aside. XXX, YYY Barba, and Solina are acquitted
and shall immediately be released from detention.
POSSESSION, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the
immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand,
constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and
control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control
and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with
another.
This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution
must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law,
includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is
in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists
when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found.
Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another. Thus, conviction
need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not
exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any
reasonable inference drawn therefrom.
However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of
the drug in the place under his control and dominion, as well as the character of the drug. Since
knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises
dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous
drugs is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in
the absence of any satisfactory explanation.
When a prohibited drug is found in a house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person,
the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law. The fact of finding
the said illegal drug is sufficient to convict. In other words, the finding of illegal drugs in a house owned by
the accused, or in this case, the room occupied and shared by petitioner and accused Miguel, raises the
presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to convict.
G.R. No. 221602 | November 16, 2020 | Hernando, J.
The essential elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC are:
1. Taking of personal property;

2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking was done without the owner's consent;
4. There was intent to gain; and
5. The taking was done without violence against or intimidation of
the person or force upon things.
G.R. No. 155076. February 27, 2006
An information or complaint for simple theft must allege the following elements:
• the taking of personal property;
• the said property belongs to another;
• the taking be done with intent to gain; and
• the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation of person/s or force upon
• things.
One is apt to conclude that "personal property" standing alone, covers both tangible and intangible properties and
are subject of theft under the Revised Penal Code. But the words "Personal property" under the Revised Penal Code
must be considered in tandem with the word "take" in the law. The statutory definition of "taking" and movable
property indicates that, clearly, not all personal properties may be the proper subjects of theft. The general rule is that, only
movable properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of occupation by another are proper objects
of theft.
G.R. No. 162540. July 13, 2009
An impossible crime is committed by any person performing an act which would be an

offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
The SC said that the crime committed is an impossible crime and not qualified
theft. the act done would’ve amount to theft, a crime against property. it was done
with evil intent and the act was not accomplished because unknown to them, the
check was worthless, it has no fund.
G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018
This Court has been consistent in holding that intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is
presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Thus, actual gain is
irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. Further, the following elements of qualified
theft are present in this case:
(i) Taking of personal property;

(ii) That the said property belongs to another;
(iii) That the said taking be done with intent to gain; (iv) That it be done without the owner's consent;
(v) That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things; and
(vi) That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
G.R. No. 187044, September 14, 2011
Carnapping” is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle

belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.
G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003
It must be stressed that the acts committed by appellant constituted the

crime of carnapping even if the deceased was the driver of the vehicle
and not the owner. The settled rule is that, in crimes of unlawful taking of
property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the
person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner
thereof. What is simply required is that the property taken does not belong
to the offender. Actual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed suffices.
GR No. 207418 | June 23, 2021 | Hernando, J.
The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1) (b) of the RPC are:
a. That money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender
in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
b. That there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by
the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof;
c. That the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and
d. That there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
G.R. No. 165411, June 18, 2009)
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of using or

disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to
a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.
To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to

one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right.
G.R. No. 157781, April 11, 2005
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used in the aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposing
of another’s property as if it were one’s own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed
upon. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one’s own use or benefit, not only the conversion to one’s
personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right.
Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial

evidence. Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint
for estafa. Indeed, the accused may be convicted of the felony under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code if the prosecution proved misappropriation or conversion by the accused of the money or property
subject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of
misappropriation or conversion. However, failure to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
GR No. 215132 | September 13, 2021| Hernando, J.
Jurisprudence has long established the elements of estafa by means of deceit as

defined under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC:
a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;

b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
A person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately for illegal
recruitment under RA 8042 and estafa under Article 315(2) (a) of the
RPC.
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal

recruitment may be charged andconvicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art.
315of the Revised Penal Code.
GR No. 22432 | November 10, 2021 | Hernando, J.
THEFT ESTAFA
In theft, the thing is taken. In estafa, the accused receives the

property and converts it to his own use
However, there may be theft even if the or benefit.
accused has possession of the property. If he
was entrusted only with the material or
And if he has the juridical possession of
physical (natural) or de facto possession of
the thing, his misappropriation of the same the thing, his conversion of the same
constitutes theft. constitutes embezzlement or estafa.
G.R. No. 173773, November 28, 2012
The Court therein clarified the distinction between the crime of Estafa and Theft, to
wit:
The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in
estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit.
However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he
was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the
thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical
possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or
estafa.
cited in G.R. Nos. 101127-31, November 18, 1993
While the filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 and under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may
refer to identical acts committed by the petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited
to one offense, because a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and
where there is variance or differences between the elements of an offense in one law and
another law as in the case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on
double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise
stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited.
What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) sets of
information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy.
G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014
While the filing of the two sets of Information under the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
and under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, may refer to identical
acts committed by the petitioner, the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense,
because a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is
variance or differences between the elements of an offense is one law and another law as in the
case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits
refers to identity of elements in the two (2) offenses.
Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for
the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to
double jeopardy.
G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014
Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an

identical set of facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action,
which, under the law, are considered "separate, distinct, and independent"
from each other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final adjudication –
both as to their criminal and civil aspects – subject to the prohibition on double
recovery.
Perforce, a ruling in a BP 22 case concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the
accused cannot be given any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects
of a related estafa case, as in this instance.
a. if committed by a domestic servant;
b. with grave abuse of confidence;
c. if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery;
d. if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or

any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
This does not include theft of the property of the National Library and National
Museum, which is covered by Art. 311, RPC.
G.R. No.187160, August 9, 2017, citing People v. Daud
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
Revised Penal Code 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.
G.R. No. 226144 | October 14, 2020 | Hernando, J.
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, describes how the crime of Rape is committed:
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
G.R. No. 226144 | October 14, 2020 | Hernando, J.
First, denial is an inherently weak defense. While a conviction rests not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength
of the evidence against ZZZ the Court finds that the prosecution has fully discharged its evidentiary duty. Also, ZZZ cannot
escape culpability by highlighting AAA's intimate relationship with her boyfriend. Premarital relationships do not necessarily
entail sexual intimacy. Neither can the sexual behavior of a rape victim reverse her violator's criminal culpability. It must always
be remembered that the lack of consent is the line crossed in non- Statutory Rape. Romantic affairs voluntarily engaged into by
a rape victim, whether before, during, or after the rape incident, will not overwrite the established fact that her violator
forcibly obtained carnal knowledge of her without her consent.
Next, it is not physically impossible for the rapist to sexually abuse the victim even in the presence of another person. Criminal
lust does not discriminate. Undaunted by age, sex, relationship, place, distance, time, aesthetic preferences, or moral
considerations, sexual predators attack with reckless abandon and surprising ingenuity, always impelled by the sole aim of
having their worldly fill. Perverse desires find ways. A mere arm-span distance from the victim or a lack of privacy will not
deter a rapist who has been consumed entirely by lust.
The Court explained that as ruled in People v. Ramos that, “In the review of rape cases, we
continue to be guided by the following 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 nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and,
3. The evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important
issue.
G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014)
In a litany of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims
of rape are to be given full weight and credence. Reason and experience dictate that a
girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute
to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true. Her candid
narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill
will as in this case motivates her to testify falsely against the accused. It is well-
settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment.
G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014)
The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony

provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things.
G.R. No. 176070, October 02, 2009
It is a time-honored precept that different people react differently to a given situation or

type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is
confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. Not every rape victim can
be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.
Physical resistance is immaterial in a rape case when the victim is sufficiently

intimidated by her assailant and she submits against her will because of fear for her
personal safety.
G.R. No. 176070, October 02, 2009
The failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance cannot be construed as a voluntary

submission to appellant's desires. It is enough if the prosecution had proven that force
or intimidation concurred in the commission of the crime, as in this case. The law does
not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Moreover, physical
resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim
and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life or
personal safety. The force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending
not only on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship with
each other.
G.R. No. 212161, March 29, 2017
The victim’s failure to resist the sexual aggression and to immediately report the
incident to the authorities or to her mother do not undermine her credibility. The
silence of the rape victim does not negate her sexual molestation or make her
charge baseless, untrue, or fabricated. A minor cannot be expected to act like an
adult or a mature experienced woman who would have the courage and
intelligence to disregard the threat to her life and complain immediately that
she had been sexually assaulted. Force and intimidation must be appreciated in
light of the victim's perception and judgment when the assailant committed the
crime.
G.R. No. 229862, June 19, 2019
Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases.

Circumstances in which the recantation was made are thoroughly
examined before the evidence of retraction can be given any
weight. As a rule, affidavits of desistance are viewed with skepticism
and reservation because they can be easily obtained for monetary
consideration or through intimidation.
GR No. 255491 | April 18, 2022 | Hernando, J
In Statutory Rape the following elements must be

present in the commission of the crime:
1. The man had carnal knowledge with a woman; and

2. The offended party is under 12 years of age
GR No. 255491 | April 18, 2022 | Hernando, J
The absence of laceration or injury in AAA's genitalia is

not fatal to the prosecution. It is settled that a medical
report is dispensable in proving the commission of rape. In
any event, sexual abuse could not be cancelled out even if
no injuries or lacerations were found.
G.R. No. 210568, November 8, 2017
The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body

does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not
being, to repeat, an element of the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration
would of course be a compelling proof of defloration. What is more, the
foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony
and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical
examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape;
the victim's testimony alone, if credible is sufficient to convict.
The elements of Qualified Rape are:
1. Sexual congress;
2. With a woman;
3. Done by force and without consent;
4. The victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape; and
5. The offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted)
the victim.
The Supreme Court (SC) declared that although the information

designated Statutory Rape and not Qualified Rape, this omission is not
fatal so as to violate XXX’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. What controls is not the title of the Information
or the designation of the offense, but the actual facts recited in the
Information constituting the crime charged. The crime was Qualified Rape
precisely because of the concurrence of both the minority of the victim
and the relationship of the parties, i.e., as father and daughter.
Rape by sexual assault. Rape by sexual assault is committed by any
person who, by force, threat or intimidation, inserts any instrument or
object into the genital or the anal orifice of another person. (People vs
Alfonso, G.R. No. 182094, August 18, 2010)
The elements of Trafficking in Persons are:
1. The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,

maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders;"
2. The means used include "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;" and
3. The purpose of trafficking includes "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."
Trafficking In Persons is qualified by the following acts: xxx xxx xxx
(4) The victim is a child or a person below eighteen (18) years of age.
a. When the trafficked person is a child: Provided, the acts of online sexual abuse
and exploitation of children shall be without prejudice to appropriate investigation
and prosecution under other related laws;
b. When the offender commits one or more acts of trafficking under Section 4 over
a period of at least sixty (60) days, whether those days are continuous or not;
i. When the crime is committed during a crisis, disaster, public health concern,
pandemic, a humanitarian conflict, or emergency situation, or when the trafficked
person is a survivor of a disaster or a human-induced conflict;
k. When the trafficked person belongs to an indigenous community or religious

minority and is considered a member of the same;
l. When the trafficked person is a person with disability (PWD);
m. When the crime has resulted in pregnancy;
n. When the trafficked person suffered mental or emotional disorder as a result

of being victim of trafficking; or
o. When the act is committed by or through the use of ICT or any computer
system. (Section 6, R.A. 11862)
GR No. 220149 | July 27, 2021| Hernando, J.
The parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first and
subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to
all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code. Article 40 of the Family Code did
not amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack
the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.
However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment decree
as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is considered
valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is
consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the voidable
first marriage. The same rule applies if the second marriage is merely considered as voidable.
"Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes,
but is not limited to the following:
• withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation,
business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral
grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
• deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal,
community or property owned in common;
• destroying household property;
• controlling the victim's own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.
Specifically, Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 penalizes the deprivation of financial support legally due the woman or
child, which is a continuing offense
XXX deliberately deprived his son BBB of financial support. From the moment
the child was born until the case was filed, petitioner was only able to give a
total of about P10,000 in a span of five years. This does not meet the
necessity of BBB’s expenses considering the child is suffering from
Congenital Torch Syndrome. This especially holds true since petitioner is
capable of giving support based on his Income Tax Return for the year
2009, when his gross compensation was P234,565.79.
Victims who are found to be suffering from the Battered
Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil
liability, despite the absence of any of the elements of
self-defense.
This is an additional justifying circumstance.

G.R. No. 135981, Januray 15, 2004)
Three phases to the cycle of violence – the tension building phase, the acute
battering incident, and the tranquil phase
Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can prove the existence of the

Battered Woman Syndrome, but such syndrome has four characteristics: 1) The
woman believes that the violence done on her was her fault, 2) She has an
inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere, 3) She fears for her
life and/or her children’s, and 4) She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
omnipresent and omniscient.

Atty. Yebra - UPDATED Criminal Law Hernando Doctrines 2023 Bar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty. Yebra - UPDATED Criminal Law Hernando Doctrines 2023 Bar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty. Alloysius R.

Valid Defense of Good Faith PROVIDED there be No Negligence.

To reiterate, Constantino et.al. admitted that they occupied and constructed

Art. 1, 1987 Constitution - The National Territory comprises the Philippine

1. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a

3. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony

There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and

If no death supervenes, the accused should be held liable for

ERROR IN PERSONAE Mistake in the Identity

Consequence Went Beyond The

Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied in Article 4 of the

Praeter intentionem is obtaining when there is a

The basic reason behind the enactment of exempting

To avail of exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish:

1. The existence of an uncontrollable fear;

The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the

Aggravating circumstances are

In order for the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following

Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there is

2) The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,

2. The agreement concerned the

3. The execution of the felony be

In implied conspiracy where the conspiracy is instantaneous at the

Mere knowledge, asquiescence to, or approval of the act

Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for

Fine whether imposed as single or as an

Fine whether imposed as single or as an

RECLUSION TEMPORAL 12 years and 1 day to 20 years

6 years and 1 day to 12 years, except when

6 years and 1 day to 6 years, except when

ARRESTO MAYOR 1 month and 1 day to 6 months

ARRESTO MENOR 1 month to 30 days

The period during which the bond shall be

• But in no case to exceed 40 years.

• Subsidiary imprisonment form part of the penalty.

The most severe of those penalties is 17 years, 4 months and 1 day.

ELEVENTH AND SUCCESSIVE 20 days for each month of good behavior

It is evident that the crime of Murder is one that is mandatorily punishable by

a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

b. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise

c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a

e. With evident premeditation.

f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the

• Treachery: Initially, the circumstances might negate the presence of treachery

Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there is

The fact that Santiago was positioned at a particular location and

h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or

(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his

(BOADO, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law 2019)

• The public officer agreed to • The public officer is induced,

Co-conspirators are liable collectively and equally for the common

1. The offender is a public officer;

The Court first explained that in Falsification of Public Documents under

1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

• 1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

It is settled that the prosecution must establish the fact of falsification or

Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of falsification

Good faith is a VALID defense in falsification. There is no

1 - Inventory 2 - Examination 3 - Certification 4 - Results 5 - Inspection 6 - Destruction 7 - Observation

To establish whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper

The miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens the

The chain of custody requirements in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs