REVIEW OF TOP 25 ISSUES/CONCEPTS IN CRIMINAL LAW

(1979(1979-2007 BAR EXAMINATIONS) by: Prof. RAMON S. ESGUERRA

I. PROXIMATE CAUSE

Definition:
the cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

Article 4
Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

Death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted when:
1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health. 2. That the death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted. 3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.

The felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
a. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Article 4
Par. 2 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

CASE/S: 

Quinto vs. Andres (2005):  

Proximate Cause is characterized by a relationship of cause and effect , the cause being the felonious act of the offender and the effect is the resulting injury or death of the victim. The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the injury when:
An active force intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury;  The injury resulted from the victim s intentional act. 

II. STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME

Article 6
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. ² Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

A. ATTEMPTED
there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony, directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal Code).

Elements: 

The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; The offender s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.   

The commission of the felony is deemed commenced directly by overt acts when: 


there be external acts; such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
Internal acts such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime external acts cover a) preparatory and b) acts of execution Preparatory acts tending toward the crime; ordinarily not punishable unless specifically provided for; these acts do not yet constitute even the first stage of the acts of execution; intent not yet disclosed

ACTS OF EXECUTION
acts directly connected to the intended crime; varies with the crime and is punishable under the code; usually overt acts with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense

OVERT ACT
some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural cause, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. Drawing or trying to draw a pistol or raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act of homicide.

INDETERMINATE OFFENSE It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission.

SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASES OF A FELONY 1. SUBJECTIVE PHASE - That portion of the execution of the crime starting from the point where the offender still has control over his acts. - If the offender reaches the point where he has no more control over is acts, the subjective phase is passed. - If it is already passed but the felony is not produced, it is frustrated.

2. OBJECTIVE PHASE -the result of the acts of execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime. - If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is consummated felony.

B. FRUSTRATED
it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Elements:   



The offender performs all the acts of execution; All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; But the felony is not produced; By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

C. CONSUMMATED
a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its

Requisites: 


All the acts of execution are present The result is achieved. Every crime has its own elements which must all be present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of law.

CASE/S
People v. Caballero (2003):
A crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the consummation of the crime. The offender has passed the subjective phase in the commission of the crime. Subjectively, the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while passing through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance. 

People vs. Aca-ac (2001): Aca

There is no crime of frustrated rape. Rape is attempted when, despite commencing the act of penetration, such is not completed due to forces other than the offender s own spontaneous desistance. Once there is penetration of the female organ, no matter how slight, rape is deemed consummated. 

Valenzuela vs. People (2007):  

There is no crime of frustrated theft. Once theft. there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated. Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft under the RPC. Adiao/Dino cases are expressly overturned.

III. CONSPIRACY

Article 8
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. ² Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

First requisite resolution

Participation in the criminal

Two or more persons are said to have participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime. It is well settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged.

A conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In order to hold an accused guilty as coprincipal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established that he performed an over act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to his coconspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspiracy.

When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for the act performed by him. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. There is collective criminal responsibility.

Second requisite that the culprits carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution, by acts which directly tended to the same end. The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its execution. The acts of each offender must directly tend to the same end.

CASE/S: 

People vs. Bello (2004):  

Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind as it involves the meeting of the minds and intent of the malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not essential to establish it. The existence of the assent of minds of the co-conspirators may be inferred cofrom proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of the complete plan to commit the crime. 

People vs. Ramos (2004):  

In conspiracy, there must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the commission of the offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement or materially through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way. way. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. committed. 

People vs. Comadre (2004):   

Conspiracy is never presumed. Neither is it based on presumptions and conjectures. It must be proven by POSITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the crime scene does not make him a co-conspirator cosince conspiracy transcends companionship.

IV. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Article 11
Justifying circumstances. ² The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Par. 1

SELF-DEFENSE

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law. REQUISITES: There must be unlawful aggression This is an indispensable requisite. Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.

PERIL TO ONE S LIFE 1. ACTUAL that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence. 2. IMMINENT- that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late. A slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. Slapping it is a serious personal attack.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circumstances particularly the time and location where the aggression took place. The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.

The reasonableness of the means used will depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon used by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the assault.

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself The third requisite of self-defense is present: 1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself; or 2. When, even if a provocation was giver, it was not sufficient; or

3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or 4. When, even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression. 

Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS): 

refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. abuse. (Sec. 3[c]). Under Section 28 of Republic Act 9262, Victim-survivors who are found by the Victimcourts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability, notwithstanding the absence liability, of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the selfRevised Penal Code.  

People vs Genosa (2004): 

The Battered Woman Syndrome is characterized by a cycle of violence , which has three phases: 

TENSIONTENSION-BUILDING PHASE: minor PHASE: battering, slight abuse occurs; woman s placatory behavior legitimizes the attacker s belief that he has a right to abuse her. ACUTEACUTE-BATTERING INCIDENT: serious and INCIDENT: brutal abuse begins; woman develops sense of detachment from the attacks. TRANQUIL/NONTRANQUIL/NON-VIOLENT PHASE: batterer PHASE: shows tender and nurturing behavior, promises never to hurt the woman again. She believes he s changed.  

Par. 2

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED 1. Spouse 2. Ascendants 3. Descendants 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. 5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brothers or sisters-inlaw. Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are within the third civil degree; and first cousins are within the fourth civil degree.

REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES: Unlawful aggression; Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense. Ex. The sons of A honestly believed that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was their father who attacked B. If they killed B under such circumstance, they are justified.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; The gauge of reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as against one s self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the defender).

In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein. There is still legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation.

Par. 3

DEFENSE OF STRANGER

REQUISITES: Unlawful aggression; Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Who are deemed strangers? Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3. BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.

Par. 4

AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER EVIL

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another. DAMAGE TO ANOTHER the term covers injury to persons and damage to property.

REQUISITES: That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
- The evil must actually exist and not merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future.

That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
- The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor. The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor.

That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
General rule: No liability in justifying circumstances because there is no crime. Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this paragraph. It is borne by the persons benefited by the act. They shall be liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have been received.

Par. 5 FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE.
REQUISITES: 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Par. 6 OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
REQUISITES: 1. That an order has been issued by a superior. 2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.

3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable. The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.

CASE/S 

Marzonia vs. People (2006): 

Using a penknife to mortally wound an assailant is not a reasonable way of repelling unlawful aggression committed by means of fist blow attacks.

People vs. Dijan (2002):  

The number of wounds sustained by the victim would itself likewise negate Dijan s claim of defense of a stranger. stranger. Certainly, the nature and number of wounds inflicted by an accused on the victim should be significant indicia in determining the plausibility of the defense plea. plea. 

People vs. Enfectana (2002): vs. 2002)  Once self-defense is raised, the burden of selfproving the elements of the claim shifts to him who invokes it. it. Ty vs. People (2004):  If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury is not applicable.  Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor.  

Mamagun vs. People (2007):  To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty, without more, do not completely justify the petitioner police officer s firing the fatal gunshot at the victim. victim.  However, in the absence of the equally necessary justifying circumstance that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty, there can only be incomplete justification, a privileged mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code. Code.

V. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Exempting circumstances (nonimputability) are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the condition which makes the act voluntary or negligent. The exemption from punishment is based on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime, although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arise.

Article 12
Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. ² the following are exempt from criminal liability: 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.* 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.* When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - *Modified by Republic Act No. 9344 (2006)

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.

Par. 1 AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON, UNLESS THE LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A LUCID INTERVAL IMBECILE - one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 years of age. one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. - exempt in all cases from criminal liability

INSANE
- there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act but capable of having lucid intervals. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence and thus, not exempt from criminal liability.

Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because a feeble-minded person can distinguish right from wrong. Cases covered under this article: Dementia praecox Kleptomania if found by a competent psychiatrist as irresistible Epilepsy Somnambulism sleep-walking Malignant malaria which affects the nervous system

Par. 2. A PERSON UNDER (FIFTEEN) YEARS OF AGE, as amended by RA 9344.
FIFTEEN YEARS OR LESS presumed to be incapable of committing a crime, and this presumption is an absolute one which cannot be overcome by any evidence. Senility, although said to be the second childhood, is only mitigating.

3 PERIODS OF THE

LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING
a. 15 years and below: AGE OF ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY b. between 15 and 18 years: AGE OF CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY c. 18 or over to 70 years AGE OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY

Par. 3. A PERSON OVER (15) YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER (18) UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF (R.A. 9344) A minor over 15 and under 18 years of age must have acted without discernment to be fully exempted from criminal liability. DISCERNMENT means the mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the nature and consequences of his act (Llave v. People, 2006)

DISCERNMENT

INTENT

Moral significance Desired act of the that a person person ascribes to the said act Discernment may be shown by 1. 2. the manner the crime was committed; or the conduct of the offender after its commission.

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006
(Republic Act No. 9344) 

New Rules on Criminal Liability(Sec. 6) 

Age

Criminally Liable? NO (Intervention)

1.15 years old and below 2.Over 15 years old and under 18 years old 

W/o Discernment W/ Discernment 

NO (Intervention) Yes (Diversion)

On Presumption of Minority (Sec. 7) (Sec.
- - Children in conflict with the law are presumed minors. . Any person who challenges this presumption must file a separate, summary action for determination of age with the Family Court before the filing of the Information. Information.

On Suspension of Sentence (Sec. 5) (Sec.
- - AUTOMATIC, as long as the defendant was a minor AT THE TIME OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE. .

On Probation (Sec. 42) (Sec. 42)
-

- Minors can apply for probation ANYTIME. Hence, they ANYTIME. can appeal first and file for probation later. The waiver later. rule under Sec. 1 of PD 968 does not apply to them. Sec. them. 

INTERVENTION PROCEEDINGS (sec. 4(l)): 

A series of activities which are designed to address issued that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social psychowell-being. well-  

DIVERSION PROCEEDINGS (sec. 4(j)): 

An alternative, child-appropriate process of childdetermining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court proceedings. proceedings. 

If the imposable penalty for the crime committed six (6) years or less imprisonment, the law enforcement officer or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation or adopt indigenous modes of conflict resolution in accordance with the best interest of the child. (Sec. 23) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court. court.  

On Exemption From Prosecution:
The following offenses cannot be committed by children: 
   

Prostitution (Sec. 58); Vagrancy (Sec. 58); Mendicancy (Sec. 58); Use of Rugby (Sec. 58); and Perjury, concealment or misrepresentation relating to previous conviction as a minor (Sec. 5(l)).

Par. 4. ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT. ELEMENTS: A person performing a lawful act; With due care; He causes an injury to another by mere accident; Without fault or intention of causing it.

ACCIDENT something that happen outside the sway of our will and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. - If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.

Par 5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
ELEMENTS:

That the compulsion is by means of physical force. That the physical force must be irresistible. That the physical force must come from a third person

Before force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime. The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion or obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous force coming from a third person.

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.

Par 6. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY. ELEMENTS: That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit; That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

REQUISITES:
a. existence of an uncontrollable fear; b. the fear must be real and imminent; and c. the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear.

A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

Par. 7 ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE. ELEMENTS: That an act is required by law to be done; That a person fails to perform such act; That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

CASE/S 

People vs. Madarang (2000): 

Capacity to act is presumed. A person who invokes an insanity defense has the burden of proving that he was completely deprived of intelligence at the time of the attack. 

People vs. Agliday (2001): 

A shotgun equipped with a safety cannot accidentally misfire. Herein, it is clear that the accused shot his son on purpose, taking into account the nature of his gun and the range within which the boy was shot.

VI. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.

They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by: motivating power itself; the place of commission; the means and ways employed; the time; or the personal circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.

Article 14
Aggravating circumstances. ² The following are aggravating circumstances: 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. 6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

10. That the offender has been previously punished of an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 5438, approved Sept. 9, 1968). 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. GENERIC Those that can generally apply to all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except by means of motor vehicles . 2. SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particular crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21.

3. QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of the crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying AC which qualify the killing of person to murder. 4. INHERENT Those that must accompany the commission of the crime.

GENERIC AC

QUALIFYING AC

The effect of a generic AC, not offset by any mitigating circumstance, is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the MAXIMUM PERIOD.

The effect of a qualifying AC is not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive name but also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crime.

GENERIC AC A generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance.

QUALIFYING AC A qualifying AC cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

According to the new rules, generic and qualifying aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order to be appreciated.

Par. 1. - THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
The public officer must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose. The essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry, did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?

When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official functions and does acts that are not connected with the duties of his office, he should be punished as a private individual without this AC. Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is proven that he has failed in his duties as such public officer, this circumstance would warrant the aggravation of his penalty.

Par. 2. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. REQUISITES: a. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of his functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed.

b.

c.

The offender knows him to be a public authority. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.

d.

PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN AUTHORITY
A public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws. The councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain etc. are persons in authority. A school teacher, town municipal health officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now considered a person in authority. Par. 2 is not applicable if committed din the presence of an agent only such as a police officer.

AGENT
A subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio policemen, councilmen, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

Par. 3. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED (1) WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS (a) RANK, (b) AGE, OR (c) SEX, OR (2) THAT IS BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION.

Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, which can be considered single or together. If all the 4 circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only. This circumstance (rank, age or sex) may be taken into account only in crimes against person or honor. There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party.

(1)

WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE REPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT: OF THE RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

a.

ex. An attempt upon the life of a general of the Philippine Army is committed in disregard of his rank.

b.

OF THE AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY ex. When the aggressor is 45 years old and the victim was an octogenarian. It is not proper to consider disregard of old age in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property.

c.

OF THE SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY This refers to the female sex, not to the male sex

(2)

THAT BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

DWELLING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR REST AND COMFORT. This is considered an AC primarily because of the sanctity of privacy, the law accords to human abode. Also, in certain cases, there is an abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender by opening the door to him.

The evidence must show clearly that the defendant entered the house of the deceased to attack him. The offended party must not give provocation. If the provocation did not take place in the house, dwelling may be considered as an AC. Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house.

Par. 4. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS. 1. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

REQUISITES: a. That the offended party had trusted the offender.

b.

That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

c.

The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and personal. It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by conversion or misappropriation and qualified seduction.

2.

OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

The ungratefulness must be obvious manifest and clear.

Par. 5. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES, OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. If it is the Malacañang palace or a church, it is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or religious functions are being held.

The President need not be in the palace. His presence alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough to constitute the AC. It also applies even if he is not engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place where the crime was committed. Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he entered the place.

Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN THE NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE. WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED TOGETHER IN THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND.

These 3 circumstances may be considered separately when their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.

Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating: When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

(1) NIGHTTIME - The commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime. - The offense must be actually committed in the darkness of the night. When the place is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.

(2) UNINHABITED PLACE - TEST: WON in the place of the commission of the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.

(3) BAND - Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

Par. 7. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE. The reason for the existence of this AC is found in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them. The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune.

OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
refers to other conditions of distress similar to conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake or epidemic.

Par. 8. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY. REQUISITES: That the armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.

Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. REQUISITES: That the offender is on trial for an offense; That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;

That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

Par. 10. - THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY.
REQUISITES: That the accused is on trial for an offense;

That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and That he is convicted of the new offense.

Par. 11. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE. When this AC is present, there must be 2 or more principals, the one who gives or offers the price or promise and the one who accepts it, both of whom are principals to the former, because he directly induces the latter to commit the crime, and the latter because he commits it. When this AC is present, it affects not only the person who received the price or reward, but also the person who gave it.

Par. 12. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.

Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature of the offense. When another AC already qualifies the crime, any of these AC s shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstance only.

Par. 13. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT PREMEDITATION. Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

REQUISITIES: The time when the offender determined to commit the crime; An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and When the crime was carefully planned by the offenders; When the offenders previously prepared the means which they considered adequate to carry it out.

A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow is conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his conscience and better judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme.

Par. 14. - THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED. CRAFT involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused. It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime. FRAUD insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design.

DISTINCTION: When there is a DIRECT INDUCEMENT by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the accused done in order NOT TO AROUSE THE SUSPICION of the victim constitutes craft. DISGUISE resorting to any device to conceal identity.

Par. 15. - THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR (2) MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE. (1) SUPERIOR STRENGTH

To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.

(2)

MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons and sometimes against person and property, such as robbery with physical injuries or homicide. This AC is absorbed in treachery.

RULES REGARDING TREACHERY Applicable only to crimes against persons. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.

ATTACKS SHOWN INTENTION TO ELIMINATE RISK: Victim asleep Victim half-awake or just awakened Victim grappling or being held. Attacked from behind

ADDITIONAL RULES: a. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery must be present in the BEGINNING of the assault. b. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present AT THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.

Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT. IGNOMINY it is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace ad obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the effects of the crime MORE HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.

Par. 18. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY. THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN. There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.

There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken and thereafter the accused made an entry thru the broken door. The breaking of the door is covered by paragraph 19.

Par. 19 - THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN. To be considered as an AC, breaking the door must be utilized as a means to the commission of the crime. It is only aggravating in cases where the offender resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the house. If the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not aggravating.

Par. 20. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR (2) BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS. (AS AMENDED BY RA 5438). (1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE

(2)

BY MEANS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

It is aggravating where the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and if facilitating their escape. or other similar means the expression should be understood as referring to MOTORIZED vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.

Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSIONS. CRUELTY For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making his victim suffer.

REQUISITES: 1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong; That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

2.

CASE/S: 

People vs. Antonio (2002): 

Every Complaint or Information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. This rule may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-established rule that wellstatutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. 

People vs. Mendoza (2000): 

Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its presence served to characterize the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot be offset by voluntary surrender. 

People vs. Villamor (2002): 

The fact that accused-appellant is a accusedpoliceman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime. 

People vs. Taboga (2002): 

Anent the circumstance of age, there must be a showing that the malefactor deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim. Neither could disregard of respect due to sex be appreciated if the offender did not manifest any intention to offend or disregard the sex of the victim. 

People vs. Tano (2000): 

Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case because the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure, the twolower floor being used as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence. 

People vs. Silva (2000): 

By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance, however, it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture. 

People vs. Molina (2000): 

To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentences rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such AC credence if the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism. 

People vs. Cajara (2000): 

Reiteracion or habituality is present when the accused has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense or for two or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty. 

People vs. Mondijar (2002): 

For the circumstance of evident premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution must present clear and positive evidence of the planning and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of the crime. 

People vs. Rendaje (2000): 

To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the offender's deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of execution. 

People vs. Sansaet (2002): 

Mere superiority in number, even assuming it to be a fact, would not necessarily indicate the attendance of abuse of superior strength. The prosecution should still prove that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked 

People vs. Catian (2002): 

For cruelty to exist, there must be proof showing that the accused delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the consummation of the criminal act.

VII. ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Article 13
Mitigating circumstances. ² The following are mitigating circumstances; 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

CASE/S 

Romera vs. People (2004): 

If Sufficient provocation and passion or obfuscation are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as one mitigating circumstance. 

People vs. Callet (2002): 

The lack of "intent" to commit so grave a wrong is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. 

People vs. Dawaton (2002):  

While the accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with murder for which he had already entered a plea of not guilty. An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance because to be voluntary, the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged itself. 

People vs. Labeo (2002):  

For a person to be motivated by passion and obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to overcome reason and self-control. selfThere is passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to acts, a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. 

Davalos vs. People (2006): 

The return of the said misappropriated amount cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender considering that it took petitioner almost seven (7) years to return the amount.

VIII. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

When a single individual commits a crime, there is no difficulty in determining his participation in the commission thereof. But when 2 or more persons are involved, it is necessary to determine the participation of each.

Article 16
Who are criminally liable. ² The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices.

Article 17
Principals. ² The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

PAR. 1. PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION The principal by direct participation PERSONALLY TAKES PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT constituting the crime.

Two or more persons who took part in the commission of the crime are principals by direct participation, when the following requisites are present: a. That they participated in the criminal resolution That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.

b.

First requisite Participation in the criminal resolution
Two or more persons are said to have participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime. It is well settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged.

Second requisite that the culprits carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution, by acts which directly tended to the same end.
The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its execution.

PAR. 2.

PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION

2 WAYS OF BECOMING PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION 1. BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME a. By using IRRESISTIBLE FORCE b. By causing UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

2. BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME. a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise. b. By using words of command.

REQUISITES: 1.That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and a. A thoughtless expression without intention to produce the result is not an inducement to commit a crime. b. The inducement may be by acts of command, advice, or through influence, or agreement for consideration.

2.That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor. - The words of advice of the influence must have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation.

PAR. 3. PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION REQUISITES: 1.Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and

2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have been accomplished.

Article 18
Accomplices. ² Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

REQUISITES: 1.That there be community of design; that is,
knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; 2.That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and 3.That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice.

RULES:
The one who had the original criminal design is the person who committed the resulting crime. The accomplice, after concurring in the criminal purpose of the principal, cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts.

When the cooperation is by simultaneous act, the accomplice takes part while the crime is being committed by the principal by direct participation or immediately thereafter. The accomplice in crimes against persons does not inflict the more or most serious wounds.

Article 19
Accessories. ² Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3.

By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

The ACCESSORIES are not liable for light felonies because in the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories

SPECIFIC ACTS OF THE ACCESSORIES 1.BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME - The accessory must receive the property from the principal. He should not take it without the consent of the principal, or else, he is not an accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.

2.BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY. BODY OF THE CRIME corpus delicti which means that a specific offense was in fact committed by someone

3.BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME 2 CLASSES: a. Public officers who harbor conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public functions

REQUISITES: (1) The accessory is a public officer; (2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal; (3) The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions. (4) The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.

b. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. REQUISITES: (1) The accessory is a private person. (2) He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime.

(3) The crime committed by the principal is either: a. b. c. d. e. treason, parricide, murder, attempt against the life of the president, or that the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES:
a. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. b. But when light felonies are committed against persons or property, the are punishable even if they are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of the execution.

c. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies. d. Accessories are not liable for light felonies, even if they are committed against persons or property.

CASE/S 

People vs. Dacillo: 

Two or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct participation if the following are present: 1. they participated in the criminal resolution and 2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts directed towards the same end. 

People vs. Pilola (2003): 

To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (a) the community of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. 

People vs. Mariano (2000):  

The accused is the sister of the victim. As victim. such, their relationship exempts Ruby from criminal liability under Art. 20 of the Art. Revised Penal Code. Code. The reason for exemption is obvious; it is obvious; based on ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one's name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in the above-quoted abovearticle. article. Ruby Mariano is acquitted. acquitted.

IX. COMPLEX CRIMES

Article 48
Penalty for complex crimes. ² When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the more or most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. (As amended by Act No. 4000.)

Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2 crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE felonies must be the result of a SINGLE ACT, or an offense must be a NECESSARY MEANS FOR COMMITTING the other. In complex crimes, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. The offender has only one criminal intent. Even in the case where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is only one.

TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

COMPOUND CRIME REQUISITES: That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by the offender That the single acts produces (a) 2 or more grave felonies, or (b) one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies, or (c) two or more less grave felonies

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER REQUISITES: That at least two offenses are committed That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute.

PLURALITY OF CRIMES - consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared.

KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES 1. FORMAL OR IDEAL PLURALITY - There is but one criminal liability in this kind of plurality. - divided into 3 groups:
a.When the offender commits any of the complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of the Code. b. When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed. c. When the offender commits continued crimes.

2. REAL OR MATERIAL PLURALITY - There are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender. In such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he committed.

CASE/S 

People vs. Comadre (2004): 

The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a ³single criminal impulse´ which shows his lesser degree of perversity. 

Monteverde vs. People (2002): 

Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2) act; committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others). others).

X. DEATH PENALTY

Heinous Crimes Act
(Republic Act No. 7659) 

Death Penalty was MANDATORY: 
  



QUALIFIED BRIBERY: Officer Asks for a Bribe KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM KIDNAPPING: Victim is Raped, Tortured or Dehumanized RAPE: Victim becomes insane RAPE with HOMICIDE 

QUALIFIED RAPE:
1. Rapist a Family member;  2. In the Custody of Police/Military; Police/Military;  3. In view of family members; members;  4. Victim a Child of tender years (7 yrs); yrs);  5. Rapist has AIDS/ STD; STD;  6. Rapist took advantage of position in the PNP/AFP/CAFGU; PNP/AFP/CAFGU; 7. Permanent Physical mutilation or Disability resulted; 8. Pregnant Victim; 9. Victim is Mentally Disabled. 

DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES: DRUG1. Financiers in Drug Operations; 2. Drug Importer who used a Diplomatic Passport; Passport; 3. Drug Pushers who use Minors and Mentally Handicapped Persons as runners; runners; 4. Drug use proximate cause of victim s death; death; 5. Selling drugs to minors or within 100 meters from schools; schools; 6. Certain Quantities of dangerous drugs/controlled precursors; precursors; 7. Manufacture of Drugs in a Laboratory (with the presence or help of minors; within 100 minors; meters from schools, churches and residences; protected residences; by booby traps; concealed as legitimate business traps; operations; operations; employment of public official, doctor, chemical engineer or foreigner) 

Death Penalty MAY BE IMPOSED:  [RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH] 
          

Plunder Treason Qualified Piracy Qualified Bribery Parricide Murder Rape: Gang Rape Rape: Use of Deadly Weapon Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention Robbery with Violence and Intimidation Against Persons Destructive Arson, inc. those committed by a Arson, Syndicate Attempted or Frustrated RAPE with HOMICIDE

Anti-Death Penalty Law Anti(Republic Act No. 9346) 

On Imposition of the Death Penalty (Sec. 1):

RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the Death Penalty. Penalty. - In lieu of the Death Penalty, impose: impose:  1. Reclusion Perpetua, in offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and Code;  2. Life Imprisonment, in offenses punishable by Special Laws. (Sec. 2) Laws. (Sec. 

-

On Convicts currently on Death Row (Sec. 3): - Their sentences are commuted to Reclusion Perpetua. 

On Aggravating Circumstances 

In some offenses, the presence of mitigating circumstances will be of no effect. For example, in an offense punished by Reclusion Perpetua to Death, the proper penalty is now Reclusion Perpetua, regardless of any aggravating circumstances 

Effect of the Repeal of RA 8177  

The repeal merely covered the use of lethal injection in carrying out death sentences imposed. Hence, in the future, should Congress decide to lift the suspension on imposition of death sentences, other modes of execution may be availed of.

CASE/S 

People vs. Bon (2006):  

There is no material difference between imposition and application, for both terms embody the operation in law of the death penalty. Since Article 71 denominates death as an element in the graduated scale of penalties, there is no question that the operation of Article 71 involves the actual application of the death penalty as a means of determining the extent which a person s liberty is to be deprived. 

Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars the application of the death penalty, as well as expressly repeals all such statutory provisions requiring the application of the death penalty, such effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71. 

There is no basis to conclude that Rep. Act No. 9346 intended to retain the operative effects of the death penalty in the graduation of the other penalties in our penal laws. laws. 

People vs. Villanueva (2007):  

The Court stresses that even if the death penalty is not to be imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the award of damages under prevailing jurisprudence is not affected. This award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense.

XI. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (Republic Act No. 4103) 

Purpose: Uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent excessive deprivation of personal liberty. (Pp. vs. Ducosin, 59 PHIL 109) liberty. Application: MANDATORY, unless the accused is MANDATORY, expressly disqualified by the ISLAW (Pp. vs. Yu Lian, 40 OG 4205) Court must determine two penalties: MAXIMUM and penalties: MINIMUM terms.   

For purposes of ISLAW, use the term MINIMUM to refer to the duration of the sentence which the accused shall serve as a minimum, and MAXIMUM to refer to the maximum period that he may be held in jail. 

Revised Penal Code: Code: 

MINIMUM TERM One degree lower than penalty prescribed (Sec. 1);  Only privileged mitigating circumstances considered. MAXIMUM TERM Penalty prescribed, taking into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances (Art. 64, RPC).  

Special Laws: 

MINIMUM TERM prescribed;

Not less than the minimum 

MAXIMUM TERM Not more than the maximum prescribed;  No attendant circumstances considered. 

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 2):    

    

Convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment; Convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage; Convicted of piracy; Habitual delinquents (not recidivists); Those who escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; Those granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive and shall have violated the term thereof; Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; and Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like Destierro.

CASE/S 

People vs. Angeles (2002):  

In determining the penalty next lower in degree for purposes of the Minimum term, the same should be based on the penalty prescribed by the RPC without considering any modifying circumstance. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the Court and can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be subdivided. 

People vs. Asuela (2002):  

The provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) are not applicable to persons convicted of offenses punished with death or life imprisonment. Herein, the appellants were convicted of murder, punishable by Reclusion Perpetua to Death. As such, the ISL is not applicable.

[Relate this case to the Anti-Death Penalty Law] Anti-

XII. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Article 89
How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 2. By service of the sentence.

How is criminal liability extinguished? 1.TOTAL 2.PARTIAL Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically extinguish the civil liability.

Causes of extinction of criminal liability:
BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT - the death of the convict whether before or after final judgment extinguished criminal liability. - civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.

- death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguished his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely on the offense committed; except, the claim for civil liability survives if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts. - death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender.

BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE - crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is but the amount of his debt. When payment is made, the debt is extinguished. Service of sentence does not extinguish civil liability.

BY AMNESTY - amnesty is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense, and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a single individual, and is usually exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons, who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.

BY ABSOLUTE PARDON - It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the law that exempts the individual granted said pardon from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.

BY PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME - the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time.

BY PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY - the loss or forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time. Requisites: a)that there be final judgment b) that the period of time prescribed by law for its enforcement has elapsed.

BY THE MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN - applicable in the crimes of rape, seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness. Marriage must be made in good faith.

PROBATION LAW
(Presidential Decree No. 968) 

Probation : disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is RELEASED subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. (Sec. 3(a))  SUSPENDED SENTENCE After conviction and sentencing, a qualified defendant may APPLY FOR PROBATION within the period for perfecting an appeal. (Sec. 4)  APPEAL INCONSISTENT WITH PROBATION  APPLYING FOR PROBATION = WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL  See RA 9344 as regards probation of children in conflict with the law.  

When Granted:  Sentence imposes imprisonment or fine (Sec. 4)  Not available in case of Destierro Order Granting/Denying Probation  Not appealable (Sec. 4) Guidelines: Deny Probation When (Sec. 8)  Offender needs correctional treatment;  Undue risk he will commit another crime;  Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense   

Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9)    

Sentenced to a maximum term more than 6 yrs.; Crime committed against national security or public order; Previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than 1 mth 1 day and/or fine not less than P 200; Previously granted probation; 

Effectivity of Probation Order (Sec. 11) 

Upon the time of its issuance 

Mandatory Conditions (Sec. 10) Offender must present self to designated probation officer within 72 hrs. from receipt of Probation Order; Report to the Probation Officer at least once a month at the designated time and place; Optional Conditions (Sec. 10):  Any condition relative to rehabilitation (e.g. find employment, meet family responsibilities, etc.)  



Effect of Violating Mandatory Conditions (Sec. 15)  Court may issue Arrest Warrant;  Summary hearing conducted;  If serious violation proven, Probation will be revoked and the accused ordered to serve the original sentence. Final Discharge (Sec. 16)  After period of probation and upon recommendation of the Probation officer, Court may order a Discharge.  Discharge fully discharges accused from crim. liability. 

CASE/S 

Pablo vs. Castillo (2000):  

For purposes of probation, the term previous conviction in Sec. 9(c) of P.D. 869 refers to a conviction of any offense. The law does not qualify. Hence, previous conviction may cover a conviction for a crime that 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. understand. 

Lagrosa vs. People (2003):  

Generally, a person who appeals his conviction can no longer apply for probation. However, there is an exception to the general rule: 

A person who appeals his conviction for purposes of reducing the penalty to that which is within the probationable limit may still apply for probation. 

Determine 

what is being appealed:

FINDING OF GUILT? Or  MERE CORRECTNESS OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED? (Tolentino vs. CA)

XIII. FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

Article 171
Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. ² The penalty of prisión mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister

Elements
1.Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2.He takes advantage of his official position;

3.

He falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:

a.Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; b.Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;

d.Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; e.Altering true dates; f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;

g.Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or h.Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

4.

In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Article 172
Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. ² The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents

Acts punished 1.Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual; 2.Falsification of private document by any person; 3.Use of falsified document.

Elements under paragraph 1 1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; 2. He committed any act of falsification under Art 171; 3. The falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document or letter of exchange.

Four kinds of documents: (1) Public document in the execution of
which, a person in authority or notary public has taken part; (2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part; (3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any commercial law; and (4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part.

Private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.

Elements under paragraph 2 Offender committed any of the acts of falsification except Article 171(7), that is, issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;

Falsification was committed in any private document; Falsification causes damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document because the immediate effect of falsification of a private document is the same as that of estafa. The crime is falsification of a public document, even if the falsification took place before the private document becomes part of the public records, if the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official record.

Generally, falsification has no attempted or frustrated stage. But there may be a frustrated falsification if the falsification is imperfect.

Falsification of a Public document Mere falsification enough

Falsification of a Private document

is Prejudice to 3rd person or intent to cause it is enough

Committed by any of the Cannot be committed by 8 means under Art 171 the ways in par 7 & 8 of Art 171 Principal thing punished is violation of public faith and destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed

CASE/S 

Santos vs. Sandiganbayan (2000):  

Under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, any public officer or employee who, taking advantage of his official position, makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts, commits the crime of falsification of public documents. This kind of falsification requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. 

Acuna vs. Deputy Ombudsman (2005):  In prosecutions for perjury, a matter is material if it is the "main fact which was "main the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact . . . . People vs. Choa (2003)  It is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed be first terminated before a prosecution for the said crime is commenced. At the time he filed his petition for naturalization, he had committed perjury. 

XIV. MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

Article 217
Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. ² Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:

1. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos. 2. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos. 3. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusión temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.

4. The penalty of reclusión temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusión temporal in its maximum period to reclusión perpetua. In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. (As amended by RARepublic Act No. 1060)., approved June 12, 1945.)

Acts punishable: 1.Appropriating public funds or property; 2.Taking or misappropriating the same; 3.Consenting, through abandonment or negligence, and/or permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; and 4.Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.

Elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 1. Offender is a public officer; 2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. Those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; 4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.

Private property may be involved malversation. This article applies to administrators or depositories of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual. Presumption from failure to have duly forthcoming public funds or property upon demand is prima facie evidence that the said funds have been put to personal use. This may be rebutted.

Demand not necessary in malversation in spite of the last paragraph in Art. 217 as the latter provides only for a rule of procedural law, a rule of evidence and no more. Damage to Government not necessary. Penalty is based on the amount involved, not on the amount of damage to the government.

CASE/S 

Quinon vs. People (2002):  



An accountable public officer, within the purview of Article 217 of the RPC, is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. To be liable for malversation, an accountable officer need not be a bonded official. The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. What is decisive is the nature of the duties that he performs and that as part of, and by reason of said duties, he receives public money or property which he is bound to account. 

Sarigumba vs. Sandiganbayan (2005): 

Malversation consists not only in misappropriation or converting public funds or property to one's personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or misappropriate the same. The felony may thus be committed by dolo or by culpa. 

MWD vs. Deputy Ombudsman (2000): 

Demand merely raises a prima facie presumption that missing funds have been put to personal use. The demand itself, however, is not an element of, and not indispensable to constitute, malversation."

XV. PARRICIDE

Article 246
Parricide. ² Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusión perpetua to death. (Restored by Section 5, Republic Act No. 7659.)

Elements:
1. A person is killed; 2. The deceased is killed by the accused; 3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate; or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.

Relationship of the offender with the victim is an essential element of this crime. GENERAL RULE: only relatives by blood and in the direct line are considered in parricide. EXCEPTION: spouse The father, mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate. However, the other ascendants or descendants must be legitimate.

The spouse must be legitimate. The best proof of marriage is the marriage certificate; The best proof of filiation is the birth certificate of the child or any other evidence accepted for proving filiation. Relationship must be alleged in order that the accused may be convicted of parricide.

CASE/S 

People vs. Ayuman (2004): 

The key element in the offense of parricide is the relationship between the offender and his victim.

XVI. MURDER

Article 248
Murder. ² Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusión perpetua in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. (As amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 7659.)

Elements:
1. A person was killed; 2. The accused killed him; 3. The killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid or armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

b. In consideration of a price, reward or promise; c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;

d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity e. With evident premeditation

f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse

The killing is not parricide or infanticide. Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or infanticide, provided any of the qualifying circumstances are present. Murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in this article. When more than one of the circumstances is present, the others must be considered as generic aggravating.

However, when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic aggravating. (example: abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery) The qualifying circumstance must be alleged, in order to qualify the killing to murder. If not alleged, it is only a generic aggravating circumstance.

CASE/S 

People vs. Mallari (2003):  

The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Rufino deliberately bumped Joseph with the truck he was driving. The evidence shows that Rufino driving. deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Upon catching up with him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of Joseph. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who kills another "by means of a motor "by vehicle" is guilty of murder. Thus, the use of vehicle" motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder. 

People vs. Whisenhunt (2002):  The mere decapitation of the victim's head constitute outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder. In this case, murder. accused-appellant not only beheaded accusedElsa. He further cut up her body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the ground. ground.

XVII. HOMICIDE

Article 249
Homicide. ² Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusión temporal.

Elements: A person was killed; The accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.

Intent to kill - is conclusively presumed when death resulted. (crime is consummated) Evidence of intent to kill - is important only in attempted or frustrated homicide (to differentiate it from physical injuries). In such cases, intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Corpus delicti the actual commission of the crime charged, means that the crime was actually committed. In crimes against persons in which death of the victim is an element of the offense, there must be satisfactory proof of the fact of death, and the identity of the victim.

CASE/S 

Rivera vs. People (2006):  

An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo. dolo.

On ROBBERY WITH RAPE AND HOMICIDE
(Article 294, Par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code) 

Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code:  1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua [to death], when for any reason of or on occasion of the robbery, the CRIME OF HOMICIDE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, COMMITTED, or when the robbery SHALL HAVE BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY RAPE or intentional mutilation.  

According to the Regala-Sultan rulings, in case Regalarulings, of robbery with homicide and rape or robbery with multiple rape, the rape or additional rapes should not be considered generic aggravating circumstances. Hence, one may be charged with either robbery with homicide or robbery with rape. There is no crime of robbery with homicide and rape. rape. 

Justice F.D. Regalado s solution: 

The Regala and Sultan cases, though favorable to the accused, are quite unfair and unjust to the victims of the rapes/homicides committed; In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide or robbery with rape, the additional rape or homicide may be considered as aggravating circumstances, circumstances, Rape in the occasion of robbery with homicide constitutes IGNOMINY; or  Homicide in the occasion of robbery with rape constitutes CRUELTY.  

CASE/S: 

People v. Regala (April 2000) 

In special complex crimes of robbery with homicide or robbery with rape, there is no law providing that additional rapes or homicides committed on the same occasion should be considered generic aggravating circumstances. Unlike in mitigating circumstances, the Revised Penal Code does not provide for analogous circumstances when appreciating aggravating circumstances.  

People vs. Sultan (2000): 

The Court reiterated the Regala Rule, Rule, though conceding that the same results in an anomalous situation wherein a person guilty of robbery attended by multiple rapes is penalized as if he committed only one rape on the occasion of said robbery. Nevertheless, unless and until Congress passes a law providing that additional rapes/homicides may be considered aggravating, courts should construe penal law in favor of the offender. 

XVIII. RAPE

Article 266-A 266Rape is committed ² 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days. ) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (As added by Republic Act No. 8353, approved Sept. 30, 1997.)

When and How Rape is Committed Elements under paragraph 1: Offender is a man; Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

Elements under paragraph 2: Offender commits an act of sexual assault; The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means: a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person;

The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

Force employed against the victim of the rape need not be of such character as could be resisted. It is enough that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose of copulating with the offended woman. When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary that she put up a determined resistance.

There is no crime of frustrated rape (see Orita case). Character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape.

266-C. Effect of pardon Subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty, provided that their marriage is not void ab initio.

266-D. Presumptions Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of rape: any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party. where the offended party is so situated as to render him/her incapable of giving consent.

CASE/S 

People vs. Oga (2004):
In reviewing rape cases, the Court has established the following principles as guides:   

(1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 

People vs. Jalosjos (2001):  

In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. 

People vs. Plurad (2002): 

In cases of multiple rape, each of the defendants is responsible not only for the rape committed by him but also for those committed by the others. 

People vs. Dela Torre (2004):  

An accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of course a man is charged together with her. In two cases, the Court convicted the woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense. co- 

People vs. Soriano(2002):  

Inserting a finger inside the genital of a woman is rape through sexual assault within the context of paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC 266A finger is considered an object.(Pp vs. Fetalino, object.(Pp 2007). 

People vs. Arnaiz (2006) 

The delay in reporting the rape incident does not weaken the case for the prosecution. It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially when the rapist is living with her. 

People vs. Teodoro (2006): 

The medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape. Likewise, a freshly broken hymen is not rape. an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape. rape. 

People vs. Lining (2002): 

Forcible abduction is deemed absorbed in the rape committed. 

People vs. Bautista (2004):   

A romantic relationship does not necessarily establish consent. It has been consistently ruled that "a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will." The fact that a woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her lover does not give him unbridled license to have sex with her against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."

RAPE VICTIM ASSISTANCE AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1998
Republic Act No. 8505 

Establishment of RAPE CRISIS CENTER (Sec. 3)  

 

Located in government hospitals or health clinics; Provide victims with counselling and therapy; Assist them in securing legal representation; Protect their privacy and safety, etc. 

Establishment of PNP WOMEN S DESK (Sec. 4):  

Medico-legal examination should be conducted Medicoby a physician of the same gender as the offended party; Female police officers/prosecutors preferred in handling rape investigations. 

Protective Measures (Sec. 5):
ClosedClosed-door investigations/hearings;  Victim s identity and personal circumstances should not be disclosed to the public.  

Rape Shield (Sec. 6): 

No evidence pertaining to the victim s past sexual conduct shall be introduced, unless the same is relevant and material to the case.

CASE/S: 

People vs. Agsaoay (2004): 

In rape cases, the victim s moral character is immaterial since there is no nexus between it and the offense committed. 

People vs. Cabalquinto (2006):  

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 and its implementing rules, the real name and personal circumstances of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, should be withheld to protect her privacy. Fictitious initials instead are used to represent her and other family members concerned.

XIX. ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS 

Elements under Art. 336  

That the offender commits any acts of lasciviousness or lewdness That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
By using force or intimidation;  When the offended party is deprived or reason or otherwise unconscious;  When the offended party is under 12 years of age;  

That the offended party is another person of either sex. 

Amployo v. People (2005) 

The term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene. It is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition  

Acts of Lasciviousness v. Lascivious Conduct under RA 7610
Case: Cabila v. People (2007)  The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of Rep. Act No. 7610 that must be proven in addition to the elements of acts of lasciviousness are the following: (1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

XX. THEFT

Article 308
Who are liable for theft. ² Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and 3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.

Article 309
Penalties. ² Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: 1. The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and

for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusión temporal, as the case may be. 2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos. 3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.

4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos. 5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos. 6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable. 8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, 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.

CASE/S 

People vs. Dela Cruz (2000): 

Possession of the stolen goods creates a disputable presumption that the possessor stole the same. 

Valenzuela vs. People (2007):  

There is no such thing as frustrated theft. Once there is unlawful taking, theft is deemed consummated. Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft.

ANTIANTI-FENCING LAW of 1979

Presidential Decree No. 1612 

Fence, defined: 

Any person engaging in fencing (Sec. 2(b)). 

Fencing, defined: Fencing, 

Any act of buying, receiving, possessing, keeping, acquiring, concealing, selling and disposing any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of robbery and theft (Sec. 2(a)).

CASE/S 

Francisco vs. People (2004):  

While PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from the evidence of possession by the accused of stolen goods, the presentation of the same during trial is not necessary. Fencing can be proven even without the stolen article itself.

XXI. QUALIFIED THEFT

Article 310
Qualified theft. ² The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).

Theft is qualified if:
1. Committed by a domestic servant; 2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence; 3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle;

4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; 5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or 6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil disturbance.

Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER BY 2 DEGREES. Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. it is not necessary to prove grave abuse of confidence. The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must be allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party, that has created a high degree of confidence between them, which the accused abused. 

Take Note of the ff: 
  

AntiAnti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539); AntiAnti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533); Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees and Laborers (PD 133); AntiAnti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832); 

NB: Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft antiOrdinances. 



Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330); Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581);

CASE/S 

Roque vs. People (2004):  

If the bank teller appropriates the money for personal gain then the felony committed is theft and not estafa. Further, since the teller occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places money in the teller's possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the felony of qualified theft would be committed. committed. 

Astudillo vs. People (2006):  

Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of Western does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that the law requires. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western. 

People vs. Bustinera (2004): 
 

The joyride case ; Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same. same. From the foregoing, since appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-carnapping law and not antithe provisions of qualified theft which would apply.

XXII. ESTAFA

Article 315
Swindling (estafa). ² Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.

Three general ways of committing Estafa: with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts through fraudulent means

Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL: 1. That the accused defrauded another by a. abuse of confidence or b. by means of deceit 2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to a. the offended party or b. third person

* DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence * As to second general element of DAMAGE, it should be capable of pecuniary estimation, since amount of the damage is the basis of the penalty. * intent of defrauding another is always an element * no estafa through negligence

-Estafa through Abuse of ConfidenceArticle 315, Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa with unfaithfulness by altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value Elements: That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality That damage or prejudice is caused by another

There must be an onerous obligation Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration. Estafa may arise even if the thing to be delivered is not subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium)

Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b): misappropriating or converting money, goods, or other personal property OR denying having received such money, goods, or other personal property Elements: 1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in a. trust (Trust Receipts Law)

b. on commission c. for administration d. under any obligation involving duty to return the very same thing 2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such property by the offender OR (b) denial of such receipt 3. There is prejudice to another 4. Demand was made by the offended to the offender
The 4th element is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant

Estafa with abuse of confidence Offender acquires the juridical possession of the property Offender receives the thing from the offended party

Theft Offender acquires only material possession of the property Offender takes the thing from the offended party

Additional test: In theft, upon delivery of the thing to the offender, the owner expects an immediate return of the thing to him

Estafa with abuse of confidence

Malversation

The offenders are entrusted with funds or property Both are continuing offenses The funds or property are always private The offender is a private individual or a public officer who is not accountable for public funds or property The crime is committed by misappropriating, converting or denying having received money, goods or other personal property Involves public funds or property Offender is usually a public officer who is accountable for public funds or property The crime is committed by appropriating, taking or misappropriating or consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take the public funds or property

Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank Elements: That the paper with the signature of the offended party be in blank That the offended party should have delivered it to the offender That above the signature, a document is written by offender without authority to do so

That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to the offended party or any third person -The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE DELIVERED by the offended party to the offender (otherwise, crime is falsification of instrument)

Estafa by DeceitElements
There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

Article 315, par 2, (a) Three ways of committing estafa under this provision: 1. using fictitious name 2. falsely pretending to possess
-power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions

3. other similar deceits

Article 315, Paragraph 2 (c): pretending to have bribed any Government employee Person would ask money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee but just pocketed the money after "without prejudice to an action for calumny" : the offender may also be charged with defamation which the government employee allegedly bribed may deem proper to bring against the offender

Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds were not sufficient to cover the amount

Elements: 1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation 2. That such postdating or issuing was done when: a. offender had no funds or b. funds deposited were not sufficient

check must be genuine and not falsified, otherwise, it is estafa under paragraph 2(a), not 2(d) the issuance of a check is NOT for a pre existing obligation. It MUST be for an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance or delivery of the check.
a. When check is issued in substitution of a promissory note, it is in payment of a pre existing obligation When the check is issued by a guarantor, there is no Estafa because it is not in payment of an obligation.

b.

Prima facie evidence of deceit: Failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within 3 days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds

Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel, etc Three ways of committing estafa under the this provision: By obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a hotel, etc. without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the use of false pretenses By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from any of said establishments after obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein, without paying therefor.

Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by inducing another to sign any document Elements: That the offender induced the offended party to sign a document. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document That the offended party personally signed the document That prejudice be caused

Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by removing, concealing, or destroying documents Elements: That there be court record, office files, documents or any other papers That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed any of them That the offender had intent to defraud another If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court record will be malicious mischief

Estafa under par. 3 (c)

Infidelity in the custody of documents

Manner of committing offenses is the same The offender is a private individual or even a public officer who is not officially entrusted with the documents There is intent to defraud The offender is a public officer who is officially entrusted with the document Intent to defraud not an element in this crime

CASE/S 

Lee vs. People (2005)  

The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used in the aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. upon. In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. However, failure conversion. to account upon demand, for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. misappropriation. 

People vs. Hernandez (2002):  

A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. 

Pablo vs. People (2004): 

Deceit is defined as the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. False pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which another is led to part with the property in the thing taken. 

SYNDICATED ESTAFA (Economic Sabotage)

Presidential Decree No. 1689 

SYNDICATED ESTAFA (Sec. 1) 

Estafa or swindling (Arts. 315-316, RPC) 315committed by a syndicate and the fraud results in misappropriation of: Moneys contributed by stockholders or members of rural banks, cooperatives, samahang nayons or farmers associations; associations; or  Funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. public.  

Syndicate, defined: Syndicate, defined: 

Formed by five or more persons with the intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act, transaction, scheme or enterprise. 

When the defraudation results in misappropriation of funds mentioned in Sec. 1 but is not committed by a syndicate, syndicate, the penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds P100,000. 

Illustrations: 

Ponzi Scheme:
Promoted by Charles Ponzi in 1920.  An investment program that offers highly impossible returns and pays these returns to early investors out of the capital contributed by the latter investors.  Works only if there is an increasing number of new investors joining the scheme (People (People vs. Balasa, 2004). 2004).  

Pyramiding or Pyramid Scam (e.g. Multitel Int l Case; Panata Foundation al.) Case - - People vs. Balasa, et. al.)

CASE/S 

People vs. Balasa, et. al. (1998):  

To defraud the general public, the appellants established a non-stock, non-profit foundation nonnonand registered with the SEC. While the Articles of Incorporation stated that the Board may collect dues and fees from members to finance Panata Foundation, Inc., the officers and employees of the same openly solicited money and investments from members under a double or treble your deposit scheme . The appellants promised the credulous public quick financial gains on their investments. To bolster the illusion, Panata s officers claimed that the deposits would be invested in a world bank to double or treble the interests in 21 and 30 days, respectively.

XXIII. GRAVE COERCION 

2 WAYS OF COMMITTING GRAVE COERCION (ARTICLE 286) By preventing another by means of violence from doing something not prohibited by law.  By compelling another by means of violence to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong 

Case: Sy v. Sec. of Justice (2006) The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:
1) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.    

Respondents, together with several men armed with hammers, ropes, axes, crowbars and other tools arrived at the petitioners' residence and ordered them to vacate the building because they were going to demolish it. Intimidated by respondents and their demolition team, petitioners were prevented from peacefully occupying their residence and were compelled to leave against their will. Thus, respondents succeeded in implementing the demolition while petitioners watched helplessly as their building was torn down. From the facts alleged in the complaint, as well as the evidence presented in support thereof, there is prima facie showing that respondents did not act under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.

XXIV. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
(Batas Pambansa No. 22) 

Modes of Violating BP 22 (Section 1): 

MODE NO. 1: 
 

Person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or on value; Maker/Drawer knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; Check is subsequently dishonored 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. 

MODE NO. 2:  A person has sufficient funds in or credit with the  

drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check; check; He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within 90 days from the date appearing; The check is dishonored by the drawee bank. 

Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: 

Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, Blg. 22, there is criminal liability if the check is drawn for non-prenon-preexisting obligation. If the check is drawn for a pre-existing obligation. preobligation, there is criminal liability only under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Blg. 22. Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against property while Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime against public Blg. interest. interest. The gravamen for the former is the deceit employed, while in the latter, it is the issuance of the check. check. Hence, there is no double jeopardy. jeopardy. In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), deceit and damage are material, while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, they are Blg. 22, immaterial. immaterial. In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), knowledge by the drawer of insufficient funds is not required, while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, knowledge by the drawer of insufficient Blg. 22, funds is required. required.   

RULE OF EVIDENCE #1: 

There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored (Sec. 3). (Sec. 

Exceptions: Exceptions: 

1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date; date; 2. When the maker or drawer pays the holder of the check the amount due or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee. drawee.

RULE OF EVIDENCE #2: 

The prima facie evidence of making and issuance of a check, due presentment and dishonor thereof arises when the dishonored check, duly stamped as dishonored for __________ or dishonored for insufficient credit by the drawee bank, is presented as evidence (Sec. 4). (Sec. NOTE: Sections 3-4 in BP 22 prosecutions 3relate to evidentiary rules and presumptions. These do not relate to the elements per se of BP 22 violations. 

CASE/S 

Bernardo vs. People (2007): 

As clarified by Administrative Circular 13132001, 2001, the clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular 12-2000 is not to 12remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. 22. 

Macalalag vs. People (2006):  

Only a full payment of the face value of the second check at the time of its presentment or during the five-day fivegrace period could have exonerated her from criminal liability. A contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, that of safeguarding the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account user, as the drawer could very well have himself exonerated by the mere expediency of paying a minimal fraction of the face value of the check.

XXV. DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(Republic Act No. 9165) 

Definitions (Art. I, Sec. 3): 

Take note of the following terms:   

  

Dangerous Drugs [DD] (par. j), compare with Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals [CPAEC](par. h), ; [CPAEC]( Chemical Diversion (par. d), contrast with Controlled Delivery (par. g) and Illegal Trafficking (par. r); Den, Dive or Resort (par. l); Drug Dependence (par. m); Drug Syndicate (par. o); and Financier (par. q) vs. Protector/Coddler (par. ee). 

Prohibited Acts (Art. II, Secs. 4-19): 4   

Importation of DD or CPAEC; Cultivation of plants known to produce DD or CPAEC; Sale, Trade, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of DD or CPAEC; Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort;
Den, Dive or Resort shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the government;  Knowingly working at or visiting the Den, Dive or Resort is punishable.  

Manufacturing DD or CPAEC or tools and instruments used for the same; 

    

Illegal Chemical Diversion of DD or or CPAEC; Unlawful or unnecessary prescription of DD or CPAEC; Failure to keep proper records of legal importation/distribution of DD or CPAEC; ILLEGAL POSSESSION: POSSESSION:  DD or CPAEC;  Tools/Instruments used for the same;  DD or CPAEC during social gatherings (at least 2 people) ILLEGAL USE OF DD or CPAEC (2nd Offense or more); Violation of any Dangerous Drugs Board [DDB] regulation.

[LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS]  Misappropriation or failure to account for DD/CPAEC or paraphernalia confiscated/used as evidence;  PLANTING DD/CPAEC as EVIDENCE; 

Attempt or Conspiracy (Sec. 26): 

An attempt or conspiracy to commit the following are punishable. Penalty same as if consummated:  IMPORTATION OF DD/CPAEC;  SALE, TRADE, ADMINISTRATION, DISPENSATION, DISTRIBUTION OF DD/CPAEC;  MAINTAINING DEN, DIVE OR RESORT;  MANUFACTURE OF DD/CPAEC;  CULTIVATION OF PLANTS KNOWN TO BE SOURCES OF DD/CPAEC; 

Plea Bargain (Sec. 23): 

Any person charged with a violation of RA 9165 cannot avail of plea bargaining. 

Probation (Sec. 24): 

Convicted drug traffickers or pushers cannot apply for probation. 

Drug Use as a Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance (Sec. 25);  

Commission of an offense by a culprit under the influence of dangerous drugs. There must be a positive finding of drug use. 

Drug Tests Administered:  

Screening Test (Art. II, Sec. 3 (hh)):  A rapid test that establishes a potential or presumptive positive result. Confirmatory Test (Art. II, Sec. 3 (hh)):  A more specific test that will validate or confirm the results of the screening test. 

When Drug Tests Are Required (Sec. 36): 36): 
     

Applications for Driver s License; Applications for Firearms License/Permit; Secondary/Tertiary School students; Officers/Employees in Private companies; Public Officers/Employees, incl. Members of law enforcement units; Persons charged with an offense punishable by a minimum of 6 years imprisonment; Candidates for public office, appointed or elected. 

Drug Rehabilitation Programs (Art. VIII): 

Voluntary Submission Program (Sec. 54):

File Application For Voluntary Rehabilitation with the DDB or its representative;  Board transmits the application to the Court, which shall order the applicant to undergo drug testing.  If the applicant is found to be drug dependent, Court shall order him to undergo treatment for 6m6m-1yr.  Participants in the VSP are EXEMPT from criminal 

liability, if qualified under Sec. 55: 
  

Complied with the rules and regulations of the Center; FirstFirst-time Offender (DD Use); No record of escape from rehabilitation center or surrendered within one week from escape; Does not pose a serious danger to himself or to the public. 

Compulsory Submission Program (Sec. 61): 

DDB files a Petition to Rehabilitate a drug dependent with the Court, which shall order the applicant to undergo drug testing. 

APPLIES TO DRUG DEPENDENTS CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE (SEC. 62) 

If the applicant is found to be drug dependent, Court shall issue a Commitment Order charging him to undergo treatment and rehabilitation. Minors found to be first time offenders entitled to suspended sentence (superseded by RA 9344). 

CASE/S 

People vs. Tiu (2003):  

In illegal possession prosecutions, it must be shown that 1) the appellants were in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; 2) such drug; possession is not authorized by law; and 3) the law; appellants were freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. drug. Violation of the DDA is malum prohibitum; Good faith prohibitum; or lack of criminal intent is not relevant. 

People vs. Balag-ey (2004): Balag Possession of prohibited drugs is a necessary element in the sale of prohibited drugs, except where the seller is found to be in possession of another quantity of drugs not included in the sale and probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller. seller. 

Suson vs. People (2006): 

Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. 

People vs. Jubail (2004): 

The general rule is that the buy bust money or the informant need not be presented during trial. However, trial. where the informant is the only eyewitness to the illegal transaction, his testimony is essential and his non-presentation would be fatal to the nonprosecution s cause. cause. 

People vs. Nicolas (2007): 

Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not testaffect the legality of the buy-bust buyoperation. operation.