2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW

Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

On Voluntary Surrender

The requisites for voluntary surrender that: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2)
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the
surrender was voluntary, were not met. The facts established herein parlay that the barangay
authorities had to search for Pereira and go to the place where he fled to. Only then was he
arrested. People v. Pereira y Montalvo, G.R. No. 220749, January 20, 2021

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. In the case at bar, the following circumstances indicated
the presence of evident premeditation: (1) the meeting of all the accused at 3 o'clock in the
afternoon of July 29, 1997 at Binago Forest, Salimbal, Tinagpoloan to plan the killing of Pepito;
(2) the act of buying and drinking alcohol and arming themselves with four homemade guns
known as paleontods, an improvised pistol and bolos; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time, that is,
six hours from the time of their meeting at 3 o'clock in the afternoon until the time of killing of
Pepito at 9 o'clock in the evening. People v. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, November 4, 2020

Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC provides that there is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.

In People v. Calinawan, the Court enumerated the following elements that must be established
for treachery to be appreciated: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods, or forms of attack employed by him. People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 234780, March 17,
2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

It has been repeatedly held that "chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the
spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended
by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode
of attack."

Stated otherwise, there can be no treachery when the attack is preceded by a heated exchange
of words between the accused and the victim, or when the victim is aware of the hostility of the
assailant towards the former. Here, Alegre had a heated altercation with Pascua before he finally
lost his patience and shot him. When Pascua slumped to the ground after getting shot in the
neck, Alegre moved closer and proceeded to shoot him in the head. Upon realizing what he had
just done, he ran and attempted to escape, but was eventually caught by Tagle. Based on the
attendant facts, Alegre's acts were more of a result of a sudden impulse or a spur of the moment
decision due to his previous heated altercation with the victim, rather than a planned and
deliberate action. People v. Alegre y Nazaral, G.R. No. 254381, February 14, 2022

PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

Concomitantly, although it is not an element of the crime charged, conspiracy, as a manner of

incurring liability, whenever alleged, must be proved with the same quantum of evidence
required to establish an element of the offense, that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Failure to establish the existence of the conspiracy renders each accused only liable for his own
specific acts.

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

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF SENTENCE

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.
Jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is
unmistakable about it. The law is very clear and a contrary interpretation would counter its
envisioned mandate. Thus, even assuming that herein accused-appellant is qualified to apply for
parole, he has already availed himself of the remedy of appeal twice, by appealing the RTC
judgment of conviction before the Court of Appeals, and then appealing the Court of Appeals
decision affirming his conviction before this Court, which already proscribes him from applying
for probation. People v. Galuga y Wad-as, G.R. No. 221428, February 13, 2019

COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT (RA 10591)

On Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

The elements of the offense are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and, (b) the fact that
the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. If
the firearm is loaded with ammunition, the penalty is increased one degree higher. Castil y Alvero
v. People, G.R. No. 253930, July 13, 2022

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

In Falsification of Public Documents under paragraph 2, Article 171 of the RPC, the prosecution
must prove the existence of the following elements: (1) that the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he
falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding; and (4) that such persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.

Admittedly, Partisala was a public officer, being the Vice-Mayor of Maasin, Iloilo City, at the time
material to the case. He took advantage of his official position as the vice mayor, together with
his co-accused, to falsify the Minutes of the SB on the session held on June 21, 1996 by making
or preparing or intervening in the preparation thereof, to make it appear that the SB deliberated
on the issuance of Resolution No. 30-A and Resolution No. 30-B giving Mondejar the authority to

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

enter into a contract with IBC with respect to the rechanneling of Tigum River. People v.
Partisala, G.R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022

Falsification of Public Document is committed when the public document is simulated "in a
manner so as to give it the appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading others
to errors as to its authenticity."

The refusal of Trojillo and Albacete to sign the falsified minutes prepared by Tolentino after June
21, 1996 to legitimize the MOA entered into by Mondejar, sufficiently proved that the minutes
did not reflect the true and actual proceedings of the session held on June 21, 1996. Clearly,
Partisala's participation in the falsification of the minutes cannot be denied, as he himself
persuaded Trojillo to sign it to make it appear that there are two resolutions justifying the MOA
entered into by Mondejar with IBC. People v. Partisala, G.R. Nos. 245931-32, April 25, 2022

To warrant a conviction for Falsification of Public Documents by making untruthful statements

in a narration of facts under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution
must establish beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: 1) the offender makes in a
public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 2) he or she has a legal
obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him or her; and 3) the facts narrated
are absolutely false.

In Falsification of Public Documents, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his
or her official position in making the falsification when (1) he or she has the duty to make or
prepare or, otherwise, to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he or she has the
official custody of the document which he falsifies. xxx Settled is the rule that Falsification of
Public Documents is an intentional felony committed by means of "dolo" or "malice" and could
not result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Intentional felony
requires the existence of dolus malus — that the act or omission be done willfully, maliciously,
with deliberate evil intent, and with malice aforethought. This felony falls under the category of
mala in se offenses that requires the attendance of criminal intent. In fine, criminal intent is
required in order to incur criminal liability under Article 171 of the RPC. People v. Palma Gil-
Roflo, G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76, March 21, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

(RA 9165, AS AMENDED BY RA 10640)

On Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

At inception, we find that the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were met, to wit: (1)
identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and its payment. In buy-bust operations, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the simultaneous receipt of the marked money by the seller consummate the
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. In the present case, PO3 Tutor positively identified Nora as the
one who sold him shabu in exchange for the marked money worth P1,000.00. His testimony,
coupled with the other pieces of evidence offered during trial, indubitably show the
consummation of the sale of illegal drugs. People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522, February 28,
2022

The integrity and identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt
considering that it constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense.

To establish the identity of the seized drugs from the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the
chain of custody must be proven in order to dispel any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity
of the evidence. The chain of custody involves the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure and confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safekeeping, and to presentation in court for destruction. In People v. Kamad, this
Court enumerated the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish: (1)
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized
and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. People v. Mariano, G.R. No.
247522, February 28, 2022

Case law teaches that the seized item must be immediately marked at the place of arrest to
obviate any possibility of tampering or switching.

This precautionary measure, unfortunately, was blatantly disregarded by the police officers. The
records clearly show that the police officers did not immediately mark the seized items at the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

place of the arrest. Instead, they brought the unmarked seized items to their office on the pretext
that they felt uneasy marking the items at the place of arrest considering the happening of several
shooting incidents thereat. Concededly, deviations from the clear-cut procedure may be allowed,
the same however (1) must be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution; (2) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence had been preserved; and (3) the justifiable ground for
noncompliance is proven as a fact. Moreover, it must be alleged and proved that earnest efforts
were made to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses. People v. Castillo y Galang,
G.R. No. 242520, November 15, 2021

Strict compliance with Section 21 is especially important in instances where only a miniscule
amount of dangerous drugs is involved, such as in this case.

As enunciated in People v. Holgado, while the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself
not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance
with Section 21. In Malilin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or
mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily
lives." People v. Ortega, G.R. No. 240224, February 23, 2022

It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of proving compliance with the
requirements of Section 21. In case of deviation from or non-compliance with the said
requirements, the prosecution must provide a sufficient explanation why Section 21 was not
complied with.

The Court has held in People v. Lim that the following are justifiable reasons for not securing
three witnesses during the inventory and photograph taking: (1) their attendance was impossible
because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused
or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved
in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a
DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who
face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of
the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law
enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could
escape. People v. Arellaga y Sabado, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

The IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides for a saving clause to ensure that not every non-compliance
with the procedure for the preservation of the chain of custody will prejudice the prosecution's
case against the accused.

For the saving clause to apply, however, the following must be present: (1) the existence of
justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.
In this case, the prosecution did not explain the absence of the three required witnesses nor did
it try to justify the police's deviation from the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 21.
Without the three witnesses, there is reasonable doubt on the identity of the seized drugs itself.
Without the three witnesses, the Court is unsure whether there had been planting of evidence
and/or contamination of the seized drugs. Because of this, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the corpus delicti had been compromised. Consequently, appellant must be acquitted. People v.
Arellaga y Sabado, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

On Murder

The essential elements of murder, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt,
are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) that the killing was attended
by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 [of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC)]; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. People v. Camarino, G.R. No. 222655,
December 9, 2020

Based on the facts, and as found by both the RTC and the CA, XXX forced AAA to perform fellatio
on him by placing his penis inside her mouth. By this, XXX should be adjudged guilty of Rape by
Sexual Assault under the RPC. However, the recent case of People v. Tulagan prescribed
guidelines regarding the proper designation or nomenclature of acts constituting sexual assault
and the corresponding penalty depending on the victim's age.

Considering the development of the crime of sexual assault from a mere 'crime against chastity'
in the form of acts of lasciviousness to 'crime against persons' akin to rape, as well as the ruling
in Dimakuta and Caoili, We hold that if the acts constituting sexual assault are committed against
a victim under 12 years of age or is demented, the nomenclature of the offense should now be
'Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610' and no longer 'Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,' because sexual assault as a form of acts of lasciviousness is no longer
covered by Article 336 but by Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353.
Nevertheless, the imposable penalty is still reclusion temporal in its medium period, and not
prision mayor. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 238405, December 7, 2020

On Qualified Rape

Relevantly, the elements of qualified rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done
by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under [eighteen] years of age at the time of the
rape; and (5) the offender is [either] a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted),
[ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent] of the victim." The minority of the victim and
his or her relationship with the offender should both be alleged in the Information and proven
beyond reasonable doubt during trial in order to qualify the rape charge as these circumstances
have the effect of altering the nature of the rape and its corresponding penalty. Otherwise, the
death penalty cannot be imposed upon the offender. In this case, AAA's minority was properly
alleged and indisputably proven during trial. She was below 18 years old at the time the crimes
were committed against her. Moreover, it was proven by evidence that De Guzman forced AAA
into engaging in sexual congress by using threats and intimidation and without her consent, in
addition to his moral ascendancy over her. People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 224212, November
27, 2019

There is no standard behavior expected by law from a rape victim. She may attempt to resist
her attacker, scream for help, make a run for it, or even freeze up, and allow herself to be
violated.

By whatever manner she reacts, the same is immaterial because it is not an element of rape.
Neither should a rape victim's reflex be interpreted on its lonesome. Absent any other adequate
proof that the victim clearly assented to the sexual act perpetrated by the accused, a victim shall
not be condemned solely on the basis of her reactions against the same. People v. Cabales, G.R.
No. 213831, September 25, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003

(RA 9208, AS AMENDED BY RA 11862)

On Trafficking in Persons

Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 merely provides for the general definition of "Trafficking in Persons" as
the specific acts punishable under RA 9208 are found in Sections 4 and 5 on "Acts of Trafficking
in Persons" and "Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons." The crime of "Trafficking in Persons"
becomes qualified under the circumstances listed in Section 6 of the law.||People v. XXX, G.R.
No. 225288, June 28, 2021

Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 defines Trafficking in Persons as "the recruitment, transportation,

transfer or 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 other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs."

It further states that "[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of child for
the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph." People v. XXX, G.R. No. 248815,
March 23, 2022

CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY AND SECURITY

On Kidnapping for Ransom

The elements of kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the RPC, as amended, are as follows:
(a) intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his/her liberty; (b) actual deprivation
of the victim of his/her liberty; and (c) motive of the accused, which is extorting ransom for the
release of the victim. People v. Cornista y Reotutar, G.R. No. 218915, February 19, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

On Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide

In the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, the person kidnapped is
killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or
was merely an afterthought. People v. Cornista y Reotutar, G.R. No. 218915, February 19, 2020

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

A conviction for Robbery with Homicide requires that Robbery is the main purpose and
objective of the malefactors and the killing is merely incidental to the Robbery.

If, originally, the malefactors did not comprehend Robbery, but Robbery follows the Homicide
either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the Homicide, then the malefactor is guilty
of two separate crimes, that of Homicide or Murder and Robbery, and not of the special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide. In this case, the original intention of the appellants was to kill
Pepito to exact revenge from Pepito for assaulting appellant Gerry. In fact, appellant Edimar
immediately shot Pepito on his head when the latter looked out from his window to ascertain
the people outside his house. This shows that the appellants did not intend to commit Robbery
at the outset. Nonetheless, Robbery was committed incidentally by the appellants when Jimmy
took Pepito's air gun and FM radio while Rogelio took the bolo after hacking the body of Pepito.
Subsequently, appellant Edimar shouted "Attack!" thereby giving the other appellants the signal
to ransack the other valuables of the spouses Gunayan, namely, a goat, two pigs, a fighting cock
and a hen without the consent and at gun point and with use of bolos against Judith and her
children. People v. Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, November 4, 2020

On Theft

"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 Albotra took the bag
belonging to Ramos 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

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

On Estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1) (b)

The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph (1) (b) of the RPC are: (a) that money, goods,
or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same; (b) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (c) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial
is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the
offender. Barlin v. People, G.R. No. 207418, June 23, 2021

On Arson

Arson is present when: (a) there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally burned is an
inhabited house or dwelling. In the case at bar, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court,
found that the prosecution positively proved that accused-appellant deliberately set fire to their
house which resulted in the deaths of its two inhabitants. The case records clearly showed that
accused-appellant's acts before, during, and after the fire established beyond reasonable doubt
her guilt of committing the acts alleged in the Information. The prosecution sufficiently
established an unbroken chain of events which led to the fair and reasonable conclusion that she
intentionally set the house on fire. People v. Al-Saad y Bagkat, G.R. No. 242414, March 15, 2021

On Malicious Mischief

Any person who shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not falling within
the terms of the next preceding chapter, shall be guilty of malicious mischief.

The elements of Malicious Mischief have been duly proven in this case, viz.: (1) Petitioners
admitted in their "kontra salaysay" that Teofilo deliberately destroyed the fence and its cement
foundation, and made diggings in the subject property; (2) The destruction did not constitute
arson or other crime involving destruction; and (3) The act of damaging another's property was
committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

Under the third element, assuming that petitioner Teofilo owned the property in controversy, he
and his co-accused were not justified in summarily destroying the improvements built thereon
by Bolbes. They unlawfully took the law into their own hands when they surreptitiously entered
Bolbes's enclosed lot and destroyed its fence and foundation. Evidently, petitioners' actions were
made out of hatred, revenge or evil motive. Considering that all the elements of the crime of

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
Handout No. 18
CHAIR’S CASES

Malicious Mischief are present in this case, petitioners were properly adjudged guilty thereof.
Grana v. People, G.R. No. 202111, November 25, 2019

CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS

To summarize and for future guidance, the parties are not required to obtain a judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to
raise it as a defense in a bigamy case.

The same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code.
Article 40 of the Family Code did not amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the
accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal
prosecution for bigamy.

However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment
decree as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is
considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy,
therefore, is consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of
the voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the second marriage is merely considered as
voidable.

To our mind, it is time to abandon the earlier precedents and adopt a more liberal view that a
void ab initio marriage can be used as a defense in bigamy even without a separate judicial
declaration of absolute nullity. The accused may present testimonial or documentary evidence
such as the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first subsequent void ab initio marriages
in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. The said view is more in accord with the retroactive
effects of a void ab initio marriage, the purpose of and legislative intent behind Article 40 of the
Family Code, and the rule on statutory construction of penal laws. Therefore, the absence of a
"prior valid marriage" and the subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first
marriage, Pulido is hereby acquitted from the crime of Bigamy charged against him. Pulido v.
People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 12