2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

SPECIAL
PENAL LAWS
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
COVERAGE:
1. Anti-Arson Law (P.D. No. 1613);
2. New Anti-Carnapping Act (R.A. No. 10883);
3. Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610, as amended);
4. Anti-Child Pornography Law (R.A. No. 9755);
5. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
6. Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612);

COVERAGE:
7. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as

amended);
8. Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049);
9. Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6235);
10. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. No. 532);
11. Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended);

COVERAGE:
12. Anti-Sexual Harassment (R.A. No. 7877);
13. Anti-Torture Act (R.A. No. 9745)
14. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. No. 9208);
15. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (R.A.

No. 9262)
16. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.Blg. 22);
17. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165, as

amended by R.A. No. 10640)
COVERAGE:
18. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. No. 1866, as

amended by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591);
19. Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as

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

amended by R.A. No. 10630, and in relation to P.D. No.
603);
21. Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829);
22. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended);

COVERAGE:
23. Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115);
24. Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175)
25. Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) – defining acts of

terrorism; and
26. Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

ANTI-ARSON LAW
(P.D. 1613)
KINDS OF ARSON:
1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1613;
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential
Decree No. 1613.
 The laws on arson in force today are P.D. No. 1613 and
Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
The provisions of P.D. No. 1613 that are inconsistent with
R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2 on destructive arson are
DEEMED REPEALED)
SIMPLE ARSON
(SECTION 1, P.D. NO. 1613)
There is simple arson when any person burns or sets fire to
the property of another, or his own property under
circumstance which expose to danger the life or property of
another.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
(ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED
BY R.A. NO. 7659)
A. Burning of:
i. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of

burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on
several or different occasions;
ii. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the

public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for
a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official
governmental function or business, private transaction,
commerce, trade workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely
incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels,
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or
terminals…
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
BY R.A. NO. 7659)
ii. … regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there
are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire
and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited
or not;
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
(ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
7659)
A. Burning of:
iii. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane,

devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use,
entertainment or leisure;
iv. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any

appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of
public utilities;
v. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of

concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law,
or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding
creditors or to collect from insurance.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
BY R.A. NO. 7659)
B. There is also Destructive Arson:
i. When the arson is committed by 2 or more persons, regardless

of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the
building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission of another violation of the law
ii. When any person shall burn:

1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or
fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials
OTHER CASES OF ARSON
Burning of:
a. Any building used as offices of the Government or any of its

agencies;
b. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
c. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil, well or mine shaft,
platform or tunnel;
d. Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop or grain field,
orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
e. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill, or mill central;
f. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf, or warehouse
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
ARSON (SECTION 4, P.D. NO. 1613)
a. If committed with intent to gain;

b. If committed for the benefit of another;
c. If the offender be motivated by spite or hatred towards the
owner or occupant of the property burned; or
d. If committed by a syndicate – planned or carried out by
three or more persons
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON
There is prima facie evidence of arson in the following instances, to
wit:
a. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the

building or establishment;
b. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are

stored within the building not of the offender nor for the
household;
wit:
c. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or

combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or
containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical, or
electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces
of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the
burned building or property; and
d. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than

its actual value at the time of the issuance of the policy
wit:
e. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance more

than two fires have occurred in the same or other premises owned
or under the control of the offender and/or insured;
f. If shortly before the fire a substantial portion of the effects insured

and stored in a building or property had been withdrawn from the
premises except in the ordinary course of business;
g. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made

before the fire in exchange for the desistance of the offender or for
the safety of the person or property of the victim.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARSON
Conspiracy to commit arson is punishable by prision

mayor in its minimum period.
NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH

HOMICIDE
Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613 provides that, “if by reason or on occasion of
arson, death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is
imposed.”
Thus, homicide is absorbed.

NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT
OF 2016
(R.A. NO. 10883)
REPEAL OF R.A. NO. 6539, ALSO KNOWN AS
THE “ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972”
 R.A. No. 10883, otherwise known as the “New Anti-

Carnapping Act of 2016,” repealed R.A. No. 6539,
also known as the “Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.”
PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883
1. Carnapping (Section 3, R.A. No. 10883)
 Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle

belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.
 Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of

carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or
by means of violence or intimidation of any person or persons or
forced upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of
the carnapping shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is
strong.
2. Concealment of Carnapping (Section 4, R.A. No. 10883)
 Any public official or employee who directly commits the

unlawful acts defined in R.A. No. 10883 or is guilty of gross
negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of
any of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty
prescribed for this offense, be dismissed from the service, and
his/her benefits forfeited and shall be permanently disqualified
from holding public office.
3. Failure to Register Motor Vehicle (Section 6, R.A. No.
10883)
 Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other

than muscular power using the public highways, except road
rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers,
bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not
used on public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or
tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number
of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by
attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a separate
motor vehicle with no power rating (Section 2[e], R.A. No. 10883).
3. Failure to Register Motor Vehicle (Section 6, R.A. No.
10883)
 All motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not

registered with the LTO shall be considered as a carnapped
vehicle, an untaxed importation or coming from illegal source and
shall be confiscated in favor of the government (Sections 6 and 8,
R.A. No. 10883).
4. Willfully encoding in the registry of motor vehicles a non-existing
vehicle or without history, new identity of already existing vehicle
or double/multiple registration (“KAMBAL”) of vehicle (Section
7, R.A. No. 10883);
5. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle

Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis (Section 14, R.A. No. 10883)
 Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the altering,

changing, erasing, replacing or scratching of the original factory inscribed
serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any
motor vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial
number on its engine, engine block or chassis which is different from that
which is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicle
imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to
have a defaced or tampered serial number.
6. Identity Transfer (Section 15, R.A. No. 10883)
 Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine

number, chassis number, body tag number, plate number, and any
other identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as “total
wreck” or is beyond economic repair by concerned car insurance
companies and/or law enforcement agencies after its involvement
in a vehicular accident or other incident and registers the same
into another factory-made body or vehicle unit, of the same
classification, type, make or model (Section 2[d], R.A. No.
10883).
7. Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates (Section 16, in

relation to Section 2[d], R.A. No. 10883).
8. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts (Section 17, R.A. No.
10883)
 Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from a

carnapped vehicle used in assembling another vehicle (Section
2[i], R.A. NO. 10883).
DUTY OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TO
REPORT (SECTION 9, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Within seven (7) days after the arrival of an imported vehicle,
motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body, the Collector
of Customs of a principal port of entry where the imported vehicle
or parts enumerated above are unloaded shall report the shipment
to the LTO, specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if any,
of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis
or body, and stating the names and addresses of the owner or
consignee thereof.
 If the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis

or body does not bear any serial number, the Collector of Customs
concerned shall hold the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine,
engine block, chassis or body until it is numbered by the
LTO: Provided, That a PNP clearance shall be required prior to
engraving the engine or chassis number.
DUTY OF IMPORTERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND SELLERS
OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO KEEP RECORD OF STOCKS
(SECTION 10, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person engaged in the importation, distribution, and

buying and selling of motor vehicles, motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks, chassis or body shall keep a
permanent record of one’s stocks, stating therein their
type, make and serial numbers, and the names and
addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired
and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they
are sold, and shall render accurately a monthly report of
his/her transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.
DUTY OF MANUFACTURERS OF ENGINE BLOCKS,
CHASSIS OR BODY TO CAUSE THE NUMBERING OF
ENGINE BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY
MANUFACTURED (SECTION 11, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks,
chassis or body shall cause the numbering of every engine
block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and
conspicuous part thereof which the LTO may direct for
the purpose of uniformity and identification of the factory
and shall submit to the LTO a monthly report of the
manufacture and sale of engine blocks, chassis or body.
CLEARANCE AND PERMIT REQUIRED FOR
ASSEMBLY OR REBUILDING OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(SECTION 12, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the

assembly or rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first secure a
certificate of clearance from the PNP: Provided, That no such
permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall present a statement
under oath containing the type, make and serial numbers of the
engine, chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of the spare
parts of the motor vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt together with
the names and addresses of the sources thereof.
 In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats,

motor bancas, water crafts and other light water vessels, the
applicant shall secure a permit from the PNP, which office shall in
turn furnish the LTO pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle
engines including their type, make and serial numbers.
CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR SHIPMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES, ENGINE
BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY
(SECTION 13, R.A. NO. 10883)
 The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a report

to the PNP within seven (7) days upon boarding all motor
vehicles being boarded the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessel or
ship for interisland and international shipment.
 The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles in

all interisland and international shipping vessels without a
motor vehicle clearance from the PNP, except cargo trucks
and other trucks carrying goods, Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)-accredited
public utility vehicles (PUV) and other motor vehicles
carrying foodstuff and dry goods.
FOREIGN NATIONALS (SECTION 20, RA
10883)
 Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions of R.A.

No. 10883 shall be deported immediately after service of
sentence without further proceedings by the Bureau of
Immigration.
REWARD (SECTION 19, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to

the recovery of carnapped vehicles and for the
apprehension of the persons charged with carnapping
shall be given monetary reward as the PNP may
determine.
 The PNP shall include in their annual budget the amount

necessary to carry out the purposes of Section 19, R.A.
No. 10883.
 Any information given by informers shall be treated as

confidential matter.
PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ (183 SCRA 763)
People v. Dela Cruz 183 SCRA 763
FACTS:
The accused killed the owner of the vehicle and stole the
taxi owned by the victim.
HELD:
The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when
there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which
belonged to another, without the latter’s consent or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things.
IZON V. PEOPLE (107 SCRA 118)
FACTS:
The two accused were held liable for violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972. The accused assailed the
imposable penalty contending that the information did not
allege that the motorized vehicle stolen was using the
public highway.
HELD:
A motorized vehicle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as
any vehicle propelled by any power othen than muscular
power using public highways. Public highways are those
free for use of every person, thus not limited to a national
road.
PEOPLE V. GAWAN (657 SCRA 713)
FACTS:
Accused were charged with the crime of Carnapping as defined under Section
2 of R.A. 6539. The accused-appellants assail their conviction due to the
failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972 are the following: (1) That there is an actual taking
of the vehicle; (2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender
himself; (3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or
that the taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; and (4) That the offender intends to
gain from the taking of the vehicle. The records of this case show that all the
elements of carnapping are present and were proven during trial. The tricycle,
which was definitively ascertained to belong to Biag, as evidenced by the
registration papers, was found in Lagat and Palalay’s possession.
PEOPLE V. LAGAT (2011)
FACTS: The victim left home to “pasada” his tricycle. The
next morning, his wife was informed that her husband was
killed and that his tricycle was used to steal palay.

HELD: The accused committed qualified carnapping. There is
carnapping when there was a taking of a vehicle which belongs
to another, without the consent of the owner with use of
violence, intimidation or force, with intent to gain. It is
qualified when the driver, passenger was killed during the
taking or carnapping. Motor vehicle is defined as any vehicle
propelled by any power other than muscle power using public
highways. In this case, the tricycle was a motor vehicle taken
by force from the owner who was killed during the carnapping.
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
(R.A. NO. 7610, AS AMENDED)
CHILDREN, DEFINED.
SEC. 3(A), R.A. NO. 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.
CHILD ABUSE
(SECTION 3[B], R.A. NO. 7610)
It is the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child,
which includes any of the following:
1. Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual

abuse and emotional maltreatment;
2. Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being;
3. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival,
such as food and shelter; or
4. Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured
child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity or death.
Note:
Child abuse is committed, not slight/serious physical

injuries as defined and punished under Art. 266 of the
Revised Penal Code, if the victim is a child (Sanchez v.
People, G.R. No. 179090, 5 June 2009)
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE
(SECTION 5[A], R.A. NO. 7610)
 Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution, which includes any of the following:
 Acting as procurer of child prostitute;
 Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute;
 Taking advantage or influence to procure a child as prostitute;
 Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him
as a prostitute; or
 Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary
benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in
prostitution.
MALTO V. PEOPLE (1997)
FACTS: Malto was a philosophy professor at an exclusive
school for girls. He had carnal relations with one of his
students who was 17 years old. Malto argues that they are a
couple.

HELD: Malto violated R.A. 7610 or the Special Protection
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act. There was lascivious conduct and
intercourse as a result of coercion or influence of the
professor and the victim was under 18 years old at the time
of the commission of the crime.
MALTO V. PEOPLE (CONT.)
Sweetheart Theory
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and
rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the
victim. It operates on the theory that the sexual act was
consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim
were lovers and that she consented to the sexual relations.
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in

child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is
unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual
intercourse with another person.
LAVIDES V. COURT OF APPEALS (2000)
FACTS:
Lavides was charged with violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610 for luring a sixteen (16)-year old girl into a hotel to have
carnal knowledge. Subsequently, 12 informations for the same
violation was filed against him.
HELD:
Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with a
child under the circumstances mentioned in Art. III, 5 of R.A.
No. 7160 is thus a separate and distinct offense. The offense is
similar to rape or act of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal
Code in which each act of rape or lascivious conduct should be
the subject of a separate information.
SEC. 5[A], R.A. NO. 7610 V. ART. 336 RPC
VARIANCE PRINCIPLE
People v. Quimvel
G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017
FACTS:
The victim, a seven (7) year-old girl, was awakened
when accused laid on top of her and inserted his hand in
the victim’s panty. Accused was charged for Acts of
Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610.
ISSUE
Whether accused may be held liable for the crime of
lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 in
view of the supposed failure of the Information to allege all
elements necessary in committing said crime.
RULING
 Before an accused can be held criminally liable for
lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,
the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized
under Art. 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the
requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610, to wit:
 The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct.
 The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
 That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age
RULING
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts
pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein
the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other hand,
paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct committed on a child subjected to other sexual
abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused
for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion,
intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct. Hence, the law punishes not only
child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse
against children.
CHILD ABUSE
Children are deemed to be exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse under the following circumstances:
1. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct with a child; and
2. The victim is under twelve (12) years of age.
ART. 336, RPC V. SEC. 5[B], R.A. 7610
PEOPLE V. CAOILI
G.R. NO. 196342, 8 August 2017
FACTS:
Accused was charged with rape by sexual intercourse for
having committed the following acts unto his 14 years 1
month and 10 days old daughter: (1) kissed her lips; (2)
touched and mashed her breast; and (3) inserted finger into
her vagina.
ISSUE:
May accused be held criminally liable for acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC or “Lascivious
conduct” under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610.
RULING:
Accused may be convicted for the crime of lascivious
conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 which is
subsumed in the crime of rape by sexual intercourse.
COMPARISON OF ART. 336, RPC AND
SEC. 5[B], R.A. 7610
Acts of Sexual Abuse / Lascivious
Lasciviousness Conduct
Basis Revised Penal Code R.A. No. 7610
Elements of the crime:
Punishable act: Lewdness Sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct
Offended party: Under 12 years old, A child exploited in

whether male or prostitution or subjected to
female other sexual abuse aged
below 18 years old, whether
male or female
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINATION OF
PROPER CHARGE AND PENALTY
 The age of the victim is into consideration in designating or charging the
offense, and in determining the imposable penalty.
 If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature of the
crime should be “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.” Pursuant to the
second proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
 If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than twelve (12)
but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older
but is unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect herself/himself
from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as
"Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the
imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua.
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE
(SECTION 5[C], R.A. NO. 7610)
 Those who derive profit or advantage, whether as
manager or owner of the establishment, where
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort
or establishment serving as cover or which engages in
prostitution.
SEXUAL ABUSE V. CHILD ABUSE
People v. Montinola
G.R. No. 178061, 9 July 2011
FACTS:
Accused was charged with six counts of rape. On one
charge, the RTC and CA convicted the accused for
violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
HELD: Accused should be punished under Section 5(b) of

R.A. No. 7610. Said provision covers acts of
lasciviousness while Section 10(a) covers other acts of
abuse.
OTHER ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Child Prostitution (Section 5, R.A. No. 7610);
2. Attempt to commit child prostitution (Section 6, R.A. No. 7610);
3. Child trafficking (Section 7, R.A. No. 7610);
4. Attempt to commit child trafficking (Section 8, R.A. No. 7610);
5. Engagement of children in the worst forms of child labor (Section

12-D, R.A. No. 7610); and
6. Engagement of children in obscene publications (Section 9, R.A. No.

7610);
OTHER ACTS PUNISHABLE
7. Other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and
other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development
(Section 10, R.A. No. 7610);
8. Employment of children as model in advertisement

directly or indirectly promoting alcoholic beverages,
intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its byproducts,
gambling or any form of violence or pornography
(Section 14, R.A. No. 7610); and
9. Discrimination of children of indigenous cultural

communities (Section 20, R.A. No. 7610).
ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
ACT OF 2009
(R.A. NO. 9775)
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
It is any public or private representation, by whatever
means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit
sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of
a child for primarily sexual purposes.
UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS
(SECTION 4, 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: Provided. That possession
of three (3) 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 as, but not limited to, dens,
private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments
purporting to be a legitimate business;
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, legal guardian or person having custody or

control of a child to knowingly permit the child to
engage, participate or assist in any form of child
pornography;
h. To engage in the 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 this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when two (2) or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited acts and
decide to commit it; and
l. To possess any form of child pornography.

SYNDICATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The crime of child pornography is deemed committed by a

syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO
VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009
R.A. NO. 9995
VOYEURISM, DEFINED.
SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 9995
Photo or video voyeurism means 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 phones and similar means
without the written consent of the person involved.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 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;
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995
(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;

(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
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995
(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.

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.
EXEMPTION
SEC. 6, R.A. NO. 9995
A peace officer who is authorized by written order of the
court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of
photo or video voyeurism.
Requisites for the exemption to apply:
1. Such order was issued only upon written application
and examination under oath of any witnesses that the
peace officer may produce;
2. Showing of reasonable grounds to believe that photo or
video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be
committed; and
3. Such evidence is essential for conviction.
INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
SEC. 7, R.A. NO. 9995
Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the preceding
sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation.
ANTI-FENCING LAW
(P.D. NO. 1612)
FENCING
(SECTION 2[A], P.D. NO. 1612)
Fencing 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 the proceeds of the crime
of robbery and theft.
PRESUMPTION OF FENCING
Mere possession of any goods, article, item, object or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of

the stolen articles by the accused as mere possession
thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing.
(Capili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139250, 15 August
2000)
CAPILI V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 139250, 15 AUGUST 2000
Facts:
Diokno and her mother owned several pieces of jewelry.
Some were stolen by their former houseboy Manzo and he
was accordingly charged with qualified theft. Manzo then
testified that he sold the jewelries to accused Capili and his
wife for a price and informed them that those were from
his former employers. The alleged stolen jewelries were
then recovered from the accused.
Issue: Is Capili guilty of fencing?

CAPILI V. PEOPLE (CONT.)
HELD:
Yes, all of the essential elements of fencing are present in
this case. These are: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has
been committed; (2)the accused, who is not a principal or
an accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery
or theft, buys, receives, possesses, acquires, conceals, sells
or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
any article or anything of value, which has been derived
from the proceeds of the said crime; (3) knows or should
have known that the said article has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of theft or robbery; and (4) intent to
gain for himself or for another.
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public

officer to perform an act constituting a violation of
rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit such violation or
offense (Section 3[a], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other
person, in connection with any contract or transaction between
the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer
in his official capacity has to intervene under the law (Section
3[b], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
3. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present

or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for
another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for
the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section
thirteen of R.A. No. 3019, as amended (Section 3[c], R.A. No.
3019, as amended);
4. Accepting or having any member of his family accept

employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof
or within one year after its termination (Section 3[d],
R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
5. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices
or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions (Section 3[e], R.A. No. 3019,
as amended);
Elements of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended:
a) the accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial or official functions;
b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and
c) his 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
functions (SP01 Lihaylihay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
191219, 31 July 2013)
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for
the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from
any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in
favor of or discriminating against any other interested
party (Section 3[f], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
7. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby (Section 3[g],
R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
8. Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary

interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest
(Section 3[h], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
9. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion
in such approval, even if he votes against the same or
does not participate in the action of the board,
committee, panel or group (Section 3[i], R.A. No. 3019,
as amended).
 Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those

public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by
the board, panel or group to which they belong.
10. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit,
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled
(Section 3[j], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
11. Divulging valuable information of a confidential

character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of its authorized
release date (Section 3[k], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).
PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
a. It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close
personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit
or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or
material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having
some business, transaction, application, request or contract with
the government, in which such public official has to intervene
(Section 4[a], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).
 Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by

consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close
personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and
fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise
to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
b. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to

induce or cause any public official to commit any of
the offenses defined in Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019
(Section 4[b], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).
PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RELATIVES
It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or
affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the
Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly,
in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government
 This shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of
office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been
already dealing with the Government along the same line of business,
nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or
pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any
application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on
the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon
compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations
issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official
capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
It shall be unlawful for any Member of the Congress during

the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive
any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business
enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or
benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term.
 This prohibition shall apply to any other public officer who

recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or
adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives
any such interest during his incumbency.
PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS (SECTION 6, R.A. NO. 3019)
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or

other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the
approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended
by him, continues for thirty (30) days after such approval to
retain such interest.
EXCEPTION
Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value
offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or
friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be
excepted from the provisions of R.A. No. 3019, as
amended.
TERMINATION OF OFFICE
No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire
pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or
pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under
R.A. No. 3019, as amended, or under the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code on bribery.
ASILO V. PEOPLE (2011)
FACTS:
A criminal complaint for violation of Sec. 3€ of Republic
Act No. 3019 was filed against Accused et, al. for taking
advantage of their official positions in causing the
demolition of a public market stall leased by the municipal
government in favor of the private complainants.
HELD:
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 provides:
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of
any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
It is undisputable that the first two requisites of the
criminal offense were present at the time of the
commission of the complained acts and that, as to the
remaining elements, there is sufficient amount of evidence
to establish that there was an undue injury suffered on the
part of the private complainants and that the public
officials concerned acted with evident bad faith when they
performed the demolition of the market stall.
SANTILLANO V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Engr. Santillano was found guilty of three counts of

violation of Section 3€ of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices At. However, Engr.
Santillano argued that the decision of the Sandiganbayan
was contrary to law since he is a private person and not a
public officer.
SANTILLANO V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
The fact that one of the elements of Section 3(g) of
R.A. No. 3019 is “that the accused is a public officer” does
not necessarily preclude its application to private persons
who are being charged with conspiring with public officers
in the commission of the offense thereunder.
In all three (3) criminal cases, the prosecution was able to

establish that Ecleo, Jr. and Navarra approved
overpayments made to Engr. Santillano.
SISON V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Petitioner, a mayor of small provincial municipality, was
charged with violating Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 after a
post-audit indicated that he authorized the procurement of
several supplies and equipment without public bidding.
Likewise, he failed to comply with the personal canvass
requirements for local government acquisitions under R.A.
No. 7160. Petitioner insisted that he was innocent of the
charges since he was merely following the acquisition
practices of his predecessors.
SISON V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
Petitioner’s defense was untenable. He was grossly negligent in
all the purchases that were made under his watch, and which
caused undue damage to the Municipality. Petitioner’s
admission that the canvass sheets sent out by de Jesus to the
suppliers already contained his signatures because he pre-signed
these forms only proved his utter disregard of the consequences of
his actions. He also admitted that he knew the provisions of RA
7160 on personal canvass but he did not follow the law because
he was merely following the practice of his predecessors. This
was an admission of a mindless disregard for the law in a
tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering
that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought to implement the law to
the letter. Sadly, however, he was the first to break it.
ANTI-HAZING LAW
(R.A. NO. 8049)
HAZING
Hazing is initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte, or applicant
in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish, and similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury.
(Sec. 1, R.A. No. 8049)
PERSONS LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE
ACTS
1. Officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who actually participated in the infliction
of physical harm shall be liable as principals if the
person subjected to hazing suffers any physical injury
or dies as a result thereof; (Sec. 4, par.1, R.A. No. 8049)
2. Owner of the place where the hazing is conducted shall

be liable as an accomplice when he has knowledge of
the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring; (Sec. 4,
par.4, R.A. No. 8049)
ACTS
3. Parents shall be liable as principals when they have

actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in the home
of one of the officers or members of the fraternity,
sorority or organization, but failed to prevent the same;
(Sec. 4, par.4, R.A. No. 8049)
4. School authorities and faculty members shall be liable

as accomplices when they consent to the hazing or have
actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.5, R.A.
No. 8049)
ACTS
5. Officers or members of the organization, group,
fraternity or sorority shall be liable as principals if they
actually planned the hazing or have actual knowledge
thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the
same from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)
6. Officers, former officers or alumni of the organization,

group, fraternity or sorority shall be liable as principals
if they knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing
by inducing the victim to be present thereat; (Sec. 4,
par.6, R.A. No. 8049)
ACTS
7. The fraternity or sorority’s adviser shall be liable as
principal if he was present when the acts constituting
the hazing were committed and failed to take any
action to prevent the same. (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No.
8049)
 The presence of any person (whether or not a member of
the fraternity/sorority) during the hazing is prima facie
evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he
prevented the commission of prohibited acts. (Sec. 4,
par.7, R.A. No. 8049)
 The mitigating circumstance that there was no intention

to commit so grave a wrong shall not apply. (Sec. 4,
par.8, R.A. No. 8049)
PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS (VILLA CASE)
G.R. NO. 151258, 1 FEBRUARY 2012
FACTS:
Twenty-six members of a fraternity were charged for

the crime of homicide for the death of a neophyte law
student who joined the initiation rites but died due to
multiple beatings. The private complainants assailed the
acquittal of some of the accused since their conspiracy to
inflict serious injuries upon the deceased caused his death.
PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS (CONT.)
HELD:
The presence of an ex ante situation in this case,

fraternity initiation rites does not automatically amount to
the absence of malicious intent or dolus manus. If it is
proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators were
equipped with a guilty mind whether or not there is a
contextual background or factual premise they are still
criminally liable for intentional felony.
ANTI-HIGHJACKING LAW
(R.A. NO. 6235)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
a. To compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft
of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof,
while it is in flight; (Sec. 1, par. 1, R.A. No. 6235)
b. To compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine

territory or to seize or usurp the control thereof while it is
within the said territory; (Sec. 1, par. 2, R.A. No. 6235) and
c. To ship, load or carry in any passenger air-craft operating as a

public utility within the Philippines, any explosive,
flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material.
(Sec. 3, R.A. No. 6235)
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
(P.D. NO. 532)
PIRACY
It is an attack upon or seizure of any vessel or the taking
away of the whole or part thereof of its cargo, equipment or
the personal belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things,
committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in, Philippine
Waters. (Sec. 2 (d), P.D. No. 532)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Piracy - Attacking or seizing any vessel while the vessel is

within Philippine waters; (Sec. 2 (d), P.D. No. 532)
2. Highway Robbery/Brigandage - Seizing or taking away the

whole or part of the vessel or its cargo, equipment, or the
personal belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things while the vessel
is in Philippine waters; (Sec. 2 (e), P.D. No. 532)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
3. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting

piracy or highway robbery/brigandage -- Knowingly aiding
or protecting pirates, such as giving them information about
the movement of police or other peace officers of the
government, or by acquiring or receiving property taken by
the pirates or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom.
(Sec. 4, P.D. No. 532)
 Philippine Waters shall refer to 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 legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-
bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. (Sec.
2 (a), P.D. No. 532)
 Vessel shall refer to any vessel or watercraft used for

transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another
through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and
types of vessels or boats used in fishing. (Sec. 2 (b), P.D.
No. 532)
PIRACY UNDER RPC AND
PIRACY UNDER P.D. NO. 532, COMPARED
RPC P.D. 532

High seas;
Where Committed Philippine Waters Philippine Waters
Strangers
(persons other than
Persons who may the passenger or
Any person
commit member of the
complement of the
vessel)
PEOPLE V. PULUSAN (290 SCRA 35)
FACTS: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the
McArthur Highway. Out of the 6 passengers, the only
woman, Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a
talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed on
after the other. They were convicted of robbery with
homicide although they were charged with highway robbery.
What was the crime committed?

HELD: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery.
Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused
were organized for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. In this case, there was no proof that the 4
accused previously attempted to commit armed robberies.
PEOPLE V CATANTAN,
GR NO 118075, 5 SEPT 1997
FACTS:
One early morning, the Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan were on their
boat catching fish. Suddenly, a pump boat approached theirs. Catantan
boarded the Pilipil’s boat and pointed a revolver at Eugene. Eugene was
tied and Juan was told to drive the boat. When the engine of the boat
stopped, the brothers were forced to paddle to another boat with a new
engine. The attackers took another pump boat and left the Pilapil brothers.

HELD:
Piracy was committed as defined by P.D. 532. Any attack or seizure of any
vessel or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings of the passengers or complement,
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things by any person in Philippine waters is piracy. The compulsion to go
elsewhere is part of the act of seizing the boat.
PEOPLE V. TULIN, G.R. NO. 111709, 30
AUG 2001
FACTS: A cargo vessel carrying barrels of petroleum was
boarded by a group of pirates as it was travelling near Mindoro.
The crew was forced to repaint the vessel to prevent
identification. It was taken to Singapore where the kerosene,
gasoline and diesel cargo were transferred to another vessel. The
defendants were charged with piracy. One of the accused claims
that since the crime was committed in Singapore, the trial courts
had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

HELD: The attack was committed in Mindoro, which is part of
the Philippine waters. The cargo was transferred in Singapore.
Piracy is a continuing crime and the disposition by the pirates of
the vessel and its cargo is still part of the act of piracy.
ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH
Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of any person within the
purview of Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080 acquired by him
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes under Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080, as
amended:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or

malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury; (Sec. 1(d)(1), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
SECTION 1 (D), R.A. NO. 7080, AS
AMENDED
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or
by reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned; (Sec. 1(d)(2), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of

assets belonging to the National Government or any of
its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government-owned or -controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries; (Sec. 1(d)(3), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
AMENDED
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form
of interest or participation including promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(Sec. 1(d)(4), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial

monopolies or other combinations and/or
implementation of decrees and orders intended to
benefit particular persons or special interests; (Sec. 1(d)
(5), R.A. No. 7080, as amended) or
AMENDED
6. By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense
and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people
and the Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 1(d)(6), R.A.
No. 7080, as amended)
PERSONS LIABLE (SEC. 2, R.A. NO. 7080,
AS AMENDED)
a. any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts, in the aggregate amount or
total value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) .
PERSONS LIABLE (SEC. 2, R.A. NO. 7080,
AS AMENDED)
b. any person who participated with said public officer in
the commission of plunder shall be punished by life
imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification
from holding any public office.
 For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall
not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act
done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or
conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable
doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. (Sec. 4, R.A.
PRESCRIPTION
The crime punishable under R.A. No. 7080 shall prescribe
in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to
recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers
from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not
be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. (Sec. 6, R.A.
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001)
FACTS: On 4 April 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman
filed the Sandiganbayan 8 separate Informations, one of
which imputed plunder as an offense against Estrada.

On 14 June 2001, Estrada moved to quash the Information
in Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts
alleged therein did NOT constitute an indictable offense
since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional
for vagueness and that the Amended Information for
Plunder charged more than 1 offense. The same was denied
hence this petition for certiorari.
HELD: We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or
ambiguous - as there is obviously none - that will confuse
petitioner in his defense.
Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to
provide for the statutory definition of the
terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in
Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec.
4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the
Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly
vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
hence, violative of his fundamental right to due process.
HELD:
The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A statute
is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general
terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms
without defining them; much less do we have to define every
word we use. Besides, there is no positive constitutional or
statutory command requiring the legislature to define each
and every word in an enactment. Congress is not restricted in
the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so define
the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result in
the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the
legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the
whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law.
FACTS:
After the dismissal of his petition in 2001, Estrada now assails the
charge of Sections 3(a) to (d) of R.A. No. 3019 under one
information.
HELD:There is no denying the fact that the plunder of an entire

nation resulting in material damage to the national economy is
made up of a complex and manifold network of crimes. In the
crime of plunder, therefore, different parties may be united by
a common purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused and
their different criminal acts have a commonality to help the former
President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the
different participation of each accused in the conspiracy.
HELD:
The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each
accused agreed to receive protection money from illegal gambling, that
each misappropriated a portion of the tobacco excise tax, that each
accused ordered the GSIS and SSS to purchase shares of Belle
Corporation and receive commissions from such sale, nor that each
unjustly enriched himself from commissions, gifts and
kickbacks; rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts,
agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for
former President Estrada.
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. PEOPLE (2016)
FACTS:
Arroyo was charged with conspiracy to commit plunder by
accumulating P365 Million worth of ill-gotten wealth from
Phil. Charity Sweepstakes Office.
HELD:
The corpus delicti of plunder is amassment, accumulation
or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth valued at not less than
P50 Million. The failure to establish the corpus delicti
should lead to the dismissal of the criminal prosecution.
ENRILE V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 213455, 11 AUGUST 2015
FACTS:
Enrile, et al. was charged for plunder under R.A 3019. Alleging that the
charge against him was too broad, Enrile filed a Motion for Bill of
Particulars.
HELD:
Since the crime of plunder may be done in connivance or in conspiracy
with other persons, and the Information filed clearly alleged that Enrile
and Reyes conspired with one another and with Napoles, Lim and De
Asis, then it is unnecessary to specify, as an essential element of the
offense, whether the ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P172M had
been acquired by one, by two or by all of the accused. In the crime of
plunder, the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired by each accused in a
conspiracy is immaterial for as long as the total amount amassed,
acquired or accumulated is at least P50 million.
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT
ACT
(R.A. NO. 7877)
WORK, EDUCATION OR TRAINING -RELATED, SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, DEFINED. (SEC. 3, R.A. NO. 7877)
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the other.
In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is
committed when:
1. The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the

employment, re-employment or continued employment of said
individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying
the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect
said employee (Sec. 3(a)(1), R.A. No. 7877);
2. The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges

under existing labor laws (Sec. 3(a)(2), R.A. No. 7877); or
3. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or

offensive environment for the employee (Sec. 3(a)(3), R.A. No.
7877).
In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is
committed:
1. Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the

offender; (Sec. 3(b)(1), R.A. No. 7877)
2. Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship

is entrusted to the offender; (Sec. 3(b)(2), R.A. No. 7877)
3. When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a

passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the
payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
consideration; (Sec. 3(b)(3), R.A. No. 7877) or
4. When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or

offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice. (Sec.
3(b)(4), R.A. No. 7877)
 Any person who directs or induces another to commit
any act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the
commission thereof by another without which it would
not have been committed, shall also be held liable. (Sec.
3, par. 4, R.A. No. 7877)
LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER, HEAD
OF OFFICE, EDUCATIONAL OR
TRAINING INSTITUTION
The employer or head of office, educational or training

institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising
from the acts of sexual harassment committed in the
employment, education or training environment if the
employer or head of office, educational or training
institution is informed of such acts by the offended party
and no immediate action is taken. (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 7877)
ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009
(R.A. NO. 9745)
TORTURE (SECTION 3 (A), R.A. NO. 9745)
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 a person in authority
or agent of a person in authority. It does not include pain
or buffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions.
ACTS PUNISHABLE
Acts of Torture which shall include, but not limited to the
following (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9745):
 Physical Torture- a form of treatment or punishment

inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe
pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body; (Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 9745) and
 Mental or Psychological Torture- Acts committed by a

person in authority or agent of a person in authority which
are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or undermine
a person’s dignity and morale. (Sec. 4(b), R.A. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY (SEC. 6, R.A. NO. 9745)
Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment is an absolute right.
Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

or punishment as criminal acts shall apply to all
circumstances.
A state of war or 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.
PROHIBITED DETENTION
Secret detention places, solitary confinement,
incommunicado or other similar forms of detention, where
torture may be carried out with impunity are prohibited.
(Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9745)
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
 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 degrading treatment or punishment by
previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal.
(Sec. 13, par. 1, R.A. No. 9745)
 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. (Sec.
13, par. 2, R.A. No. 9745)
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.
(Sec. 13, par. 3, R.A. No. 9745)
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, par. 3, R.A. No. 9745)
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:

 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; (Sec.
13, par. 4, R.A. No. 9745)
 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
 By harboring, concealing or assisting in 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. (Sec. 13, par.
4, R.A. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCLUSIONARY
RULE
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a
result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any
proceedings.
Exception:
if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons
accused of committing torture. (Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9745)
TORTURE AS A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CRIME
Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed
by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence,
or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In
which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and
independent criminal act whose penalties shall be
imposable without prejudice to any other criminal
liability provided for by domestic and international laws.
(Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9745)
EXCLUSION FROM THE COVERAGE OF
SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW
In order not to depreciate the crime of torture, persons

who have committed any act of torture shall not benefit
from any special amnesty law or similar measures that will
have the effect of exempting them from any criminal
proceedings and sanctions. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY OF REFOULER
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. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as they
are applicable shall be suppletory to R.A. No. 9745.
Moreover, if the commission of any crime punishable
under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) and Title Nine
(Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of the
Revised Penal Code is attended by any of the acts
constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as defined herein, the penalty to
be imposed shall be in its maximum period. (Sec. 22, R.A.
No. 9745)
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS ACT OF 2003
(R.A. NO. 9208)
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
It is 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 (Sec 3(a), R.A.
No. 9208).
ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial to
commit any of the following acts:
1. 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
(Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 9208);
2. To introduce or match for money, profit or material,
economic or other consideration, any person or, as
provided for under R.A. No. 6955, any Filipino woman
to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of
acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading him/her to
engage in prostitution, pornography (Sec. 4(b), R.A. No.
9208);
3. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the

purpose of acquiring, buying, offering selling, or trading
them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage (Sec. 4(c), R.A. No. 9208);
4. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution,
pornography or sexual Sec. 4(d), R.A. No. 9208;
5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or

pornography Sec. 4(e), R.A. No. 9208;
6. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the

purpose of prostitution, pornography sexual exploitation,
forced-labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt-
bondage Sec. 4(f), R.A. No. 9208;
7. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person by
means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or
sale of organs of said person (Sec. 4(g), R.A. No. 9208);
and
8. To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed

activities in the Philippines or abroad (Sec. 4(h), R.A.
No. 9208).
ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS
The following acts which promote or facilitate trafficking in
persons shall be unlawful:

1. To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any
house, building or establishment for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(a), R.A. No. 9208);
2. To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or

fake counseling certificates, registration stickers and certificates
of any government agency which issues these certificates and
stickers as proof of compliance with government regulatory and
pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 9208);
PERSONS
3. To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or
cause the advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting
or distribution by any means, including the sue of
information technology and the internet of any brochure,
flyer or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking
in persons (Sec. 5(c), R.A. No. 9208);
4. 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 (Sec. 5(d), R.A. No. 9208);
PERSONS
5. To facilitate, assist or help in the exist and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and local
airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in
possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel
documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons (Sec. 5(e), R.A. No. 9208);
6. 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 (Sec. 5(f),
R.A. No. 9208); and
PERSONS
7. 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 (Sec. 5(g), R.A. No. 9208).
QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
1. When the trafficked person is a child (Sec. 6(a), R.A.
No. 9208);
2. When the adoption is effected through R.A. No. 8043,

otherwise known as the “Inter-country Adoption Act”
and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage (Sec. 6(b), R.A.
No. 9208);
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate or in large

scale (Sec. 6(c), R.A. No. 9208);
4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling,
guardian or a person who exercises authority over the
trafficked persons or when the offense is committed by
a public officer or employee (Sec. 6(d), R.A. No. 9208);
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in

prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies (Sec. 6(e), R.A. No. 9208);
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law
enforcement agencies (Sec. 6(f), R.A. No. 9208); and
7. 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) (Sec. 6(g), R.A.
No. 9208).
PEOPLE V. CASIO
G.R. NO. 211465, 2 DECEMBER 2014
FACTS:
Casio, by acting as a procurer for different customers, for
money, profit or any other consideration, was accused of
hiring and/or recruiting a minor for the purpose of
prostitution and sexual exploitation, in violation of Sec. 4,
Par. (a), qualified by Sec. 6, Par (a), of R.A. 9208.
PEOPLE V. CASIO
G.R. NO. 211465, 2 DECEMBER 2014
HELD:
The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for
the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in
persons.”

Moreover, the victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the
coercive, abusive or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human
trafficking.

Thus, Casio performed all the elements of trafficking in persons in the
commission of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered
their services to decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for
money. The offense was also qualified because the trafficked persons were
minors.
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
ACT
(R.A. NO. 9262)
ELEMENTS
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 (Sec. 3(a), R.A. 9262;
Ang v. Sagud, G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010)
A single act of harassment is enough to commit an
offense
Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes “any act or series of

acts” that constitutes violence against women. This means
that a single act of harassment which translates into
violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to
protect women and children. Punishing only violence that
is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones (Ang
v. Sagud, supra)
It is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of the dating or sexual relationship

While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with the offended woman, for R.A. 92622 to
be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of such relationship (Dabalos v. Quiambao, G.R.
No. 193960, 7 January 2013).

Note: It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as
long as there is sufficient evidence of such relationship between
the offender and the victim when the physical harm was
committed (Dabalos v. Quiambao, supra).
Abuses through Conspiracy
While Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the offender
be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not
preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy
under the Revised Penal Code (Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan,
G.R. No. 168852, 30 September 2008).
ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
AND THEIR CHILDREN
1. Physical violence or acts that include bodily or physical
harm;
2. Economic abuse or acts that make or attempt to make a

woman financially dependent;
3. Psychological violence or acts or omissions causing or

likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the
victim; and
4. Sexual violence or acts which are sexual in nature (Sec

3(a), R.A. No. 9262).
PUNISHABLE ACTS
a. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child (Sec.
5(a), R.A. No. 9262);
b. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical

harm (Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 9262);
c. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical

harm (Sec. 5(c), R.A. No. 9262);
d. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent

physical harm (Sec. 5(d), R.A. No. 9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
e. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to

engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right
to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or
restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or
conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or
threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed
against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited
to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of
controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement
or conduct (Sec. 5(e), R.A. No. 9262):
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1)Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her
child of custody to her/his family;
2)Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children
of financial support legally due her or her family, or
deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient
financial support;
3)Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of
a legal right;
4)Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the
victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the
conjugal or common money, or properties (Sec. 5(e)(1-4), R.A.
No. 9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
f. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on
oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or
decisions (Sec. 5(f), R.A. No. 9262);
g. Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child

to engage in any sexual activity which does not
constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical
harm, or through intimidation directed against the
woman or her child or her/his immediate family (Sec.
5(g), R.A. No. 9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct,
personally or through another, that alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman
or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the
following acts:
1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private

places;
2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the
woman or her child;
3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the
woman or her child against her/his will;
4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm
to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence (Sec. 5(h), R.A.
No. 9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
i. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or
humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but
not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse,
and denial of financial support or custody of minor
children of access to the woman's child/children (Sec.
5(i), R.A. No. 9262).
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering relationships as a result
of cumulative abuse (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9262; People v.
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004).
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle
of violence which has three phases:
 Tension-building phase- minor battering occurs. It could be

verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile
behavior
 Acute battering incident- characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and sometimes, death. The battered woman
deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable
 Tranquil, loving (or at least nonviolent) phase- the couple
experience profound relief. The batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his partner. On the other hand, the
battered woman tries to convince herself that the battery will
never happen again (People v. Genosa, supra).
PEOPLE V. GENOSA (2004)
FACTS:
Accused wife was convicted of parricide for killing her

husband, and was sentenced to death. Accused asked for a
reopening of the case in order to prove her state of mind
during the killing, in that she is a battered wife (battered
wife syndrome).

PEOPLE V. GENOSA (2004)
HELD:
If accused can prove that she indeed was a battered

wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as a species of
self-defense. Having been proven to be a victim of
domestic violence of the husband, this can be self-defense
because since the wife already always assumes, and
correctly that the husband would beat her up again, she
may be justified in taking steps to protect herself.
PEOPLE V. SALES (658 SCRA 367)
FACTS:
Accused, in a fit of anger, beat his nine (9)-year old son

with a piece of woood inflicting upon the latter mortal
wounds, which caused the death of the son.
PEOPLE V. SALES (658 SCRA 367)
HELD:
The crime of parricide under Art. 246 of the Revised

Penal Code is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2)
the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is a
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
(B.P. BLG. 22)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
A. Making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at the time
of issue that he does not have sufficient funds (Sec. 1, B.P.
22).
Elements:
i. A person makes or draws and issues any check to apply or
account or for value;
ii. A person knows that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check upon its presentment; and
iii. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank
for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
B. Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full

amount of the check (Sec. 1, B.P. 22).
Elements:
i. A person has sufficient funds with the drawee bank
when he makes or draws and issues a check;
ii. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit
to cover the full amount if presented within a period of
90 days from the date of appearing thereon; and
iii. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
REQUISITES FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY
a. A person makes, draws or issues a check as payment
for account or for value;
b. That the check was dishonored by the bank due to a
lack of funds, insufficiency of funds or account already
closed;
c. The payee or holder of such check gives a written
notice of dishonor and demand for payment;
d. That the maker, drawer or issuer, after receiving such
notice and demand refuses or fails to pay the value of
the check within five (5) banking days (Campos v.
People, G.R. No. 187401, 17 September 2014).
NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY (181 SCRA 1)
FACTS:
Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored.

He was charged with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1
count of violation of BP 22. Nievas invokes double
jeopardy.
NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY (181 SCRA 1)
HELD:
No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses. Estafa
needs deceit and damage, not for pre-existing obligations,
crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22: deceit and
damage not required because mere issuance gives
presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt, crime
against public order and is mala prohibitum.
QUE V. PEOPLE (154 SCRA 160)
FACTS: Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were
used to pay for the purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks
were issued NOT to pay for an obligation but just to
guarantee payment. Checks later dishonored.

HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.
Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT
important as law does not distinguish-- included as long as
it was an issued check that subsequently bounced.
LIM LAO V. CA (274 SCRA 572)
FACTS: Lim was an officer in a company where she
signed checks, while it was her superior who filled the
blanks. Check which she signed as issuer was dishonored.
Convicted for violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption
of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is
issued.

HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by
contrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor was
given to her; notice only given to the employer which is
not sufficient as law requires personal notice.
MITRA V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with several counts of B. P. Blg. 22
after failing to make good on checks issued by her. She,
however, consistently maintained that she never received a
notice of dishonor, and cannot thus be convicted for the
offense. During one hearing, complainant successfully
served a demand letter upon accused. The latter still failed
to comply with the demand. Accused was later convicted.
MITRA V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Accused’s
claim that she had no knowledge of the dishonor of the
checks was clearly untrue. Though it is possible that she
failed to receive the initial demand letter sent by
complainant, records indicate that she received the second
demand letter while attending a hearing held before the
lower court. This notwithstanding, accused still failed to
fund the checks.
RESTERIO V. PEOPLE (2012)
FACTS:
In this case, Amada issued a China Bank Check in the
amount of P50,000.00 payable to the complainant. When
the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored.
Amada argued that the check was just issued as collateral
and it was not even hers. She claims that she merely
borrowed the check of a friend so that she could use it as
collateral for the transaction with the complainant. The
complainant also presented registry receipts to show that
he has sent notices of dishonor to Amada.
RESTERIO V. PEOPLE (2012)
HELD:
According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the checks
were merely issued as collateral or that Amada was not the
owner of the same is immaterial. B.P. 22 punishes the
mere act of issuing a worthless check since the law is a
malum prohibitum. The law did not look either at the
actual ownership of the check or of the account against
which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of
the drawer, maker, or issuer. However, the Court also said
that the presentation of registry receipts is not enough to
establish that notice of dishonor was given to the accused.
SAN MATEO V. PEOPLE (692 SCRA 660)
FACTS:
Petitioner San Mateo issued postdated checks in partial
payment of the assorted yarns bought from ITSP
International. When Sehwani deposited one of the checks,
it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. San Mateo
failed to settle her outstanding account, despite Sehwani’s
requests for payment.
HELD:
Relating to the second element of violation of B.P. 22,
Section 2 of said law creates the presumption that the
issuer of the check has been aware of the insufficiency of
funds when he has issued a check and the bank dishonors
it. This presumption, however, arises only after it has been
proved that the issuer has received a written notice of
dishonor and that, within five days from receipt thereof,
has failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment.
In this case, there is no basis in concluding that San Mateo
knew of the insufficiency of her funds. While she may
have requested to Sehwani to defer depositing all checks,
this did not amount to an admission that, when she issued
the checks, she knew that she would have no sufficient
funds in the drawee bank to pay for them.
THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10640)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 4, R.A.
No. 9165);
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,

distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and / or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Article II,
Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165);
3. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs

and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals are
used or sold (Article II, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9165);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
4. Being employees of the den, dive or resort (Article II,
Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9165):
a. Any employee of a den, dive, or resort who is aware of the
nature of the place as such
b. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the
next preceding paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place
as such and shall knowingly visit the same
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled

precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 8,
R.A. No. 9165)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
6. Illegal diversion of any controlled precursor and essential
chemical (Article II, Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9165);
7. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument, apparatus,

and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 10), R.A. No.
9165;
8. Possession of dangerous drug (Article II, Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9165);
9. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 12, R.A. No.
9165)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
10. Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social
gatherings or meetings will merit maximum penalty regardless
of quantity and purity (Article II, Sec. 13, R.A. No. 9165);
11. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus for dangerous

drugs during parties, social gatherings, or meetings merit
maximum penalty (Article II, Sec. 14, R.A. No. 9165);
12. Use of dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165);
Note: This section will not apply where the person tested positive is
also found to have in his possession dangerous drugs; section on
"possession of dangerous drugs" will apply)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
13. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous
drugs (Article II, Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9165);
14. Maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions

on dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9165);
15. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs (Article II,

Sec. 18, R.A. No. 9165); and
16. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec.

19, R.A. No. 9165).
ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY
(ART. II, SEC. 26, R.A. NO. 9165)
Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following shall be
punishable:
a. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and

essential chemicals;
b. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution
and transportation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals;
c. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs and /
or controlled precursors and essential chemicals are used or sold;
d. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors
and essential chemicals;
e. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs.
SALIENT FEATURES
 Plea-Bargaining Provision - A person charged under R.A.
No. 9165 shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on
plea-bargaining (Article II, Sec. 23, R.A. No. 9165) .
 Non-Applicability of the Probation Law - A person

convicted of drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law (Article II, Sec. 24,
R.A. No. 9165).
 Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - A positive

finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by
an offender (Article II, Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Rules on Possession and Use of Dangerous Drugs (Sections 11 and 15 of
R.A. No. 9165):
 If the person apprehended or arrested is found to be positive for use of any

dangerous drug, he shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6)
months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense (Section
15, R.A. No. 9165).;
 If he is apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she
shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) (Section 15,
R.A. No. 9165).;
 If he is found to have in his/her possession such quantity of dangerous drugs

provided for under Section 11, R.A. No. 9165, he shall be punished for
possession only (Section 15, in relation to Section 11, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code; Applicability of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law -
 Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the

provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall not apply to the provisions of
R.A. No. 9165 except in the case of minor offenders (Article II, Sec. 98,
R.A. No. 9165).
 Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided in R.A. No. 9165 shall be reclusion
perpetua to death (Article II, Sec. 98, R.A. No. 9165).
 If the offense is punished by a special law (e.g. R.A. No. 9165), the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same (Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law).
SALIENT FEATURES
LimitedApplicability of the Revised Penal Code; Applicability of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law -
 People v. Mantalaba (G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011)

The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can now be appreciated in
fixing the penalty that should be imposed. Applying the rules, the proper penalty
should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion
temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been
appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW),
the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which
is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period
of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor
aggravating circumstance. The ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the
penalty which has been originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to
death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion
temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, would be the proper imposable penalty.
SALIENT FEATURES
 Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to
Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation - A drug
dependent or any person who violates Section 15 of R.A. No.
9165 may, by himself/herself or through his/her parent,
spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, apply to the Board or its duly
recognized representative, for treatment and rehabilitation of
the drug dependency (Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
 Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth the

matter to the Court which shall order that the applicant be
examined for drug dependency (Section 54, R.A. No.
9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to Confinement,
Treatment and Rehabilitation -
 If the examination by a DOH-accredited physician results in
the issuance of a certification that the applicant is a drug
dependent, he/she shall be ordered by the Court to undergo
treatment and rehabilitation in a Center designated by the
Board for a period of not less than six (6) months: Provided,
That a drug dependent may be placed under the care of a
DOH-accredited physician where there is no Center near or
accessible to the residence of the drug dependent or where
said drug dependent is below eighteen (18) years of age and
is a first-time offender and non-confinement in a Center will
not pose a serious danger to his/her family or the community
(Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to

Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation -
 Confinement in a Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall

not exceed one (1) year, after which time the Court, as well as
the Board, shall be apprised by the head of the treatment and
rehabilitation center of the status of said drug dependent and
determine whether further confinement will be for the welfare
of the drug dependent and his/her family or the community
(Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary
Submission Program - A drug dependent under the voluntary
submission program, who is finally discharged from
confinement, shall be exempt from the criminal liability under
Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 subject to the following conditions:
1. He/she has complied with the rules and regulations of the

center, the applicable rules and regulations of the Board,
including the after-care and follow-up program for at least
eighteen (18) months following temporary discharge from
confinement in the Center or, in the case of a dependent placed
under the care of the DOH-accredited physician, the after-care
program and follow-up schedule formulated by the DSWD and
approved by the Board: Provided, That capability-building of
local government social workers shall be undertaken by the
DSWD (Section 55, R.A. 9165);
SALIENT FEATURES
 Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the Voluntary Submission
Program – conditions:
2. He/she has never been charged or convicted of any offense punishable

under R.A. No. 9165, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended; the Revised Penal Code, as amended; or any
special penal laws (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165);
3. He/she has no record of escape from a Center: Provided, That had he/she

escaped, he/she surrendered by himself/herself or through his/her parent,
spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, within one (1) week from the date of the said escape (Section 55,
R.A. No. 9165); and
4. He/she poses no serious danger to himself/herself, his/her family or the

community by his/her exemption from criminal liability (Section 55, R.A.
No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Filing of Charges Against a Drug Dependent Who is

Not Rehabilitated Under the Voluntary Submission
Program –
• A drug dependent, who is not rehabilitated after the second

commitment to the Center under the voluntary submission
program, shall, upon recommendation of the Board, be
charged for violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 and
prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted, he/she
shall be credited for the period of confinement and
rehabilitation in the Center in the service of his/her
sentence (Section 58, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who
Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program
–
 Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the contrary,

any person determined and found to be dependent on dangerous
drugs shall, upon petition by the Board or any of its authorized
representative, be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in
any Center duly designated or accredited for the purpose
(Section 61, R.A. 9165).
• A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to be

dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may be filed by any
person authorized by the Board with the Regional Trial Court of
the province or city where such person is found (Section 61,
R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
o Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who
Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission
Program -
• After the petition is filed, the court, by an order, shall

immediately fix a date for the hearing, and a copy of such
order shall be served on the person alleged to be dependent
on dangerous drugs, and to the one having charge of him
(Section 61, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
o Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who
Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program
-
• If after such hearing and the facts so warrant, the court shall order
the drug dependent to be examined by two (2) physicians accredited
by the Board. If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not
a drug dependent, the court shall order his/her discharge. If either
physician finds him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a
hearing and consider all relevant evidence which may be offered. If
the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall issue an order for
his/her commitment to a treatment and rehabilitation center under
the supervision of the DOH. In any event, the order of discharge or
order of confinement or commitment shall be issued not later than
fifteen (15) days from the filing of the appropriate petition (Section
61, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged

with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation –
• If a person charged with an offense where the imposable

penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1)
day, and is found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any
stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the
prosecutor or the court as the case may be, shall suspend all
further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the
case to the Board. (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with
an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation –
 In the event the Board determines, after medical examination,

that public interest requires that such drug dependent be
committed to a center for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall
file a petition for his/her commitment with the regional trial
court of the province or city where he/she is being investigated
or tried (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Where a criminal case is pending in court, such petition shall be

filed in the said court. The court shall take judicial notice of the
prior proceedings in the case and shall proceed to hear the
petition. If the court finds him to be a drug dependent, it shall
order his/her commitment to a Center for treatment and
rehabilitation. The head of said Center shall submit to the court
every four (4) months, or as often as the court may require, a
written report on the progress of the treatment. If the dependent is
rehabilitated, as certified by the center and the Board, he/she shall
be returned to the court, which committed him, for his/her
discharge therefrom (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Thereafter, the prosecution for any offense punishable by law

shall be instituted or shall continue, as the case may be. In case
of conviction, the judgment shall, if the accused is certified by
the treatment and rehabilitation center to have maintained good
behavior, indicate that he/she shall be given full credit for the
period he/she was confined in the Center: Provided, however,
That when the offense is for violation of Section 15 of R.A. No.
9165 and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty thereof
shall be deemed to have been served in the Center upon his/her
release therefrom after certification by the Center and the Board
that he/she is rehabilitated (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
PEOPLE V. MARIACOS (2010)
FACTS:
Accused, her companion and a policeman were onbaord a
jeepney. Based intelligence reports, the policeman
approached them to check their bag. Upon inquiring,
Accused and her companion ran. However, Accused was
arrested where her bags were searched in the precinct.
Bricks of marijuana were discovered.
PEOPLE V. MARIACOS (2010)
HELD:
When a person is charged with illegal possession or
transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is
immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the
confiscated marijuana is not necessary. Accused’s alleged
lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense.
Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting
circumstances where the crime charged is malum
prohibitum, as in this case.
PEOPLE V. NOQUE (2010)
FACTS:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation, Noque sold drugs to two
(2) policemen and was caught with shabu in his house.
HELD:
The prosecution successfully proved that the Accused
violated Sec. 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425. The
prosecutions evidence establised the concurrence of the
elements of an illegal sale of drugs, , to wit: (1) the identity
of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
PEOPLE V. DITONA (638 SCRA 835)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165. He
alleges that the evidence seized is inadmissible as the
policemen did not observe the proper documentation of the
evidence seized.
PEOPLE V. DITONA (638 SCRA 835)
HELD:
The accused was acquitted. To successfully prosecute an accused for
selling illegal drugs, the prosecution has to prove: (1) the identities
of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. In this case, the
prosecution failed to establish the required chain of custody of the
prohibited drugs through the testimonies of the police officers.
While the RTC noted that SPO1 Flores and PO3 Ventura placed
their initials, “AF” and “NV,” on the seized drugs, they did not
identify the markings as theirs during their direct testimonies, nor
did they testify when and where they made such markings.
Moreover, they failed to show how the seized drugs reached the
laboratory technician who examined it and how the same were
stored pending turnover to the court.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL SALE OF
DRUGS
PEOPLE V. NICART (2012)
FACTS:
In this case, the accused were charged and convicted of
violation of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.

Sometime in July 2003, the authorities received
information that a certain “Milo” was engaged in drug
pushing. Based on this information, the authorities
conducted a buy-bust operation where the accused were
arrested.
HELD:
The Court, having found all the requisites of the crime,
affirmed the conviction of the accused and reiterated the
requisites for illegal sale of dangerous drugs which are as
follows:

 the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of
the sale, and the consideration;
 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the
thing; and
 the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence
HELD:
The Court also stated that the requisite of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs are likewise present. The Court
enumerated the requisites as follows:

 the accused is in possession of an item or object that
is identified to be prohibited or dangerous drug;
 such possession is not authorized by law; and
 the accused freely and consciously possessed the
drug.
PEOPLE V. CATUBAY (2016)
FACTS:
A team composed of members of the Intelligence
Operatives Section of the PNP, PDEA and NBI
implemented a buy-bust operation against Amaro Catubay.
When Catubay received the mark money, they went

inside Catubay’s house where the sachet of shabu was
given. Catubay was immediately placed under arrest. The
rest of the buy-bust team then entered Catubay’s residence
to serve and implement the search warrant.
HELD:
For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, 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 the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited
drug, the corpus delicti as evidence.
HELD:
In this case, the Court believes and so-holds that all the
requisites for the illegal sale of shabu were met. As
demonstrated by the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the supporting documents they presented and
offered, the identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited
drug, and the marked money, have all been proven by the
required quantum of evidence.
PEOPLE V. ZACARIA (2016)
FACTS:
After SP02 Montederamos showed the money to Zacaria,
the latter handed one (I) plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance to SP02 Montederamos, who
immediately called the other police officers.
Zacaria assails his conviction stating that there was no

illegal sale as no money changed hands.
PEOPLE V. ZACARIA (2016)
HELD:
As correctly held by the lower courts, the elements of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or sale of illegal
drugs: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it, are present. The fact that no money changed
hands is not a fatal defect. There is no requirement that in
buy-bust operations, there must be a simultaneous
exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (2012)
FACTS:
Zafra and Marcelino were charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs while Daluz was charged with illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia. The lone witness, a
policeman, saw accused Zafra and accused Marcelino
holding shabu while accused Daluz was holding drug
paraphernalia. He was conducting surveillance operations, by
himself, in front of a certain sari-sari due to reported drug
trafficking in the area.
There he saw all three (3) accused standing and facing each
other. Thus, he single-handedly arrested them and brought
them to the Police Station where he personally marked the
seized items.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (2012)
HELD:
Being the sole witness, the credibility of SPO4 Mendoza is
questionable and his inconsistent statements being fatal to
the prosecution’s case. Possession of drug paraphernalia
vis-à-vis shabu are two different offenses under R.A. No.
9165.
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts

necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained
and puts the proof of corpus delicti, which is the illegal
object itself in serious doubt.
PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (CONT.)
Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural
requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still
be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground
for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have
been properly preserved. These conditions, however, were
not met in this case as the prosecution did not even attempt
to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza
to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the
seized items.
PEOPLE V. RELATO (2012)
FACTS:
The accused was charged with violating Section 5 of R.A.
9165 (sale of illegal drugs). The contention of the accused
is that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. 9165
was not followed.
HELD:
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 provides for the procedure to be
followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs and
paraphernalia, or the chain of custody rule.
PEOPLE V. RELATO (2012)
HELD:
This procedure was not followed by the buy-bust team.
First, no photograph was taken;
Second, the team did not immediately mark the seized
items at the scene of the crime. The marking immediately
after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link,
because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or
related items will use the markings as reference.
PEOPLE V. RELATO (CONT.)
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, the State not only carries
the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense,
but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti,
failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty
of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
EXCEPTION TO CHAIN OF
CUSTODY RULE
PEOPLE V. SABADLAB (2012)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with Illegal possession and sale of
shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the
police. He assails his conviction because: (1) his name was
incorrectly spelled; (2) no PDEA agent was present; and
(3) lack of prior surveillance.
PEOPLE V. SABADLAB (2012)
HELD:
First, the fact that the report did not contain his name
accurately shall not necessarily mean that the identity of
the accused was not proven.
Second, the provision requiring close coordination with the
PDEA on all drug related matters, as well as the Internal
Rules and Regulations implementing the law cannot be
interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without
the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible; and
Lastly, a prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the
validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation.
PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA (2012)
FACTS:
Accused was arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation.
Accused now assails his conviction on the ground that the
chain of custody rule was not properly applied when
handling the evidence seized from him.
HELD:
The rule on chain of custody demands the identification of the
persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly
monitoring the authorized movements of illegal drugs and/or
drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the
accused until the time they are presented in court. Here, the buy-
bust team did not mark the sachets until after reaching the police
station. Even so, the omission did not destroy the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated items. The Court was
satisfied that the police officers brought the confiscated sachets
of shabu to the police station immediately after the buy-bust
operation, and turned them over to the investigator on-duty for
marking.
It has been held that a non-compliance with the
regulations is not necessarily fatal to render an accused’s
arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him
inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be
utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence.
PEOPLE V. FIGUEROA (2012)
The main defense of the accused was that the police
officers violated Sec. 86 of R.A. No. 9165, requiring the
PNP to maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all
drug related matters. Such defense, however, is not
meritorious. Said provision does not invalidate operations
on account of the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close
coordination with the PDEA. The law is silent as to the
consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers
to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a
buy-bust operation. This silence cannot be interpreted as a
legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation
of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an
arrest inadmissible.
POSIQUIT V. PEOPLE (2012)
In this case the police received a report that a certain group was
conducting a “pot session.” Thereafter, the police mobilized its
search team to locate the group. Upon arrival of the search team’s
vehicle in front of the house where the session is being held, the
accused and his group started to scamper. Despite their efforts,
the police were still able to apprehend them. The accused argues
that the prosecution failed to establish that he was in conspiracy
with his other co-accused to use or possess illegal drugs.

The Supreme Court said, however, that the circumstance of
conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of
dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. The crime of conspiracy to
commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist.
PEOPLE V. POSADA (2012)
FACTS: A buy bust operation was conducted by the police.
Emily was paid P250 for a sachet of shabu. She went home and
got a purse where a sachet of shabu was placed. Upon giving the
poseur buyer the sachet, her husband Roger appeared and gave
her 12 sachets of shabu which were put inside Emily’s purse.
The police arrested Emily on the spot while Roger ran to his
house. The police secured a search warrant and arrested Roger
and confiscated paraphernalia from the accused.
HELD: Constructive possession, that is, the relation between

the owner of the drug and the drug itself when the owner is not
in actual physical possession, but when it is still under his
control and management and
PEOPLE V. POSADA (2012)
subject to his disposition. In other words, we recognize the
fact that a person remains to be in possession of the
prohibited drugs although he may not have or may have
lost physical possession of the same.

While Roger had lost physical possession of the said 12
sachets of shabu, he had constructive possession of the
same because they remain to be under his control and
management.
PEOPLE V. BRILLANTES (2012)
FACTS:
Accused was convicted for Illegal Possession and sale of
drugs. While pending appeal, Accused died.
ISSUE: Is there any civil liability for violation of R.A. No.

9165?
HELD: There is no civil liability involved in violations of

R.A. No. 9165 since there is no private offended party
involved as there is in fact no reference to civil liability in
the decision.
ESTIPONA V. LABRIGO
G.R. NO. 226679, 15 AUGUST 2017
FACTS:
Estipona was charged with violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. No.
9165. He filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into
a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not
guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for
violation of Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 9165. However, the judge
denied his motion stating that Sec. 23 states that plea
bargaining in drug cases is prohibited. Estipona argues that
Sec. 23 is unconstitutional.
ESTIPONA V. LABRIGO
G.R. NO. 226679, 15 AUGUST 2017
HELD:
Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is now the Court’s exclusive
domain and no longer shared with the Executive and
Legislative departments.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
FIREARMS
(P.D. NO. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A.
NO. 8294 AND R.A. NO. 10591)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms and
ammunition (Sec. 28, R.A. No. 10591);
Aggravating Circumstances:
a. Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded
magazine;
b. Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the
shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon sight and
the like;
c. Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or
firearm silencer;
d. Accompanied with an extra barrel;
e. Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
2. Use of Loose Firearm in the commission of a crime –
considered as an aggravating circumstance (Sec. 29,
R.A. No. 10591);
3. Carriage of registered firearm outside of residence by a

license person without any legal authority therefor
(Sec. 31, R.A. No. 10591);
4. Unlawful Manufacture, sale, importation, acquisition,

disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or
instruments (Sec. 32(a), R.A. No. 10591);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
6. Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by any laborer,
worker or employee of a licensed firearms dealer of
parts of firearms or ammunition which the company
manufactures and sells, and other materials used by the
company in the manufacture or sale of firearms or
ammunition (Sec. 32(b), R.A. No. 10591);
7. Arms smuggling (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 10591);
8. Unlawful tampering, obliteration or alteration of

firearm’s identification (Sec. 34, R.A. No. 10591);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
9. Planting evidence or the willful and malicious
insertion, placing and/or attachment or parts thereof in
the person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity
of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating
or incriminating the person, or imputing the
commission of any violation of the provisions of R.A.
No. 10591 to said individual (Sec. 38, R.A. No. 10591);
10. Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light weapon

to the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) within 30 days from
discovery (Sec. 40(a), R.A. No. 10591);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
11. Failure to notify the FEO of the PNP of a licensed
person’s change of residence or office address, other
than that indicated in the license card, within 30 days
from transfer (Sec. 40(b), R.A. No. 10591); and
12. Illegal transfer or registration of firearms to any person

who has not yet be obtained or secured the necessary
license or permit thereof (Sec. 41, R.A. No. 10591).
NEW FIREARMS LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM
THE OLD FIREARMS LAW
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
NO. 8294 (New Firearms Law /
(Old Firearms Law) Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act)
When another crime is also committed
The unlawful manufacture, sale, If the use of a loose firearm is
acquisition, disposition or possession of inherent in the commission of a crime
firearms or ammunition is punishable punishable under the RPC or other
provided no other crime was committed special laws – the use of loose firearm
(Sec.1 of P.D. 1866, as amended by is an aggravating circumstance (Sec.
R.A. 8294). What is punished is the 29). Hence, the penalty for the use of a
other crime. loose firearm is not imposed.
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
8294 (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive
(Old Firearms Law) Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act)
When another crime is also committed
Nevertheless, when the other offense However, if the crime is committed by the
involved is not one of those enumerated under person without using the loose firearm, the
R.A. 8294 (homicide, murder, rebellion, violation of this law shall be considered as a
insurrection, sedition, and attempted coup distinct and separate offense (Sec. 29).
d'état), then the separate case for illegal
possession of firearm should continue to be
prosecuted. This is because the word
“committed” taken in its ordinary sense, and in
light of the Constitutional presumption of
innocence, necessarily implies a prior
determination of guilt by final conviction
resulting from successful prosecution or
voluntary admission (Celino, Sr. v. CA, G.R.
No. 170562, 29 June 2007).
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591

NO. 8294 (New Firearms Law /
(Old Firearms Law) Comprehensive Firearms and
When considered as an aggravating circumstance
If homicide or murder is committed If the use of a loose firearm is

with the use of unlicensed firearm – the inherent in the commission of a crime
use of unlicensed firearm is an punishable under the RPC or other
aggravating circumstance. special laws – the use of loose firearm
is an aggravating circumstance (Sec.
29).
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
(Old Firearms Law) (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive Firearms and
When absorbed as an element of another crime
If the manufacture, sale, acquisition, If the use of a loose firearm is in
disposition or possession of firearms or furtherance of, or incident to, or in
explosives is in furtherance of or connection with the crime of (RIA):
incident to, or in connection with the 1. Rebellion,
crime of (RISA): 2. Insurrection, or
1. Rebellion, 3. Attempted coup d'état,
2. Insurrection, the violation shall be absorbed as an
3. Sedition, or element of the crime of rebellion or
4. Attempted coup d'état, insurrection, or attempted coup d'état
the violation is absorbed as an (Sec. 29).
element of rebellion, or insurrection,
sedition, or attempted coup d'état.
PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM (2000)
FACTS:
Four informations were filed against Ladjaalam in the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, three of which he
was found guilty, to wit: (1) maintaining a drug den; (2)
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition; and (30
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide.
ISSUE:
Can the use of an unlicensed firearm be considered as an
aggravating circumstance?
PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM (2000)
HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any
person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or
ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was
committed. Furthermore, 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. Since the crime committed was
direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal
possession of firearm cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.
AGOTE V. LORENZO (2005)
FACTS:
Agote was charged to have violated Presidential Decree
No. 1866 (Illegal Posssession of Firearms) and a
COMELEC resolution (gun ban). He carried a .38 caliber
revolver with four (4) live bullets in a public place during
election. During the pendency of the case, R.A. No. 8294
was approved into law. The trial court found Agote liable
of the charges against. Agote assails that the penalty for
illegal possession of firearms had already been reduced
pursuant to R.A. No. 8294.
AGOTE V. LORENZO (2005)
HELD:
Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony. Republic
Act No. 8294 lowers the penalty for illegal possession of
firearms depending on the class of firearm possessed. The
lighter penalty may be imposed to a person who shall
unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition, “unless no
other crime was committed”.
But as violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the
Gun Ban was also committed by the petitioner at the same
time, the Court cannot but set aside petitioner’s conviction for
illegal possession of firearm.
EVANGELISTA V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Teofilo Evangelista was an OFW from Angola on his way
back to the Philippines. While he was in Dubai Airport, the
authorities discovered that Evangelista was carrying an
Israeli submachine gun with ammunition without license.
This was reported to the PAL Officers in Dubai and the gun
was handed to the pilot. Upon arriving at NAIA, he was
arrested by the Customs police and was made to sign a
Customs Declaration Form. In his defense, Evangelista
claims that he had no actual possession of the firearms as it
was with the plane pilot
EVANGELISTA V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
To be guilty of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition, one does not have to be in actual possession
thereof. The law does not punish physical possession alone
but possession on general including constructive
possession or the subjection of the thing to the owner’s
control. It is a state of mind but the real intent could be
determined based on his prior or contemporaneous acts and
surrounding circumstances explaining how he came into
possession. The Customs declaration form and admissions
during trial were used as basis for showing he owned and
possessed the items.
THE INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE LAW
(ACT NO. 4103, AS AMENDED)
 In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by
the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of
the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense (Sec. 1, Act No.
4103).
 If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall

sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, Act No.
4103).
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Under Sec. 2, Act No. 4103:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to the
following:
1. persons convicted of offenses punished with death

penalty or life-imprisonment;
2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to
commit treason;
3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition or espionage;
4. those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the high seas or
Philippine waters;
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
5. those who are habitual delinquents;

6. those who have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
7. those who having been granted conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof;
8. those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one (1) year;
9. those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of
approval of Act No. 4103; and
10. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism,
plunder and transnational crimes. (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103).
PEOPLE V. MANTALABA (2011)
FACTS: Allen Mantalaba was arrested by the authorities
in an entrapment operation. Allen was 17 years old when
he was arrested. He was found guilty and was imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

HELD: Minority must be recognized or appreciated in
fixing the penalty. Since minority is a special mitigating
circumstance, the penalty should be one degree lower.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper
penalty should be prision mayor as minimum and reclusion
temporal as maximum.
PEOPLE V. ROMUA
G.R. NO. 126175, 29 MAY 1997
FACTS:
Accused was convicted for the rape of a 24-year old mental
retardate. The Regional Trial Court, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentenced the accused to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day
to 14 years and 8 months.
PEOPLE V. ROMUA
G.R. NO. 126175, 29 MAY 1997
HELD:
For offense in which the law prescribes the single,
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, it is the first
paragraph of Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code and not the
Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies.
PEOPLE V. JARANILLA
G.R. NO. L-28547, 22 FEBRUARY 1974
FACTS:
Jaranilla et, al. were charged with robbery with homicide
with the following aggravating circumstances: (1) use of
motor vehicle; (2) nocturnity; (3) band; (4) contempt to or
insult to public authorities; and (5) recidivism. Except for
Jaranilla, his co-accused were found guilty for the crime of
robbery with homicide. The other co-accused appealed
their conviction.
PEOPLE V. JARANILLA
HELD:
The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is
punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods (Art. 309[3], Revised Penal Code). That
penalty should be imposed in its maximum period because
only aggravating circumstances are present.
As co-principals in the theft of six fighting cocks, they are
each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum and
(b) ordered to indemnify solidarily the complainant,
Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500).
LADINO V. GARCIA (1996)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Accused offered to plead guilty,
which was conformed to by the prosecutor and the
respondent judge. Pursuant to the plea of guilty to the crime
of homicide, the trial court rendered an Order reciting the
aforestated antecedents, declaring both accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, and
sentencing each of them to a prison term of 14 years, 8
months and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day
of reclusion temporal, and to severally pay the civil
liability. Accused now asssails the penalty imposed on him
in light of the ISL.
LADINO V. GARCIA (1996)
HELD:
The trial court must have also proceeded on the hypothesis that
where a lesser penalty has been imposed for an offense lighter than
that in the original indictment, because of the agreement among
the accused, the prosecutor and the offended party for such
reduced liability, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should not
apply in toto.
From that undisputable and obvious premise, it follows that the
aforecited provisions of Act No. 4103, as amended, shall
necessarily apply. Also on that score, it should be kept in mind
that to determine whether an indeterminate sentence and not a
straight penalty is proper, what is considered is the penalty
actually imposed by the trial court, after considering the
attendant circumstances, and not the imposable penalty.
AGONCILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS
(1998)
FACTS:
Agoncillo, et. al. were found guilty of illegal fishing with
the use of an explosive. The Regional Trial Court meted
out the penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment unto
Agoncillo, et. al. Then, Agoncillo et, al. assailed the
penalty imposed upon him and his companions.
AGONCILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS
(1998)
HELD:
The penalty imposed by law for illegal fishing if explosive
is actually used is imprisonment ranging from twenty (20)
years to life imprisonment. The Indeterminate Sentence
Law provides that if, as in this case, the offense is punished
by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the same. The trial court
therefore erred when it sentenced petitioners to "suffer
a straight penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment."
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY
R.A. NO. 10630
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
(SEC.6, R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630 )
 A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the

commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344,
as amended.(Par. 1, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A.
No. 10630)
 A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years
of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted
with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected
to appropriate proceedings. (Par. 3, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as
amended by R.A. No. 10630)
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
(SEC.6, R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630 )
 A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the

commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age
on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her
birthdate.(Par. 2, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A.
No. 10630)
 The exemption from criminal liability does not include

exemption from civil liability. (Par. 4, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344
as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
SERIOUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY
CHILDREN WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (SEC.20,R.A.
NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 )
 A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years
of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping
and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped,
robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping
where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment,
shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603 (The Child and
Youth Welfare Code), as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in
a special facility within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’
called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center. (Sec.
20-A, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
REPETITION OF OFFENSES (SEC.20,R.A.
NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630 )
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years
of age and who commits an offense for the second time or oftener
shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as amended,
and shall undergo an intensive intervention program supervised by
the local social welfare and development officer, provided that:
1. the child was previously subjected to a community-based

intervention program;
2. if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a
youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or
guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary
commitment of the child; and
REPETITION OF OFFENSES (SEC.20,R.A.
NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630 )
3. if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to
execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment, the
proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately
filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to P.D. No. 603, as
amended. (Sec. 20-B, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No.
10630)
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO.
10630
1. Creation of “Bahay – Pag-asa” (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9344, as
amended by R.A. No. 10630 )
 Bahay Pag-asa refers to a 24-hour child-caring institution

established, funded and managed by local government units
(LGUs) and licensed and/or accredited nongovernment
organizations (NGOs) providing short-term residential care for
children in conflict with the law who are above 15 but below
18 years of age who are awaiting court disposition of their
cases or transfer to other agencies or jurisdiction. Part of the
features of a ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ is an intensive juvenile
intervention and support center. This will cater to children in
conflict with the law (par. 1, Sec. 4 [s] of R.A. No. 9344, as
amended by R.A. No. 10630).
.
10630
 Prior to the amendment, youth offenders are placed in a

“Youth Detention Center.” The new law, R.A. No. 10630,
renames the temporary housing “Bahay Pag-asa” and
mandates the creation of a multidisciplinary team for the
protection of children composed of a social worker,
psychologist or mental health professional, medical doctor,
educational/guidance counselor, and barangay council
representative. (par. 3, Sec. 4 [s] of R.A. No. 9344, as
amended by R.A. No. 10630).
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO. 10630
2. Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes (Sec. 4, R.A.
No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 )
 Any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes use,

takes advantage of, or profits from the use of children,
including any person who abuses his/her authority over the
child or who, with abuse of confidence, takes advantage of
the vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce, threaten or
instigate the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed in its
maximum period (Sec. 20-C of R.A. No. 9344, as amended
by R.A. No. 10630).
 This is a new provision.

10630
3. Violations of Local Ordinances (Sec. 57, R.A. No. 9344, as

 No penalty shall be imposed on children for said

violations, and they shall instead be brought to their
residence or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to
be released to the custody of their parents (Sec. 57-A of
R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).
10630
3. Violations of Local Ordinances (Sec. 57, R.A. No. 9344, as

 This is a new provision. Prior to the amendment, a child

may not be penalized for status offenses, vagrancy,
prostitution, mendicancy, and sniffing of rugby (Secs. 57
and 58 of R.A. No. 9344). With the enactment of R.A. No.
10630, the violation of local ordinances is added to the list
of offenses that shall not be punished if committed by a
child. (Sec. 57-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No.
10630).
ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (2008)
FACTS:
At the time of commission of rape, the accused was 13
years old while the victim was 6. The case was pending
when the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A.
9344) was enacted amending among others the age of
criminal irresponsibility being raised from 9 to 15 years
old. At the time of the promulgation of judgment, the
accused already reached the age of majority.
ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (2008)
HELD:
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344)
should be applied. By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of
criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years
old, this law is evidently favorable to the accused. Petitioner
was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the
alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live
birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of
his mother. Furthermore, petitioner’s age was never assailed
in any of the proceedings before the RTC and the CA.
Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the commission of the
crime, was below 15 years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, he
is exempted from criminal liability.
PEOPLE V. MONTICALVO (2013)
FACTS:
Monticlavo, a 17-year old male, was charged for the rape
of a minor suffering a mental disorder. The trial court
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Monticlavo
alleged that at the time of the commission of the offense,
he was only 17 years old. Thus, he is entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
PEOPLE V. MONTICALVO (2013)
HELD:
This Court finds merit in Monticalvo’s assertion that he was
a minor during the commission of the crime charged.
During trial, upon order of the trial court, the Local Civil
Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar, brought before it their
office records, particularly appellant’s Certificate of Live
Birth containing the fact of birth of the latter. Appellant’s
Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on 23
February 1985. Indeed, at the time of the commission of the
crime charged on 9 December 2002, appellant was only 17
years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article
68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
PEOPLE V. CORDOVA (1993)
FACTS:
Estorque, et. al were charged for double murder. The trial
court found the accused guilty for the murder of the
victims. Upon appeal, Estorque alleged that during the time
of the commission of the offense, he was still thirteen (13)
years old.
PEOPLE V. CORDOVA (1993)
HELD:
There is a further obstacle that stands in the way of
Estorque's conviction. While it has been proven he was only
thirteen years old at the time of the incident, there are no
allegations in both informations that Estorque had acted
with discernment. And even if we are to consider the
allegations that he had committed the imputed acts "with
intent to kill" as sufficient compliance — as we have in the
past — he would still not be held liable as no proof was
offered during trial that he had so acted with discernment.
Accordingly, even if he was indeed a co-conspirator or an
accessory, he would still be exempt from criminal liability.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
P.D. NO. 1829
PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 1, R.A. NO. 1829)
Any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts: (Sec. 1, R.A.
No. 1829)
 preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or

from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any
offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats; (Sec. 1[a], R.A. No. 1829)
 altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,
document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [b],
R.A. No. 1829)
 harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person
he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to
prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction; (Sec. 1 [C], R.A.
No. 1829)
 publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a

crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or
concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the
same purpose or purposes; (Sec. 1 [D], R.A. No. 1829)
 delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing

the service of process or court orders or disturbing
proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
courts; (Sec. 1 [e], R.A. No. 1829)
 making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or

object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect
the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [f], R.A. No. 1829)
 threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any
wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in order to prevent such person
from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful,
in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or
in official proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [h], R.A. No. 1829) and
 giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law

enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to
the court. (Sec. 1 [i], R.A. No. 1829)
THE PROBATION LAW
P.D. NO. 968
PROBATION (SEC. 3, P.D. NO. 968)
Probation is a disposition under which an accused, after

conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation
officer. It is a privilege granted by the court; it cannot be
availed of as a matter of right by a person convicted of a
crime. To be able to enjoy the benefits of probation, it must
first be shown that an applicant has none of the
disqualifications imposed by law. (Sec. 3 [a], P.D. No. 968)
DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS (SEC. 9, P.D. NO. 968)
Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is intended for

offenders who are 18 years of age and above, and who are not
otherwise disqualified by law. Offenders who are disqualified
are those:
 sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of

more than six (6) years; (Sec. 9 [a], P.D. No. 968)
 convicted of subversion or any offense against the security

of the State, or the Public Order; (Sec. 9 [b], P.D. No. 968)
DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS (SEC. 9, P.D. NO. 968)
 who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an

offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
month and one day and/or a fine of not more than Two
Hundred Pesos (P200.00);(Sec. 9 [c], P.D. No. 968)
 who have been once on probation; (Sec. 9 [d], P.D. No. 968)
and
 who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive

provisions of this law became. (Sec. 9 [e], P.D. No. 968)
PROBATION CONDITIONS (SEC. 10, P.D. NO. 968)
 The mandatory conditions require that the probationer shall:
a. present himself to the probation officer designated to

undertake his supervision at each place as may be specified
in the order within 72 hours from receipt of said order, (par.
1, Sec. 10[a], P.D. No. 968)
and
b. report to the probation officer at least once a month at such

time and place as specified by said officer. (par. 1, Sec.
10[b], P.D. No. 968)
PROBATION CONDITIONS (SEC. 10, P.D. NO. 968)
 Special or discretionary conditions are those additional

conditions imposed on the probationer which are geared
towards his correction and rehabilitation outside of prison and
right in the community to which he belongs. (par. 2, Sec. 10,
P.D. No. 968)
EFFECTIVITY OF THE PROBATION ORDER
(SEC. 11, P.D. NO. 968)
 A violation of any of the conditions may lead either to a
more restrictive modification of the same or the revocation
of the grant of probation. Consequent to the revocation, the
probationer will have to serve the sentence originally
imposed. (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 968)
REVOCATION OF PROBATION (SEC. 15,
P.D. NO. 968)
 At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant
for the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation of
the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested
and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court
for a hearing of the violation charged. The defendant may
be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such case, the
provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged
with crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested
under this provision. An order revoking the grant of
probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof
shall not be appealable. (Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968)
TERMINATION OF PROBATION (SEC. 16,
P.D. NO. 968)
 After the period of probation and upon consideration of
the report and recommendation of the probation officer,
the court may order the final discharge of the probationer
upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is
deemed terminated. (par. 1, Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968)
FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS
(1995)
FACTS:
Francisco was found guilty by the MTC for multiple grave

oral defamation by his employees. He elevated the case to
the RTC, which affirmed the MTC decision in toto.
Francisco failed to appeal on the RTC’s decision making it
final. The MTC issued a warrant of arrest, but before he
was arrested, Francisco filed an application for probation
which the MTC denied.
FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS
HELD:
Francisco is no longer eligible for probation. No

application for probation shall be entertained after the
judgment is final. Francisco lost his right to probation
when he appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. The law
considers appeal and probation mutually exclusive
remedies.
PABLO V. JUDGE CASTILLO (2000)
FACTS:
Pablo was charged with a violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law, in three (3) separate informations, for issuing
three bad checks.
On the first complaint, Pablo was adjudged guilty of the
said violation.
Subsequently, Pablo was found guilty for violating the

Bouncing Checks Law on the two (2) remaining
complaints. After judgment, he applied for probation. His
probation was denied due to the conviction of the previous
complaint.
PABLO V. JUDGE CASTILLO (2000)
HELD:
Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain language, to the
effect that a person who was previously convicted by final
judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not
less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less
than two hundred pesos, is disqualified from applying for
probation. This provision of law is definitive and
unqualified. There is nothing in Section 9, paragraph (c)
which qualifies "previous conviction" as referring to a
conviction for a crime which is entirely different from that
for which the offender is applying for probation or a
crime which arose out of a single act or transaction as
petitioner would have the court to understand.
SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (1999)
FACTS:
Accused Santos issued 54 checks which were dishonored.
Accused was charged with 54 counts of violation of B.P. 22
in 54 separate informations. After trial, she was found
guilty for all 54 violations.
Subsequently, Accused applied for probation and such
application was granted by the trial court. However, the
appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision due to her
actions in thwarting the satisfaction of her civil liabilities.
SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (1999)
HELD:
Her issuing subject fifty-four (54) bouncing checks is a serious offense. To
allow petitioner to be placed on probation would be to depreciate the
seriousness of her malefactions. Worse, instead of complying with the orders
of the trial court requiring her to pay her civil liability, she even resorted to
devious schemes to evade the execution of the judgment against her. Verily,
petitioner is not the penitent offender who is eligible for probation within legal
contemplation. Her demeanor manifested that she is incapable to be reformed
and will only be a menace to society should she be permitted to co-mingle with
the public.
With respect to the fourth issue, petitioners contention that her probation is fait
accompli is equally untenable. The six (6) year period of probation which
commenced on June 30, 1995, has not yet been completed. Furthermore, even
if the said period has expired, such lapse of the period of probation does not
detract from the fact that the order granting probation was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion. Probation having been improperly granted, there is no
probation to speak of.
COLINARES V. PEOPLE (2011)
FACTS:
Colinares was charged and found guilty of frustrated
homicide by the RTC of Camarines Sur. Since the penalty
meted out exceeded six (6) years, he did not qualify for
probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the RTC.
Colinares argued that he should be entitled to apply for

probation in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him
that makes his offense probationable. The Supreme Court
found Colinares guilty of attempted homicide only.
HELD:
But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of
attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the
penalty imposed on him should be lowered to
imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years and four months of prision
correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would
be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation
upon remand of the case to the RTC.
HELD:
In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was guilty, not
of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is
an original conviction that for the first time imposes on
him a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right
from the start, it would have found him guilty of the
correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of
two years and four months maximum. This would have
afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation.
TRUST RECEIPTS LAW
P.D. NO. 115
TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (SEC. 4, P.D. NO. 115)
 This is any transaction by and between a person referred to as the

entruster, and entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or
holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified
goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the
possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and
delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust
receipt.“ (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 115)
TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (SEC. 4, P.D. NO. 115)
 The entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods,

documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or
otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with
the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to
the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in
the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments
themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in
accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust
receipt, or for other purposes according to the P.D. No. 115. (Sec.
4, P.D. No. 115)
PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 13, P.D. NO. 115)
The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of
the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered
by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the
entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said
goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or
disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust
receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable
under the provisions of Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised
Penal Code. (Sec. 13, P.D. No. 115)
WHEN THE VIOLATION IS COMMITTED BY A
JURIDICAL ENTITY (SEC. 13, P.D. NO. 115)
If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation,

partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or
other officials or persons therein responsible for the
offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from
the criminal offense. (Sec. 13, P.D. No. 115)
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION
ACT
R.A. NO. 10175
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
A. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems:
 Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a

computer system without right. (Sec. 4 [a.1], R.A.
No.10175)
 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. (Sec. 4 [a.2], R.A.
No.10175)
 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.
(Sec. 4 [a.3], R.A. No.10175)
 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. (Sec.
4 [a.4], R.A. No.10175)
5. Misuse of Devices. (Sec. 4 [a.5], R.A. No.10175)
 The use, production, sale, procurement, importation,

distribution, or otherwise making available, without
right, of:
a) A device, including a computer program, designed
or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing
any of the offenses under R.A. No.10175; or
b) 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 R.A. No.10175.
5. Misuse of Devices. (Sec. 4 [a.5], R.A. No.10175)
 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.
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES(SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
6. Cyber-squatting. (Sec. 4 [a.6], R.A. No.10175) – 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
iii. Acquired without right or with intellectual property
interests in it.
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES(SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
B. Computer-related Offenses:
1. Computer-related Forgery. (Sec. 4 [b.1], R.A.

No.10175)
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. (Sec. 4 [b.2], R.A. No.10175) —

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. (Sec. 4 [b.3], R.A.

No.10175) – 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.
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES, (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
C. Content-related Offenses: (Sec. 4 [c], R.A. No.10175)
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. (Sec. 4 [c.1], R.A.
No.10175)
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. (Sec. 4 [c.2], R.A. No.10175)
3. Unsolicited Commercial Communications. (Sec. 4 [c.3],
R.A. No.10175) — 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:
 There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

 The primary intent of the communication is for service
and/or administrative announcements from the sender to
its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
 The following conditions are present:

a) 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;
b) The commercial electronic communication does not
purposely disguise the source of the electronic message;
and
c) 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. (Sec. 4 [c.4],
R.A. No.10175)
OTHER OFFENSES (SEC. 5, R.A. NO.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 R.A.
No.10175 shall be held liable.
b. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any

person who willfully attempts to commit any of the
offenses enumerated in R.A. No.10175 shall be held
liable.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012
(DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
1. Void for being Unconstitutional

• Section 4(c)(3) of R.A. No. 10175 that penalizes posting of
unsolicited commercial communications;
• Section 12 thereof that authorizes the collection or
recording of traffic data in real-time; and
• Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department
of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected Computer
Data.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION
ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
2. Valid and Constitutional:

• Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without
right;
• Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including
transmission of viruses;
• Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain
name over the internet in bad faith to the prejudice of others;
• Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of
identifying information belonging to another;
• Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition
of sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or consideration;
• Section 4 (c)(2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;
ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

• Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when
crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code are committed
with the use of information and communications technologies;
• Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;
• Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require
service providers to preserve traffic data and subscriber
information as well as specified content data for six months;
• Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data
under a court-issued warrant;
• Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination
of computer data under a court-issued warrant;
ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
• Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously

preserved computer data after the expiration of the prescribed
holding periods;
• Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to
cybercrime investigations;
• Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and
Coordinating Center (CICC);
• Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and Functions; and
• Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that
penalizes libel.
ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
3. Partly Valid and Unconstitutional
• Section 4(c)(4) that 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; and
• Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the

commission of cybercrimes as valid and constitutional only in relation
to:
• Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;

• Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception;
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
• Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of
cybercrimes as valid and constitutional only in relation to:
• Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;
• Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference;
• Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices;
• Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;
• Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery;
• Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud;
• Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft; and
• Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex.
But void and unconstitutional with respect to:

 Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;
 Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications; and
 Section 4(c)(4) on online Libel.
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
4. Lastly, the Court resolved to leave the determination of the correct

application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under
both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases,
with the exception of the crimes of:

• Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)
(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code
constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy; as
well as
• Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the

offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 and Republic
Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a
violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is void and
unconstitutional.
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
(R.A. NO. 9372)
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF
TERRORISM (SEC. 3, R.A. NO. 9372)
 Offender commits an act punishable under any of the
cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any
of the enumerated special penal laws;
 Commission of the predicate crime sows and creates a
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace; and
 Offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
TERRORISM
It is committed by any person who engages in any of the following
acts punishable under RPC and special laws:

A. Under the RPC

 Piracy in general and mutiny in the high seas or in the Philippine
waters (Art. 123, RPC)
 Rebellion or Insurrection(Art. 134, RPC)
 Coup d’etat including acts committed by private persons(Art. 134-

A, RPC)
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, RPC)
 Murder (Art. 248, RPC)
 Crimes involving Destruction ( Art. 320,RPC)

TERRORISM
B. Under Special Laws
 Decree codifying the laws on illegal and unlawful possession,

manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of firearms,
ammunitions or explosives.
 Law on Arson ( P.D. No. 1613)
 Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery of Law of 1974 (P.D.

No. 532)
 Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968 (R.A. No.
5207)
 Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Waste Control Act of
1990(R.A. No. 6969)
 Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6265)
TERRORISM
Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under R.A. No.
9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually
committed to trigger the operation of the key qualifying
phrases in the other elements of the crime, including the
coercion of the government to accede to an unlawful
demand. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc.
v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 1788552, 5 October
2010)
Note: The benefit of Parole under the Indeterminate

Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted under
R.A. No. 9372. (Sec. 3, R.A. 9372)
WHO MAY BE LIABLE
1. Conspirator (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9372)
Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to commit
the same
Penalty: Forty years imprisonment

2. Accomplice (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9372)
Any person who, not being a principal or conspirator,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous
acts.
Penalty: 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years imprisonment.
WHO MAY BE LIABLE
3. Accessory (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)
Any person who having knowledge of the commission of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
without having participated therein, takes part subsequent to
its commission in any of the following manner:
a. Profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime;
b. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the
effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or
c. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal or conspirator.
WHO MAY BE LIABLE
Exception (Not Liable):
Those who are such with respect to their: (i) spouses, (ii)
ascendants, (iii) descendants, (iv) legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or (v) relatives by affinity
within the same degrees. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)
Exception to the exception (Liable):

Accessories falling within the provisions of subparagraph
(a). (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND
INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF
COMMUNICATION
General Rule:
Notwithstanding R.A. No. 4020 (The Anti-Wire Tapping Law),

a police or law enforcement official and members of his team
may, upon written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record any communication between members of
a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or
group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. (Sec.
7, R.A. No. 9372)
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION
AND RECORDING OF COMMUNICATION
Exception:
Communications between:
1. Lawyers and clients

2. Doctors and patients
3. Journalists and their sources
4. Confidential business correspondence . (Sec. 7, R.A.
No. 9372)
REQUISITES FOR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR
JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT
AND RECORD COMMUNICATION (SEC. 8, R.A.
9372)
1. There must be an ex parte application by the police or law

enforcement official;
2. The applicant must have been duly authorized in writing by

the Anti-Terrorism Council; and
REQUISITES FOR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR
JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT AND
RECORD COMMUNICATION (SEC. 8, R.A. 9372)
3. Examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the

witnesses he may produce to establish that:
a) There is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts that the said Crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism has been committed, is being committed or is about to be
committed;
b) There is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts that evidence which is essential to the conviction of any
charged or suspected person, will be obtained; and
c) There is no other effective means for acquiring such evidence.
EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 125 OF RPC
(SEC. 19, R.A. 9372)
In the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects

may be detained for more than three (3) days upon written
approval of:

1. Municipal, city, provincial or regional official of Human
Rights Commission;
2. Judge of MTC, RTC or Sandiganbayan; or
3. Justice of CA nearest the place of arrest.

EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 125 OF RPC
(SEC. 19, R.A. 9372)
The written approval must be procured within five (5) days
after the date of detention; Provided that within three (3)
days after detention, suspects whose connection with the
terror attack or threat is not established shall be released
immediately.
If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays

or after office hours, the police or law enforcement
personnel shall bring the arrested person to the residence of
any of the officials mentioned that is nearest the place
where the accused was arrested.
ACCESS DEVICES REGULATION
ACT OF 1998
R.A. NO. 8484
PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3)
Access Device – any card, plate, code, account number,

electronic serial number, personal identification number, or
other telecommunications service, equipment, or
instrumental identifier, or other means of account access
that can be used to obtain money, good, services, or any
other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds (other
than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument);
Counterfeit Access Device – means any access device that

is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged, or an
identifiable component of an access device or counterfeit
access device;
Unauthorized Access Device – means any access device

that is stolen, lost, expired, revoked, canceled, suspended,
or obtained with intent to defraud;
Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon book, or other

credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money,
goods, property, labor or services or any thing of value on
credit;
Device Making or Altering Equipment – means any

equipment, mechanism or impression designed or
primarily used for making or altering or re-encoding an
access device or a counterfeit access device;
Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon book, or other

credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money,
goods, property, labor or services or any thing of value on
credit;
Device Making or Altering Equipment – means any

equipment, mechanism or impression designed or
primarily used for making or altering or re-encoding an
access device or a counterfeit access device;
Trafficking – means transferring, or otherwise disposing

of, to another, or obtaining control of, with intent to
transfer or dispose of.
PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9)
The following acts are punishable:
 Producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit
access devices;
 Trafficking in one or more unauthorized access devices
or access devices fraudulently applied for;
 Using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized access
device;
 Possession of counterfeit access devices;
 Producing, trafficking, possession, or custody of device-

making or altering equipment without being in the
business or employment, which lawfully manufactures
or deals with such;
 Allowing, inducing, permitting or enticing another to
produce, use or traffic in counterfeit access devices or
access devices fraudulently applied for;
 Multiple imprinting on more than one transaction record,
sales slip or similar document, making it appear that the
device holder has entered into another transaction;
 Disclosing any information imprinted on the access
device;
 Obtaining money or anything of value through the use of
access device, with intent to defraud or gain and fleeing
thereafter;
 In possession, without authority from the owner of the
access device or the access device company, an access
device, or any material, such as slips, carbon paper, or
any other medium, on which the access device is written,
printed or otherwise indicated;
 Writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval
numbers from issuers of access devices, when in fact no
such approval was made;
 Making any alteration without the access device holder’s
authority;
 In possession, without authority from the owner of the
access device or the access device company, an access
device, or any material, such as slips, carbon paper, or
any other medium, on which the access device is written,
printed or otherwise indicated;
 Writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval
numbers from issuers of access devices, when in fact no
such approval was made;
 Making any alteration without the access device holder’s
authority;
 effecting transaction, with one or more access devices
issued to another person or persons, to receive payment or
any other thing of value;
 Without the authorization of the issuer of the access
device, soliciting a person for the purpose of:
 Offering an access device; or
 Selling information regarding or an application to obtain an
access device; or
 without the authorization of the credit card system
member or its agent, causing or arranging for another
person to present to the member or its agent, for payment,
one or more evidence or records of transactions made by
credit card.
SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE (2011)
FACTS:
Mr. Yu received a call from someone who pretended to be a
credit card agent from a financing firm to offer loan assistance.
He was asked to submit several documents and identification
cards to allegedly process his application. After submitting the
documents to the agent, Mr. Yu never heard of the application
again. He eventually found out that his credit cards were used to
buy mobile phones and apply for several phone lines. His name
and accounts were used but the suspect used a different picture
and his signature was forged. The suspect was arrested in an
entrapment operation. Upon knowing that the suspect applied
for a credit card with Metrobank, the authorities set up an
entrapment operation. When the suspect signed the receipt of the
credit card, he was arrested.
SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE (2011)
HELD:
Under R.A. 8484 sec. 9(e), possession of one or more
counterfeit access devices or fraudulently applying for
access devices is prohibited. In this case, the suspect used
the victim’s identity by representing himself to be Mr. Yu
by presenting fake identification cards and forging his
signature. His fraudulent application and eventual
possession made him a possessor of the counterfeit access
device.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CODE
R.A. NO. 8293
PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES,
TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS
Infringement
Elements:
 Registration of TN, TM or SM
 Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction and
application of reproduction)
 Use is without owner’s consent
 Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or
deceive
 regardless of whether or not there is actual sale
Unfair Competition
Elements:
1. Person has established goodwill (has identified in the
mind of the public his goods, business or services),
whether or not a registered mark is employed
2. Another person passes of the goods he deals in for
those of the person who has established goodwill
3. By means contrary to good faith (malice and intent
to deceive are essential)
The following are DEEMED to have committed unfair
competition:

(a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of another
or such appearance as is likely to deceive the public or
defraud another of his legitimate trade + to influence
purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of
another + sells the goods (includes subsequent vendor and
agent of any vendor)
(b) induces the false belief that he is offering the services

of another who has established goodwill + by any artifice
or device

(c) makes any false statement in the course of trade or any
other act contrary to good faith + act or statement
calculated to discredit the business of another
False Designation of Origin / False Description of Fact
Elements:
1. Use in commerce of any false designation of origin,
false description or representation of fact, which:
1. Is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of goods
by another person
2. Misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and
geographic origin of goods in commercial advertising or
promotion
PUNISHABLE ACTS – PATENTS
Repetition of Infringement

Elements:
1. Existence of a final judgment against the offender in a
civil action for infringement of patent
2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with him repeats the
infringement after the finality of the judgment
PUNISHABLE ACTS – COPYRIGHT
Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions of the
law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral rights etc.)
or of aiding or abetting such infringement;

Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a work has
in his possession an article which he knows, or ought to know, to be
an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of:
 Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade, offering or
exposing for sale, or hire, the article;
 Distributing the article for purposes of trade, or for any other
purpose to an extent that will prejudice the rights of the
copyright owner in the work; or
 Trade exhibit of the articles in public.
COCA-COLA V. GOMEZ (2008)
FACTS:
Coca-Cola Corporation filed a case against Pepsi for
violation of the Intellectual Property Code. Coca-Cola
alleges that Pepsi in the Bicol Region was hoarding coke
bottles to impede the circulation of the product in the
region. A search was conducted on the premises of Pepsi
and the authorities indeed found coke bottles on the Pepsi
property. According to Coke, the bottles were eventually
crushed to conceal any proof of the hoarding activity. The
petitioners claim that the alleged hoarding by Pepsi is a
violation of Section 168.3 of the IP Code.
COCA-COLA V. GOMEZ (2008)
HELD:
Under all the above approaches, we conclude that the
"hoarding" - as defined and charged by the petitioner - does
not fall within the coverage of the IP Code and of Section
168 in particular. It does not relate to any patent, trademark,
trade name or service mark that the respondents have
invaded, intruded into or used without proper authority from
the petitioner. Nor are the respondents alleged to be
fraudulently "passing off" their products or services as those
of the petitioner. The respondents are not also alleged to be
undertaking any representation or misrepresentation that
would confuse or tend to confuse the goods of the petitioner
with those of the respondents, or vice versa.
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION C. L.C. BIG
MAK BURGER, INC. (2004)
FACTS:
McDonalds Corp. filed a trademark infringement and
unfair competition case against L.C. Big Mak Burger. The
use of the name creates confusion in the minds of the
consumers. In its defense, Big Mak claims that they are
distinct from the McDonalds product even though they also
sell hamburgers, they use a different wrapper, a different
mascot and they sell different products like pizza and
siopao.
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION C. L.C. BIG
MAK BURGER, INC. (2004)
HELD:
For trademark infringement, the test of dominancy is now
explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the Intellectual
Property Code which defines infringement as the colorable
imitation of a registered mark xxx or a dominant feature thereof.
Absent proof that respondents adoption of the Big Mak mark

was due to honest mistake or was fortuitous, the inescapable
conclusion is that respondents adopted the Big Mak mark to ride on
the coattails of the more established Big Mac mark.

Thus, we hold that confusion is likely to result in the public mind.
We sustain petitioners claim of trademark infringement.
TORRES V. SPOUSES PEREZ (2012)
FACTS:
The petitioner was convicted of unfair competition against
the defendant. Torres registered the products she supplied
to SM under the vendor code of the Perez spouses. The
said vendor code was in the name of a partnership
involving the respondents.
However, upon the dissolution of the partnership, SM
retained the supplier’s code even though it was Torres who
was supplying the products.
TORRES V. SPOUSES PEREZ (2012)
HELD:
The key elements of unfair competition are "deception,
passing off and fraud upon the public." No deception can
be imagined to have been foisted on the public through
different vendor codes, which are used by SM only for the
identification of supplier’s products.
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING
ACT OF 2001
R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 9194
IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3)
Covered institution refers to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all
other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates
supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP);
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions

supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission; and
(i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment
houses and other similar entities managing securities or
rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or
consultant;
(ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies,
common trust funds, pre-need companies and other similar
entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations, money
changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer
companies and other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or otherwise
dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives
based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other
similar monetary instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission
‘Covered transaction’ is a transaction in cash or other

equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in
excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
within one (1) banking day. (As amended by RA 9194)
‘Suspicious transactions’ are transactions with covered
institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any
of the following circumstances exist:
(1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation,
purpose or economic justification;
(2) the client is not properly identified;
(3) the amount involved is not commensurate with the
business or financial capacity of the client;
(4) taking into account all known circumstances, it may
be perceived that the client's transaction is structured in
order to avoid being the subject of reporting requirements
under the Act;
(5) any circumstance relating to the transaction which
is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or
the client's past transactions with the covered institution;
(6) the transaction is in any way related to an unlawful
activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is
being or has been committed; or
(7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to any
of the foregoing.
“Monetary instrument” refers to:
(1) coins or currency of legal tender of the Philippines,
or of any other country;
(2) drafts. checks and notes;
(3) securities or negotiable instruments, bonds,
commercial papers, deposit certificates, trust certificates,
custodial receipts or deposit substitute instruments, trading
orders, transaction tickets and confirmations of sale or
investments and money marked instruments; and
(4) other similar instruments where title thereto passes
to another by endorsement, assignment or delivery.
“Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission or series
or combination thereof involving or having direct relation
to the following:
Kidnapping for ransom R.A 9165
R.A. No. 3019 Plunder under R.A. No. 7080
Robbery and extortion Jueteng and masiao
Piracy on the high seas Qualified theft
Swindling Smuggling
R.A. No. 8792 Hijacking, destructive arson
Fraudulent practices under the Felonies and offense of a similar
Securities Regulation Code nature under the penal laws of other
countries
Money Laundering Offense. — Money laundering is a
crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as
herein defined are transacted, thereby making them appear
to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed
by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or

property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds of
any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said
monetary instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or
property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or
property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed
with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to
do so.
(ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies,
common trust funds, pre-need companies and other similar
entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations, money
changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer
companies and other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or otherwise
dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives
based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other
similar monetary instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission
REPUBLIC V. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS,
INC. (2006)
FACTS:
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) issued
freeze orders against various bank accounts of respondents
for activities relating to money laundering.
Accordingly, before the lapse of the period of
effectivity of its freeze orders, the AMLC filed with the
Court of Appeals (CA) various petitions for extension of
effectivity of its freeze orders.
REPUBLIC V. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS,
INC. (2006)
HELD:
R.A. 9194 transferred to the Court of Appeals the authority
to issue freeze orders from the Anti-Money Laundering
Council as well as to extend its effectivity. Prior to R.A.
9194, the AMLC had the authority to issue freeze orders of
bank accounts under investigation by itself. At present, the
AMLC needs to file a petition before the CA who will
issue the freeze order after determination of probable
cause.
REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT (2008)
FACTS:
The Republic filed a complaint in the RTC Manila for civil
forfeiture of assets (with urgent plea for issuance of
temporary restraining order [TRO] and/or writ of
preliminary injunction) against the bank deposits
maintained by Glasgow in CSBI.
REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT (2008)
HELD:
RA 9160, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations
lay down two conditions when applying for civil forfeiture:
(1) when there is a suspicious transaction report or a covered
transaction report deemed suspicious after investigation by the
AMLC and
(2) the court has, in a petition filed for the purpose, ordered the
seizure of any monetary instrument or property, in whole or in part,
directly or indirectly, related to said report.
For civil forfeiture cases in violation of R.A. 9160, the RTC is the
proper venue to file the complaint. The RTC may issue summons or
cause the publication as notice of petition against the defendant.
(IRR of R.A. 9160)
BANK SECRECY LAW
R.A. No. 1405
MANDATE (SEC. 2)
All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions in the Philippines including investments in
bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its
political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby
considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may
not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, except upon written
permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment,
or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where
the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of
the litigation.
PROHIBITED ACT (SEC. 3)
It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of

a banking institution to disclose to any person
other than those mentioned in Section two hereof
any information concerning said deposits.
EXCEPTION TO BANK SECRECY RULE
Bank deposits may be inquired, examined and looked into
in any of the following cases:
1. Written permission of depositor;
2. Impeachment cases;
3. Court order in bribery and dereliction of duty cases

against public officials;
4. Deposit is the subject of the litigation;
5. Anti-graft cases, as provided in the Anti-Graft Law; or
6. Deposit may be inquired into by the AMLC without a

court order.
ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT
R.A. No. 4200
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as dictaphone or dictagraph or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
2. Be a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the
next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word
secured either before or after the effective date of this Act
in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same
for any other person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any
other person; and

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
3. Willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or
cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in
the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the
following section or of any order issued thereunder, or
aids, permits or cause such violation.
EXCEPTIONS
Nothing is this Act shall render it unlawful or punishable
for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in cases involving the crimes of:
 Treason
 Espionage
 Mutiny in the high seas
 Provoking war and disloyalty in case war
 Piracy
EXCEPTIONS
 Kidnapping
 Rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion
 Violations of CA 616, punishing espionage and
other offenses against national security; and
 Sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to
sedition.
GANAAN V. IAC (1986)
FACTS:
Accused Ganaan overheard a telephone conversation and
offered such conversation as evidence.
ISSUE:
Is an extension telephone among the prohibited devices
under the Anti-Wiretapping Act?
GANAAN V. IAC (1986)
HELD:
No. The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a
"device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly
overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication.
There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap
or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement.

An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category
as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in
Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line.
The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that
purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
RAMIREZ V. CA (248 SCRA 590)
FACTS:
Ramirez filed a complaint for damages against Garcia
alleging that the latter vexed and humiliated her during a
conversation. She recorded the conversation secretly and
introduced as evidence a verbatim transcript of the said
recording. Accordingly, Ramirez was charged of violating
the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
RAMIREZ V. CA (248 SCRA 590)
HELD:
The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
sought to be penalized ought to be a party other than or
different from those involved in the private
communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the
use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, even a person
privy to a communication who records his private
conversation with another without the knowledge of the
latter will qualify as a violator under this provision of
R.A. 4200.
DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012
R.A. No. 10173
consent refers to any freely given, specific, informed
indication of will, whereby the data subject agrees to the
collection and processing of his or her personal sensitive
personal, or privileged information. Consent shall be
evidence by written, electronic or recorded means.
data subject refers to any individual whose personal,

sensitive personal, or privileged information is processed
data processing systems refers to the structure and
procedure by which personal data is collected and further
processed in an information and communications system or
relevant filing system, including the purpose and intended
output of the processing;
personal data refers to all types of personal information

personal information refers to any information, whether
recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity
of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and
directly ascertained by the entity holding the information,
or when put together with other information would directly
and certainly identify an individual.
personal information controller refers to a natural or
juridical person, or any other body who controls the
processing of personal data, or instructs another to process
personal data on its behalf.
sensitive personal information refers to personal
information:
 About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status,
age, color, and religious, philosophical or political

affiliations;
 About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual
life of a person, or to any proceeding for any offense

committed or alleged to have been committed by such
person, the disposal of such proceedings, or the sentence
of any court in such proceedings;
 Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual
which includes, but not limited to, social security
numbers, previous or current health records, licenses or
its denials, suspension or revocation, and tax returns; and

 Specifically established by an executive order or an act of
Congress to be kept classified.
RIGHTS OF A DATA SUBJECT
SEC. 34, IRR OF R.A. NO. 10173
1. right to be informed;
2. right to object;
3. right to access;
4. right to rectification;
5. right to erase or block;
6. right to damages; and
7. right to data portability.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Punishable Act Min Jail Maximum Minimum Maximum
Term Jail Term Fine Fine
Unauthorized processing
Personal information 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00
Sensitive personal 3 years 6 years P500,000.00 P4,000,000.00

information
Access due to negligence
Personal information 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00

information
Improper disposal
Personal information 6 months 2 years P100,000.00 P500,000.00
Sensitive personal 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

information
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Punishable Act Min Jail Max Jail Min. Fine Max Fine
Term Term
Processing for Unauthorized

Purposes
Personal information 1 year & 6 5 years P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

months

information
Intentional Breach 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00
Concealment of security breach 1 year & 6 5 years P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

months
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Punishable Act Min Jail Max Jail Min. Fine Max Fine
Term Term
Malicious Disclosure 1 year & 6 5 years P500,000 P1,000,000

months
Unauthorized Disclosure
Personal information 1 year 3 years P500,000 P1,000,000
Sensitive personal 3 years 5 years P500,000 P2,000,000

information
Combination of Acts 3 years 6 years P1,000,000 P5,000,000
Large Scale Maximum penalty in corresponding scale of penalties

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951
(AMENDMENTS TO THE
REVISED PENAL CODE)
SIGNED INTO LAW ON 29 AUGUST 2017.
PERTINENT AMENDMENTS
 Light felonies as defined under Article 9 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) are: (a) infractions of law or the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor; or
(b) fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) or
both is provided.
SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES UNDER ARTICLE 26
OF THE RPC WAS REVISED AS FOLLOWS:
Under R.A. No. 10951

Penalty Under old RPC

If it exceeds Php1,200,000.00
Afflictive If it exceeds Php6,000.00

Php40,000.00 to
Correctional Php200.00 to Php6,000.00 Php1,200,000.00

Light Less than Php200.00 Less than Php40,000.00

PENALTIES FOR ROBBERY UNDER
ARTICLES 299 AND 302 OF THE RPC
Article Felony Under old RPC Under R.A. No. 10951

299 Robbery in an Any armed person who shall Any armed person who shall
inhabited house or commit robbery in an inhabited commit robbery in an inhabited
public building or house or public building or house or public building or edifice
edifice devoted to edifice devoted to religious devoted to religious worship, shall
worship. worship, shall be punished by be punished by reclusion temporal,
reclusion temporal, if the value if the value of the property taken
of the property taken shall shall exceed Php50,000.00 x x x
exceed Php250.00 x x x

When the offenders do not When the offenders do not carry

carry arms, and the value of the arms, and the value of the property
property taken exceeds taken exceeds Php50,000.00, the
Php250.00, the penalty next penalty next lower in degree shall
lower in degree shall be be imposed.
imposed.
The same rule shall be applied The same rule shall be applied when
when the offenders are armed, the offenders are armed, but the
but the value of the property value of the property taken does not
taken does not exceed exceed Php50,000.00.
Php250.00.
When said offenders do not When said offenders do not carry
carry arms and the value of the arms and the value of the property
property taken does not exceed taken does not exceed
Php250.00, they shall suffer the Php50,000.00, they shall suffer
penalty prescribed in the two the penalty prescribed in the two
next preceding paragraphs, in (2) next preceding paragraphs, in
its minimum period. its minimum period.

302 Robbery in an Any robbery committed in an Any robbery committed in an
uninhabited uninhabited place or in a building uninhabited place or in a
place or in a other than those mentioned in the building other than those
private building. first paragraph of Article 299, if the mentioned in the first
value of the property taken exceeds paragraph of Article 299, if
250 pesos, shall be punished by the value of the property taken
prision correccional if any of the exceeds Php50,000.00 shall be
following circumstances is present x punished by prisión
xx correccional in its medium
and maximum periods x x x
When the value of the property takes When the value of the
does not exceed Php250.00, the property taken does not
penalty next lower in degree shall be exceed Php50,000.00, the
imposed. penalty next lower in degree
shall be imposed.

PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER
ARTICLE 309 OF THE RPC
Penalty Value of Property under Old Value of Property under R.A.
RPC No. 10951

Prision mayor in its minimum More than Php12,000.00 but More than Php1,200,000.00 but
and medium periods does not exceed Php22,000.00 does not exceed
Php2,200,000.00

If the value of the thing stolen If the value of the thing stolen
exceeds Php22,000.00 amount exceeds Php2,200,000.00, the
the penalty shall be the penalty shall be the maximum
maximum period of prision period of prision mayor, and
mayor, and one year for each one (1) year for each additional
additional Php10,000.00, but Php1,000,000.00, but the total
the total of the penalty which of the penalty which may be
may be imposed shall not imposed shall not exceed 20
exceed 20 years. years

PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER
Prision correccional in its More than Php6,000.00 but More than Php600,000.00 but
medium and maximum periods does not exceed does not exceed
Php12,000.00. Php1,200,00.00
Prision correccional in its More than Php200.00 but does More than Php20,000.00 but
minimum and medium periods not exceed Php6,000.00. does not exceed
Php600,000.00
Arresto mayor in its medium Over Php50.00 but does not over Php5,000.00 but does
period to prision correccional exceed Php200.00. not exceed Php20,000.00
in its minimum period

Arresto mayor to its full extent Over Php5.00 but does not Over Php500.00 but does not
exceed Php50.00 exceed Php5,000.00
Arresto mayor in its minimum Does not exceed Php5.00 Does not exceed Php500.00
and medium periods

Penalty Value of Property under Old Value of Property under R.A. No.
RPC 10951

Arresto menor or If the theft is committed under the
a fine not circumstances enumerated in
exceeding 200 paragraph 3 of the next preceding
pesos article and the value of the thing
stolen does not exceed Php5.00. If
such value exceeds said amount, the
provision of any of the five
preceding subdivisions shall be made
applicable.

Arresto menor or If the theft is committed under the
a fine not circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of
exceeding the next preceding article and the value of
Php20,000.00 the thing stolen does not exceed Php500.00.
If such value exceeds said amount, the
provisions of any of the five preceding
subdivisions shall be made applicable.

Arresto menor in When the value of the thing stolen is
its minimum not over Php5.00, and the offender
period or a fine shall have acted under the impulse of
not exceeding hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of
Php50.00 earning a livelihood for the support
of himself or his family.

Arresto menor in its minimum period or a When the value of the thing stolen is not
fine of not exceeding Php5,000.00 over Php500.00, and the offender shall
have acted under the impulse of hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of earning a
livelihood for the support of himself or his
family.
PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION
UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC
Penalty Value of Property under Value of Property under
Old RPC R.A. No. 10951

Prisión correccional in its does not exceed does not exceed

medium and maximum Php200.00 Php40,000.00
periods

Prisión mayor in its more than Php200.00 but more than Php40,000.00
minimum and medium does not exceed but does not exceed
periods Php6,000.00. Php1,200,000.00


Prision mayor in its more than Php6,000.00 more than

maximum period to but is less than Php1,200,000.00 but
reclusion temporal in Php12,000.00 does not exceed
its minimum period Php2,400,000.00
Reclusion temporal in its more than Php12,000.00 more than

medium and maximum but is less than Php2,400,000.00 but
periods Php20,000.00 does not exceed
Php4,400,000.00

Reclusion temporal in its more than

maximum period Php4,400,000.00 but
does not exceed Eight
million Php8,800,000.00.
Reclusion perpetua exceeds Php20,000.00 exceeds Php8,800,000.00

PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER
Penalty Value of Property under Old RPC Value of Property under
R.A. No. 10951

Prision correccional in Over Php12,000.00 but does not over Php2,400,000.00 but
its maximum period exceed Php22,000.00 does not exceed Four
to prision mayor in its million Php4,400,000.00
minimum period
If such amount exceeds If such amount exceeds

Php22,000.00, the penalty Php4,400,000.00, the
provided in this paragraph shall penalty provided in this
be imposed in its maximum paragraph shall be
period, adding one year for each imposed in its maximum
additional 10,000 pesos; but the period, adding one year
total penalty which may be for each additional
imposed shall not exceed 20 Php2,000,000.00; but the
years. total penalty which may
be imposed shall not
exceed 20 years.
PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER

Prision correccional in its Over Php6,000.00 but Over Php1,200,000.00
minimum and medium does not exceed but does not exceed
periods Php12,000.00 Php2,400,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Over Php200.00 but Over Php40,000.00 but

maximum period to does not exceed does not exceed
prision correccional in its Php6,000.00 Php1,200,000.00
minimum period
Arresto mayor in its Does not exceed Does not exceed

maximum period Php200.00 Php40,000.00
THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE
FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Treason (Art. 114);
 Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
 Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the

service of those legally obtained (Art. 129);
 Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat,
rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136);
 Sedition (Art. 140);
 Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
 Inciting to sedition (Art. 142)

THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE FOLLOWING
CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10951:
 Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and

similar bodies (Art. 143);
 Disturbance of proceedings (Art. 144);
 Illegal associations (Art. 147);
 Direct assaults (Art. 148);
 Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
 Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its

committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
divisions (Art. 150);
 Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or

the agents of such person (Art. 151);
 Tumults and other disturbances of public order;
tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause
disturbance (Art. 153);
 Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful
detainer (Art 154);
 Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);
 Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art.

163);
 Mutilation of coins; importation and utterance of
mutilated coins (art. 164);
 Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents

payable to bearer; importing and uttering such false or
forged notes and documents (Art. 166);
 Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not
payable to bearer (Art. 167);
 Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);
 Falsification by public officer or employee or notary or

ecclesiastic minister (Art.171);
 Falsification by private individual and use of falsified
documents (Art. 172);
 False medical certificates, false certificates of merits or

service, etc. (Art. 174);
 Manufacturing and possession of instruments or
implements for falsification (Art. 176);
 Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art.
178);
 False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);
 False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);
 False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
 Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or

merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals
or their alloys (Art. 187);
 Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions

and indecent shows (Art. 201);
 Prostitutes (Art. 202);
 Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor (Art. 209);
 Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213);
 Prohibited transactions (Art. 215);
 Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer (Art.

216);
 Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217);
 Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art.

218);
 Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts
before leaving the country (Art. 219);
 Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
(Art. 221);
 Removal, concealment, or destruction of documents
(Art. 226);
 Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);
 Opening of closed documents (Art. 228);

 Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229);

 Public officer revealing secrets of private individuals
(Art. 230);
 Open disobedience (Art. 231);
 Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
 Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234);
 Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
 Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);
 Prolonging performance of duties and powers (Art. 237);
 Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239);
 Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242);

 Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial

authority (Art. 243);
 Unlawful appointments (Art. 244);
 Abortion practiced by a physician (Art. 259);
 Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);
 Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. 266);
 Slight illegal detention (Art. 268);
 Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);
 Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271);

 Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);

 Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his
custody: indifference of parents (Art. 277);
 Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);
 Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280);
 Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);
 Grave threats (Art. 282);
 Other light threats (Art. 285);
 Grave coercions (Art. 286);
 Light coercions (Art. 287);
 Other similar coercions (Art. 288);

 Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination

of capital or labor through violence or threats (Art. 289);
 Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence
(Art. 290);
 Revealing secrets with abuse of office (Art. 291);
 Revelation of industrial secrets (Art. 292);
 Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or

edifice devoted to worship (Art. 299);
 Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building

(Art. 302);
 Theft (Art. 309);
 Theft of the property of the National Library and

National Museum (Art. 311);
 Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights
in property (Art. 312);
 Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
 Swindling (Art. 315);
 Other deceits (Art. 318);
 Special cases of malicious mischief (Art. 328);

 Other mischiefs (Art. 329);

 Destroying or damaging statues (Art. 331);
 Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another

and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate child
(Art. 347);
 Libel by means of writing or similar means (Art. 355);
 Threatening to public and offer to prevent such

publication for a compensation (Art. 356);
 Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of

official proceedings (Art. 357);
 Slander (Art. 358);
 Slander by deed (Art. 359);
 Intriguing against honor (Art. 364); and
 Imprudence and negligence (Art. 365).

Thank You!

2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL

1. Anti-Arson Law (P.D. No. 1613);

2. New Anti-Carnapping Act (R.A. No. 10883);

3. Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610, as amended);

4. Anti-Child Pornography Law (R.A. No. 9755);

5. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

6. Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612);

7. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as

8. Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049);

9. Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6235);

10. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. No. 532);

11. Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended);

12. Anti-Sexual Harassment (R.A. No. 7877);

13. Anti-Torture Act (R.A. No. 9745)

14. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. No. 9208);

15. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act (R.A.

16. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.Blg. 22);

17. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165, as

18. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. No. 1866, as

19. Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as

20. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344, as

21. Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829);

22. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended);

23. Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115);

24. Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175)

25. Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) – defining acts of

26. Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

i. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of

ii. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the

iii. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane,

iv. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any

v. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of

i. When the arson is committed by 2 or more persons, regardless

ii. When any person shall burn:

a. Any building used as offices of the Government or any of its

a. If committed with intent to gain;

a. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the

b. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are

c. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or

d. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than

e. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance more

f. If shortly before the fire a substantial portion of the effects insured

g. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made

Conspiracy to commit arson is punishable by prision

NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH

Thus, homicide is absorbed.

 R.A. No. 10883, otherwise known as the “New Anti-

 Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle

 Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of

 Any public official or employee who directly commits the

 Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other

 All motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not

5. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle

 Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the altering,

 Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine

7. Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates (Section 16, in

 Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from a

 If the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis

 Any person engaged in the importation, distribution, and

 Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the

 In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats,

 The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a report

 The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles in