2023

PRE-WEEK
NOTES

CRIMINAL LAW
AUSL BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
 DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER: The Pre-Week Notes represent the collective

efforts of the selfless and heroic Student Volunteers of the
Arellano Law Bar Operations Commission. Its primary purpose
is to create a material that will help the barristers prepare for
the bar exams as well as provide the underbar students with
another collateral to supplement learning in their respective
classes.

While these materials were discerningly prepared with utmost

diligence under the guidance and supervision of our notable
professors, it does not claim any authoritative value nor do
these materials claim an impeccable content.

Should the reader find any error in our entries, please feel free
to reach out to our bar operations secretariat at
auslbarops2023@gmail.com so we can earnestly issue an
erratum at the soonest possible time.

“To all men and women who will walk this path, we humbly
offer this noble endeavor for you. May this be a lighting guide
through the steep and uncertain road until such time you
become the very light in another’s life, liberty and property— the
lawyer ablaze with grit and hope to guide lost causes toward
the right path.”
 PHILIPPINE COPYRIGHT

This material is an intellectual property of the Arellano Law Bar

Operations Commission 2023. Any unauthorized reprint or use
of this material is prohibited. No part of this material may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including but not limited to
photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system without the express written consent of both
Arellano Law Bar Operations Commission 2023 and the
Arellano University School of Law.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2023

To God be the Glory!

 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

ATTY. DOMINGO M. NAVARRO

Dean, AUSL

ATTY. ERIK LAZO

Assistant Dean, AUSL

CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

ATTY. RODERICK M. VILLOSTAS

Director

ATTY. RICKSON M. BUENVIAJE

ATTY. LESTER NAZARENE V. OPLE
ATTY. ANTONY J. PARREÑO
Research Fellows

BRANDO F. DE TORRES
MARICAR S. ASUNCION
Research Staff
 BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

TRISHA ALEXIS R. MAINGAT

Chairperson

HAZEL ELIZA L. MENDOZA IRISH ANA A. SALINAS

Vice Chairperson for Academics Vice Chairperson for Administration

MA. PATRICIA NICOLE G. REYES

Secretary

GRACE PEREZ - SONIDO

Treasurer

LANIE GRACE S. LIM

Auditor

JED NICU DANIELLE V. MADRIAGA

Operations Head

JAMAELA CHERINA MARIE A. CALINISAN

Public Relations Officer

MA. DHELLTRIA G. GARNER

Volunteer Core Head

ARTHUR JAY DELA CRUZ

Ways and Means Officer
 CRIMINAL LAW

GRACE P. PEREZ-SONIDO
Commissioner

POL LORENS A. TAMAYO

Deputy Commissioner

SUBJECT HEADS

ABIGAIL MAE N. DOLOR GLORIA M. RED

Principles of Criminal Law Crimes Under the Revised
(Revised Penal Code – Book 1) Penal Code (Revised Penal
Code – Book 2)

GLEN C. JURADO
Special Penal Laws

MEMBERS

REA ROSARIO G. MALITE

TRINIDAD GALICIA-MAYONTE
AL GLEJAN J. VILLANUEVA
ARIES JHON D. PENAFIEL
BERNIE T. ORTEGA
MARIA KATHERINE DELOSENDO-PAJARO
EDUARD VINCENT M. GABI
AIMEE DIANE A. TIDALGO
JOEL A. BITUIN
ANDREA MAE T. BANADERO
DIANNE VIRMIEL D. DULFO
ANNE YZABEL M. LAVILLA
BENJ NICOLE R. AGNO
RITZ R. MERIDA
 I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW (Revised Penal Code – Book 1)

II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita

1. Distinguish between mala in se from mala prohibita?

Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in
se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them,
called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent
with which a wrongful act is done.

MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

 the intent governs
 If the punishable act or omission is immoral in
itself, then it is a crime mala in se
 the only inquiry is, has the law been
violated? When an act is illegal, the intent
of the offender is immaterial. When the
doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is
considered injurious to public welfare, and
the doing of the prohibited act is the crime
itself.
 if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a
statute prohibiting its commission by
reasons of public policy, then it is mala
prohibita

NOTE:
 Misconception – All mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws.
 In reality – There may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder
under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes
defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.

2. Does an act prohibited by special law automatically make it malum

prohibitum?

NO. 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 accused-appellants 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, accused-
appellants' pending foreshore lease application over the subject area with the DENR is

1
 not a defense to exculpate them of the criminal charge.(People v. Constantino,. G.R. No.
251636. February 14, 2022, J. Hernando)

3. Is the crime of plunder mala prohibita or mala in se?

The acts enumerated in Section 1(d) are mostly defined and penalized by the Revised
Penal Code, e.g. malversation, estafa, bribery and other crimes committed by public
officers. As such, they are by nature mala in se crimes. Since intent is an essential
element of these crimes, then, with more reason that criminal intent be established in
plunder which, under R.A. No. 7659, is one of the heinous crimes as pronounced in one
of its whereas clauses.

The fact that the acts enumerated in Section 1(d) of R.A. 7080 were made criminal by
special law does not necessarily make the same mala prohibita where criminal intent is
not essential, although the term refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
(Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 2, 2001).

2. Scope and Characteristics

a) Generality

4. Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and

driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally.
The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce
correct?

Yes. Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines, is exempted from the
general application of our penal laws. The Generally Accepted Principles of International
Law provides that Chiefs of state, sovereigns, and other diplomatic representatives such
as public ministers and ambassadors, are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the
country where they are assigned. While they are in the host country, they cannot be
arrested, prosecuted, nor punished for having violated the laws of the said country
because they enjoy diplomatic immunity from suit. Hence, Pierce enjoys diplomatic
immunity from suit.

b) Territoriality

5. Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore.

Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband
and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be prosecuted
for bigamy?

No. Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy because the bigamous marriage was
contracted or solemnized in Singapore. Hence, such violation is not one of those where
the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied extraterritorially. The
general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.

2
 3. Pro Reo Principle

6. What is the Doctrine of Pro-Reo?

The Doctrine of Pro-Reo states that the Court must construe criminal rules in favor of
the accused. In fact, the slightest doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. This
directive is moored on the equally vital doctrine of presumption of innocence. These
principles call for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient. Time and
again, courts harken back to the pro reo rule when observing leniency, explaining: "The
scales of justice must hang equal and, in fact should be tipped in favor of the accused
because of the constitutional presumption of innocence. (Corpuz vs. People, G.R. No. 180016.
April 29, 2014)

Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies
when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that is
prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused. (Ient v. Tullett Prebon,
G.R. No. 189158, January 11, 2017)

7. How does pro-reo principle relate to Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code?

The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which follows
the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty
irrespective of the crimes committed. The rationale being, that the accused who
commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than
when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions.

The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute
a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal
offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows
his lesser degree of perversity. (People vs. Comadre, G.R. NO. 153559. June 8, 2004)

8. What is the equipoise doctrine?

Under this rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt
on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.
The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of
the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated,
the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found
lacking. x x x

Conviction rests not on the frailty of the defense but on the strength and sufficiency of
the evidence of the prosecution. (Arriola v. People, G.R. No. 199975, February 24, 2020, J.
Hernando)

3
 4. Ex-Post Facto Law

9. Distinguish an Ex Post Facto law from a Bill of Attainder.

An ex post facto law is a law that either: (1) makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law that was innocent when done, and punishes such act; or (2)
aggravates a crime, or makes the crime greater than it was when committed; or (3)
changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when it was committed; or (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense; or (5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right for an act that was lawful when
done; or (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217682, July 17, 2018).

On the other hand, a bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without
trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.
The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of
separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling
legislative usurpation of the judicial function. (People vs. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December
27, 1972)

5. Interpretation of Penal Laws

10. Discuss briefly what Lenity Rule is?

Penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the
accused. They are not to be extended or enlarged by implications, intendments,
analogies or equitable considerations. They are not to be strained by construction to
spell out a new offense, enlarge the field of crime or multiply felonies. Hence, in the
interpretation of a penal statute, the tendency is to subject it to careful scrutiny and to
construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of the accused. If the statute
is ambiguous and admits of two reasonable but contradictory constructions, that which
operates in favor of a party accused under its provisions is to be preferred. (Centeno vs.
Villalon-Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092. September 1, 1994)

6. Retroactive effect of penal laws

11. When may a law be given retroactive effect?

Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of
this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same. (Article 22, Revised Penal Code)

4
12. When may amendatory laws be applied retroactively?

When exceptional circumstances exist, such as the passage of the instant amendatory
law imposing penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the Court shall not
hesitate to direct the reopening of a final and immutable judgment, the objective of
which is to correct not so much the findings of guilt but the applicable penalties to be
imposed.. (Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, [December 5, 2017])

B. FELONIES

1. Criminal Liabilities and Felonies

a) Classification of Felonies

13. Distinguish Grave, Less Grave, and Light Felonies.

Grave Felonies Less Grave Felonies Light Felonies

Those which the law attaches
the capital punishment or
penalties, which in any of their
periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Article 25 of
the RPC. (Art. 9, RPC)
Those which the law punishes with
penalties, which in their maximum
period are correctional, in
accordance with above–mentioned
article. (Art. 9, RPC)
Those infractions of law for
the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 40,000
pesos, or both, is provided.
(Art. 9, RPC)

b) Abberatio Ictus, Error in Personae, and Praeter Intentionem

14. Distinguish the three wrongful acts done which are different from those
Intended by the Offender.

Error in Personae
Phraseology Aberratio Ictus Praeter Intentionem
Meaning Mistake in Identity Mistake in the Blow Greater Injury Results
The offender The offender intends the The injury is on the
committed a mistake in injury on one person but the intended victim but
ascertaining the harm fell on another. the resulting
Explanation identity of the victim. consequence is much
graver than intended
Number of There are two persons There are three persons There are two persons
Persons Involved who are present: the present: the offender, the who are present: the
offender and the actual intended victim and the offender and the
victim but unintended actual victim. (Boado, actual victim. (Boado,
victim. (Boado, Compact Reviewer in Compact Reviewer in
Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law, 2016, p. 25) Criminal Law, 2016, p.
Criminal Law, 2016, p. 26)
25)

5
 Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow)

15. Nono's original intent was to kill Neyney. However, during the commission of
the crime of murder, a stray bullet hit and killed Wamuz. Is Nono criminally
liable?

Yes. Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, criminal liability is imposed for the acts
committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting
therefrom. While it may not have been Nono's intention to shoot Wamuz, this fact will
not exculpate him. Wamuz’s death caused by the bullet fired by Nono was the natural
and direct consequence of Nono’s felonious deadly assault against Cabiedes.

The fact that accused killed a person other than their intended victim is of no moment."
Evidently, Adriano's original intent was to kill Cabiedes. However, during the commission
of the crime of murder, a stray bullet hit and killed Bulanan. Adriano is responsible for
the consequences of his act of shooting Cabiedes. (People v. Adriano y Samson, G.R. No.
205228, [July 15, 2015], 764 PHIL 144-160)

Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)

16. What is the effect on the criminal liability of the person when he committed
a felony but befalls to a different person?

Mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes
in on his intended victim.| The fact that appellants were mistaken does not diminish
their culpability. (People v. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, August 31, 1998)

Praeter Intentionem (No intention to commit so grave a wrong)

17. Distinguish motive from intent.

Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent, on
the other hand, is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.

Motive alone is not proof of a crime. In order to tip the scales in its favor, intent and
not motive must be established by the prosecution. Motive is hardly ever an essential
element of a crime. A man driven by extreme moral perversion may be led to commit a
crime, without a real motive but a just for the sake of committing it. Along the same
line, a man who commits a crime with an apparent motive may produce different results,
for which he is punished.

The prosecution need not prove motive on the part of the accused when the latter has
been positively identified as the author of the crime. Lack or absence of motive for
committing the crime does not preclude conviction thereof where there were reliable
witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator of the
felony. (People v. Bulusan, G.R. No. 120921, January 29, 1998)

6
18. When is motive material?

Generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have
to be proven. Proof of the same, however, becomes relevant and essential when the
identity of the assailant is in question.

It is true that it is not indispensable to conviction for murder that the particular motive
for taking the life of a human being shall be established at the trial, and that in general
when the commission of a crime is clearly proven, conviction may and should follow
even where the reason for its commission is unknown; but in many criminal cases, one
of the most important aids in completing the proof of the commission of the crime by
the accused is the introduction of evidence disclosing the motive which tempted the
mind to indulge in the criminal act. (Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 241557, [December 11, 2019])

Impossible crime

19. What is an impossible crime?

An impossible crime is 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. (Art. 4[2], RPC)

To be impossible crime, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one
impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2)
physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an
impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed,
would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those
circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in
violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act, (3) there is a
performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence resulting from the
intended act does not amount to a crime. The impossibility of killing a person already
dead falls in this category. On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. One example is the man who puts his hand in the
coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter’s wallet and finds the pocket
empty. (Intod v. CA, G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 1992)

e) Stages of Execution

20. Distinguish frustrated felony from attempted felony.

The distinction between a frustrated and attempted felony are as follows:

i. In a frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony as a consequence whereas in an attempted felony, the
offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and
does not perform all the acts of execution.
ii. In a frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is
some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in an
attempted felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or

7
 accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance. (Evangelista v. People,
G.R. No. 250167 (Notice), [October 13, 2021])

21. Enumerate crimes that do not admit of Attempted and Frustrated Stage?

Crimes without attempted and frustrated stages:

a. Slander and False Testimony

b. Sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs (People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8,
1990)
c. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121, RPC)
d. Corruption of minor (Art. 340, RPC)
e. Physical injury (whether serious, less serious, slight) (Art. 263,265 and 266, RPC)

Crimes without frustrated stage:

a. Rape (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 192433, March 30, 2000).
b. Robbery/Theft (Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007).
c. Libel (Disini vs. SOJ, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
d. Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC)
e. Corruption of public officers (Art. 212, RPC)
f. Adultery, (Art. 333, RPC)
g. Arson (Art. 320, RPC)

f) Continuing crimes

22. What is delito continuado?

It is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution
or intent not susceptible of division. For Cuello Calon, when the actor, there being unity
of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which although of a
delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict,
such concurrence or delictual acts is called a "delito continuado". In order that it may
exist, there should be "plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time:
unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated and unity of criminal intent and
purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are
united in one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal
purpose or aim. (Gamboa v. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November 28, 1975)

g) Complex Crimes (delito complejo) and composite crimes

23. Distinguish composite crimes and complex crimes.

A composite crime is truly distinct and different from a complex or compound crime.
In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law, but 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.

8
 In a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific, but
in a complex or compound crime the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious
offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies the
commission of a complex or compound crime may be made the subject of a separate
information, but a light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed. (People
v. Esugon y Avila, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015)

24. What are the elements of the special complex crime of rape with homicide?

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. (People v. Villegas, G.R. No. 218210, October 09,
2019, J. Hernando)

2. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

a) Justifying Circumstances

25. What are the Elements of Self-Defense?

The three requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying circumstance which may

exempt an accused from criminal liability are:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression;
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person
defending himself. (Par. 1, Article 11, Revised Penal Code)

Note: Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self-defense. Self-

defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent
or repel the unlawful aggression. 31 Thus, without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack
by the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense. (Manaban v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 150723, [July 11, 2006], 527 PHIL 84-108)

26. Bagan was watching television in his house together with his wife and a
neighbor when all of a sudden, Pereira entered Bagan’s house and stabbed
him in the chest. Bagan was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. Periera
was arrested at the house of his aunt but for his part, claims that his act was
made in self-defense against Bagan who provoked him and started the fight
when Bagan came upon him and tried to stab him. Perreira insists that he
was justified in killing Bagan who pulled a knife on him which compelled him
to defend himself from the unprovoked attack. He adamantly maintains that
the elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense were present. Is
the justifying circumstance of self-defense present in this case?

No. Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and offers exculpation from liability for
crimes only if satisfactorily proved. It requires (a) unlawful aggression on the part of

9
 the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to repel it;
and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part. By invoking self-defense, the burden
is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly. While all three
elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense
may be successfully pleaded. In this case, Perreira utterly failed to discharge the burden
of proving unlawful aggression. His version of the events was uncorroborated, and his
testimony was not accorded any credence by the trial court. On the other hand, the
eyewitness testimony for the prosecution was positive, clear and categorical. (People of
the Philippines vs. Pereira, G.R. No. 220749, January 20, 2021, J. Hernando)

27. Is there unlawful aggression when a victim in a homicide case was about to
draw a gun?

None. Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his
life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Absent
such actual or imminent peril to one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is
no justification for taking the life or inflicting injuries on another. (Manaban vs. People, G.R.
No. 150723, July 11, 2006)

It is axiomatic that the mere thrusting of one’s hand into his pocket as if for the purpose
of drawing a weapon is not unlawful aggression. Even the cocking of a rifle without
aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that one’s life
was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief
that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent
be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the
commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression. (People vs. Rubiso, G.R No.
128871, March 18, 2003)

28. What is required in reasonable necessity of the mean employed?

It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material
commensurability between the means of attack and defense.

What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter
the principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked
is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense,
and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon
the imminent danger of such injury. (People v. Olarbe y Balihango, G.R. No. 227421, [July 23,
2018])

29. What are the requisites to successfully invoke avoidance of greater evil as a
justifying circumstance?

Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, to successfully invoke

avoidance of greater evil as a justifying circumstance, the following requisites should be
complied with:

(1) the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

10
 (2) the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and

(3) there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. (People v. Punzalan,
Jr., G.R. No. 199892, [December 10, 2012], 700 PHIL 793-816)

30. What are the requisites to successfully invoke the fulfillment of a duty as
justifying circumstance?

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article II, of

the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that:

(1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and

(2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance or lawful exercise of such duty. (Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152, [February
2, 2007], 543 PHIL 42-53)

31. What are the requisites of Obedience to a lawful order of a superior as a

justifying circumstance?

For an act to be justified under Article 11(6) of the Revised Penal Code three requisites
must concur:
(a) an order must have been issued by a superior;
(b) the order must be for a lawful purpose; and
(c) the means used by the subordinate in carrying out such order must itself be lawful.
(Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103501-03 & 103507, [February 17, 1997], 335 PHIL 795-913)

32. What are the requisites for one to be considered as battered woman and
successfully invoke as a justifying circumstance?

Under R.A. 9262 on Battered Woman Syndrome, in order to be classified as a battered

woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may
find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and
she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman. (People v. Genosa, G.R.
No. 135981, January 15, 2004)

b) Exempting Circumstances (Article 12, RPC)

Insanity must be present at the time the crime had been committed

33. When may an insane person be exempted from criminal liability?

In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is

permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition during a reasonable
period before and after. Direct testimony is not required nor are specific acts of
disagreement essential to establish insanity as a defense. A person's mind can only be
plumbed or fathomed by external acts. Thereby his thoughts, motives and emotions
may be evaluated to determine whether his external acts conform to those of people of
sound mind. To prove insanity, clear and convincing circumstantial evidence would
suffice. (Verdadero y Galera v. People, G.R. No. 216021, March 2, 2016)

11
 To be exempted from criminal responsibility, insanity is the complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the criminal act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties
does not exempt from criminal responsibility.|(People v. Haloc y Codon, G.R. No. 227312,
September 5, 2018)

34. A family of five was having dinner when five men entered their home. X, upon
the instructions of the other perpetrator, hit and stabbed one of the victims.
Eventually the perpetrators killed four of the family members. X posits that
he "was compelled or forced at gun point by Joel Albano (Albano) to join
them in robbing the house, and if he resists, something bad will happen to
him and his family. Can X avail the exempting circumstance of “irresistible
force and/or uncontrollable fear”?

No. To avail of this 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.

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. (People v. Labuguen, GR No. 223103, February
24, 2020, J. Hernando)

c) Mitigating Circumstances

35. Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances.

Ordinary mitigating Privileged mitigating

APPLICATION If penalty is divisible, apply the penalty in Lower the penalty by
its minimum period. degree/s.

If penalty is indivisible, apply the lesser

penalty.
OFFSETTING Can be offset by a generic aggravating Cannot be offset by any
circumstance. aggravating circumstance.

WHEN CONSIDERED Not considered when what is prescribed is Always considered, whether
single indivisible penalty. the prescribed penalty is
divisible or indivisible.

12
 d) Aggravating Circumstances

36. Name the five (5) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect
on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof.

Kind Nature/Effect Example

ORDINARY Those that require the application of dwelling,
AGGRAVATING the penalty in its maximum period if nighttime,
prescribed penalty is divisible; or the recidivism
greater penalty if the prescribed
penalty is indivisible; and can be
offset by mitigating circumstances.

SPECIFIC Those that require the application of ignominy –

AGGRAVATING the penalty in its maximum period. chastity

SPECIAL Those which arise under special Article 63.

AGGRAVATING conditions to increase the penalty for Advantage be
the offense to its maximum period, taken by the
but the same cannot increase the offender of his
penalty to the next higher degree; public position
cannot be offset by ordinary (People vs. De
mitigating circumstance. Leon, G.R.
179943, June 26,
2009)
QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of the treachery/evident
CIRCUMSTANCES crime to a graver one, or brings about premeditation –
a penalty next higher in degree, and murder
cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances.

INHERENT Those that essentially accompany the evident

AGGRAVATING commission of the crime and do not premeditation –
affect the penalty for the crime. robbery, theft,
estafa

37. Discuss treachery as an aggravating circumstance.

Treachery is defined as the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without
the slightest provocation on his or her part.

The essence of treachery is the suddenness of the attack by an aggressor on the

unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself [or herself]
and thereby ensuring the commission of the offense without risk to the offender arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.

13
 The attack must be deliberate and without warning and must be done in a swift and
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape.

For treachery to be appreciated two conditions must concur, namely: first, the assailant
employed means, methods, or forms in the execution of the criminal act that give the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself (or herself) or to retaliate; and second,
said means, methods, or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted
by the assailant. (People v. Conde y Mina, G.R. No. 254251, June 22, 2022)

38. How does dwelling as an aggravating circumstance appreciated?

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling need not be "deliberately and purposely

intended" by an accused for it to be appreciated. Rather, it aggravates the felony when
the crime was committed in the residence of the offended party and the latter did not
give any provocation. It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of
the sanctity of privacy accorded to the human abode. Repeated across many cases are
these lines: "[o]ne's dwelling is a sanctuary worthy of respect thus one who slanders
another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who offends him
elsewhere. (People v. Kalipayan y Aniano, G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018)

39. How is cruelty appreciated as an aggravating circumstance?

The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because the victim sustained ten stab
wounds, three of which were fatal.

For cruelty to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, there must be proof that,

in inflicting several stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator intended to exacerbate
the pain and suffering of the victim. The number of wounds inflicted on the victim is
not proof of cruelty.||| (Moises Simangan v. People, G.R. No. 157984, July 8, 2004)

40. What are the elements of evident premeditation?

Evident premeditation is attendant when the following requisites are proven during trial:
(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that he/she clung to his determination;
(3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him/her
to reflect upon the consequences of his/her act, and to allow his/her conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.

It presupposes a deliberate planning of the crime before executing it. The execution of
the criminal act, in other words, must be preceded by cool thought and reflection. There
must be showing of a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated
and reflected upon his/her decision to execute the crime. (People v. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867,
November 4, 2020, J.Hernando)

14
41. When does night time may be appreciated as aggravating circumstance?

Nighttime becomes aggravating only when:

(1) it is especially sought by the offender; or
(2) it is taken advantage of by him; or
(3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from
capture. (People v. Silva, G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002)

e) Alternative Circumstances

42. Define Alternative Circumstances?

Those circumstances which must be considered as aggravating or mitigating according

to the nature and effects of the crime and other condition attending its commission.
They are relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the
offender. (Art. 15, RPC)

43. What is the scope of the “relationship” being referred to in Article 15 of the
RPC?

The scope of relationship as defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse; (2) an
ascendant; (3) a descendant; (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister; or
(5) a relative by affinity in the same degree.17 Relationship by affinity refers to a relation
by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity therefore are those
commonly referred to as "in-laws," or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like; in
contrast to relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second,
third and fourth enumeration above. The law cannot be stretched to include persons
attached by common-law relations. (People v. Atop, G.R. No. 124303-05, February 10, 1998)

f) Absolutory Circumstances

44. What is the difference between instigation and entrapment?

In instigation, where the officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or
lure an accused into committing an offense, which he otherwise would not commit and
has no intention of committing, the accused cannot be held liable. But in entrapment,
where the criminal intent or design to commit the offense originates from the mind of
the accused and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the
offense, the accused cannot justify his conduct. Instigation is a "trap for the unwary
innocent." Entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal (Cabrera v. Judge Pajares, Adm. Mat.
R-278-RTJ & R 309-RTJ, May 30, 1986, En Banc, Per Curiam, 142 SCRA 124).

In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a
lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation the
instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into committing the offense, and
himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction
while in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted.

15
 The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In
entrapment, the means originate from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the
resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation, the law enforcer conceives
the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal
from liability. Instigation does. (People vs. Dante Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990)

3. Persons Liable and Degree of Participation

a) Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories

45. Who can be considered as Principals?

The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished. (Article 17, Revised Penal Code)

46. Who are accomplices?

Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. (Article 18, Revised Penal
Code)

47. Who are Accessories?

Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments

thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime,

provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author
of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. (Article 19, Revised
Penal Code)

48. How does one become a co-principal by indispensable cooperation?

To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal

resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the

16
 commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have
been accomplished. (People v. Dulay y Pascual, G.R. No. 193854, September 24, 2012)

49. When may a person be convicted as principal by inducement?

In order that a person may be convicted as principal by inducement, the following must
be present:
(1) the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime,
and
(2) such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material
executor

To constitute inducement, there must exist on the part of the inducer the most positive
resolution and the most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime, together
with the presentation to the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to
commit the crime. (People v. Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999)

50. When may a person be considered as an accomplice?

In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following must concur:
(1) that there be community of design; that is knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the
execution by previous or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral
aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between
the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.||| (People v. Gambao y Esmail, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)

b) Conspiracy and proposal

51. What is conspiracy?

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. However, oftentimes, direct proof of
conspiracy is elusive. Hence, 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. (People
v. Padilla, G.R. No. 247824, February 23, 2022, J. Hernando)

52. Is conspiracy a crime?

As a general rule, conspiracy is not a crime in our jurisdiction. It is punished as a crime

only when the law fixes a penalty for its commission such as in conspiracy to commit
treason, rebellion and seditio.||| (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, [February 26, 2002],
427 PHIL 820-912)

17
 c) Multiple Offenders

53. Who is a recidivist?

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
(Article 19, Revised Penal Code)

54. During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused
AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she
eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several
convictions, to wit:
(1) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;
(2) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
(3) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;

The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What
circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate
against AA? (2014 Bar)

The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidivism as all the are
present. AA is on trial for the crime of theft. He has already been convicted by final
judgment of robbery, and both robbery and theft are embraced in the same title of the
RPC. Considering he is about to be convicted of the crime of theft for which he is on
trial, AA is, therefore, a recidivist.

That more than 10 years has lapsed from the time he was convicted by final judgment
of robbery in 2003 to his trial for the crime of theft in 2014 is of no moment because
recidivism does not prescribed. (UPLC Suggested Answers)

55. Who is a habitual delinquent?

A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a
third time or oftener.(Article 62, Revised Penal Code)

56. Who is a quasi-recidivist?

Any person who shall:

1.) commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment
2.) before beginning to serve such sentence, or
3.) while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony. (Article 160, Revised Penald Code)

18
 d) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of
Criminal Offenders (PD 1829)

57. Does the failure of a counsel to report the presence of the accused-client in
his office to the authorities, despite knowledge of a standing warrant for his
arrest, constitute obstruction of justice under P.D. No. 1829?

No. P.D. No. 1829 punishes acts knowingly and willfully committed with the intention
to obstruct, impede, frustrate or delay the administration of justice. Harboring a criminal
presupposes something deliberate and not just the simple act of not voluntarily giving
any information to the authorities as to the present whereabouts of a person….xxx
Indeed, a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. This duty to the courts, however, must be balanced
with the lawyer's obligations toward their clients. this, among other things, is why
evidence of criminal intent is essential. (People v. Atty. Judith Z. Luis, G.R. No. 226236. July 06,
2021)

C. Penalties

1. Imposable penalties
2. Classification
3. Duration and Effects

58. What are the classes of principal and accessory penalties?

Principal Penalties Accessory Penalties

1. Capital Punishment (Death); 1. Perpetual or temporary absolute

2. Afflictive Penalties (Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion disqualification;
temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute 2. Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification;
disqualification, Prision mayor); 3. Suspension from public office, the right
3. Correctional penalties (Prision correccional, Arresto to vote and be voted for, the profession
mayor, Suspension, Destierro); and or calling;
4. Light penalties (Arresto menor, Public censure). 4. Civil interdiction;
5. Indemnification;
Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Fine, 6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments
and Bond to keep the peace. and proceeds of the offense; and
(Art. 5, RPC) 7. Payment of costs.
(Art. 5, RPC)

59. What are the duration of penalties under RPC?

PENALTY DURATION
Reclusion Perpetua 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
Reclusion Temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
Prision Mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, except when
disqualification is accessory penalty, in which case its
Temporary duration is that of the principal penalty.

19
 Disqualification
Prision Correccional 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, except when suspension
is an accessory penalty, in which case its duration is that
Suspension of the principal penalty.

Destierro
Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
Arresto menor 1 month to 30 days
Bond to keep the peace The period during which the bond shall be effective is
discretionary on the court.

60. Kardo was convicted of murder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
death. How should the judgment be served?

It must be noted that murder remains a capital offense despite the proscription against
the imposition of death as a punishment.

In case death was found to be the imposable penalty, the same would only have to be
reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of the prohibition against the imposition of the
capital punishment, but the nature of the offense of murder as a capital crime, and for
that matter, of all crimes properly characterized as capital offenses under the Revised
Penal Code, was never tempered to that of a non-capital offense (People v. Pagal, G.R. No.
241257, September 29, 2020)

4. Application and graduation of penalties

a) Subsidiary Imprisonment

61. What is the rule for Graduation of Penalties?

The penalty prescribed by law for the felony shall be lowered by one or two degrees,
as follows (Arts.50-57, RPC):

1. For the principal in frustrated felony – one degree lower;

2. For the principal in attempted felony – two degrees lower;
3. For the accomplice in consummated felony – one degree lower;
4. For the accessory in consummated felony – two degrees lower.

Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Principals 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4

The figure “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining a crime, which is to
be imposed on the principal in a consummated offense, in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 46, RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the penalty
must be lowered, to meet the different situations anticipated by law.

20
62. What is Subsidiary Imprisonment?

It is imposed upon the accused and served by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to
pay on account of insolvency at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of
judgment of conviction by the trial court, subject to rules provided in Article 39 [Art. 39,
RPC, as amended by R.A. 10159].

63. May an accused undergo subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay the fine?

An accused who has been sentenced by final judgment to pay a fine only and is found
to be insolvent and could not pay the fine for this reason, cannot be compelled to serve
the subsidiary imprisonment provided for in article 39 of the Revised Penal Code. (People
v. Fajardo, G.R. No. 43466. May 25, 1938) Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency must
be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction. (People v. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527. January
10, 2018)

b) Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103)

64. How should ISLAW be applied?

Under ISLAW, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken from
the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, after considering the modifying
circumstances in the commission of the crime. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances in this case, the maximum term should be within the medium period of
the prescribed penalty, that is, eight (8) years and one (1) day, to (10) ten years, of
prision mayor. On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that provided by law,
that is, prision correccional, or within six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
(People v. Partisala, G.R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022, J. Hernando)

65. When is ISLAW is not applicable?

This Act shall not apply:

1) To persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment;

2) To those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3) To those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4) To those convicted of piracy;
5) To those who are habitual delinquents;
6) To those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7) To those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall
have violated the terms thereof;
8) To those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year; nor
9) To those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act.
(Sec. 2, ISL)

21
66. What are the rules in computing the maximum and minimum periods under
the Indeterminate Sentence Law?

UNDER RPC UNDER SPECIAL LAW

Maximum Anywhere within the range imposed by the Should not exceed what is
RPC, considering all attending/modifying prescribed under the special
circumstances (mitigating and aggravating) law.

Minimum Within range of penalty, 1 degree lower than Should not be less than the
that prescribed by RPC, without considering minimum prescribed by law.
any ordinary aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. In the case of a complex
crime, DO NOT consider the fact that the
higher penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period. Consider all others (i.e.,
special aggravating, privileged mitigating,
etc.).
(Act No. 4103, Section 1, as amended).

6. Accessory penalties

67. What are the effects of Accessory penalties?

ACCESSORY PENALTY EFFECTS

Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Deprivation of any public office or employment of offender,
Disqualification even if by election; deprivation of the right to vote in any
election or to be voted upon; disqualification for the offices
or public employments and for the exercise of any of the
rights mentioned; Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension.
Perpetual or Temporary Special For public office, profession or calling:
Disqualification ● Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or
calling affected;
● Disqualification for holding similar offices or
employments during the period of disqualification;
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
● Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in an
office;
● Cannot hold any public office during the period of
disqualification.

Suspension from Public Office, the Right to Disqualification from holding such office or the exercise of
Vote and Be Voted for, the Right to Practice such profession or right of suffrage during the term of the
a Profession or Calling sentence; Cannot hold another office having similar functions
during the period of suspension.

Civil Interdiction Deprivation of the following rights:

● Parental authority
● Guardianship over the ward
● Marital authority
● Right to manage property and to dispose of the same
by acts inter vivos

Deprivation of the following rights:

 Parental authority
 Guardianship over the ward

22
 ACCESSORY PENALTY EFFECTS
 Marital authority
● Right to manage property and to dispose of the same
by acts inter vivos

Other Effects under the Civil Code:

Indemnification or Confiscation of
Instruments or Proceeds of the Offense
1. Offer given by the convict before acceptance is conveyed
shall become ineffective [Art. 1323, NCC)
2. Dissolution [of partnership] is caused: (7) By the civil
interdiction of any partner [Art. 1830, NCC]
3. Civil interdiction of a general partner dissolves the
partnership, unless the business is continued by the
remaining general partners:
a. Under a right to do stated in the certificate, or
b. With the consent of all members. [Art. 1860, NCC]
4. Agency is extinguished: (3) By the [xxx] civil interdiction
[xxx] of the agent [Art. 1919,NCC]
Forfeiture in favor of the Government of the proceeds of the
crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed. [Art. 45, RPC]

Rules: [Art. 45, RPC]

1. Every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture of the

proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools used in
the commission of the crime.
2. Proceeds and instruments or tools of the crime are
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government.
3. Property of a third person NOT LIABLE for the offense, is
not subject to confiscation and forfeiture.
4. Property not subject of lawful commerce (whether it
belongs to the accused or third person) shall be destroyed.

Payment of Costs If the accused be convicted, the costs may be charged

against him; If he be acquitted, costs are de officio, i.e., each
party will bear his/her own expense.

Exclusion
● Not allowed against the Republic of the Philippines [Rule
142, Sec. 1]

Inclusion
● Fees, and
● Indemnities, in the course of judicial proceedings [Art. 37,
RPC]

D. Execution and service

1. Three-Fold Rule

68. What is Three-Fold Rule?

It states that the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than
three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum

23
 total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall
in no case exceed forty years. (Article 70, Revised Penal Code)

59. Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Vaentine's Day, without prior notice,
Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned
him down and abrupty left, leaving her condo door unlocked. Roman
attempted to fo1low, but appeared to have second thoughts; he simply went
back to Wendy's condo, Jet himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendy's
arrival later that evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife
in hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman
then tied Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times
that night. Roman was charged with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of
rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on
the basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge correct? (2013 BAR)

No. The three-fold rule is applicable only in connection with the service of the sentence not in
the imposition of the proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all the crimes
for which the accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should not make a computation
in it decision and sentence the accused to not more than the three-fold of the most severe of
the penalties imposable. The computation under the three-fold rule is for the prison authorities
to make. (Art. 70, RPC) (UPLC Suggested Answers)

2. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. 10707)

69. What is probation?

Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is

released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer. (Section 3[a] of PD 968)

70. When and where should one apply for Probation?

After conviction and sentencing of the defendant, the application for probation must be
filed within the period for perfecting an appeal, and such application shall be filed in the
trial court. If the application is based on a modified decision imposing a probationable
penalty, it shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty was rendered. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 19th
Edition, 2017)

71. What is the rule on the grant of probation on appealed cases?

As a general rule, no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the

defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. However, when
the defendant appealed a judgment of conviction imposing a NON-PROBATIONABLE
penalty and such judgment, upon review, was modified through the imposition of a
probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on
the modified decision BEFORE such decision becomes final. (Sec. 4, P.D. 968, as amended by
R.A. 10707)

24
72. Arnel was found guilty by the trial court of frustrated homicide that imposed
a penalty beyond six (6) years, disqualifying him for probation. After his
appeal, the court found that he was only liable for attempted homicide with
a penalty less than six (6) years. Is Arnel now entitled to apply for probation
although he applead his case?

Yes. Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for
probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a
position to say, "By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The stiff
penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. The finding of
attempted homicide is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on Arnel a
probationable penalty. Had the RTC done Arnel right from the start, it would have found
him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty This would have
afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation. (Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748, December
13, 2011).

73. X applied for probation but such application was denied on the ground that
there is undue risk that during the period of probation, X will commit another
crime. X appealed the denial of application. Will the appeal prosper?

No. An order granting or denying probation is not appealable. (Maruhom v. People, G.R. No.
206513, October 20, 2015)

74. Junjun was charged and convicted of rape. He appealed the RTC judgment of
conviction before the Court of Appeals, and appealed the Court of Appeals
Decision affirming his conviction before the Supreme Court. Can the appeal
be withdrawn on the ground of his eligibility for parole and/or probation?

No. Section 9(a) of the Probation Law is clear that the benefits of probation shall not
extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
(6) years. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, intends to put a stop to the
practice of appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is
probationable, for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation
only if the accused fails in his bid. An accused must not have appealed his conviction
before he can avail himself of probation (People vs. Renato Wad-as, G.R. No. 221428, February
13, 2019, J. Hernando)

75. Who are disqualified to avail the benefits of Probation?

a. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years
(Section 9 of P.D. No. 968), unless the crime involved is possession or use of dangerous
drugs committed by first time minor offender (Section 70 or R.A. No. 9165);
b. Those convicted of any crime against national security (Sec. 9(b), P.D. 968);
c. (Note: R.A. 10707 has amended P.D. No. 968 by deleting the crime against public
order in Section 9 thereof. In sum, under the present law on probation, crimes
against public order, such as alarm and scandal and direct assault are now
probationable)

25
 d. (N.B. Rebellion is a crime against public order and not a crime against national
security. But it is not probationable since the penalty prescribed for it is higher
than six years of imprisonment)
e. Those who have been previously convicted by final judgment of an offense
punished by imprisonment of more than six months and one day and/or a fine
of more than P1,000;
f. Those who have been once on probation (Sec. 9 (d), P.D. 968);
g. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions
of the law became applicable (Section 9 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707);
and
h. Those convicted of dangerous drug trafficking or pushing (Section 24 of R.A. No.
9165).

76. Renato was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape. Is
he eligible for parole?

No. He cannot apply for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 explicitly states that
"persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,or whose sentences will
be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
Accused-appellant is likewise disqualified from applying for probation as Section 9 (a) of
the Probation Law is clear that the benefits of probation shall not extend to those
sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years.
Irrefragably, the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused-appellant in this
case exceeds six (6) years of imprisonment. (People v. Galuga y Wad-as, G.R. No. 221428,
February 13, 2019, J. Hernando)

3. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344, as amended)

77. Distinguish intervention from diversion.

INTERVENTION
Refers to a series of activities which are designed to
address issues that caused the child to commit an offense.
It may take the form of an individualized treatment
program which may include counselling, skills training,
education, and other activities that will enhance his/her
psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
DIVERSION
Refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and
treatment of a child conflict with the law on the
basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background
without resorting to formal court proceedings.

This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time This process governs when the child is over 15
of the commission of the crime or although over 15 but years old but below 18 at the time of the
below 18 years old at the time of commission of the crime, commission of the crime and he acted with
the child acted without discernment. discernment.

26
78. What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility? (Sec. 6, R.A. 9344).

AGE CRIMINAL LIABILITY CIVIL LIABILITY

15 years of age or under at the time of Exempt Subject to civil liability
the commission of the offense
Above 15 years but below 18 years of Exempt Subject to civil liability
age without discernment

Above 15 years but below 18 years of Subject to criminal Subject to civil liability
age with discernment liability but shall undergo
diversion program.

XPN: No civil liability

Even if the same child because no private
committed a crime with party affected.
discernment, he is
exempted from criminal
responsibility and no
Information should be
filed against the child if
the offense committed
are any of these:
(a) status offenses;
(b)vagrancy and
prostitution under Sec.
202 of the RPC;
(c) mendicancy under
P.D. 1563; and
(d) sniffing of rugby
under P.D. 1619.
(Revised Rules on
Children in Conflict of
Law)
At least 18 years of age. Subject to criminal Subject to civil liability
liability.

Note: Between the ages of above 15 but below 18, a rebuttable

presumption operates to deem a child incapable of committing a criminal
act.

The age of Doli Incapax (criminal incapacity) is 15 years old or below since the
accused in such age is exempt from criminal liability regardless of whether or not he
discerned the consequence of his criminal act. As far as the law is concerned, he
cannot do evil, and lack of discernment is conclusively presumed.

79. Can probation be an alternative in lieu of imprisonment?

Yes. The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with
the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service
of his/her sentence considering the best interest of the child. (Sec. 42, R.A. No. 9344)

27
80. The accused was seventeen (17) years old when the buy-bust operation took
place or when the said offense was committed, but was no longer a minor at
the time of the promulgation of the RTC's Decision. Is he entitled to a
suspension of his sentence under Sections 38 and 68 of RA 9344?

Yes. However, while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can
still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of
age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same
law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of
21. If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended
sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years. (People v. Mantalaba, G.R No. 186227, July 20,2011)

4. An Act Adjusting the Amount of the Value of Property and Damage on Which a
Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code (RA
10951)

81. Elba was convicted of malversation, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period was imposed. The judgment is already final and executory.
However, the recent passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 reduced the
penalty applicable to the crime charged. Should the penalty imposed
corrected or adjusted?

Yes. When exceptional circumstances exist, such as the passage of the instant
amendatory law imposing penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the Court
shall not hesitate to direct the reopening of a final and immutable judgment, the
objective of which is to correct not so much the findings of guilt but the applicable
penalties to be imposed. ( In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to RA 10951, in Relation
to Hernan V. Sandiganbayan-Rolando Elbanbuena Marfil, G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018)

5. Community Service Act (R.A. No. 11362; A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC)

82. How is the Community Service Act imposed?

The court in its discretion may, in lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties of
arresto menor and arresto mayor be served by the defendant by rendering community
service in the place where the crime was committed:
● Under such terms as the court shall determine.
● Taking into consideration the gravity of the offense and the circumstances of the
case, which shall be under the supervision of a probation officer.
● Provided, that the court will prepare an order imposing the community service,
specifying:
i. The number of hours to be worked.
ii. The period within which to complete the service. (Art. 88a [1], RPC, as amended by
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 11362)

28
83. What is the effect of violation of the Community Service Act?

If the defendant violates the terms of the community service, the court shall order
his/her re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full term of the penalty, as the case
may be, in jail, or in the house of the defendant as provided under Article 88. (Art. 88a
[4], RPC, as amended by Sec. 3, R.A. No. 11362)

E. Extinction of Criminal Liability

1. Republic Act No. 10592 (Amendments to Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and
99 of the RPC)

84. What are the deductions for good allowance conduct under the R.A. 10592?

PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT DEDUCTION OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR

DURING DETENTION
First two (2) years 20 days per month
3rd to 5th year 23 days per month
6 to 10 year
th th
25 days per month
11th year onwards 30 days per month
At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction
of 15 days, in addition to the above, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring
service time rendered.

85. Miguel was delivered to the National Bilibid Prison on January 15, 1994 to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. As of August 15, 2021, he has only
served a total of twenty-seven (27) years and seven (7) months of his
sentence. Alleging that his continued detention no longer holds legal basis in
view of Republic Act No. (RA) 10592, otherwise known as the "Good Conduct
Time Allowance Law" (GCTA Law), Miguel filed the present petition for the
issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 19, 2015. He anchors his
claim on the assertion that applying the GCTA Law, he has served a total of
"thirty-eight (38) years, ten (10) months, and one (1) day" already. Second,
he posits that Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) caps the duration
of the penalty of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years. Having served a
total of thirty-eight (38) years, which is eight (8) years more than the
supposed maximum duration of reclusion perpetua, Miguel concludes that he
has fully served his sentence and his detention no longer holds legal basis. Is
Miguel correct?

No. 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.

In People v. Baguio, the Court similarly held that "reclusion perpetua entails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years, after which the convict becomes eligible for
pardon x x x."

29
 Guided by the foregoing jurisprudence, it is evident that the penalty of reclusion
perpetua requires imprisonment of at least thirty (30) years, after which the convict
becomes only eligible for pardon, and not for release. This is in stark contrast to Miguel's
claim that a convict meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua must serve only thirty
(30) years. (Miguel v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, UDK-15368, September 15, 2021, J. Hernando)

86. How can criminal liability be totally extinguished?

a. By death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,

liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before
final judgment;
b. By service of the sentence;
c. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
d. By absolute pardon;
e. By prescription of the crime;
f. By prescription of the penalty;
g. By the marriage of the offended woman in acts of lasciviousness, abduction and
seduction as provided in Article 344 of this Code (Art. 89, RPC).
h. By marriage of the offended party in rape and forgiveness of the husband by the
wife in marital rape (Article 266-C);
i. By discharge of a person under probation (PD No. 968 as amended by RA No. 10707).

87. How can criminal liability be partially extinguished?

Criminal liability can be partially extinguished:

a. By conditional pardon;
b. By commutation of the sentence;
c. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence (Art. 94, RPC).

88. How does pardon and amnesty affects criminal liability?

Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense
of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for
that reason it does "nor work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the
right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon,"
and it "in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed
upon him by the sentence" (article 36, Revised Penal Code). While amnesty looks
backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and
obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty
stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. (Barrioquinto v.
Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, [January 21, 1949], 82 PHIL 642-656)

30
89. Discuss Prescription of Crime and Prescription of Penalty.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME PRESCRIPTION OF

PENALTY
As to Nature Forfeiture or the loss of the right of the Forfeiture or the loss of the right
State to prosecute the offender fixed by law of the government to punish the
offender after the lapse of a
certain time fixed by law
As to From the date of discovery by the offended From the date of evasion of
Commencement party, authorities, and their agents service of sentence by the
Period accused
As to Penalty Prescribed penalty under the law Penalty actually imposed by final
Contemplated judgment

Prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party, and
shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
jeopardy. (Sec. 2, Act No. 3326)

Prescription of crimes:
a. 20 years crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal

b. 15 years crimes punishable by other afflictive penalty

c. 10 years crimes punishable by correctional penalty

d. 5 years crimes punishable by arresto mayor

e. 1 year crimes of libel or other similar offenses

f. 6 months oral defamation and slander by deed offenses;

i. 6 months – grave slander
ii. 2 months – simple slander

g. 2 months light offenses

h. Crimes punishable by fines

i. 15 years – if it is afflictive
ii. 10 years – if it is correctional
iii. 2 years – if it is light

90. Is there a distinction between special penal laws and Revised Penal Code
with respect to the interruption of the period of of prescription?

None. There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by
special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. The
prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy. In the old but oft-cited case of People v. Olarte, this Court ruled
that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely for purposes

31
 of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the period of
prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or
information is filed cannot try the case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the
Court in the case of Francisco, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. when it held that the
filing of the complaint with the Fiscal’s Office also suspends the running of the
prescriptive period of a criminal offense. (People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012)

91. What is the blameless ignorance doctrine?

As a general rule, the mere fact that a person entitled to an action has no knowledge
of his right to sue or of the facts out of which his right arises, does not prevent the
running of the statute. This stringent rule, however, admits of an exception.

Under the "blameless ignorance" doctrine, the statute of limitations runs only upon
discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which will support a cause of action. In
other words, courts decline to apply the statute of limitations where the plaintiff neither
knew nor had reasonable means of knowing the existence of a cause of action. (Perez
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 245862. November 03, 2020)

F. Civil liability in Criminal Cases

92. What is the effect of acquittal of the accused on his civil liability ex delicto?

Acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or
omission complained of - This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person
who has been found to be not perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never
be held liable for such act or omission.

Acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused - In this case,
even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt
from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. (Manantan vs.
C.A. G.R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001)

93. Does the death of the accused affect both his criminal responsibility and his
civil liability as a consequence of the alleged crime?

Yes. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado,
in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if
the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. 19 Article
1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil
liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission. (People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No.
102007, September 2, 1994)

32
94. What if the death occurs prior the arraignment?

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to
any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. (People vs.
Lipata, G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016)

II. Book II (Articles 114-365 of the RPC) and Related Special Laws

A. Crimes Against National Security and Laws of Nations (Arts. 114-123)

95. Distinguish Espionage from Treason.

ESPIONAGE TREASON

As to the offender

Not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender

When committed

Both in times of war and time of peace Only in time of war

How committed

Committed in many ways. Committed in two ways:

1. levying war; and
2. adhering to the enemy, giving him aid
or comfort.

96. Can the crime of treason be committed only by a Filipino citizen?(2012 Bar)

No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the
Philippines because while permanent allegiance is owed by the alien to his own country, he
owes a temporary allegiance to the Philippines where he resides. (UPLC Suggested Answers;
Laurel vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947)

97. When can a crime of treason be committed?

Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace, but there are no traitors
until war has started. Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be
committed in peace time. While there is peace, there are no traitors. Treason may be
incubated when peace reigns. (Laurel vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947)

98. What is the scope of adherence to the enemy and giving aid or comfort?

As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies
must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in
addition, be directly in furtherance of the enemies' hostile designs. To make a simple
distinction: To lend or give money to an enemy as a friend or out of charity to the

33
 beneficiary so that he may buy personal necessities is to assist him as individual and is
not technically traitorous. On the other hand, to lend or give him money to enable him
to buy arms or ammunition to use in waging war against the giver's country enhance
his strength and by same count injures the interest of the government of the giver. That
is treason.

His "commandeering" of women to satisfy the lust of Japanese officers or men or to

enliven the entertainment held in their honor was not treason even though the women
and the entertainment helped to make life more pleasant for the enemies and boost
their spirit; he was not guilty any more than the women themselves would have been if
they voluntarily and willingly had surrendered their bodies or organized the
entertainment. Sexual and social relations with the Japanese did not directly and
materially tend to improve their war efforts or to weaken the power of the United State.
The acts herein charged were not, by fair implication, calculated to strengthen the
Japanese Empire or its army or to cripple the defense and resistance of the other side.
Whatever favorable effect the defendant's collaboration with the Japanese might have
in their prosecution of the war was trivial, imperceptible, and unintentional. Intent of
disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the crime of treason, which, in the absence of admission,
may be gathered from the nature and circumstances of each particular case. (People vs.
Perez, G.R. No. L-856, April 18, 1949)

99. Hiong personally directed the transfer of the hijacked petroleum cargo from
"M/T Tabangao" to "M/T Navi Pride". He also bought the hijacked cargo for
Navi Marine, tested the quality and verified the quantity of the petroleum
products, and connived with Navi Marine Services personnel in falsifying the
General Declarations and Crew List to ensure that the illegal transfer went
through, undetected by Singapore Port Authorities, and supplied the armed
men who boarded “M/T Tabangao” with food, beer, and other provisions for
their maintenance while in port . What crime/s did Hiong commit?

Hiong violated Sec. 4 of P.D 532 which states that “Aiding pirates or highway
robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. Any person who
knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such
as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the
government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any
manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.

It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section
has performed knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. ( People v. Tulin, G.R No. 111709,
August 30, 2001)

34
100. Distinguish Piracy from Mutiny.

PIRACY MUTINY

As to place of commission

Either in Philippine waters or on the high seas

As to the person of the offenders

The person who attacks a vessel or seize its cargo are Committed by members of the crew or
strangers to the vessels. However, piracy under PD passengers
532 can be committed by member of the crew and
passengers.

As to intention

Intent to gain is essential (The essence is robbery) The offenders may only intend to ignore the
ship’s officers or they may be prompted by a
desire to commit plunder (The essence is
protest)

101. Distinguish Piracy from Robbery on High Seas.

PIRACY ROBBERY ON HIGH SEAS

As to the person of the offenders

The offender is an outsider The offenders are members of the complement or

passengers of the vessel

As to intention

In both, there is intent to gain and the manner of committing the crime is the same

102. Distinguish of Piracy under RPC from P.D. 532, Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974.

PIRACY ANTI-PIRACY UNDER PD 532

As to where it is committed:

Philippine waters and high seas Philippine waters

As to the person of the offenders

Offender is an outsider Offender is a crew or passenger

35
103. Armed men seized the cargo and equipment of a pump boat by force and
intimidation along the river bank. On trial, they maintained that the
Information did not state that the vessel in question was in Philippine waters.
Hence, they cannot be convicted of piracy. Are they correct?

No. Under Section 2(a) of PD 532, "Philippine waters''' is defined as follows:

All bodies of water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and
connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth,
breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by
historic or Iegal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. From this
definition, it is clear that a river is considered part of Philippine waters. (People vs. Dela
Peña, G.R. No. 21958, January 31, 2018)

2. Anti-Terrorism Acts of 2020(RA 11479)

104. What is terrorism?

SECTION 4. Terrorism. — Subject to Section 49 of this Act, terrorism is committed by

any person who, within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution:
(a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or
endangers a person's life;
(b) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government
or public facility, public place or private property;
(c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or
destruction to critical infrastructure;
(d) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons,
explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and
(e) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions when the
purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate the general public or a
segment thereof, create an atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to provoke or
influence by intimidation the government or any international organization, or seriously
destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic, or social structures of the
country, or create a public emergency or seriously undermine public safety, shall be
guilty of committing terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without
the benefit of parole and the benefits of Republic Act No. 10592, otherwise known as
"An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise
known as the Revised Penal Code":

Provided, That, terrorism as defined in this section shall not include advocacy, protest,
dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil
and political rights, which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to
a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to public safety. (The
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, Republic Act No. 11479, [July 3, 2020])

36
 B. Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State (Arts. 124-133)

105. What are the differences between illegal detention, unlawful arrest and
arbitrary detention?

ILLEGAL DETENTION UNLAWFUL ARREST ARBITRARY

(Art. 267) (Art. 269) DETENTION
(Art. 124)

As to offender Public officer or private Public officer or private Public officer

individual individual

As to nature Crime against personal Crime against personal Crime against

liberty and security liberty and security fundamental law of the
land

As to purpose of To deprive the victim of his To deliver the victim to In pursuit of his
arrest and/or liberty the proper judicial authority or duty to
detention authority arrest

106. When shall a public officer be held liable for Delay in the Delivery of a
Detained Person to the Proper Judicial Authorities under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code?

When he fails to deliver a person detained for some legal ground to the proper judicial
authorities within the following periods: (a) 12 hours for light penalty; (b) 18 hours for
correctional penalty; or (c) 36 hours for afflictive penalty or capital punishment.

It must be noted that the means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and
other circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the
fiscal to make the investigation and file in time the necessary information, must be
taken into consideration. An election day or a special holiday, should not be included in
the computation of the 12-18-36 periods for the filing of complaint or information in
courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being a “no-office day.” (Soria vs. Desierto, G.R.
Nos. 123524-25, January 31, 2005)

107. Can a police officer be held liable for illegal detention instead of arbitrary
detention?

Yes. The public officer who unlawfully detains another and is punishable by Arbitrary
Detention, is one who has the duty to apprehend a person with a correlative power to
detain him. If a policeman kidnaps the victim, except when legally authorized as part of
police operations, he cannot said to be acting in an official capacity, hence he is to be
treated as private individual liable for kidnapping or illegal detention (SC citing Justice
Regalado in People vs Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011).

37
108. Is physical restraint an essential element of arbitrary detention?

No. The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the
curtailment of the victim's liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim's
person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of
the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to
limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then
the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will.|(Astorga v. People, G.R.
No. 154130, [October 1, 2003], 459 PHIL 140-155)

1. Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (RA 9745)

109. What is torture as defined under R.A. 9745?

Torture refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a
third person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing
him/her or a third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority. It does not
include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
(Sec. 3[a], R.A. 9745)

110. What are the acts of Torture?

a) Physical Torture - form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in authority

upon another in his custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or
dysfunction in one or more parts of the body. (Sec. 4(a), R.A.9745)
b) Mental/Psychological Torture - acts committed by a person in authority or his agent
are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person’s dignity and
morale. (Sec. 4(b), R.A.9745)
c) Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Sec. 5, R.A.9745)

111. Who is a victim?

It refers to the person subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as defined above and any individual who has suffered harm as
a result of any act(s) of torture, or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment. (Sec. 3(c), R.A.9745)

112. Who are the criminally liable for the crime of torture?

Liable as Principal

a) Any person who actually participated Or induced another in the commission of

torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who
cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and

38
 degrading treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable
as principal
b) Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official
who issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever
purpose shall be held equally liable as principals.
c) The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the
immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall
be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed
by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or
indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates.

If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have
known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by
his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of responsibility and, despite
such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or
immediately after its commission, when he/she has the authority to prevent or
investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of such act, whether
deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals. (Sec. 13, R.A.9745)

Liable as Accomplice

Any person who, not being included in Sec. 26, cooperate in the execution of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts.
(Sec. 27, IRR of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009)

Liable as Accessory

1) Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is being committed
and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice, takes part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:

(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the
act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment;

(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting m the escape of the principal/s in
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the official's public
functions.

Provided, that the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the official’s public functions.
(Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9745)

39
113. What is a Prohibited Detention?

Secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado or other similar forms of

detention, where torture may be carried out with impunity are hereby prohibited.

The PNP, AFP and other law enforcement agencies concerned shall make an updated
list of all detention centers and facilities under their respective jurisdictions with the
corresponding data on prisoners or detainees incarcerated or detained therein. This list
shall be available to the public at all times and updated by the same agencies every 5
days of the month at the minimum. (Sec. 7, R.A. 9745)

114. What constitutes other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or

punishment?

Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment refers to a deliberate and
aggravated treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of R.A. 9745
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority against a person under
his/her custody, which attains a level of severity causing suffering, gross humiliation or
debasement to the latter. (Sec. 3[a], R.A. 9745)

115. Can a war be a justification for torture?

No. Punishable acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state of war or a threat of war,
internal political instability, or any other public emergency, or a document or any
determination comprising an "order of battle" shall not and can never be invoked as a
justification for torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment. (Sec. 6, R.A. 9745)

116. Can the crime of Torture absorb or be absorbed by any other crime or felony?

No. Torture is separate and independent crime whose penalties shall be imposable
without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and
international laws. (Sec. 5, R.A. 9745)

117. When is a refouler applicable?

No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are
substantial grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to
torture. For the purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of
the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the DOJ, in coordination
with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant considerations
including, where applicable and not limited to, the existence in the requesting State of
a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.(Sec. 17, R.A.
9745)

40
 C. Crimes Against Public Order (Arts. 134-160)

118. Distinguish Treason from Rebellion, Coup d’etat, and Sedition.

TREASON REBELLION (134) COUP D’ETAT (134- SEDITION

(114) A) (139)

Nature National Public Order Public Order Public Order

Security

Overt acts Levying war Public uprising; Attack against Rising publicly and
against the AND authorities, tumultuously (more than 3
government; Taking up arms military camp, men who are armed or
OR against the networks or public provided with means of
Adherence government. utilities or other violence)
and giving facilities for
aid or power.
comfort to
enemies.

Purpose To deliver Removing To Seize or Violation of the public peace

the territory, or body diminish state or at least such a course of
government of armed forces, power. measures as evidently
to the enemy or depriving the engenders it.
during war. Chief Executive or
Legislature.

Offenders Offender Any person The offender Any person

owes belongs to military
allegiance to or holding pub
the office/
Government employment
of the
Philippines;
(a Filipino
citizen or
Resident
alien)

119. When do common crimes and offenses under special laws be absorbed in
rebellion?

Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed

absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too
well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or ingredient of
rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a
separate charge. (People v. Dasig, G.R. No. 100231. April 28, 1993)

Under the political offense doctrine, “common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a

political offense, are divested of their character as “common” offenses and assume the
political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and,
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed
with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.”

41
 Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide
or murder. Rather, the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its mere
ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone. (Ocampo vs. Abando,
G.R. No. 176830. February 11, 2014)

120. What are the crimes absorbed in the crime of rebellion?

All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere
components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in
the crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in
themselves. (Enrile v. Amin, G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990)

121. Does the Doctrine of Absorption applies to Coup d’etat and Sedition?

The doctrine is applicable in coup d’etat for being a political crime because the purpose
of the coup plotter is to seize or diminish state power. (Gonzales vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007,
August 8, 2006, concurring opinion by Justice Callejo)

The doctrine is not applicable to sedition since it can be committed without killing soldiers
and burning of properties. The uprisers are liable for sedition, murder, and arson. (People
vs Hadji, G.R. No. L-12686, October 24, 1963)

122. Distinguish Direct Assault, Indirect Assault and Resistance or Disobedience

to Person in Authority.

DIRECT ASSAULT (148) INDIRECT RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN

ASSAULT (149) AUTHORITY (PIA) OR AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON
(151)

PIA or his agent (APA) An agent of a PIA or his agent must be in the actual
must be engaged in the PIA must be performance of his duties
As to performance of official engaged in the
performance duties or that he is performance of
assaulted by reason official duties
thereof and that he is
assaulted by
reason thereof

Direct assault is Committed by Committed by resisting or seriously

As to committed in 4 ways: by using force or disobeying a PIA or his agent.
commission attacking, employing intimidation
force, seriously against a
intimidating, and person who
seriously resisting a PIA comes to the
or agent. aid of the
agent of a PIA
who is being
assaulted.

Use of force against an Use of force Simple disobedience – force against an

As to the agent of PIA must be must be agent of PIA is not so serious; No manifest
use of force serious and deliberate. committed to a

42
 DIRECT ASSAULT (148) INDIRECT RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN
ASSAULT (149) AUTHORITY (PIA) OR AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON
(151)

person aiding intention to defy the law and officers

an agent of a enforcing it.
PIA; to be an
indirect
assault, a
direct assault
against an
agent of the
PIA must also
be committed.

123. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in

authority?

The following are persons in authority:

a. Any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member
of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission;
b. In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional
duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority
(Art. 152 of RPC).

The following are agents of persons in authority:

a. Any person who by law, election, or appointment is charged with the maintenance
of public order and protection and security of life and property. (Sec. 388, LGC)
b. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

124. What are the two ways of committing direct assault?

a. By employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes

enumerated in defining the crimes of sedition & rebellion.
b. By attacking, by employing force or seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting
any PA or APA, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on the
occasion of such performance (Art. 148, RPC)

125. Is it possible for a person punished by destierro to commit the crime of

Evasion of Service under Art. 17, RPC, despite the express provision requiring
“escape during imprisonment’?

Yes. Imprisonment or complete deprivation of liberty is not required under Art. 157.
RPC. The word “imprisonment” used in the English text is a wrong or erroneous
translation of the phrase “sufriendo privacion de libertad” used in the Spanish text.
Destierro is a deprivation of liberty, though partial. Hence, a person serving the penalty
of destierro may be held liable under Art. 157. In case of doubt, the Spanish text
governs (People vs. Abilong, G.R. No. L-1960, November 26, 1948).

43
126. While in the high-end shopping mall, Andeng and Lenlen got into heated
argument over who should keep the underwear of Ricky which was left in the
condo unit that Andeng gifted to Ricky prior to their break-up. The argument
turned into a physical fight prompting the security guards to call the nearby
PO2 Navarete and PO3 Sarza who are patrolling along EDSA, near the
shopping mall. The police arrived and tried to stop the fight. Once the
squabble was over, the police officers asked the women to go to the police
station to file proper complaints. However, the Andeng shouted at them,
"Wala kayo pakialam sa akin, hindi aka sasama sa inyo.” She then grabbed
PO2 Naverete by the collar, slapped his cheek, and kicked his legs several
times. To restrain her, PO2 Navarete held her by the shoulders and brought
her to the back of the patrol car. PO3 Sarza was about to pacify the other
women, but they eventually agreed to go to the police station. The incident
was entered in the blotter and Andeng was detained and charged for direct
assault. Was the crime charged correct?

No. The first element of the offense that the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs
force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance To be
considered as direct assault, the laying of hands or the use of physical force against the
agent of a person in authority must be serious.
As clarified in People v. Breis,51 if the use of physical force against agents of persons
in authority is not serious, the offense is not direct assault, but resistance or
disobedience:

The laying of hands or using physical force against agents of persons in authority when
not serious in nature constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151, and not
direct assault under Article 148 of the RPC. This is because the gravity of the
disobedience to an order of a person in authority or his agent is measured by the
circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it and the real importance of
the transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed. ( Mallari vs. People, G.R.
No. 224679, February 12, 2020)

1. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act (RA 10591)

127. What are the essentials elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal
possession of firearms?

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearms,
which include explosives, ammunitions or incendiary devices, are: (a) the existence of
subject firearm, and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same
does not have the corresponding license for it.

In the crime of illegal possession of firearms, the corpus delicti is the accused's lack of
license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited
by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that
the firearm exists and that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same. However, even if the

44
 existence of the firearm must be established, the firearm itself need not be presented
as evidence for it may be established by testimony, even without the presentation of
the said firearm. ( People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019)

128. The prosecution did not submit a negative certification from the PNP to show
that the accused did not have a license. Does the admission the accused he
does not have a licensed to possess a firearm and non-application sufficient
to produce a conviction?

Yes. In a line of cases, the Court considered judicial admissions as proof of the accused's
lack of license to possess a firearm as long as there is no showing that they were made
through palpable mistake, or that they were not, in fact made. In those cases, the Court
affirmed the conviction of the accused even without the negative certification from the
PNP or the testimony from a representative therefrom. The important gauge still is that
the judicial admission must overcome reasonable doubt.

Thus, as it currently stands, the acceptable ways of proving the second element of lack
of license in Illegal Possession of Firearms cases are: (a) the certification issued by the
Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP; (b) the testimony of a representative from
the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP; or, (c) judicial admission of the accused
or counsel. Of course, it is not limited to the foregoing and the element may be proved
through other ways as long as the proof offered overcomes reasonable doubt. (Paulo
Castil y Alvero vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. 253930, July 13, 2022, J. Hernando)

D. Crimes Against Public Interest (Arts. 161-187)

129. What are the kinds of documents which may be subjected to falsification?

a. Public document – one that has been notarized, one that is part of public record,
any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official, with the
solemnities (Cacnio vs. Baens, G.R. No. 2116, March 16, 1906);
b. Official document – the execution of which a public official takes part, a document
which is issued by a public official in the exercise of the functions of his office;
c. Commercial document – prepared in accordance with mercantile law, any document
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or any other commercial laws; and
d. Private document – the execution of which only private individuals take part, a deed
or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary
public or other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or
agreement is proved, evidenced, or set forth (US vs. Orera, G.R. No. 3810, October 18,
1907).

130. Discuss the elements of the crime of Falsification of Private Document under
the Revised Penal Code.

The elements of Falsification under Paragraph 2 of Article 172 are as follows:

1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in par. 7,
enumerated in Art. 171;
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document;

45
 3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage.

Under Article 171, par. 2, a person may commit falsification of a private document by
causing it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or
proceeding, when such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or
proceeding. On the other hand, falsification under par. 4 of Article 171 is perpetrated by
a person who, having a legal obligation to disclose the truth, makes in a document
statements in a narration of facts which are absolutely false with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person. (Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 144026, [June 15, 2006], 524 PHIL 126-146)

131. A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the
accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the
author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the
accused of Falsification of Official or Public Document mainly on the
proposition that "the only person who could have made the erasures and the
superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the
alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive for making
such alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although the
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your
answer. (1999 BAR)

Yes. The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and be made
use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is
that he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use or
uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that
the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery,
or to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the
forgery. (U.S. vs. Castillo, 6 Phil., 453; People vs. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28;
People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338 People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253).

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged

document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger (Alarcon vs. Court of
Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 688; People vs.Caragao, L-28258, December 27, 1969, 30
SCRA 993) ( People v. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120)

132. Is there a complex crime of estafa through falsification of private documents?

None. As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document,

it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a
private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private document is committed
as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa
can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be
charged is estafa. (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006)

46
133. Javier represented himself as a bonafide member of the Philippine National
Police despited being dismissed from the service. He contended that he could
not be guilty of the crime charged because at the time of the alleged
commission of the offense, he was still a police officer who was merely
suspended and was not yet informed of his termination from the service. Is
Javier correct?

Yes. The failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner was duly notified of his
dismissal from the service negatives the charge that he "knowingly and falsely"
represented himself to be a CIS agent. It is essential to present proof that he actually
knew at the time of the alleged commission of the offense that he was already dismissed
from the service. A mere disputable presumption that he received notice of his dismissal
would not be sufficient. (Gigantoni vs. People, G.R. No. 74727, June 16, 1988)

E. Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 [RA 9165, as amended by RA

10640; Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) only]

134. What are the elements of the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Sec.5,
Art II of R.A 9165?

In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove with
moral certainty:
(a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 10 It is likewise indispensable for a
conviction that the drugs subject of the sale be presented in court and its identity
established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same.
In cases like this, it is incumbent that the prosecution must be able to account for each
link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to
its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti (People v. Divinagracia, Jr. y Dornila,
G.R. No. 240230, [November 28, 2019])

135. Does Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehension or
arrest of a person for the latter to be considered as violating the provision?

Yes. Only apprehended or arrested persons found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug may be prosecuted under the provision. (People v. Sullano, G.R. No. 228373, [March 12,
2018])

136. Explain the rule on chain of custody.

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the

47
 witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating
officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and
submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. (People v. Lim y
Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, [September 4, 2018])

137. Does drug testing under Section 15 cover persons apprehended or arrested
for any unlawful act?

First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and
understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or
apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

Furthermore, making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in Section 15

applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts, not only under R.A.
9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons
apprehended or arrested for any crime. (Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014)

138. May an accused charged of violation of Sec. 11, under RA 9165 avail of the
plea-bargaining provision of the Rules of Court?

Yes. As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining
is considered to be an "important," "essential," "highly desirable," and "legitimate"
component of the administration of justice (Estipona, Jr. y Asuela v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679,
[August 15, 2017], 816 PHIL 789-820)

F. Crimes Against Public Morals (Arts. 200-202)

139. What are the elements of Grave Scandal?

a. That the offender performs an act or acts;

b. Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against decency and good
customs;
c. That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article
of the Revised Penal Code
o Grave scandal is a crime of last resort because you only file a complaint for grave
scandal when the said act is not punishable under any other article in the RPC.
d. The act or act complained of be committed in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view.

48
 If the highly scandalous act is committed in a public place the crime of grave scandal
will immediately arise. The place being public, the law presumes that someone may
have witnessed the commission of the highly scandalous act. However, if the highly
scandalous act is committed in a private place, for the crime of grave scandal to arise,
it is necessary that it must be witnessed by one or more persons to be said that it is
within the public knowledge or public view. (Supplied by Prosec. Garcia, 2018)

140. Distinguish Public Place vs. Private Place

Public Place Private Place

Public View Requirement

Public view is not required Public view or public knowledge is

required
Degree of Publicity

Criminal Liability arises irrespective of whether the Degree of publicity is an essential

immoral act is open to the public’s view element of the crime

141. Distinguish collector or an agent under Section 3 (c), and a coordinator,

controller, or supervisor under Section 3 (d), of RA 9287.

A collector or agent is "any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of
his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling
paraphernalia." On the other hand, a coordinator, controller, or supervisor is
defined as, "any person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or
agent. (Villamor y Tayson v. People, G.R. No. 200396, [March 22, 2017], 807 PHIL 894-912)

G. Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Arts. 203-245)

142. Who are public officers?

Public officers are persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions
in the Government of the Philippines, or perform in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class. (Art. 203, RPC)

143. What are the elements of direct bribery?

The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code contains
the following elements:
1) That the accused is a public officer;
2) That he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise;

49
 3) That such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission
of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing
something which is his official duty to do; and
4) That the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.
(Balderama v. People, G.R. Nos. 147578-85 & 147598-605, [January 28, 2008], 566 PHIL 412-421)

144. Distinguish Direct from Indirect Bribery.

Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, RPC)

As to Act of Public Officer

The public officer receives a gift.

As to Purpose of Gift

The act desired by the briber to be done by Gifts are offered and received by reason of the office.
the public officer is in connection with the
performance of the latter’s official duties.

As to Consummation of the Crime

Mere promise of a gift is sufficient. It is necessary that the public officer actually receives
the gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

As to Existence of Agreement

There is an agreement between the officer Usually, no government exists.

and the giver.

As to Participation of Offender

The offender agrees to perform an act or It is not necessary that the officer should do any
refrain from doing something, because of the particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is
gift or promise. enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason
of his office.

It is well to note and distinguish direct bribery from indirect bribery. In both crimes, the
public officer receives gift. While in direct bribery, there is an agreement between the
public officer and the giver of the gift or present, in indirect bribery, usually no such
agreement exist. In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perform or performs an act
or refrains from doing something, because of the gift or promise; in indirect bribery, it
is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an
act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office (Pozar v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62439, [October 23, 1984], 217 PHIL 698-713)

50
145. One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of ABC Corp. happened to bump into
the Labor Arbiter assigned to the illegal dismissal case filed by certain
employees against his company. During their encounter, Mr. X promised the
Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a favorable ruling. The Labor
Arbiter immediately rejected the offer and walked away. What crime did Mr.
X commit under the RPC, if any? Explain. (2019 BAR)

Mr. X committed the crime of Attempted Corruption of a Public Official. He offered to

give the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a favorable ruling on a pending illegal
dismissal case. By making such offer, Mr. X already commenced the performance of
material acts of execution in corrupting the Labor Arbiter. He was not able to perform
all the material acts of execution only because the Labor Arbiter refused to accept the
offer. (Pozar v. CA, C.R. No. L- 62439, 23 Oct 1990)

146. What are the ways of committing Malversation?

a. Appropriating public funds or property;
b. Taking or misappropriating the same;
c. Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permit any other person to
take such public funds or property; and
d. Being otherwise guilty of misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property. (Art. 217, RPC)

147. May Malversation be committed by negligence?

Yes. Malversation may be committed intentionally or by negligence. Dolo or culpa

bringing about the offenses is only a modality un the perpetration of the offenses. The
same offenses of malversation is involved, whether the mode charged differ from the
mode established in the commission of the crime (Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 93885, May
14, 1991)

148. Is criminal intent an element of Technical Malversation?

No. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance
for a particular purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita. It is
the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof,
that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or
criminal intent is completely irrelevant. (Ysidoro vs. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012)

149. Distinguish Malversation from Technical Malversation

Malversation (Art. 217, RPC) Technical Malversation (Art. 220)

As to the Person of the Offender

Offenders are accountable public officers.

As to Profit from Proceeds of the Crime

51
 In certain cases, profits from the Does not derive any personal gain or profit.
proceeds of the crime.

As to where Public Fund is Applied for

Public fund or property is applied to the The public fund or property is applied to another public
personal use of the offender or another use.
person.

1. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended)

150. What are the elements of 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?

Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 requires the following elements:

(1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official
functions or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers; (2) the
accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
(3) the action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his
or her functions. (People v. Crisologo, G.R. No. 253327, [June 27, 2022])

151. What are the 3 distinct acts under Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019

Section 3(b) of RA 3019 penalizes three distinct acts — (1) demanding or requesting;
(2) receiving; or (3) demanding, requesting and receiving — any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the government and any other party, wherein a public
officer in an official capacity has to intervene under the law. These modes of committing
the offense are distinct and different from each other. Proof of the existence of any of
them suffices to warrant conviction. The lack of demand is immaterial. After all,
Section 3(b) of RA 3019 uses the word or between requesting and receiving.||| (Peligrino
v. People, G.R. No. 136266, [August 13, 2001], 415 PHIL 94-122)

152. What provision under Anti-Graft and practices act or RA 3019 may be violated
when a government official use his influence to obtain employment for his
brother-in-law or when his brother-in-law is employed in a company which
has regular business with his office?

Under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, mere acceptance by a member of his
family of employment with a private enterprise which has pending official business with
the official involved is considered a corrupt practice. (Valera v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R.
No. 167278, [February 27, 2008], 570 PHIL 368-394)

52
153. When may a private person be charged alone for violation of R.A. No. 3019?

The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of
R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in
conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such a person
must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist
where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where
the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone. (People vs.
Go, GR 168539, March 25, 2014)

154. What are the unlawful and prohibited acts under the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Law?

SECTION 4. Unlawful Acts.— The following are declared unlawful and prohibited
acts:
(a) Facilitation of Child Marriage.— Any person who causes, fixes, facilitates, or arranges
a child marriage shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a
fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00):Provided, however,That should
the perpetrator be an ascendant, parent, adoptive parent, step parent, or guardian of
the child, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less
than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00),and perpetual loss of parental authority:
Provided, further,That any person who produces, prints, issues and/or distributes
fraudulent or tampered documents such as birth certificates, affidavits of delayed
registration of birth and/or foundling certificates for the purpose of misrepresenting the
age of a child to facilitate child marriage or evade liability under this Act shall be liable
under this section, without prejudice to liability under other laws. (An Act Prohibiting the
Practice of Child Marriage and Imposing Penalties for Violations Thereof, Republic Act No. 11596,
[December 10, 2021])

155. What if the perpetrator is a public officer?

If the perpetrator is a public officer, he or she shall be dismissed from the service and
may be perpetually disqualified from holding office, at the discretion of the courts (An
Act Prohibiting the Practice of Child Marriage and Imposing Penalties for Violations Thereof, Republic Act
No. 11596, [December 10, 2021])

2. Anti-Plunder Act (RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659)

156. What is Plunder?

It refers to an act where 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 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). (Sec 2, R.A. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12, R.A. No. 7659)

53
157. What is the scope of “receiving any gift” under the Plunder Law?

"Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person
other than a member of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of
any member of his family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity
like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly
excessive.||| (Sec 2, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 3019, [August 17, 1960])

158. What are the two nuances of appreciating conspiracy in Plunder?

In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the Court recognized two nuances of appreciating

conspiracy as a means to commit a crime, the wheel conspiracy and the chain
conspiracy.

The wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing
individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes).The spoke typically
interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares
a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances
when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple
conspiracies.

The chain conspiracy recognized in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan exists when there is

successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate
business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer,
and then retailer and consumer. This involves individuals linked together in a vertical
chain to achieve a criminal objective. (Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. Nos. 220598 & 220953,
[July 19, 2016], 790 PHIL 367-556)

159. What does “combination” and “series” under RA 7080 mean?

When the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts
falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids
on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of
assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).

On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two (2) or more overt or
criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d),
say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall
under Sec. 1, par. (d),subpar. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, [November 19, 2001],
421 PHIL 290-515)

160. What is the meaning of “pattern” under the Plunder Law?

As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan that this term
is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d),and Sec. 2 —

54
 under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or
series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec.
1 (d).Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or
criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to
enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or
'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the
term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method'
which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with
him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if
there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by
multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a
conspiracy to attain a common goal. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
[November 19, 2001], 421 PHIL 290-515)

H. Crimes Against Persons (Arts. 246-266)

161. What are the rules in Parricide?

1. The offender must be related to the victim by blood, except husband and wife;
2. The relationship between the offender and the offended party must be in the direct
descending or ascending line and not in the collateral line except husband and wife;
3. Between parents and child, the relationship may be legitimate or illegitimate;
4. All other ascendants or descendants must be legitimate

162. When does Art. 247 operate as mitigating circumstance and as absolutory
cause?

Art. 247 does not define a crime but grants a mitigating circumstance for parricide,
homicide and serious physical injuries committed under the exceptional situation. If only
less or slight physical injuries were inflicted, Art. 247 shall operate as an absolutory
cause. (People vs. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September 14, 1987)

163. What are the essentials elements of Article 247 as a defense?

Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the following essential elements for
such a defense: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) that he kills any of them or both
of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not promoted or
facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse. (People v. Oyanib y Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 130634-35, [March
12, 2001], 406 PHIL 650-662)

164. What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of Murder?

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.

55
 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)

165. What are the requisites of Treachery?

a. That at the time of the attack, the victim is not in a position to defend himself;
b. That the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods, or forms of attack employed by him. (People vs. Racal, G.R. No. 224886,
September 4, 2017)

166. What is the meaning of “advantage be taken of superior strength’?

It means deliberately use of excessive force that is cut out of proportion to the means
for self- defense available to the person attacked. (People vs. Lobingas, G.R. No. 47649,
December 17, 2002)

167. What are the elements of evident premeditation?

Per jurisprudence, "the elements of evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision
by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that
the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to
commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the
consequences of his acts (People v. Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020, J.
Hernando)

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 (People v. Manansala y Alfaro, G.R. No. 233104, September 2, 2020, J. Hernando)

168. What is the effect of the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of
the crime of murder?

The accused shall be held guilty for the crime of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed
Firearm. Under Section 1 of RA No. 8294, “if homicide or murder is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.” There are two (2) requisites to establish such
circumstance, namely: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the

56
 accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or
permit to carry it outside his residence. (Salonga vs. People, G.R. No. 218466, January 23, 2017)

169. If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who may be
in a building or edifice and when fire is resorted to as means to accomplish
such goal, what crime is committed?

The crime committed is murder only. Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime
of arson since the latter is an inherent means to commit the former. (People vs. Baluntong,
G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010)

170. Distinguish frustrated homicide from homicide.

The crime of frustrated homicide is committed when: (1) an "accused intended to

kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim
sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance;
and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code is present."

On the other hand, the crime of homicide is committed when: (1) a person is killed;
(2) the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused
had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide. (Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, [February 5, 2014], 726 PHIL 183-196)

171. What crimes are committed in firing a gun?

Alarms and Scandals (Art. 155, If the gun was fired in a public place and not
RPC) aimed at anybody

Illegal Discharge of Firearm (Art. If the firearm was directed at somebody

254, else, fired, without intent to kill and not hit
RPC)

Frustrated Illegal Discharge (Art. If directed at somebody without intent to kill and bullet jams
254,
RPC)

Impossible Crime (Art. 4, RPC) If accused fired the gun without knowing that there were no
bullets

Grave Threats (Art. 282, RPC) If gun was pointed to victim and discharged, but the
victim was not hit and the offender desisted

Attempted Murder or Homicide (Art. if gun is directed at somebody else with intent to kill but was not
248, 249, RPC) hit or the wound was not mortal

Frustrated Murder or Homicide (Art. If gun was aimed at somebody with intent to kill, fired and hit
248, 249, RPC) the target and the wound was mortal

57
172. When is physical injury considered as serious, less serious, and slight?

SERIOUS PHYSICAL LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL SLIGHT PHYSICAL

INJURIES (Art. 263) INJURIES (Art. 265) INJURIES (Art. 266)

As to days of More than 30 days or For 10 days or more but not For 1 to 9 days
incapacity for for more than 90 days more than 30 days
labor or illness

As to suffering Insanity, imbecility, Incapacity for labor or Incapacity for labor or

impotency, blindness, illness requiring medical illness for 1 to 9 days, or
loss of faculty for attendance for 10 days or there is no incapacity or
speech, hearing or more but not more than 30 illness.
smelling, loss of any days.
part of the body or
use thereof,
deformity, incapacity
for habitual work,
permanently or for
more than 90 days, or
incapacity or illness
for more than 30
days.

173. Does mere infliction of physical injuries, absent malicious intent, make a
person automatically liable for an intentional felony?

Under the Revised Penal Code, there must be a specific animus iniuriandi or malicious
intention to do wrong against the physical integrity or well-being of a person, so as to
incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain bodily functions. Without proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act of inflicting physical
injuries per se merely satisfies the elements of freedom and intelligence in an intentional
felony. The commission of the act does not, in itself, make a man guilty unless his
intentions are. (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, [December 1, 2014])

174. How rape is committed?

Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. — 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 otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
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.

58
 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1
hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person. (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, Republic Act No. 8353, [September 30,
1997])

175. Is actual force or intimidation an essential element in statutory rape?

No. In People v. Orillosa, this Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual
force or intimidation need not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of
the father would suffice. Thus, in order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime
of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must concur: (1) that the
offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below twelve
(12) years old. (People v. Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, [August 10, 2011], 671 PHIL 95-118)

176. What constitutes the crime of Statutory Rape?

Statutory rape is committed when: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and;
(2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force,
threat or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or
whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the
age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. (People vs. Gutierrez, G.R.
No. 208007, April 2, 2014)

177. Discuss rape through sexual intercourse and rape through sexual assault.
In rape under paragraph 1 or rape through sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge is the
crucial element which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is also referred
to as 'organ rape' or 'penile rape' and must be attended by any of the circumstances
enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. There must be evidence to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator's penis touched the labia of the
victim or slid into her female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface
thereof, to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse.
On the other hand, rape under paragraph 2 of the above-quoted article is commonly
known as rape by sexual assault. The perpetrator, under any of the attendant
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, commits this kind of rape by inserting his
penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the
genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also called 'instrument or object rape,'
also 'gender-free rape,' or the narrower 'homosexual rape. (People v. XXX, G.R. No. 238405,
[December 7, 2020])

178. Does sexual intercourse with a woman whose actual age is 30 years old but
who is suffering from mental retardation with a mental age of a 9-year
constitute the crime of Statutory Rape?

Yes. Sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate, with a mental age
below 12 years old, constitutes statutory rape. In determining whether a person is
“twelve (12) years of age”, the interpretation should be in accordance with either the
chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or

59
 the mental age if intellectual disability is established.(People vs. Nierbes, G.R. No. 230975,
December 4, 2017)

179. Y, an eighteen year-old nursing student, is a boarder of X in the apartment

he owns. As Y had been remiss in paying her rents, X called her to his room
to talk about the matter. In his room, X forcefully pulled Y to sit on his lap
and thereafter, he raped her. In his defense, X contend that he should not be
liable for rape because Y offered no resistance during the sexual act and the
victim seduced him so that he would forget about the unpaid rents. Would
you agree with X’s contention?

No. I disagree with X’s contention because resistance is not an element of rape. A rape
victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or
intimidation employed upon her. What is important is that the victim did not consent to
the intercourse. (People vs. Gabriel, G.R. No. 213390, March 15, 2017)

180. Does the presence of hymenal laceration an essential element of rape?

No. The presence of hymenal lacerations is not an element in the crime of rape.(People
vs. Otos, G.R. No. 189821, March 23, 2011)

181. Does being sweethearts negate the commission of rape?

No. It is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape
because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her
will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. (People vs. Olesco, G.R.
No. 174861, April 11, 2011)

182. Can husband commit rape against his wife?

Yes. Husbands do not have property right over their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse,
albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape (People vs. Jumawan, G.R. No.
187495, April 21, 2014)

1. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208, as amended by RA 11862)

183. What is trafficking in persons?

(a) Trafficking in Persons — refers to the 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 by means
of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse
of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a
minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others, or the engagement of others
for the production or distribution, or both, of materials that depict child sexual abuse or
exploitation, or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude, or the removal or sale of organs.

60
 The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for
the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration
for exploitative purposes, shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it
does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. (Strengthening
the Policies on Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9208, as Amended,
Republic Act No. 11862, [June 23, 2022])

184. What are the acts that promote trafficking in persons?

SEC. 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons.— The following acts which promote
or facilitate trafficking in persons shall be unlawful:
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use, or allow to be used any house, building, tourism
enterprise, or any similar establishment; or any vehicle or carrier by land, sea, and air;
or any of their computer system or computer hardware, other computer-related devices,
or any of their digital platform and application, for the purpose of promoting trafficking
in persons;

(b) To produce, print and issue, or distribute unissued, tampered, or fake passports,
birth certificates, affidavits of delayed registration of births, foundling certificates, travel
clearances, counseling certificates, registration stickers, overseas employment
certificates or other certificates of any government agency which issues these
certificates, decals, and such other markers as proof of compliance with government
regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;

(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement,

publication, printing broadcasting or distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in persons;
(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating the
acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from government agencies that
are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for departing persons
for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(e) To facilitate, assist, or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at
international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports, knowing they are
not in possession of required travel documents, or are in possession of tampered, fake,
or fraudulently acquired travel documents, for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;

(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal

documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent
them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate
agencies; and

(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or
slavery.

61
 (h) For internet intermediaries to knowingly or by gross negligence allow their
internet infrastructure to be used for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(i) For internet cafes, kiosks, and hotspots, including establishments offering Wi-Fi
access services to the public, to knowingly or by gross negligence allow their facilities
to be used for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(j) For financial intermediaries, including banks and credit card companies and money
transfer or remittance centers, to knowingly or by gross negligence allow their
services, online platform and applications, among others, to be used for the purpose
of promoting trafficking in persons;

(k) To knowingly or by gross negligence facilitate, assist, or help in the entry into the
country of persons who are convicted sex offenders whether at international and
local airports, territorial boundaries, and seaports for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons; or

(l) To arrange, facilitate, expedite, or cause the introduction or encounter of persons

who are suspected or convicted sex offenders in any jurisdiction, to a child. The
actual introduction or encounter need not occur to be liable under this provision. It
is enough that there is a deliberate attempt to cause the introduction or encounter."
(Strengthening the Policies on Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No.
9208, as Amended, Republic Act No. 11862, [June 23, 2022])

185. When does trafficking in persons become qualified?

SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. — Violations of Section 4 of

this Act shall be considered as qualified trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child: Provided,That 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 adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise
known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking

is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;

(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person

who exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is
committed by a public officer or employee;

62
 (e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any
member of the military or law enforcement agencies;

(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
and

(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the

offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS).

(h) 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 offender, or through another, directs or manages the actions of
a victim in carrying out the exploitative purpose of trafficking;

(j) 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." (Strengthening the Policies on Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Amending for the Purpose
Republic Act No. 9208, as Amended, Republic Act No. 11862, [June 23, 2022])

2. Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262)

186. What are the elements of Violence against Women through harassment?

The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of
harassment against the woman; and 3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her. (Ang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April
20, 2010)

63
187. What are the limiting qualifications for an act or series of act to be
considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm?

The law on violence against women and their children specifies two limiting
qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against
women through physical harm, namely: 1) it is committed against a woman or her child
and the woman is the offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual
or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it results in or is
likely to result in physical harm or suffering.(Dabalos vs. RTC Branch 59 Angeles City, G.R. No.
193960, January 7, 2013)

188. For RA 9262 to be applicable, is it indispensable that the act of violence be a

consequence of the relationship?

R.A. No. 9262 defines and criminalizes violence against women and their children
perpetrated by the woman's husband, former husband or any person against whom the
woman has or had a sexual or dating relationship with, or with whom the woman has
a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without
the family abode, which result in or likely to result in, inter alia, economic abuse or
psychological harm or suffering. Thus, the offender need not be related or connected
to the victim by marriage or former marriage, as he could be someone who has or had
a sexual or dating relationship only or has a common child with the victim. (Reyes v.
People, G.R. No. 232678, [July 3, 2019])

189. May a foreign national be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his
unjustified failure to support his minor child?

Yes. The deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of
violence against women and children.

In addition, considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, we find

strength in petitioner's claim that the Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation
to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides
that:"[p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all
who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principle of public international
law and to treaty stipulations." On this score, it is indisputable that the alleged
continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his child with petitioner is
committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of the
Province of Cebu City. As such, our courts have territorial jurisdiction over the offense
charged against respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the
respondent was acquired upon his arrest. (Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707,
[December 10, 2014], 749 PHIL 823-840)

190. What is the Battered Woman Syndrome?

It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychologically and behavioral symptoms

found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. Victim-
survivors suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil

64
 liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances
of self-defense under RPC. (Secs. 3 & 26, R.A. 9262)

191. What is the effect of the Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense?

Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code. In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering
from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts
shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists (Sec. 26, R.A. 9262).

3. Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA 9775)

192. What is child pornography under R.A. No. 9775?

Child pornography refers to any representation, whether visual, audio, or written

combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other
means, of child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities. (Sec.
3[b], R.A. 9775)

193. Who is a “Child” as referred to in R.A. No. 9775?

Under R.A. No. 9775, a Child is any person below 18 years of age, or over 18 years of
age, but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
(Sec. 3[a], p. 1)

A Child shall also refer to:

1. Any person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child; or
2. Computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person
who is represented or who is made to appear to be a child. (Sec. 3[a], p. 2)

172. What is “Explicit Sexual Activity”?

It includes actual or simulated:

1. As to form
a. Sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, but not limited to, contact
involving genital to genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or oral to anal,
whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

2. Bestiality;
3. Masturbation;
4. Sadistic or masochistic abuse
5. Lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts, public area, and/or anus; or
6. Use of any object or instrument for lascivious acts. (Sec. 3[c])

65
194. What are the punishable acts under R.A. No. 9775?

It shall be unlawful for any person:

a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in the creation
or production of any form of child pornography;
b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography;
c) To publish, offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote, export
or import any form of child pornography;
d) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to sell, distribute,
publish, or broadcast, wherein the possession of three or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell,
distribute, publish, or broadcast.
e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for the commission of
prohibited acts;
f) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication companies, by themselves
or in cooperation with other entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;
g) For a parent or guardian or any person having custody or control of a child to
knowingly permit a child to engage, participate or assist in any form of child
pornography;
h) To engage in luring or grooming of a child;
i) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;
j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;
k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in Sec. 4;
l) To possess any form of child pornography (Sec. 4);
m) To commit the crime of child pornography by a syndicate if carried out by a group
of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another (Sec.
5);
n) To willfully and knowingly fail to comply with the notice and installation
requirements of an internet service provider (Sec. 9);
o) To willfully and knowingly fail to comply with the notice requirements by any mall
owner-operator and owner or lessor of other business establishments (Sec. 10);
p) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally violate duties of an internet content host
(Sec. 11); and
q) To violate right to privacy of the child at any stage of the investigation, prosecution
and trial (Sec. 13).

195. How is syndicated child pornography committed?

Syndicated child pornography is committed when carried out by group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. (Sec. 5, R.A. 9775)

196. How is child pornography committed?

One can be convicted for committing child pornography upon proof of the following: (1)
victim is a child; (2) victim was induced or coerced to perform in the creation or
production of any form of child pornography; and (3) child pornography was performed
through visual, audio or written combination thereof by electronic, mechanical, digital,

66
 optical, magnetic or any other means. (Cadajas y Cabias v. People, G.R. No. 247348, [November
16, 2021])

197. AAA operated a social networking site where patrons are linked to her
cybersex den, where she keeps fifteen-year old women and have them
perform sexual acts for the patrons. May AAA be charged under RA 9775, also
known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act?

Yes. The facts state that she employs persons below eighteen years of age to perform
sexual acts for customers, and that she has a cybersex den, constitute acts punishable
under Sec. 4 of RA 9775.

198. May AAA also be charged under RA 10175, also known as Cybercrime
Prevention Act?

No. An offender cannot be charged with both Cybercrime Law and Anti-Child
Pornography Act for committing child pornography. Cybercrime Law merely expands
the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to include identical
activities in cyberspace. ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already covers
the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.” Thus,
charging the offender under both Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be
tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopard. (Disini,
Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)

4. Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and

Discrimination Act (RA 7610, as amended)

199. Who are “children” under R.A. 7610?

Children refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are
unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition (Sec. 3[a], RA 7610).

200. When does laying of hands constitute child abuse?

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse
under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands is
shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human
being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised
Penal Code. (Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, [March 20, 2013], 707 PHIL 11-23)

201. Does it matter on whether or not a maltreatment is habitual in order to be

punishable under R.A. 7610?

No. The sexual abuse can happen only once, and still the victim would be considered a
child subjected to other sexual abuse, because what the law punishes is the
maltreatment of the child, without regard to whether or not this maltreatment is

67
 habitual. The very definition of “child abuse” under Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 7610 does not
require that the victim suffer a separate and distinct act of sexual abuse aside from the
act complained of. For it refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child. Thus, a violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A. 7610 occurs even though the accused
committed sexual abuse against the child victim only once, even without a prior sexual
affront. (People vs. Villacampa, G.R. No. 216057, January 8, 2018)

202. Is the act of whipping a child on the neck with a wet t-shirt in a public place
a violation of R.A. 7610?

Yes. The act of whipping a child on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that debases,
degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child. It is a form of cruelty.
Being smacked several times in a public place is a humiliating and traumatizing
experience for all persons regardless of age. A person who commits an act that debases,
degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being,
whether habitual or not, can be held liable for violation of RA 7610. (Torres vs. People, G.R.
No. 206627, January 18, 2017)

203. What are the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Art. III of R.A.
7610?

Sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 has three elements:
(1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said
act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
and (3) the child is below 18 years old. Further, before an accused can be held criminally
liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, the
requisites of the crime of acts of lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. (People vs. Molejon, G.R. No. 208091, April 23, 2018)

204. Accused-appellant, armed with a kitchen knife, suddenly pulled the arm and
ordered AAA, a minor, 14 years old, to climb to a wooden bed and forcibly
removed her panty and shorts and lied on top of her thereby commencing the
commission of Rape but was not able to consummate Rape by reason of the
arrival of BBB, the mother of AAA who beat accused-appellant with a piece
of wood. Should accused-appellant be found guilty of one count of Rape
committed against the minor victim as defined under Article 266-A,
Paragraph 1(a) of the RPC in relation to R.A. 7610?

Accused-appellant should be held criminally liable for one count of Rape defined under
Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a), penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC. The correlation
to RA 7610 is deleted. People v. Tulagan explains the ratio for a correct designation of
offenses under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) and Article 266-B of the RPC and not under
RA 7610:

Assuming that the elements of both violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 and of
Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the RPC are mistakenly alleged in the same Information
– e.g., carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse was due to "force or intimidation" with
the added phrase of "due to coercion or influence," one of the elements of Section 5(b)
of R.A. No. 7610; or in many instances wrongfully designate the crime in the Information

68
 as violation of "Article 266- A, paragraph 1 (a) in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610," although this may be a ground for quashal of the Information under Section 3(f)
of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court – and proven during the trial in a case where the victim
who is 12 years old or under 18 did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the accused
should still be prosecuted pursuant to the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, which is
the more recent and special penal legislation that is not only consistent, but also
strengthens the policies of R.A. No. 7610. Indeed, while RA. No. 7610 is a special law
specifically enacted to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their
development, We hold that it is contrary to the legislative intent of the same law if the
lesser penalty (reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua) under Section 5(b)
thereof would be imposed against the perpetrator of sexual intercourse with a child 12
years of age or below 18.

Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by R.A.
No. 8353, is not only the more recent law, but also deals more particularly with all rape
cases, hence, its short title "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997." R.A. No. 8353 upholds the
policies and principles of R.A. No. 7610, and provides a "stronger deterrence and special
protection against child abuse," as it imposes a more severe penalty of reclusion
perpetua under Article 266-B of the RPC. (People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225781, November 16, 2020,
J. Hernando)

5. Prohibition of Child Marriage Law (RA 11596)

205. What is child marriage?

Child marriage refers to any marriage entered into where one or both parties are children
as defined in the paragraph above, and solemnized in civil or church proceedings, or in
any recognized traditional, cultural or customary manner. It shall include an informal
union or cohabitation outside of wedlock between an adult and a child, or between
children; (An Act Prohibiting the Practice of Child Marriage and Imposing Penalties for Violations Thereof,
Republic Act No. 11596, [December 10, 2021])

206. Who may initiate a complaint involving child marriage?

SECTION 5. Public Crimes.— The foregoing unlawful and prohibited acts are deemed
public crimes and can be initiated by any concerned individual. (An Act Prohibiting the
Practice of Child Marriage and Imposing Penalties for Violations Thereof, Republic Act No. 11596, [December
10, 2021])

207. What are the unlawful acts under RA 11596?

SECTION 4. Unlawful Acts.— The following are declared unlawful and prohibited acts:

(a) Facilitation of Child Marriage.— Any person who causes, fixes, facilitates, or arranges
a child marriage shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine
of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00):Provided, however,That should the
perpetrator be an ascendant, parent, adoptive parent, step parent, or guardian of the
child, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00),and perpetual loss of parental authority: Provided,

69
 further,That any person who produces, prints, issues and/or distributes fraudulent or
tampered documents such as birth certificates, affidavits of delayed registration of birth
and/or foundling certificates for the purpose of misrepresenting the age of a child to
facilitate child marriage or evade liability under this Act shall be liable under this section,
without prejudice to liability under other laws: Provided, finally,That if the perpetrator is
a public officer, he or she shall be dismissed from the service and may be perpetually
disqualified from holding office, at the discretion of the courts;

(b) Solemnization of Child Marriage.— Any person who performs or officiates a child
marriage shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of
not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00):Provided, however,That if the
perpetrator is a public officer, he or she shall be dismissed from the service and may be
perpetually disqualified from holding office, at the discretion of the courts; and

(c) Cohabitation of an Adult with a Child outside Wedlock.— An adult partner who
cohabits with a child outside wedlock shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00):Provided,
however,That if the perpetrator is a public officer, he or she shall likewise be dismissed
from the service and may be perpetually disqualified from holding office, at the discretion
of the courts: Provided, finally, That this shall be without prejudice to higher penalties
that may be imposed in the Revised Penal Code and other special laws.

(An Act Prohibiting the Practice of Child Marriage and Imposing Penalties for Violations Thereof, Republic
Act No. 11596, [December 10, 2021])

6. An Act Providing for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual Exploitation
and Abuse, Increasing the Age for Determining the Commission of Statutory
Rape (RA 11648)

208. What is the age for determining the commission of statutory rape?

To be considered:

d) When the offended party is under sixteen (16) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present: Provided, That there
shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person having carnal knowledge of another
person under sixteen (16) years of age when the age difference between the parties
is not more than three (3) years, and the sexual act in question is proven to be
consensual, non-abusive, and non-exploitative: Provided, further, That if the victim is
under thirteen (13) years of age, this exception shall not apply. (Providing for Stronger
Protection Against Rape and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age for Statutory Rape,
Amending Act No. 3815, RA No. 8353 and RA No. 7610, Republic Act No. 11648, [March 4, 2022])

209. What is qualified seduction?

Article 337. Qualified seduction. — The seduction of a minor, sixteen and over but
under eighteen years of age, committed by any person in public authority, priest,
home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall

70
 be entrusted with the education or custody of the minor seduced, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce
his sister or descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.

Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender has
carnal knowledge of any of the persons and under the circumstances described herein."
(Providing for Stronger Protection Against Rape and Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Increasing the Age
for Statutory Rape, Amending Act No. 3815, RA No. 8353 and RA No. 7610, Republic Act No. 11648, March
4, 2022)

I. Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security (Arts. 267-292)

210. What are the elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention?

Under Article 267 of the RPC, the elements of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention are, as follows: "(1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps
or detains another or in any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act
of kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of
the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more
than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical
injuries are inflicted on the victim or threats to kill are made; or (d) the person
kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or public officer. (People v. Chan, G.R. No. 226836,
December 5, 2018)

211. In the course of kidnapping, a victim was killed but the purpose was to extort
ransom, what is the crime committed?

Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659.

Thus, further taking into account the fact that the kidnapping was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom, accused-appellants' conviction must be modified from
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention to the special complex crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom with Homicide. (People v. Dionaldo y Ebron, G.R. No. 207949 (Resolution), July 23, 2014)

212. When does a public officer becomes liable for kidnapping or serious illegal
detention or slight illegal detention?

Public officers who have no duty to arrest or detain a person, or those who may have
such authority but fail to justify the arrest or detention, may be indicted for kidnapping

71
 or serious illegal detention or slight illegal detention.|(Duropan v. People, G.R. No. 230825,
June 10, 2020)

213. When does a public officer may be held criminally liable for unlawful arrest?

The crime of unlawful arrest punishes an offender's act of arresting or detaining another
to deliver him or her to the proper authorities, when the arrest or detention is not
authorized, or that there is no reasonable ground to arrest or detain the other.

“xxxx a public officer who does not have the authority to arrest shall be criminally liable.
Even when a public officer is authorized to arrest, he or she must have a judicial warrant.
However, when the enumerated circumstances exist, the absence of a judicial warrant
is justified and does not expose the public officer to criminal liability. (Duropan v. People,
G.R. No. 230825, [June 10, 2020]) (Duropan v. People, G.R. No. 230825, [June 10, 2020])

214. What is the criminal liability, if any, of a private person who enters the
dwelling of another against the latter's will and by means of violence or
intimidation for the purpose of preventing some harm to himself? (2012 Bar
Question)

None. Under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified trespass to dwelling is
committed by any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the
latter’s will and by means of violence or intimidation. However, the provisions of Article
280 shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another’s dwelling for the
purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself. (UPLC Suggested Answers)

215. How is the crime of grave threats committed?

Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats, "any person who shall threaten
another with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter or of his
family of any wrong amounting to a crime[.]" The crime is consummated as soon as the
threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened. (People v. Bueza y Ranay, G.R. No.
242513, [November 18, 2020], J. Hernando)

1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)

216. What is Libel under RA 10175?

Libel refers to the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the future. Section 4(c)(4), RA 10175 only
penalizes online libel as valid and constitutional with respect to the original author of the
post; but void and unconstitutional with respect to others who simply receive the post
and react to it.

72
217. What are the cybercrime offenses punishable under R.A. 10175?

I. Cybercrime offenses (Sec. 4, R.A. 10175)

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and
systems:

(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without
right.

(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any
non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system
including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer
data.

(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or

deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message,
without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

(4) System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or

interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting,
transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data
or program, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or authority,
including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

(5) Misuse of Devices.

(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise

making available, without right, of:

(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for

the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or

(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or
any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that
it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.

(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with
intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses
under this section.

(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith
to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same,
if such a domain name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with

the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration:

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the
registrant, in case of a personal name; and

73
 (iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

(b) Computer-related Offenses:

(1) Computer-related Forgery. —

(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting
in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal
purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly
readable and intelligible; or

(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-
related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent
or dishonest design.

(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of

computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system,
causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no damage has
yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse,

transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to
another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage
has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly

or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with
the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.

(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by
Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed
through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1)
one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of commercial

electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to
advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative
announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers;
or

(iii) The following conditions are present:

74
 (aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and
reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial
electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;

(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the
source of the electronic message; and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include

misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the
recipients to read the message.

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any
other similar means which may be devised in the future.

b. Other Offenses. (Sec. 5, R.A. 10175)

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully
abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act
shall be held liable.

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts
to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

NOTE: Sec. 5(a) refers to any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of
any of the offenses enumerated in RA 10175 shall be held liable. As decided by the
Supreme Court, Section 5 only penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the
commission of cybercrime as valid and constitutional only in relation to: a. Illegal
Access, b. Illegal Interception, c. Data Interference, d. System Interference, e. Misuse
of Devices, f. Cyber Squatting, g. Computer- related Forgery, h. Computer-related
Fraud, i. Computer-related Identity Theft, and j. Cybersex.

Section 5 of RA 10175 is considered void and unconstitutional in relation to child

pornography and online libel. (Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335,
February 11, 2014)

J. Crimes Against Property (Articles 293-332)

218. Discuss Robbery vs. Theft.

Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime committed by "any person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon
anything."

Robbery with homicide occurs when, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide shall have been committed. In Article 249 of the RPC, any person
who shall kill another shall be deemed guilty of homicide. Homicide, as used in robbery

75
 with homicide, is to be understood in its generic sense to include parricide and murder.
The penalty for the crime of robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death.

Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the
personal property of another without the latter's consent. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods is imposed upon persons guilty of theft,
if the value of the thing stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P6,000.

By definition in the RPC, robbery can be committed in three ways, by using: (a)
violence against any person; (b) intimidation of any person; and/or (c) force upon
anything. Robbery by use of force upon things is provided under Articles 299 to 305 of
the RPC. (People v. Concepcion y Bulanio, G.R. No. 200922, [July 18, 2012], 691 PHIL 542-552)

219. Is the snatching of the shoulder bag a robbery or theft?

The crime committed is therefore robbery and not theft, because personal violence was
brought to bear upon the offended party before he was definitely deprived of his money.
(People v. Concepcion y Bulanio, G.R. No. 200922, [July 18, 2012], 691 PHIL 542-552)

220. What are the elements of Robbery with Rape?

Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by Section 9 of RA 7659. It contemplates a situation where the original
intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property
belonging to another and Rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an
accompanying crime.

The following elements must concur in the crime of Robbery with Rape:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
(4) the Robbery is accompanied by Rape. (People v. Bueza y Ranay, G.R. No. 242513, [November
18, 2020])

221. Explain special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

In People v. Ibañez, the Court exhaustively explained that [a] special complex crime of
robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason, or
on the occasion, of the robbery.

To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the
following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property belonging to another;
(2) with intent to gain;
(3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and
(4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its
generic sense, was committed.

76
 A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and
[the] objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may
occur before, during or after the robbery."

Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for
instance, it was committed:
(a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit;
(b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot;
(c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or
(d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. (People v. Balute y Villanueva, G.R.
No. 212932, [January 21, 2015], 751 PHIL 980-988)

222. Explain robbery in band.

Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, robbery in band is committed when four (4) or
more malefactors take part in the robbery. All members are punished as principals
for any assault committed by the band, unless it can be proven that the accused took
steps to prevent the commission of the crime.

Even if the crime is committed by several malefactors in a motor vehicle on a public

highway, the crime is still classified as robbery in band, not highway robbery or
brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532. It is highway robbery only when it
can be proven that the malefactors primarily organized themselves for the
purpose of committing that crime. (Amparo y Ibañez v. People, G.R. No. 204990, [February
22, 2017], 806 PHIL 297-307)

223. What is complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house?

The complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house by armed persons and robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons was committed when the accused, who
held firearms, entered the residential house of the victims and inflicted injury upon the
victims in the process of committing the robbery. Hence, the penalty is that imposed
for the robbery in an inhabited house, the more serious crime. All the accused are liable
because the act of one is the act of all (Fransdilla v. People, G.R. No. 197562, [April 20, 2015)

224. How is theft committed?

Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the
local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and

77
 3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden
or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish
upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.

225. Kardo, a police officer saw that 3 persons were doing cara y cruz infront of
the house of Tonyo. Upon the instruction of the Chief of Police, he grabbed
the bag of Tonyo containing the illegal gambling money and recorded the
incident in a police report. He was charged with the crime of theft. He claimed
that the bag was not presented in court because it can no longer be located
by the evidence custodian. Kardo argued that he is not liable for theft
because of the absence of the elements of intent to gain and unlawful taking
considering that he only followed the orders of his superior to bring the bag
into custody. Is Kardo correct?

No. The essential elements of Theft 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.

In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily proved that Kardo took the bag belonging to
Tonyo without the latter's consent and with intent to gain. The taking was done without
the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, thereby
removing the act from the coverage of the crime of Robbery.
(Albotra v. People, G.R. No. 221602, [November 16, 2020])

1. Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612)

226. What is fencing?

It is an act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell, or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows,
or should be known to him, to have been derived from proceeds of the crime of robbery
or theft. (Sec. 2 [a], P.D. 1612)

227. Who is considered a “Fence”?

This includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership or other

organization who/which commits the act of fencing. (Sec. 2[b])

If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the

manager or any of the officers thereof who knows or should have known the commission
of the offense shall be liable. (Sec. 4)

228. What are the elements of Fencing?

The following are the elements of fencing:

a. Robbery or theft has been committed;

78
 b. A person not a participant in said crime buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells; or in any manner deals in any article
or item, object or anything of value;
c. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and
d. The accused has intent to gain for himself or another. (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, G.R.
No. 111426, 1994)

229. What is the presumption on fencing?

Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. (Sec. 5,
P.D. 1612)

230. Is the presumption on fencing absolute?

No, it is not absolute. The presumption will not lie when, before the sale to the public,
necessary clearance or permit are secured from the Integrated National Police Station
Commander of the town or city where stores, establishments, or entities are located,
which deal in the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object or anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier. (Sec. 6, P.D. 1612)

K. Crimes Against Chastity (Arts. 333-334, 336-346)

231. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction?
Give an example of each.

The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public authority, guardian,
teacher or a person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody
of the woman seduced.
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Examples: priest, house servant,
domestics.
3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother who seduced his sister;
ascendant who seduced his descendant (Art. 337, RPC).

232. What is adultery?

Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a
man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to
be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.(Article 333, Revised Penal
Code)

233. Who may be held guilty of concubinage?

Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place. (Article 334, Revised Penal Code)

79
234. What is lewd?

In Sombilon, Jr. v. People, the Court explained this concept as follows:

The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is

characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of
which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that
can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs
is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.
(People v. Soria y Gomez, G.R. No. 179031, [November 14, 2012], 698 PHIL 676-706)

235. What is the difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness?

According to People v. Collado, the difference between attempted rape and acts
of lasciviousness lies in the intent of the perpetrator as deduced from his external
acts. The intent referred to is the intent to lie with a woman. 28 Attempted rape is
committed when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to
penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness. 29 Thus, the accused's
act of opening the zipper and buttons of AAA's shorts, touching her, and trying to pull
her from under the bed manifested lewd designs, not intent to lie with her. (People v.
Dadulla y Capanas, G.R. No. 172321, [February 9, 2011], 657 PHIL 442-458)

236. What is the distinction between forcible abduction and rape?

The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as defined in Article 342 of the Revised
Penal Code, are:
(1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or
reputation;
(2) that she is taken against her will; and
(3) that the abduction is with lewd designs.

On the other hand, rape under Article 266-A is committed by having carnal knowledge
of a woman by:
(1) force or intimidation, or
(2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or
(3) when she is under twelve years of age.
(People v. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100, [July 18, 2014])

1. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995)

237. What is a Photo or Video Voyeurism?

It is the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons

performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area
of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying,
reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage
or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular

80
 phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s
involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of
same was given by such person. (Sec. 3 [d], R.A. 995)

238. What are the Prohibited Acts in R.A. 9995?

(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual
act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such
as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast
without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (Sec. 4 [a], R.A. 995)

(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video

or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration; (Sec. 4
[b], R.A. 995)

(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or

recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or (Sec.
4 [c], R.A. 995)

(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or

broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
similar means or device. (Sec. 4 [d], R.A. 995)

239. In which circumstances enumerated in Section 4, R.A. 9995 will consent be

a valid defense?

Consent may be a valid defense in the prohibition in paragraph (a). This is unmistakably
the implication, since the prohibition states that the taking of the photo or video shall
be without the consent of the subject who has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In
other words, if there is consent from the subject of the photo taking or video recording,
then the subject consented to give up whatever privacy, decency, or modesty he or she
may at least have. (Annotation, 844 SCRA 667, November 20, 2017)

240. When does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy under circumstances in which a

reasonable person would believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being
concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or
circumstance in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the
person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public
or private place. (Sec. 3, R.A. 9995)

81
241. In which circumstances enumerated in Section 4, R.A. 9995 will apply
notwithstanding that consent was given?

The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that
consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such
person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video
voyeurism as defined herein. In paragraph (b) prohibition, it is observed that consent
of the subject is immaterial, and not a valid defense. So even if the subject may have
consented to the taking of the voyeur photo or video, and the perpetrator could possibly
raise the defense of consent if charged under the first type of offense, once the
perpetrator performs the act of copying or reproducing the voyeur photo or video, then
he is liable under the second type of offense. As already observed consent of the subject
is no longer a defense. With respect to paragraphs (c) & (d) prohibitions, same with the
prohibition mentioned above, consent to be photographed, filmed, or videotaped, is
immaterial and not a valid defense in the criminal prosecution. (Annotation, 844 SCRA 667,
November 20, 2017)

242. Compare prosecution of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 366 of the RPC
and Sec. 5 of RA 7610

Under Article 336 of the RPC, the accused performs the acts of lasciviousness on a
child who is neither exploited in prostitution nor subjected to "other sexual abuse."

In contrast, under Section 5 of RA 7610, the accused performs the acts of

lasciviousness on a child who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other
sexual abuse."

Section 5 of RA 7610 deals with a situation where the acts of lasciviousness are
committed on a child already either exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other
sexual abuse." Clearly, the acts of lasciviousness committed on the child are separate
and distinct from the other circumstance that the child is either exploited in prostitution
or subjected to "other sexual abuse."

Contrary to the exposition, the very definition of "child abuse" under Sec. 3 (b) of RA
7610 does not require that the victim suffer a separate and distinct act of sexual abuse
aside from the act complained of. For it refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or
not, of the child. Thus, a violation of Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610 occurs even though the
accused committed sexual abuse against the child victim only once, even without a prior
sexual affront. (Quimvel y Braga v. People, G.R. No. 214497, [April 18, 2017], 808 PHIL 889-1000)

82
 L. Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons (Arts. 347-352)

243. Distinguish Bigamy from Illegal Marriage.

BIGAMY (Art. 349) ILLEGAL MARRIAGE (Art. 350)

As to the presence of a Previous marriage

Present Not necessary

As to the Validity of the subsequent marriage

Subsequent marriage must be perfectly Subsequent marriage is annullable or void even if there is
valid except that it is bigamous. no 1st marriage.

As to the coverage of punishable Act

Refers only to contracting of a 2nd Covers all marriages which are otherwise voidable or null
marriage before the former marriage has and void other than bigamous marriage.
been legally dissolved or before the absent
spouse has been declared presumptively
dead.

244. What is bigamy?

For one to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution must prove the following:

(a) That the offender has been legally married;

(b) That the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
Code;
(c) That he or she contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(d) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

It is vital in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the
essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first
marriage. (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, [July 27, 2021])

245. Is a void ab initio marriage a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy even
without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity?

Yes. We hold that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a
void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the
accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within
which they are secured. (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, [July 27, 2021])

83
 M. Crimes Against Honor (Arts. 353-364)

246. How is Libel committed?

a. Article 353 states that “A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”
b. Article 355 states that Libel is committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means.
c. Under R.A. No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cyber libel as
defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, may be committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the
future.

For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be present:

(a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious;
(c) it must be given publicity; and
(d) the victim must be identifiable.

(Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 225010, [November 21, 2018])

247. What does publication in libel means?

Publication in libel means making the defamatory matter, after it has been written,
known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written.

A communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed alone cannot injure
his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem, for a man's reputation is not the
good opinion he has of himself, but the estimation in which other hold him.

In the same vein, a defamatory letter contained in a closed envelope addressed to

another constitutes sufficient publication if the offender parted with its possession in
such a way that it can be read by person other than the offended party.

If a sender of a libelous communication knows or has good reasons to believe that it will
be intercepted before reaching the person defamed, there is sufficient publication.

The publication of a libel, however, should not be presumed from the fact that the
immediate control thereof is parted with unless it appears that there is reasonable
probability that it is hereby exposed to be read or seen by third persons. (Belen v. People,
G.R. No. 211120, [February 13, 2017], 805 PHIL 628-673)

84
248. What is slander?

Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral
defamation or slander as now understood, has been defined as the speaking of base
and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade,
business or means of livelihood.

There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the
oral defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the
personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and (3) the circumstances
surrounding the case.

Indeed, it is a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under
one or the other, depending not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and
accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special
circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party and
the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time.
(Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, [April 10, 2006], 521 PHIL 191-210)

249. How is the crime of incriminating innocent person committed?

The crime known as incriminating innocent person has the following elements:

(1) The offender performs an act;

(2) by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission
of a crime; and
(3) such act does not constitute perjury.

Article 363 does not, however, contemplate the idea of malicious prosecution —
someone prosecuting or instigating a criminal charge in court. It refers "to the acts of
PLANTING evidence and the like, which do not in themselves constitute false
prosecution but tend directly to cause false prosecutions." (Campanano, Jr. v.
Datuin, G.R. No. 172142, [October 17, 2007], 562 PHIL 442-450)

250. X was tending her garden when B passed by. She then talked to B and started
blaming her for the garbage B’s children are apparently throwing into her
garden. This prompted a quarrel between the two. In the course of which, B
uttered to X, “You are a prostitute, an illiterate, a bitch!” Aggrieved, X filed a
criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation against B. Can B be convicted of the
crime?

No. Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not
only upon the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the
special circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the
offended party.

The gravity depends upon:

1) The expressions used;
2) The personal relations of the accused and the offended party; and

85
 3) The special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or relationship between the
offended party and the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the
offender at the time. In particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the
heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes
only a light felony.

Here, although B said defamatory words against X, the utterances were made in the
heat of anger and were with some sort of provocation on the part of X, hence only
constitute slight oral defamation. (Ramos vs. People, G.R. No. 226454, November 20, 2017)

N. Criminal Negligence (Article 365)

251. What are reckless imprudence and simple imprudence?

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or failing to do

an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in

which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
manifest. (Ivler y Aguilar v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, [November 17, 2010], 649 PHIL 478-
510)

252. What are the elements of reckless imprudence?

The elements of reckless imprudence are:

(1) That the offender does or fails to do an act;
(2) That the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
(3) That it be without malice;
(4) That material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
(5) That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place
(Senit v. People, G.R. No. 192914, [January 11, 2016], 776 PHIL 372-388)

Note: Article 48 Does not Apply to Acts Penalized Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code (Ivler y Aguilar v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, [November 17, 2010], 649 PHIL 478-510)

86