A SPECIAL LECTURE IN

CRIMINAL LAW
By Dean Jim Festin
THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
BOOK 1
 BASIC PRINCIPLES IN
CRIMINAL LAW
Q1: EXPLAIN THE
EQUIPOISE RULE
 Under the equipoise 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. (Luis T. Arriola vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
199975, February 24, 2020 Hernando, J.)
CONSPIRACY
Q2: EXPLAIN IMPLIED
CONSPIRACY
 Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for
criminals do not write down their lawless plans
and plot.
The agreement to commit a crime, however, may
be deduced from the mode and manner of the
commission of the offense or inferred from acts
that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of intent. (People of the
Philippines vs. Edjen Camarino, et al. G.R. No.
222655, December 09, 2020 Hernando, J.)
Q3: WHAT IS THE
CONSEQUENCE IF THERE IS
CONSPIRACY?
 It did not matter x x x who inflicted the
mortal wound, as the act of one is the act of
all, and each incurred the same criminal
liability. (People of the Philippines vs. Edjen
Camarino, et al. G.R. No. 222655, December
09, 2020 Hernando, J.)
Q4: WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE IF
THERE IS A FAILURE TO ESTABLISH
CONSPIRACY?
 Failure to establish the existence of the
conspiracy renders each accused only liable
for his own specific acts. (People of the
Philippines vs. Orlando Padilla and Danilo
Padilla G.R. No. 247824, February 23, 2022
Hernando, J.)
 Q5: WHAT IS THE
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE TO
ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY?
 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. (People of the Philippines vs. Orlando
Padilla and Danilo Padilla G.R. No. 247824,
February 23, 2022 Hernando, J.)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
SELF DEFENSE
Q6: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF
SELF-DEFENSE?
 Self-defense requires:
(a) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed by the accused to repel it; and
(c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part.
(People of the Philippines vs. Melvin Pereira y
Montalvo G.R. No. 220749, January 20, 2021
Hernando, J.)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Q7: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF
UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR?
 Self-defense requires:
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. (People
of the Philippines vs. Florentino Labuguen y
Francisco Alias “Tinong” and Romeo Zuniga y
Pilarta G.R. No. 223103, February 24, 2020
Hernando, J.)
 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
Q8: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF
VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER?
 For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a
mitigating circumstance, the
following elements must be present, to wit:
(1) the accused has not been actually arrested;
(2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in
authority or the latter’s agent; and
(3) the surrender is voluntary.
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity
and the intent of the accused to give himself up and
submit himself to the authorities, either because
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the
authorities the trouble and expense that may be
incurred for his search and capture. (Edwin Talabis
vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 214647, March
4, 2020 Hernando, J.)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
TREACHERY
Q9: WHEN IS THERE
TREACHERY?
 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
to directly and specially ensure its
execution, without risk to himself/herself
arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. (People of the
Philippines vs. Gerald Moreno y Tazon G.R.
No. 191759, March 02, 2020 Hernando, J.)
Q10: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF
TREACHERY?
 In order for the qualifying circumstance of
treachery to be appreciated, the following
requisites must be shown:

(1) the employment of means, method, or manner

of execution that would ensure the safety of the
malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of
the victim, and

(2) the means, method, or manner of execution

was deliberately or consciously adopted by the
offender. The essence of treachery is a deliberate
and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed
and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to
escape. (People of the Philippines vs. Gerald Moreno
y Tazon G.R. No. 191759, March 02, 2020 Hernando,
J.)
Q11: DIFFERENTIATE THE
ESSENCE OF TREACHERY
FROM EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION
 The essence of treachery is that the attack is
deliberate and without warning, done in a swift
and unexpected way, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape.

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.
(People of the Philippines vs. Eddie Manansala G.R.
No. 233104, September 02, 2020 Hernando, J.)
Q12: MUST THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES BE
PROPERLY PLEADED
IN THE INFORMATION?
 Yes. In this case, since treachery was alleged in
the Information and duly established by the
prosecution during trial, the appellants' conviction
for the crime of Murder is proper.

However, evident premeditation as a qualifying

circumstance cannot be appreciated in this case for
failure of the prosecution to specifically allege in
the Information the acts constituting it. Mere
reference to evident premeditation is not sufficient
because it is in the nature of a conclusion of law,
not factual averments. (People of the Philippines vs.
Rogelio Natindim G.R. No. 201867, November 04,
2020 Hernando, J.)
Q13: CAN THERE BE
TREACHERY WHEN THE
ATTACK IS PRECEDED BY A
HEATED EXCHANGE OF WORDS
BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND
THE VICTIM?
 No. Crimes preceded by heated altercations
are generally not attended by treachery.
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.
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. (People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Alegre y
Nazaral G.R. No. 254381, February 14, 2022
Hernando, J.)
Q14: DOES RETALIATION, AS
A RESULT OF THE VICTIM’S
REFLEXES, NEGATE
TREACHERY?
 No, retaliation of the victim as a result of his
reflexes does not negate treachery.
Mijares was not able to put up an effective
defense. Although he kicked and pushed the
appellant out of their room, this did not negate the
presence of treachery.
In People v. Baltazar, it was ruled that
treachery must still be appreciated even if the
victim was able to retaliate as a result of his
reflexes, so long as he did not have the
opportunity to repel the initial assault. (People
of the Philippines vs. Gerald Moreno y Tazon G.R. No.
191759, March 02, 2020 Hernando, J.)
 PART II

THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
BOOK TWO
 FALSIFICATION OF
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
Q15: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS?
 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. (People of the Philippines vs.
Rene Mondejar, et al. G.R. No. 245931-32, April 25,
2022 Hernando, J.)
Q16: WHEN IS THE OFFENDER
CONSIDERED TO HAVE TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL POSITION IN MAKING
THE FALSIFICATION?
 In Falsification of Public Documents, the
offender is considered to have taken advantage of
his or her official position in making the
falsification when

(l) 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. (The People of the
Philippines vs. Ma. Consuelo Toroba Palma Gil-Roflo,
et. al. G.R. Nos. 249564 & 249568-76, March 21,
2022 Hernando, J.)
RAPE
Q17: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF RAPE?
 The elements of rape through sexual
intercourse are as follows:

(1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the

victim; and,
(2) the act was accomplished
(a) through the use of force or intimidation, or
(b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or
(c) when the victim is under 12 years of age
or is demented. (*AMENDED)
The elements of rape through sexual assault are as
follows:
(1) the accused committed an act of sexual assault by
(a) inserting his penis into another person's mouth
or anal orifice, or
(b) inserting any instrument or object into the
genital or anal orifice of another person; and,

(2) the act was accomplished

(a) through the use of force or intimidation, or
(b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or
(c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is
demented. (*AMENDED (The People of the
Philippines vs. XXX G.R. No. 233867, February 28, 2022
Hernando, J.)
Q18: DOES A PENETRATING
BLOW ONTO VAGINA BY A
WELDING ROD CONSTITUTE
RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT?
 Penetrating blow onto vagina by a welding
rod is rape by sexual assault.

The following act fall within the punitive purview

of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of
the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610:
minor victim received a penetrating blow onto her
vagina that almost extended to her anus by a
welding rod wielded by accused. The severity of
the genital injury inflicted upon the victim cannot
be more telling of the accused’s abusive intent.
(People of the Philippines vs. Flor Pueyo alias Tito
Flong G.R. No. 192327, February 26, 2020 Hernando,
J.)
 Q19: DO PREMARITAL
RELATIONSHIPS
NECESSARILY ENTAIL SEXUAL
INTIMACY?
 Premarital relationships do not necessarily
entail sexual intimacy. Neither can the sexual
behavior of a rape victim reverse her violator's
criminal culpability. Premarital relationships do
not necessarily entail sexual intimacy. Neither can
the sexual behavior of a rape victim reverse her
violator's criminal culpability. It must always be
remembered that the lack of consent is the line
crossed in non-Statutory Rape. Romantic affairs
voluntarily engaged into by a rape victim, whether
before, during, or after the rape incident, will not
overwrite the established fact that her violator
forcibly obtained carnal knowledge of her without
her consent. (People of the Philippines vs. ZZZ G.R.
No. 226144, October 14, 2020 Hernando, J.)
QUALIFIED RAPE
Q20: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF
QUALIFIED RAPE?
 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 People of the
Philippines vs. XXX G.R. No. 238405,
December 7, 2020 Hernando, J.)
 In order for an accused to be
convicted of qualified rape, the
Information must allege that the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of rape and the
accused is the victim's parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or
relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or
common-law spouse of the victim's
parent. (People of the Philippines vs.
XXX G.R. No. 225781, November 16,
2020 Hernando, J.)
 Q21: MUST THERE BE
ACTUAL FORCE, THREAT
OR INTIMIDATION IN
QUALIFIED RAPE?
 In Qualified Rape, when the
offender is the victim's father there
need not be actual force, threat or
intimidation. His moral ascendancy or
influence over the latter substitutes
for violence and intimidation. (People
of the Philippines vs. XXX G.R. No.
218277, November 09, 2020 Hernando,
J.)
Q22: IS THE ALLEGATION IN THE
INFORMATION THAT THE
OFFENDER IS THE “MATERNAL
UNCLE” OF THE VICTIM
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE THE
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
RELATIONSHIP?
 Yes. The Court considered the qualifying
circumstance of relationship even without
the specific allegation that the same was
within the third civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, since the
information therein already described the
offender as the “maternal uncle” of the
victim. (People Of The Philippines vs. XXX
G.R. No. 257276. February 28, 2022
Hernando, J.)
Q23: SHOULD THE MINORITY
OF THE VICTIM AND HIS/HER
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
OFFENDER BE ALLEGED IN THE
INFORMATION TO QUALIFY
RAPE?
 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.
(People of the Philippines vs. Romeo De
Castro De Guzman G.R. No. 224212,
November 27, 2019 Hernando, J.)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
 Q24: 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
of the Philippines vs. Noli Villegas, Jr. y Lacrete G.R.
No. 218210, October 09, 2019 Hernando, J.)
Q25: IS THERE A SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIME OF
ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE AND DOUBLE
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE?
 There is no special complex crime of
robbery with homicide and double frustrated
homicide.
The offense should have been designated as
robbery with homicide alone, regardless of the
number of homicides or injuries committed. These
other felonies have, at the most and under
appropriate circumstances, been considered
merely as generic aggravating circumstances
which can be offset by mitigating circumstances.
The term "homicide" in paragraph 1 of Article
294 is used in its generic sense, that is, any act that
results in death. Any other act producing injuries
short of death is integrated in the "homicide"
committed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery, assuming, of course, that the homicide is
consummated.
 If no death supervenes, the accused should be
held liable for separate crimes of robbery and
frustrated or attempted homicide or murder
(provided that there was intent to kill) if the latter
offenses were not necessary for the commission of
the robbery, or for a complex crime of robbery and
frustrated or attempted homicide or murder under
Article 48 of the Code if the latter offenses were the
necessary means for the commission of robbery.
(Philippines vs. Florentino Labuguen y Francisco
Alias “Tinong” and Romeo Zuniga Y Pilarta G.R. No.
223103, February 24, 2020 Hernando, J.)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
 Q26: WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS
OF A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF
ROBBERY WITH RAPE?
 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 of the
Philippines vs. Armando Bueza y Ranay G.R. No. 242513
November 18, 2020 Hernando, J.)
GRAVE THREATS
Q27: 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 of the
Philippines vs. Armando Bueza y Ranay G.R.
No. 242513 November 18, 2020 Hernando, J.)
 KIDNAPPING FOR
RANSOM WITH HOMICIDE
Q28: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF KIDNAPPING
FOR RANSOM WITH
HOMICIDE?
 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. 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 of the Philippines vs. Hector
Cornista Y Reotutar and Alvin Labra Y Cornista G.R.
No. 218915, February 19, 2020 Hernando, J.)
THEFT
 Q29: WHAT ARE
THE ELEMENTS OF
THEFT?
 Under Article 308 of the RPC, the crime
of theft is committed when the following
elements concur:
(1) that there be taking of personal
property;
(2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to
gain;
(4) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and
(5) the taking be accomplished without the
use of violence, intimidation, or force upon
persons or things. (Elizabeth Horca vs.
People of the Philippines G.R. No. 224316,
November 10, 2021 Hernando, J.)
Q30: HOW IS THEFT COMMITTED
UNDER ARTICLE 308, PARAGRAPH
2(1) ?
Under Article 308, par. 2 (1) of the RPC,
Theft is also committed by one's failure
to deliver lost property to its owner or local
authorities. In this kind of Theft, it is
essential to prove: 1) the finding of lost
property; 2) the failure of the finder to
deliver the same to the local authorities or
its owner. (Pante y Pangasa vs. People of the
Philippines G.R. No.
218969, January 18, 2021 Hernando, J.)
ESTAFA
Q31: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA BY
MEANS OF UNFAITHFULNESS
OR ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
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 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. (Rosella Barlin vs. People of
the Philippines G.R. No. 207418. June 23, 2021
Hernando, J.)
Q32: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA
BY MEANS OF DECEIT?
 The elements of the crime of estafa, are: 1)
there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; 2) such false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made
or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; 3) the offended party
must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to
part with his money or property because of the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;
and 4) as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage. (People of the Philippines vs.
Perlita Castro Urquico @ Fhey, et al. G.R. No.
238910, July 20, 2022 Hernando, J.)
Q33: DIFFERENTIATE ESTAFA
UNDER ARTICLE 315,
PARAGRAPH 2(A) FROM ESTAFA
UNDER ARTICLE 316,
PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
 Art. 316, par. 1 Any person who, pretending to be
the owner of any real property, shall convey, sell,
encumber, or mortgage the same.
This covers a specific situation where the offended
exercises or executes, as part of the false
representation, some act of dominion or ownership
over the property to the damage and prejudice of the
real owner of the thing.
On the other hand, this circumstance need not be
present for a crime to be committed under Art. 315,
par. 2 (a).
Art. 315, par 2 (a) provides “By using fictitious
name, or false pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; or by means of the other
similar deceits.”
In the case at bar, the evidence does not disclose
that the appellant had exercised certain acts of
ownership or dominion beyond his mere pointing of
the property to the offender party and his claim that
he was the owner thereof. (Spouses Isidro Dulay III
and Elena Dulay vs. People Of The Philippines G.R. No.
215132, September 13, 2021 Hernando, J.)
Q34: DIFFERENTIATE
ESTAFA FROM ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT
 In estafa, damage is essential, but not in
the crime of illegal recruitment. As to the
latter, it is the lack of the necessary license
or authority, but not the fact of payment
that renders the recruitment activity as
unlawful. (People of the Philippines vs.
Avelina Manalang G.R. No. 1980815, January
20, 2021 Hernando, J.)
Q35: CAN A PERSON BE BOTH
LIABLE FOR ESTAFA AND
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT?
Yes. It is settled that a person, for the same
acts, may be convicted separately of Illegal
Recruitment under RA 8042 or the Labor
Code, and Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a)
of the RPC. Case law holds that the same
pieces of evidence that establish liability for
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale confirm
culpability for Estafa. (People of the
Philippines vs. Mildred Coching Liwanag G.R.
No. 232245, March 2, 2022 Hernando, J.)
ARSON WITH HOMICIDE
Q35: HOW IS ARSON
WITH HOMICIDE
COMMITTED?
 Arson is present when:
(a) there is intentional burning; and
(b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited
house or dwelling.

Section 3(2) and Section 5, of PD 1613, read:

Section 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is any of the
following: x x x 2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
xxx Section 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If
by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death
shall be imposed. (People of the Philippines vs. Mae
Al-Saad y Bagkat G.R. No. 242414, March 15, 2021
Hernando, J.)
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Q36: WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF?
 The elements of Malicious Mischief: (1)
That the offender deliberately caused
damage to the property of another; (2) That
such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction; (3) That the
act of damaging another's property be
committed merely for the sake of damaging
it. (Teddy Grana and Teofilo Grana vs. People
of the Philippines G.R. No. 202111, November
25, 2019 Hernando, J.)
BIGAMY
Q37: IS A VOID AB
INITIO MARRIAGE A
VALID DEFENSE IN
BIGAMY?
 A void ab initio marriage is now a valid
defense in the prosecution for bigamy even
without a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity. (Luisito G. Pulido vs. People of the
Philippines G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021
Hernando, J.)
 PART
III

SPECIAL
PENAL LAWS
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT
Q38. WHICH COURT
HAS THE POWER TO
HEAR AND DECIDE
VIOLATIONS OF RA
3019?
The law vests upon the
Sandiganbayan the power to hear and
decide violations of RA 3019
committed by a city mayor. (Arturo
Radaza vs. Sandiganbayan and People
of the Philippines G.R. No. 201380,
August 04, 2021 Hernando, J.)
Q39. WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF SECTION
3(A) OF THE ANTI-GRAFT
AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT?
The elements of Section 3(a) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (RA 3019) are the following:

(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) the offender persuades, induces, or influences another
public officer to perform an act, or the offender allows
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an
act; and
(3) the act performed by the other public officer, or
committed by the offender, constitutes a violation of rules
and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority, or
an offense in connection with the official duty of the latter.
(People of the Philippines vs. Richard Enojo G.R. No. 252258,
April 6, 2022 Hernando, J.)
Q40. ON THE OTHER
HAND, WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF SECTION
3(E) OF THE ANTI-GRAFT
AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT?
 The elements of the offense falling under Section 3(e) of
RA 3019:

(1) The offender is a public officer;

(2) The act was done in the discharge of the public
officer's official, administrative
judicial functions;
(3) The act was done through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
(4) The public officer caused any undue injury to any
party, including the Government, or gave any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. (People
of the Philippines vs. Rene Mondejar, et al. G.R. No. 245931-
32, April 25, 2022 Hernando, J.)
Q41. WHAT DOES THE
USE OF THE DISJUNCTIVE
TERM “OR” CONNOTE?
 The use of the disjunctive term "or"
connotes that either act qualifies as a
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
(Rodrigo Deriquito Villanueva vs. People of
the Philippines G.R. No. 218652, February 23,
2022 Hernando, J.)
THE CONSTRUCTIVE
DRUGS ACT AS
AMENDED (RA 9165)
 Q42. IN ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF
PROHIBITED DRUGS,
WHEN DOES
CONSTRUCTIVE EXIST?
Constructive possession exists when the drug is
under the dominion and control of the accused or
when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found.
Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if
his right to exercise control and dominion over the
place where the contraband is located, is shared
with another. (Emily Estores y Pecardial vs. People
of the Philippines G.R. No. 192332, January 11, 2021
Hernando, J.)
 Q43. WHAT ARE THE
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL
SALE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS UNDER
SECTION 5 OF RA 9165?
To successfully prosecute the offense of sale of illegal drugs,
the following elements must be satisfied:

(1)the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor."
In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-
buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding
receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. (People of the
Philippines vs. Onni Addin Maddan G.R. No. 223682,
October 09, 2019 Hernando, J.)
 Q44. DIFFERENTIATE
ILLEGAL SALE FROM
ILLEGAL POSSESSION
OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
 In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged
with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the
prosecution must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the following elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
Meanwhile, in instances where an accused is charged
with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, three
elements ought to be proved by the prosecution, namely:
(1)the accused was in possession of an item or object
identified as a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession was not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug. (People of the Philippines vs. Willruss Ortega G.R. No.
240224, February 23, 2022 Hernando, J.)
Q45: EXPLAIN THE
THE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY RULE
 The rule on chain of custody establishes the identity of the object of the sale or the item
possessed by the accused without authority. The purpose of this rule is to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove
doubts as to its identity. It must be shown that the items presented and identified in court
during trial are the very same items that were sold and seized from the accused during the
buy-bust operation.
Section 21, as amended, provides that the marking, taking of photographs, and
inventory of the seized items must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation of the
items in the presence of two witnesses (as compared with the previous requirement of three
witnesses): an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution
Service or the media.
The provision allows for the marking, taking of photographs, and inventory be
conducted in the nearest police station or office if practicable in case of warrantless
seizures. It further provides that the seized items must be immediately brought to the
forensic laboratory for examination. (People of the Philippines vs. Erwin Batino y Evangelista
G.R. No. 254035, November 15, 2021 Hernando, J.)
 Q46: WHAT IS THE
CONSEQUENCE IF THERE
ARE SUBSTANTIAL GAPS
THAT OCCURS IN THE
CHAIN OF CUSTODY?
 When substantial gaps occur in the chain of
custody as to raise doubts about the authenticity of
the evidence presented in court, the prosecution
does not comply with the indispensable
requirement of proving the corpus delicti. (People
of the Philippines vs. Castillo y Galang G.R. No.
220149, July 27, 2021 Hernando, J.)
 Q47: IS THE PROCEDURE
LAID OUT IN SECTION 21,
ARTICLE II OF RA 9165
CONSIDERED MERELY A
PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY
OR A SUBSTANTIVE LAW?
 The procedure laid out in Section 21, Article
II of RA 9165 is considered substantive law and
not merely a procedural technicality. (Rolando
Uy y Sayan alias “Nonoy” vs. People of the
Philippines G.R. No. 217097, February 23, 2022
Hernando, J.)
 Q48: WHAT ARE THE VALID
GROUNDS THAT CAN BE RAISED
FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE SO AS
NOT TO RENDER THE SEIZURE
AND CUSTODY OF ILLICIT DRUGS
AS VOID?
 The law requires that the police authorities implementing RA
9165 strictly comply with the chain of custody procedure, although
failure to strictly do so does not, ipso facto, render the seizure and
custody over the illegal drugs as void and invalid if:

(a) there is justifiable ground for such noncompliance; and

(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence
were preserved. (Rolando Uy y Sayan alias “Nonoy” vs. People of the
Philippines G.R. No. 217097, February 23, 2022 Hernando, J.)
 Q49: WHAT IS THE
CONSEQUENCE IF THE
IDENTITY OF THE CORPUS
DELICTI IS NOT ESTABLISHED
WITH MORAL CERTAINTY?
 Failing to prove the integrity of the
corpus delicti renders the evidence for
the State insufficient to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, and hence, warrants an
acquittal. (People of the Philippines vs.
Donato Hernandez G.R. No. 201867,
November 04, 2020 Hernando, J.)
 ILLEGAL
POSSESION OF
FIREARMS
Q50: HOW IS LACK OF LICENSE
IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
FIREARMS BE PROVED?
 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. (Castil y Alvero vs. People of the
Philippines G.R. No. 253930. July 13, 2022
Hernando, J.)
 QUALIFIED
TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS
(RA 9208)
 Q51: WHEN IS
TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS”
QUALIFIED?
1. The crime of "Trafficking in Persons" becomes
qualified when, among others, the trafficked person is
a child. (People of the Philippines vs. XXX G.R. No.
244048, February 14, 2022 Hernando, J.)
2. Under Section 6(a), the crime of Trafficking in Persons
becomes qualified when the trafficked person is a
child, which refers to a person below the age of 18
years old or above 18 years old but is unable to fully
take care of or protect himself or herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
(People of the Philippines vs. XXX G.R. No. 248815,
March 23, 2022 Hernando, J.)
Q52: WHEN IS TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS DEEMED QUALIFIED
EVEN IF THERE IS AN ABSENCE
OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
 While the prosecution failed to prove the
victim's minority due to the absence of her
birth certificate, it however established
that the crime was committed by a group
of three persons, and by an ascendant
and a person exercising authority over
the victim. Consequently, the crime still
falls under Qualified Trafficking in Persons
under Sections 6(c) and (d) of RA 9208.
(People of the Philippines vs. Bawalan y
Molina G.R. No. 232358, May 12, 2021
Hernando, J.)
 Q53: DO ACTS UNDER SECTION 4
(A AND E) OF RA 9208 REQUIRE
PROOF OF ACTUAL SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE TO ESTABLISH THE
PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION?
 The acts under Section 4 (a and e) of RA 9208
do not require proof of actual sexual intercourse to
establish the purpose of prostitution or sexual
exploitation.
It is enough that the act, transaction, scheme or
design involving the use of a person by another for
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in
exchange for consideration is proven. (People of the
Philippines vs. XXX and YYY G.R. No. 225288, June
28, 2021 Hernando, J.)
 *Note:
a. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or
receive a person by any means, including those
done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage
e- To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography.
CRIME ABUSE LAW
(RA 7610)
 Q54: WHAT IS THE
INTENT OF RA 7610?
 R.A. 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.
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. (People of the Philippines vs. ZZZ
G.R. No. 232329, April 28, 2021 Hernando, J.)
 Q55: WHEN IS A CHILD
DEEMED SUBJECTED TO
OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE?
 It is settled that the child is deemed subjected to
other sexual abuse when the child engages in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of
any adult.
Intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It
is sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to
intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the
will of the offended party. The law does not require
physical violence on the person of the victim; moral
coercion or ascendancy is sufficient. (People of the
Philippines vs. Bernabe Alejo Eulalio G.R. No. 214882,
October 16, 2019 Hernando, J.)
 ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT
 Q56: HOW IS
ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT
PROVEN?
 To prove Illegal Recruitment, it must be
shown that the accused gave the
complainants the distinct impression that
he or she had the power or ability to deploy
the complainants abroad in such a manner
that they were convinced to part with their
money for that end. (People of the
Philippines vs. Oliver Imperio y Antonio G.R.
No. 232623, October 05, 2020 Hernando, J.)
 The law requires that the police authorities
implementing RA 9165 strictly comply with the
chain of custody procedure, although failure to
strictly do so does not, ipso facto, render the
seizure and custody over the illegal drugs as void
and invalid if:

(a) there is justifiable ground for such

noncompliance; and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized evidence were preserved. (Rolando Uy y
Sayan alias “Nonoy” vs. People of the Philippines G.R.
No. 217097, February 23, 2022 Hernando, J.)