1

1.Inmates of New Bilibid Prison vs. Sec De Lima

This is a consolidated case assailing the legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592.

FACTS:

May 29, 2013 - President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law R.A. No. 10592, amending Articles 29, 94,
97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, or the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

IRR was jointly issued by respondents Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila M. De Lima and
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II on March 26,
2014 and became effective on April 18, 2014

Petitioners and intervenors assail the validity of its Section 4, Rule 1 that directs the prospective
application of the grant of good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, teaching and
mentoring (TASTM), and special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) mainly on the ground that it violates
Article 22 of the RPC

On June 18, 2014, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with Prayer for the Issuance of a Preliminary
Injunction) was filed by Atty. Evangelista, attorney-in-fact of the petitioners, against respondents De
Lima and Roxas.

They contend that the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are penal in nature and beneficial to the inmates;
hence, should be given retroactive effect in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. Further, they contend
that IRR contradicts the law it implements.

Petitioners submit that the simple standards added by the new law, which are matters of record, and
the creation of the Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) should not override the
constitutional guarantee of the rights to liberty and due process of law aside from the principle that
penal laws beneficial to the accused are given retroactive effect.

Atty. Rene Saguisag Sr. filed a petition for intervention and argued that Section 4, Rule I of the IRR is
facially void for being contrary to the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution; it discriminates,
without any reasonable basis, against those who would have been benefited from the retroactive
application of the law; Page 4 of 18 and is also ultra vires, as it was issued beyond the authority of
respondents to promulgate.

Oct. 2014 – Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed by Edago et al, who are all inmates at the
Maximum Security Compound of the NBP, against the respondents. They contend that:

Sec. 4 of Rule I, IRR provides for a prospective application of the provisions of 10592 and was issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and thereby void and illegal for
being contrary and anathema to RA 10592 and that:

a. R.A. 10592 does not state that its provisions shall have prospective application.
b. Section 4 of the IRR of R.A. 10592 is contrary to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code providing
that penal laws that are beneficial to the accused shall have retroactive application.
c. c. Section 4, Rule I of the IRR contravenes public policy and the intent of Congress when it
enacted R.A. 10592

Section 4, rule I of the IRR was issued by respondents with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction because it is patently unconstitutional and:

a. Section 4, rule I of the IRR violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
b. Section 4, rule I of the IRR violates substantive due process.
 2

ISSUE:

WON Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592
is valid

RULING:

Yes. Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592 is
invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of good conduct time allowance,
time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty.

Every new law has a prospective effect. Under Article 22 of the RPC, however, a penal law that is
favorable or advantageous to the accused shall be given retroactive effect if he is not a habitual criminal.
These are the rules, the exception, and the exception to the exception on the effectivity of laws.

In criminal law, the principle favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda (penal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect) is well entrenched. It has been sanctioned since
the old Penal Code.

The principle underlying our laws granting to the accused in certain cases an exception to the general
rule that laws shall not be retroactive when the law in question favors the accused, has evidently been
carried over into the Revised Penal Code at present in force in the Philippines through article 22 x x x.
This is an exception to the general rule that all laws are prospective, not retrospective, variously
contained in the following maxims: Lex prospicit, non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward); lex
defuturo, judex de proeterito (the law provides for the future, the judge for the past); and adopted in a
modified form with a prudent limitation in our Civil Code (article 3). Conscience and good law justify this
exception, which is contained in the well-known aphorism: Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa
restringenda. As one distinguished author has put it, the exception was inspired by sentiments of
humanity, and accepted by science.

According to Mr. Chief Justice Manuel Araullo, the principle is "not as a right" of the offender, "but
founded on the very principles on which the right of the State to punish and the commination of the
penalty are based, and regards it not as an exception based on political considerations, but as a rule
founded on principles of strict justice.

The court concur in the petitioners’ assertion. The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of
R.A. No. 10592 actually works to the disadvantage of petitioners and those who are similarly situated. It
precludes the decrease in the penalty attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison
stay; thus, making more onerous the punishment for the crimes they committed. Depriving them of time
off to which they are justly entitled as a practical matter results in extending their sentence and
increasing their punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of the RPC.

While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe/establish a penalty as it
addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its provisions have the purpose and
effect of diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction on the length of the
penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners
alike; hence, calls for the application of Article 22 of the RPC

Except for the benefits of TASTM and the STAL granted to a prisoner who chose to stay in the place of
his confinement despite the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of the
RPC, the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are mere modifications of the RPC that have been implemented by
the BUCOR prior to the issuance of the challenged IRR. In view of this, the claim of "new procedures and
standards of behavior" for the grant of time allowances is untenable
 3

Except for the benefits of TASTM and the STAL granted to a prisoner who chose to stay in the place of
his confinement despite the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of the
RPC, the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are mere modifications of the RPC that have been implemented by
the BUCOR prior to the issuance of the challenged IRR. In view of this, the claim of "new procedures and
standards of behavior" for the grant of time allowances is untenable

Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the Government under legislative
authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of
carrying the law's general provisions into effect. The law itself cannot be expanded by such IRRSs,
because an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592 is DECLARED invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective
application of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time allowance for study, teaching and
mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and
the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology are REQUIRED to RE-COMPUTE with
reasonable dispatch the time allowances due to petitioners and all those who are similarly situated and,
thereafter, to CAUSE their immediate release from imprisonment in case of full service of sentence,
unless they are being confined thereat for any other lawful cause.

2. Ladonga vs People
G.R. NO. 141066: February 17 2005: 492 Phil. 60
Offense Involved: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22

FACTS: In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became regular customers in the pawnshop
business of complainant Alfredo Oculam. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses. Obtained three
loans from him, guaranteed by three post-dated United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Checks. The three
checks bounced upon presentment for the reason ‘closed account’. When the Ladonga spouses failed to
redeem the check, despite repeated demands, Alfredo Oculam filed a criminal complaint against them.
Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an
agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature.  RTC rendered a decision
finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Adronico filed for a
probation which was granted, while Evangeline Ladonga elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
arguing that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the
principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law. Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction of petitioner. Hence this case.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the principle of conspiracy, as defined under the
RPC, to violations of B.P. Blg. 22?

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22?

HELD:

No. The Court of Appeals did not err in applying the principle of conspiracy, as defined under the RPC, to
violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the
provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of
the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
 4

Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Prosecution failed to
establish the guilt of the petitioner with moral certainty because conspiracy was not proven. Its
evidence falls short of the quantum of proof required for conviction. Criminal liability cannot be based
on a general allegation of conspiracy, and a judgment of conviction must always be founded on the
strength of the prosecution’s evidence. In this case, the elements of the crim. In the present case, the
prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy.

3. People vs. Martin Simon G.R. No. 93028 July 29, 1994 Sale of Prohibited Drugs

NOVEMBER 28, 2017

FACTS:

Accused Martin Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He sold tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
poseur-buyer. The confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a total of 3.8 grams, when subjected to laboratory
examination, were found positive for marijuana.

Simon denied the accusation against him, claiming that on the day of question, he was picked up by the
police at their house while watching TV. He was told that he was a pusher so he attempted to alight
from the jeep but he was handcuffed instead. When they finally reached the camp, he was ordered to
sign some papers and, when he refused, he was boxed in the stomach eight or nine times by Sgt. Pejoro.
He was then compelled to affix his signature and fingerprints on the documents presented to him. He
denied knowledge of the marked money or the 4 teabags of dried marijuana leaves, and insisted that
the marked money came from the pocket of Pejoro. Moreover, the reason why he vomited blood was
because of the blows he suffered at the hands of Pejoro.

Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of Romana Pangan District Hospital, declared that she
treated appellant for three days due to abdominal pain, but her examination revealed that the cause for
this ailment was appellant’s peptic ulcer. She did not see any sign of slight or serious external injury,
abrasion or contusion on his body.

Simon was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos
and to pay the costs.

Simon then seek the reversal of the judgement

ISSUE:

Was the conviction of Simon correct?

RULING:

To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably
established. To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material consideration. It must,
therefore, be established beyond doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea bags of
marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in exchange for two twenty-peso
bills.

After careful review, the Court held that there were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there
were 2 other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon should be charged of selling for the 2 tea
bags of marijuana only.
 5

However, there is an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason
of its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750
grams, and also as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more. The
same error has been committed with respect to the other prohibited and regulated drugs provided in
said Section 20. To harmonize such conflicting provisions in order to give effect to the whole law, the
court hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than
the quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision correccional to reclusion temporal,
and not reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule in criminal law that all
doubts should be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.

The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly
adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical
signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, the court
have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional and
Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in
a special law, is now in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine
the minimum, the court applied first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that “in imposing a
prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in
view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code for the offense.”

Thus, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence within the
range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum range have
fixed through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law,
the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day
of prision correccional.

4. G.R. No. 186227 Case Digest

G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011
People of the Philippines
vs Allen Udtojan Mantalaba
Ponente: Peralta

Facts:
Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report that
Mantalaba who was 17 yrs old was selling shabu. After a buy-bust operation, two informations was filed
against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated. Mantalaba pleaded not guilty.

RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion perpetua to death
and fine of 500k for selling shabu and  (2) for illegally possessing shabu, Mantalaba was penalized, in
application of the ISL, 6 yrs and 1 day as minimum and 8 yrs as maximum of prision mayor and fine of
300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, the present appeal.

Mantalaba: the lower court gravely erred in convicting him and that there was no evidence of actual sale
between him and the poser-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He also claims that the chain of
custody of the seized shabu was not established.

Issue: Whether Mantalaba is guilty of drug trafficking and possession.

Ruling:
The petition is without merit.
 6

The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.
From the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that the elements have
been satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly identified. The subject dangerous
drug, as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily presented. The testimony was also
clear as to the manner in which the buy-bust operation was conducted.

Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance
will not render an accused arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

As to his minority, Mantalaba was minor during the buy-bust operation but was of legal age during the
promulgation of the decision. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect after the promulgation of the
RTC's decision against Mantalaba. The RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with PD 603
(Child and Youth Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law that were applicable at
the time of the promulgation of the judgment. However, as ruled in People vs Sarcia, suspension of
sentence can still be applied but NOT when the offender upon the promulgation of judgment is 21 yrs
old. or older. Mantalaba is now 21 yrs old, therefore his suspension of sentence is already moot and
academic.

But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's minority as privileged mitigating
circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be
one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree
which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion
temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. 

5. Miriam Armi Jao Yu vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 134172, September 20, 2004, 481 Phil. 780
Facts:
On March 25, 1991, petitioner was charged with 19 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before
the Regional Trial Court. Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. After hearing, the trial
court rendered a Decision finding her guilty of the charges and imposing upon her with fines and to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine and to pay the costs of suit. Accused
appealed the decision in the Court of Appeals who affirmed in toto the trial court’s Decision. Hence this
case.
Issue:
Whether the accused found guilty of violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 221 be made to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case he fails to pay the fines imposed by the trial court for such violations?

Held:
Yes, The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is expressly provided under Articles 38 and 39 of the
Revised Penal Code. The SC also hold that the above provisions on subsidiary imprisonment can be
applied suppletorily to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 pursuant to Article 10 of the same Code.

Indeed, the absence of an express provision on subsidiary imprisonment in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does
not and cannot preclude its imposition in cases involving its violations.

It bears stressing that on February 14, 2001, we issued Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 clarifying the
imposition of imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and subsidiary imprisonment upon
the accused found guilty but is unable to pay the fine he is sentenced to pay. In clarifying the imposition
of subsidiary imprisonment, the Circular states that if the accused is unable to pay the fine imposed by the
trial court, “there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on
subsidiary imprisonment.”
 7

6. PEOPLE v. LI WAI CHEUNG, GR Nos. 90440-42, 1992-10-13

Facts:

"That on February 14, 1987 at Sunset View Towers Condominium more particularly Room No. 1207
located at Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, accused Li Wai Cheung alias Peter Lee was arrested and/or caught
'enflagrante delicto' in the act of consummating the sale of alleged... heroin powder placed in five (5)
small plastic packets by agents of the Narcom in a 'buy-bust' operation after a confidential agent
informed the Narcom law enforcers that one Li Wai Cheung alias Peter Lee was suspected and/or found
peddling and/or pushing heroin powder and... marijuana.

Pursuant to said confidential information, a team was formed with specific instructions to conduct a
'buy-bust' operation against the said suspect which operation led to the aforementioned arrest of the
accused. That the 'buy-bust' money in the amount of P1,000.00 together with thirty (30) pieces of flash
roll money was recovered from the person of the said accused.

As a consequence of the in flagrante arrest of the accused, a search of the premises of the accused was
conducted... by the Narcom Law enforcers which search resulted to the recovery and confiscation of the
following items namely: one (1) plastic small packet containing suspected marijuana leaves and seeds
placed and/or contained in a clay jar, one hundred twenty-three grams of suspected shabu

(Methamphetamine Hydrochloride placed in a plastic bag), forty-one (41) grams of white suspected
heroin powder placed in 41 small packets, one (1) weighing scale with trademark 'Jiangsu China'
together with one (1) Echolac suitcase. That after laboratory examination of the... above-mentioned
specimen by forensic chemist Luena Layador, it was established that all five (5) grams of white
suspected heroin powder (which were sold by the accused to the Narcom agents acting as poseur
buyers) were found positive for the presence of heroin, which is a... prohibited drug.

forty-one (41) grams of white suspected heroin powder placed in forty-one (41) small plastic packets
(found inside the blue Echolac suitcase of the accused) were likewise found positive for the presence of
heroin, a prohibited drug. That the one hundred... twenty-three grams of white granular substance
placed in a plastic bag (also found inside the Echolac suitcase) was found positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug and one (1) small plastic packet containing
suspected marijuana leaves and seeds... inside a clay jar was found positive for the presence of
marijuana, a prohibited drug. That the weighing scale was likewise found positive for the presence of
residues of heroin."

Issues:

"1. The trial court erred in admitting the inventory receipt as evidence which was signed during custodial
investigation without the assistance of counsel.

2.           The trial court erred in convicting the appellant for violation of section 16, of article III, R.A.
6425, (and) sections 4 and 8 (of) R.A. 6425 as amended, despite the want of... evidence sufficient to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3.           The trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and in disregarding the theory of the defense."[... whether the trial court erred in believing
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses tending to show that they succeeded in entrapping the
appellant inside his condominium unit as a possessor and peddler of regulated and prohibited... drugs
on the evening of 14 February 1987, and in disbelieving the claim of the defense witnesses that what
had really taken place on that date was a robbery and an attempt to extort money perpetrated by rogue
policemen against appellant and his family
 8

Ruling:

The five (5) packets of heroin powder were received from the appellant during the entrapment while
the other forty-one (41) packets of the same substance... were found in appellant's Echolac suitcase by
the Narcom agents in the course of their subsequent search of the condominium unit. These offenses
were distinct and separate from each other, the physical objects involved in the sale of heroin being
different from those relating to... the possession of heroin. Both offenses, being penalized by a special
statute, are not subject to the provisions on complex crimes set out in Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code... t appearing that appellant is liable for serving four (4) successive sentences corresponding to the
four (4) crimes for which he was found guilty in this appeal,[40] the rules on the service of sentences set
forth in Article 70... of the Revised Penal Code are applicable here by way of supplementation.[41]
Under those rules, the maximum period of a convict's imprisonment in the service of his successive
sentences shall not in any case exceed forty (40)... years, life imprisonment being counted as thirty (30)
years. Immediately after service of his forty-year sentence, appellant as an alien shall be deported from
the Philippines without further proceedings.

"In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Li Wai Cheung alias Peter Lee guilty beyond
reasonable doubt in all criminal cases, namely: Criminal Case No. 87-11338-P for violation of Section 16,
Republic Act No. 6425 as amended; Criminal Case No.

87-11339-P for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended; and Criminal Case No. 87-
11340-P for violation of Sections 4 and 8 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended

Principles:

which is not a trier of facts, necessarily accords great respect to the factual conclusions drawn by trial
courts, particularly on the matter of credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity
(which this Court does not have) of observing the... deportment and demeanor of witnesses while
listening to them speak, enabling the judge to form at first hand a judgment as to whether witnesses
were telling the truth or not.

Appellant was arrested in flagranti delicto, having been entrapped into revealing his possession of a
ready supply of prohibited drugs, available for sale and disposition at his dwelling to anyone willing to
pay the... price.[24] This case comes under the exception to the rules requiring previous securing of a
warrant of arrest.

While entry into the dwelling was also effected here without... benefit of search warrant, the Court
believes that this is not a fatal infirmity. Such entry was a purely coincidental event, appellant having
chosen to consummate the illicit transaction inside the condominium unit, leaving the officers no choice
but to permit appellant... to play out his actions in the course of entrapping him.[26] Furthermore, the
search without a warrant of appellant's dwelling, a single room unit with a total area of nine (9) square
meters according to defense... witness Ramona Lalo,[27] was a valid incident of a lawful warrantless
arrest.[28] The search was conducted in a confined place within appellant's (and his wife's) immediate
control,... an area where he might gain possession of a weapon, or, as it turned out in this case, destroy
evidence constituting proceeds or proof of appellant's commission of related offenses.

When two (2) or more offenses are charged in a single information, and the accused failed, as here, to
object to the duplicitous information before trial, the settled rule is that the Court may convict the
accused of as many offenses as are charged... and proved and may impose on him the penalty for each
and every one of them.
 9

7. People of the Philippines vs. Bulu Chowdury, G.R. No. 129577-80, February 15, 2000, 382 Phil. 45
Facts:
Complainants testified that they applied with Craftrade for employment as factory worker in
South Korea. They were interviewed by Chowdury. During the interview, Chowdury told them
that they would be working in a factory in Korea. He required them to submit her passport, NBI
clearance, ID pictures, medical certificate and birth certificate. They were also obliged to attend a
seminar on overseas employment. After they submitted all the documentary requirements,
Chowdury required them to pay placement fee. They made the payment to Ong. Chowdury
assured them that they would be able to leave on the first week of September but it proved to
be an empty promise. They were not able to leave despite several follow-ups. Thus, they went to
the POEA where they discovered that Craftrade’s license had already expired. They tried to
withdraw their money from Craftrade to no avail. They filed a complaint for illegal recruitment
against Chowdury upon advice of POEA’s legal counsel.

For his defense, Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until
1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. As a mere employee, he only
followed the instructions given by his superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency’s President
and General Manager, and Mr. Utkal Chowdury, the agency’s Managing Director. Chowdury
admitted that he interviewed private complainants on different dates. Their office secretary
handed him their bio-data and thereafter he led them to his room where he conducted the
interviews. During the interviews, he had with him a form containing the qualifications for the
job and he filled out this form based on the applicant’s responses to his questions. He then
submitted them to Mr. Utkal Chowdury who in turn evaluated his findings. He never received
money from the applicants. He resigned from Craftrade on November 12, 1994.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Hence this
case.

Issue:
whether accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the
crime charged.

Held:
No, Evidence shows that accused-appellant interviewed private complainants in the months of
June, August and September in 1994 at Craftrade’s office. At that time, he was employed as
interviewer of Craftrade which was then operating under a temporary authority given by the
POEA pending renewal of its license. The temporary license included the authority to recruit
workers.30 He was convicted based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as
employee of Craftrade. Neither was he, in his personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas
workers. Section 10 Rule II Book II of the Rules and Regulation Governing Overseas Employment
(1991) requires that every change, termination or appointment of officers, representatives and
personnel of licensed agencies be registered with the POEA. Agents or representatives
appointed by a licensed recruitment agency whose appointments are not previously approved
by the POEA are considered “non-licensee” or “non-holder of authority” and therefore not
authorized to engage in recruitment activity.

Upon examination of the records, however, we find that the prosecution failed to prove that
accused-appellant was aware of Craftrade’s failure to register his name with the POEA and that
he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its
personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency
cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. The evidence at hand
shows that accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the
 10

agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal
with the applicants in its behalf. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job
description. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for
deployment but he never received money from them. Their payments were received by the
agency’s cashier, Josephine Ong. Furthermore, he performed his tasks under the supervision of
its president and managing director. Hence, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant’s conscious and active participation in the
commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. His conviction, therefore, is without basis.

8. Title: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852

Subject Matter: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code to R.A. 9262
(Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004)

Facts:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female
children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the
marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order
(TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and economic
abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic Act No.
9262.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included
in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

Held:

Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the
offender be ralted or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. In Section
47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles
developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. 
 11

9. Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
FACTS: Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) as amended by
R.A. No. 7659 substantially provides that any public officer who amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder. Petitioner
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, being prosecuted under the said Act, assailed its constitutionality, arguing inter
alia, that it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal
Code; and as such, a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of plunder as defined in R.A. No. 7080 is a malum prohibitum.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that plunder is malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent.
Moreover, the legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is
a malum in se. The predicate crimes in the case of plunder involve acts which are inherently immoral or
inherently wrong, and are committed “willfully, unlawfully and criminally” by the offender, alleging his
guilty knowledge. Thus, the crime of plunder is a malum in se.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FACTS:

Former President Estrada and co-accused were charged for Plunder under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing
the Crime of Plunder), as amended by RA 7659.

On the information, it was alleged that Estrada have received billions of pesos through any or a combination or a
series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means thereby unjustly enriching himself or themselves at
the expense and to the damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

Estrada questions the constitutionality of the Plunder Law since for him:

1. it suffers from the vice of vagueness

2. it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions

3. it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code.

Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 8 separate Informations against petitioner.

Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion on the grounds of lack of preliminary investigation,

reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses and opportunity to prove lack of probable cause but was denied.

Later on, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution in Crim. Case No. 26558 finding that a probable cause for the
offense of plunder exists to justify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused.

Estrada moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts alleged therein
did NOT constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for vagueness
and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged more than one offense. Same was denied.

The questioned provisions of the petitioners are Secs. 1, par. (d), 2 and 4 of the Plunder Law which states that:

Section 1. x x x x (d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business, enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies,
nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or
similar schemes:
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of
the office or position of the public office concerned;
(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, or government owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of
decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
 12

(6) By taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines.
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1 (d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any
person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of
plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances as provided by the Revised Penal Code shall be considered
by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the
State (underscoring supplied).
Section 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to
prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or
criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy (underscoring supplied).
ISSUE:

WON the crime of plunder is unconstitutional for being vague?

HELD:

NO. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it
what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. The amended information
itself closely tracks the language of the law, indicating w/ reasonable certainty the various elements of the offense
w/c the petitioner is alleged to have committed.

We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his defense.

Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the
terms “combination” and “series” in the key phrase “a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. These
omissions, according to the petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and
overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence
violative of his fundamental right to due process.

A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used herein, or because of the
employment of terms without defining them.

A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence
most necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the
Constitution in two (2) respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct  to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of
possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech.  The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected
speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and
perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. But in criminal
law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.
 13

No Complex Crime of Rebellion With Murder, Arson or Robbery

PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ 99 Phil. 515

FACTS:
                Amado HERNANDEZ5 (member of the CPP and President of the Congress of Labor Organizations) re-
filed for bail (previous one denied) for his conviction of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies.
The prosecution said to deny this again because the capital punishment may be imposed. The defense however
contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery. The information states that the
“…murders, arsons and robberies allegedly perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the
crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.”

ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.

Held: NO!

RATIO:

                Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and robberies described
therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by HERNANDEZ, as means
“necessary” for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion and that the crime charged in the amended
information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and
robberies. Under Article 1346 and 1357, these five (5) classes of acts constitute only one offense, and no more,
and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty. One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the
words of said Article 135, is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government” and “committing serious
violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These expressions imply everything that war connotes. Since Article
135 constitute only 1 crime, Article 48 doesn’t apply since it requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.
 14

RPC supplementary to special laws

Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. —  Offenses which
are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the
latter should specially provide the contrary. (Revised Penal Code)

Two clauses

● The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides that offenses which in the future
are made punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC, while
the second makes the RPC supplementary to such laws. While it seems that the
two clauses are contradictory, a sensible interpretation will show that they can perfectly be
reconciled.

The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are
controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. Said clause only restates
the elemental rule of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail over general
ones. Lex specialis derogant generali. In fact, the clause can be considered as a superfluity,
and could have been eliminated altogether. The second clause contains the soul of the
article. The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the provision that the
"code shall be supplementary" to special laws, unless the latter should specifically provide
the contrary. (Ledonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066. February 17, 2005)

What are special laws?

● They are laws that define and penalize crimes not included in the Revised Penal Code.

● This contention makes it necessary to define "special laws," as that phrase is used in article
7 of the Penal Code. Does this phrase "leyes especiales," as used in the Penal Code (article 7)
have the meaning applied to the phrase "special laws," as the same is generally used? x x x It
is confidently contended that the phrase "leyes especiales," as used in the
Penal Code (article 7) is not used with this general signification: In fact, said phrase may
refer not to a special law as above defined, but to a general law. A careful reading of said
article 7 clearly indicates that the phrase "leyes especiales" was not used to signify "special
laws" in the general signification of that phrase. The article, it will be noted, simply says, in
effect, that when a crime is made punishable under some other law than the Penal  Code, it
(the crime) is not subject to the provisions of said code. (Romualdez vs. Marcelo, G.R. Nos.
165510-33, July 28, 2006) 

Instances when the RPC was applied suppletory to special laws:

● The suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, by virtue of Article

10 thereof, finds relevance only when the provisions of the special law are silent on a
particular matter.

In the case of People v. Moreno, this Court, before ruling that the subsidiary penalty under
Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code may be applied in cases of violations of Act No. 3992
or the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, noted that the special law did not contain any provision
that the defendant can be sentenced with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
 15

In the case of People v. Li Wai Cheung, this Court applied the rules on the service of
sentences provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code in favor of the accused who was
found guilty of multiple violations of RA No. 6425 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
considering the lack of similar rules under the special law.

In the case of People v. Chowdury, the Court applied Articles 17, 18 and 19 of
the Revised Penal Code to define the words principal, accomplices and accessories under RA
No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 because it was not
defined therein although it referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons liable for
the crime of illegal recruitment.

●  The RPC shall have supplementary application to the special laws whenever the latter use
the nomenclature of penalties in the Code, indicating the intent of Congress to make
the Code apply suppletorily to such special laws. (People v. Simon,  G.R. No. 93028, July 29,
1994, 234 SCRA 555)

When is the suppletory effect of the RPC on special laws not available? 

● The suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10

of the former, cannot be invoked where there is (1) a legal or physical impossibility of, or (2)
a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary application. (People v. Simon)

● We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the penalty
for offenses under special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under
the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as
applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor was because the special laws
involved provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and
which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code.
Since the penalties then provided by the special laws concerned did not provide for the
minimum, medium or maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible
to consider the aforestated modifying circumstances whose main function is to determine
the period of the penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.

This is also the rationale for the holding in previous cases that the provisions of the Code on
the graduation of penalties by degrees could not be given supplementary application to
special laws, since the penalties in the latter were not components of or contemplated in the
scale of penalties provided by Article 71 of the former. The suppletory effect of
the Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 10 of the former, cannot be
invoked where there is a legal or physical impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special law
against, such supplementary application.

The situation, however, is different where although the offense is defined in and ostensibly
punished under a special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from
the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its duration,
correlation and legal effects under the system of penalties native to said Code. When, as in
this case, the law involved speaks of prision correccional, in its technical sense under
the Code, it would consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit otherwise. (People v.
Simon)