CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES

REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA Twenty19 1

PRO REO
In dubio pro reo is means "when in doubt, for the accused.” Intimately related to the in dubio pro
reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible
interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to
him. The rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused (Intestate
estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL THERORY
The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social and
economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed. The purpose of penalties is to secure justice.
The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but must also be reformative, to give the convict an
opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive and civic-spirited member of the
community. The adoption of the aspects of the Positivist theory is exemplified by the indeterminate
sentence law, impossible crime, privilege mitigating circumstance of minority and modifying
circumstances, rule on imposition of penalties for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes) (Joya vs. Jail
Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003;).
Under the classical theory, man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will
choose between good and evil. When he commits a felonious or criminal act, the act is presumed to
have been done voluntarily, i.e. with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, should be
adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired (People vs.
Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000). Since the Revised Penal Code is based on the classical school of
thought, it is the identity of the mens rea which is considered the predominant consideration and,
therefore, warrants the imposition of the same penalty for conspirators on the consequential theory
that the act of one is thereby the act of all (Hon. Sandiganbayan, Honrado, G.R. No. 115439-41, July 16,
1997). Under this theory, the criminal liability is based on the result of the felonious act (proximate
cause rule).
CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW
There are three characteristics of criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2) territoriality, and (3)
prospectivity. The general, territorial and prospective characteristics of criminal law are principles
that define and demarcate the scope and limitation of the operation of criminal law. Under these three
principles, the operation or enforceability of criminal law is limited to wrongful acts committed on or
after its effectivity (prospectivity) within the territory of the Philippines (territoriality) by person
living and sojourning therein (generality).
GENERALITY - Generality principle is akin to territoriality principle in the sense that the
demarcating factor of both principles is the territory of the Philippines. Under generality principle,
criminal law is enforceable to person living or sojourning in the territory of the Philippines. Under the
territoriality principle, criminal law is applicable only to criminal act committed within the territory
of the Philippines. But the concept of generality is different from territoriality. The applicability of
territoriality principle or generality principle will depend on the issue raised by the accused in
questioning the jurisdiction of the court. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court because of
the unique characteristic of his person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military, hermit, primitive, ambassador,
legislator, President), the applicable principle is generality. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of
the court due to the unique characteristic of the place where the crime was committed (e.g. the place
of commission is foreign vessel, embassy or high sea) etc, the applicable principle is territoriality.
1. Military officers - The Revised Penal Code and special criminal laws are enforceable
against military men living or sojourning in the Philippines. However, CA 408 (Articles of War) which
vests jurisdiction over members of the AFP to the courts-martial. RA 7055 (AN ACT STRENGTHENING
CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY) did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try
cases involving "service-connected crimes or offenses" under CA 408 (Example: Mutiny or sedition,
quarrels, frays; disorders, breaking an arrest or escaping from confinement, releasing prisoners
without proper authority, wrongful appropriation of captured property, corresponding with, or aiding
the enemy, spies, dueling, fraud against the government affecting matters and equipment). In fact, RA
No. 7055 mandates that these service-connected crimes shall be tried by the court-martial (Navales v.
Abaya, G.R. No. 162318, October 25, 2004). CA 408 is a law of preferential application since it excludes
members of the AFP from the operation of the Revised Penal Code and special criminal laws if the
crimes committed by them are service-connected as defined by RA 7055.
2. Consular officers - Despite the ruling in Schneckenburger vs. Moran, consular officers and
employees are now enjoying immunity from criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of
consular function under 1967, Convention on Consular Relation. Slander (Liang vs. People, GR NO
125865, January 28, 2000) or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is not function-related. Consul
is liable for committing this crime.
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: Under the principle of territoriality, the Philippines has

jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its territory except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application.
1. Embassy - The ground occupied by US embassy is in fact the territory of the USA to which
the premises belong through possession or ownership. A person who committed a crime within the
premises of an embassy will be prosecuted under the law of Philippines because of the principle of
territoriality (See: Reagan vs. Commission on Internal Revenue, 30 SCRA 968, En Banc; Answers to 2009
Bar Examination Questions by UP Law Complex). However, jurisdiction of the Philippines over the
embassy is limited or restricted by “the principles of inviolability of diplomatic premises”, which is a
generally accepted principle of international law. Warrant of arrest cannot be served inside US
embassy without waiver of American government of its right under the principle of inviolability.
2. English rule - There are two fundamental rules in International Law regarding crimes
committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel (not military vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile
territorial water (not internal or archipelagic water or high seas) of the Philippines to wit: (1) French rule -
Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial water of the Philippines are
subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state (extra-territoriality principle) unless their commission
affects the peace and security of our country. (2) English rule – Crimes committed aboard a foreign
merchant vessel within the territorial water of the Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of the
Philippines (territoriality principle) unless their commission does not affect its peace and security, or
has no pernicious effect therein. It is the English rule that obtains in this jurisdiction.
3. Convention of the law of the Sea - Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag
state of foreign merchant vessel passing through the territorial sea has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein. However, the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person or to
conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its
passage in the following cases: (1) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State; (2) if
the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea; (3) if
the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic
agent or consular officer of the flag State; or (4) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
4. Drug trafficking - Following the English rule, the Philippines has no jurisdiction over
transportation of opium in a foreign vessel in transit in territorial water of our country because
possession of opium does not have a pernicious effect on our country (U.S. vs. Look Chaw). But under
the Convention of the law of the Sea, the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person or
to conduct any investigation involving transportation of dangerous drugs since this is a measure
necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - Under the principle of extra-territoriality, the Philippines has

jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory for those five instances mention in Article 2
such as crime committed in vessel of Philippines registry (ownership is not material), function-related
crime committed by public officer (such as corruption or direct bribery), crimes against national
security (such as treason, espionage; rebellion is not a crime against national security), and crime
against law of nation such as piracy and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001-
“Piracy is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law (Article 2). The same principle
applies even if accused were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but
under a special law, PD No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. It is likewise, well-settled
that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole
world.”
PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC - If the court in trying an accused, who committed a crime
prior to the passage of the law, should give retroactive effect to the law provided that: (1) it is
favorable to the accused and (2) the accused is not a habitual delinquent (Article 22). Ex post facto law
- Congress in passing a law can insert retroactive effect provision therein subject to the Constitution
of ex post facto law. If the retroactive provision of the law has passed the constitutional test on
prohibition against ex post facto law, the court must give retroactive effect to this law even if the
accused is a habitual delinquent. Nullum crimen poena sine lege– If the law repeals a previous law or
provision defining a crime, the applicable principle is not Article 22 of RPC but nullum crimen poena sine
lege (There is no crime when there is no law punishing it). Since the intention of the new law is to
decriminalize an act punishable by the repealed law, the accused should be acquitted or released if the
already convicted, even though he is a habitual delinquent.
X committed crime under RA No. 6425, the penalty for which is life imprisonment. RA No. 7659
amended RA No. 6425 by prescribing the penalty of reclusion temporal. Should RA No. 7659 be given
retroactive effect? Answer: Yes. The maximum duration of reclusion temporal is 40 years of
imprisonment while life imprisonment has no duration. Thus, reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty
than life imprisonment. The amendatory law, being more lenient and favorable to the accused than the
original provisions thereof should be accorded retroactive application (People vs. Morilla, GR No.
189833, February 05, 2014).
RA No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty, prescribes reclusion perpetua in lieu of
death penalty or life imprisonment if the special law does not use the nomenclature of the penalties
under RPC and declares a person sentenced to reclusion perpetua as a prescribed or reduced penalty is
ineligible for parole. This law has a retroactive effect. Penal laws which are favorable to accused are
given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied under Article 22 of RPC, which provides: Penal laws
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
criminal (People vs. Talaro, et.al., GR No. 175781, March 20, 2012).
REPEAL: Decriminalization - Repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish
persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil.
1000; Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; U.S. vs. Reyes, 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. Academia, 10 Phil. 431; Arizala vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 43633, September 14, 1990; Almuete, et al., G.R. No. L-265, February 27,19 76). The
intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law. Thus, person cannot be
punished for subversion under RA 1700, which was repealed by RA 7637, even though he is a habitual
delinquent.
New regulation- Repeal with re-enactment of a penal law does not deprive the courts of
jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the old penal law prior to its repeal. Such
repeal even without a saving clause would not destroy criminal liability of the accused (U.S. vs. Cana,
12 Phil. 241). The intention of the new law is not to decriminalize an act punishable of old law but
merely to provide new regulation. If the new law is favorable to the accused, who is not a habitual
delinquent, it shall be given retroactive effect. Example: “A” was charged for the crime of rape under
Article 336 of RPC for raping his minor daughter. However, RA 8353 expressly repealed Article 336 but
re-enacted the provision on rape by reclassifying it as a crime against person, redefining it and
prescribing a graver penalty for the commission thereof. The repeal of Article 336 does not deprive the
courts of jurisdiction to try and punish “A” for rape under Article 336. RA No. 8353 shall not be given
retroactive effect since it is not favorable to the accused.
DECRIMINALIZATION
1. Vagrancy - Before Article 202 of RPC punishes vagrancy and prostitution. But Article 202 of
RPC as amended merely penalizes prostitution. In sum, RA No. 10158 has decriminalized vagrancy by
omitting portions of Article 202 involving crime vagrancy. A reading of the Senate deliberation
pertaining to the passage of law decriminalizing vagrancy shows that they considered vagrants as
victims of poverty and that the law on vagrancy serves to oppress the very people that the government
sought to protect.
In view of the new policy of the State decriminalizing vagrancy, which is embodied in RA No.
10158, ordinance, which punishes vagrancy, should be declared as contrary to law, and hence, invalid.
Settled is the rule that what the national legislature expressly allows by law, a local legislature may not
disallow by ordinance or resolution (Lina vs. Pana, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001). The spring cannot
rise higher than its source. As aptly explained by Justice Nachura in his book, “ An ordinance must not be
contrary to the Constitution or law. Prohibited activities may not be legalized in the guise of regulation; activities
allowed by law cannot be prohibited, only regulated.”
RA No. 10158 shall be given retroactive effect. Under Section 2 and 3 thereof, all pending cases
for vagrancy shall be dismissed and all persons serving sentence for vagrancy shall be immediately
released. Since Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 10158 expressly provide retroactive application to the law
without distinction, whether the offender is a habitual delinquent or not.
2. Premature marriage - Under Article 351 of RPC, a woman in contracting marriage within
301 days from death of husband, or dissolution or annulment of marriage is liable for the crime of
premature marriage. However, RA No. 10655 decriminalizes premature marriage by repealing Article
351. Premature marriage was decriminalize since Article 351 discriminates women because this
provision is not applicable to men. Moreover, Article 351 sought to prevent a possible confusion as to
whether the father of the child born after the dissolution of the marriage is the first husband or the
second. This preventive measure is not anymore necessary since paternity and filiation could now be
easily determined through modern technology.
MISTAKE OF FACT PRINCIPLE:
Requisites: (1) That the acts done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be (2) that the mistake of fact is not due to negligence or unlawful intent of the
offender. The Supreme Court in several cases had applied the “mistake of fact” doctrine, which
allowed the accused, who committed a crime on a mistaken belief, to enjoy the benefit of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense (United States vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488), defense of person and right
(US vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 10678 August 17, 1915), defense of honor (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil.
391), performance of duty, (People vs. Mamasalaya, G.R. No.L-4911, February 10, 1953), and the
exempting circumstance of obedience of an order of superior officer (People vs. Beronilla, G.R. No. L-
4445, February 28, 1955). In Ah Chong, the accused, who believed that the victim was a robber and that
his life was in danger because of the commencement of unlawful aggression, was acquitted due to
mistake of fact doctrine in relation to the rule on self-defense. In Oanis vs. Galanta, the accused, who
believed that the sleeping victim is a notorious criminal to be arrested by them, was held guilty of
murder for shooting him since the mistake of fact principle in relation to performance of duty is not
applicable. Second element is not present since they did not ascertain first his identify despite
opportunity. The first element is not likewise present since the killing of victim believed to be a
criminal was not necessary consequence of the due performance of duty of the accused as police
officers.
The gist of the theft is the intent to deprive another of his property in a chattel, either for gain
or out of wantonness or malice to deprive another of his right in the thing taken. This cannot be
where the taker honestly believes the property is his own or that of another, and that he has a right to
take possession of it for himself or for another, for the protection of the latter. However, the belief of
the accused of his ownership over the property must be honest and in good faith and not a mere sham
or pretense. If the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, taking the property of another will not protect
the taker (Gaviola vs. People, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006). This belief of ownership as a defense
in theft is in accordance with the mistake of fact doctrine.
X informed the authorities regarding armed rebel elements on board a vehicle in a certain
barangay. Several policemen, Barangay officers and members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF)
responded to information and set a check point. X pointed at an approaching jitney occupied by rebels.
They flagged down the vehicle but the same did not stop. They attacked the vehicle with automatic
weapons by firing directly thereat. One died and another was wounded. It turned out however that the
victims are unarmed innocent civilians. Are those responsible for the death and injuries of the victims
liable for homicide? Is the doctrine of mistake of fact applicable?Answer: They are liable for homicide
and attempted homicide. The duty of those manning the check point is to identify the occupants of
their suspect vehicle and search for firearms inside it to validate the information they had received;
they may even effect a bloodless arrest. While, rebellion is a continuing offense, they cannot open fire
at or kill the suspects under any and all circumstances. There is no evidence showing that they were
placed in real mortal danger in the presence of the victims. Hence, the mistake of fact principle is not
applicable since there is negligence or bad faith on their part (Yapyucu vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
120744-46, June 25, 2012).
South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide after the judge
found he killed his girlfriend by mistake. The judge said the athlete had acted "negligently" when he
fired shots through a toilet door, but in the "belief that there was an intruder". If the case happened
here, should the athlete be convicted of homicide or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide?
Answer: The athlete should be held liable with homicide with privilege mitigating circumstance
of defense of property.
In mistake of fact, which negates dolo, it is important requisite that that act would have been
lawful had the fact been as the accused believed them to be. If there was really an intruder inside the
toilet, it would be considered as unlawful aggression against his property, which would allow him to
use reasonable means to repel it in accordance with the self-help doctrine under Article 429 of the Civil
Code and defense of property under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the means
employed by him firing shots through the toilet door is not reasonable; and hence, he is only entitled to
privileged migrating circumstance of incomplete defense of property (See: People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos.
L-33466-67, April 20, 1983). In sum, the act would have been attended by the privilege mitigating
circumstance of incomplete justification had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
VOLUNTARINESS – Concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent makes up the “criminal

mind” behind the “criminal act.” Thus, to constitute a crime, the act must, generally and in most
cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No crime is
committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent (People vs. Ojeda,
G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004). Voluntariness is an element of crime, whether committed by dolo or
culpa or punishable under special law. The act to be considered a crime must be committed with
freedom and intelligence. In addition to voluntariness, intentional felony must be committed with
dolo (malice), culpable felony with culpa, and mala prohibita under special law with intent to
perpetrate the act or with specific intent (such as animus possidendi in illegal possession of firearm).
Presumption of voluntariness: In the determination of the culpability of every criminal actor,
voluntariness is an essential element. Without it, the imputation of criminal responsibility and the
imposition of the corresponding penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. The human mind is an entity,
and understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large degree upon
emotional and psychological appreciation. A man’s act is presumed voluntary.It is improper to assume
the contrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously, for the moral and legal presumption is that every
person is presumed to be of sound mind, or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal
condition of a person (People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004).
CRIMINAL INTENT – To be held liable for intentional felony, the offender must commit the
act prohibited by RPC with specific criminal intent and general criminal intent. General criminal
intent (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to
deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there
to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of malice by intent. On the
other hand, specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing. In
estafa, the specific intent is to defraud, in homicide intent to kill, in theft intent to gain (Recuerdo vs.
People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006, ). In the US vs. Ah Chong, the accused was acquitted because of
mistake of fact principle even though the evidence showed that he attacked the deceased with intent
to kill (United States vs. Apego, G.R. No. 7929, November 8, 1912; Dissenting opinion of J. Trent), which
was established by the statement of the accused "If you enter the room I will kill you." Article 249
(homicide) should be read in relation to Article 3. The accused was acquitted not because of the
absence of intent to kill (specific intent) but by reason of lack of general intent (dolo or malice).
PRESUMED MALICE - The general criminal intent (malice) is presumed from the criminal act
and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be proved by
the accused (Ah Chong case, the accused was able to rebut the presumption of general criminal intent
or malice). Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be
proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown, however, by the nature of
the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the
accused (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006). There are other specific intents that are
presumed. If a person died due to violence, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Intent to gain is
presumed from taking property without consent of owner.
MOTIVE
Doubt as to the identity of the culprit - Motive gains importance only when the identity of
the assailant is in doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution does not need to prove the
motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the author of the crime. The accused was
positively identified by witnesses. Thus, the prosecution did not have to identify and prove the motive
for the killing. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have been killed for no apparent reason
at all, and that friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime. The lack or
absence of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction where there are reliable
witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the petitioner as the perpetrator of the felony
(Kummer vs. People, GR No. 174461, September 11, 2013).
Circumstantial or inconclusive evidence - Indeed, motive becomes material when the

evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been
committed or whether the accused has committed it. The following circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to convict accused: 1. Accused had motive to kill the deceased because during the altercation
the latter slapped and hit him with a bamboo, prompting Romulo to get mad at the deceased; 2.
Accused was chased by the deceased eastward after the slapping and hitting incident; 3. Said accused
was the last person seen with the deceased just before he died; (4) Accused and Antonio Trinidad
surrendered to police authorities with the samurai; (5) Some of the wounds inflicted on the deceased
were caused by a bolo or a knife. (Trinidad vs. People, GR No. 192241, June 13, 2012).
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE – In People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935,
En Banc - Accused who was caught in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store was held guilty of attempted trespassing and not attempted robbery. The act of making an
opening on the wall of the store is an overt act of trespassing since it reveals an evident intention to
enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. However, it is not an overt act of
robbery since the intention of the accused once he succeeded in entering the store is not determinate;
it is subject to different interpretations. His final objective could be to rob, to cause physical injury to
its occupants, or to commit any other offense. In sum, the crime the he intended to commit inside the
store is indeterminate, and thus, an attempt to commit it is not punishable as attempted felony.
In Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014 - The petitioner climbed on top of the
naked victim, and was already touching her genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she
freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. Yet, inferring from such
circumstances that rape, and no other, was his intended felony would be highly unwarranted. This was
so, despite his lust for and lewd designs towards her being fully manifest. Such circumstances remained
equivocal, or "susceptible of double interpretation" (People v. Lamahang). Verily, his felony would not
exclusively be rape had he been allowed by her to continue, and to have sexual congress with her, for
some other felony like simple seduction (if he should employ deceit to have her yield to him) could also
be ultimate felony.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Proximate cause is the primary or moving cause of the death of the victim; it is the cause,
which in the natural and continuous sequence unbroken with any “efficient intervening cause” produces
death and without which the fatal result could not have happened. It is the cause, which is the nearest
in the order of responsible causation (Black’s Law Dictionary). Intervening cause - The direct relation
between the intentional felony and death may be broken by efficient intervening cause or an active
force which is either a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
Lightning that kills the injured victim or tetanus infecting the victim several days after the infliction
of injuries, or voluntary immersing the wounds to aggravate the crime committed by accused is an
intervening cause. Thus, the accused is liable for physical injuries because of the intervening cause
rule. On the other hand, carelessness of the victim, or involuntary removal of the drainage, lack of
proper treatment is not an intervening cause. Hence, the accused is liable for the death because of the
proximate cause rule.
If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected when the accused inflicted injuries
upon him, the crime committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the
victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected after the accused inflicted injuries upon him, the
crime committed is physical injuries. The accused is not liable for homicide because tetanus is an
efficient intervening cause. Thus, the proximate cause of the death of the victim is not the infliction of
injuries. In Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011 (Justice De Castro), there had
been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when victim was rushed to
hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection. Since the victim was infected of severe
tetanus, he died the next day. The incubation period of severe tetanus is less than 14 days. Hence, he
could not have been infected at the time of the stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before
the victim was rushed to the hospital. The infection of victim’s stab wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause. The accused was held liable for physical injuries.
Proximate cause has been defined as "that 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." Although there was no direct injury on his vital organs of the victim, his wounds
affected his kidneys, causing multiple organ failure and eventually his death. Accused is liable for
homicide. Without the stab wounds, the victim could not have been afflicted with an infection which
later on caused multiple organ failure that caused his death. The offender is criminally liable for the
death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim
(Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 181052, November 14, 2012).
ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of error in personae, person is criminally responsible for

committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due
to mistake of identity. Requisites: In order to make a person criminally liable in case of error in
personae, the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony; (2)
The consequent victim against whom the felony was directed is different from that intended due to
mistake of identity. If the penalty for the intended crime is different from that of the committed
crime, the court shall impose the penalty for the intended crime or committed crime, whichever is
lesser.
ABERRATIO ICTUS - In case of aberratio ictus, person is criminally responsible for

committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due
to mistake of blow. Requisites: In order to make a person criminally liable in case of aberratio ictus, the
following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony; (2) The
consequent victim against whom the felony was directed is different from that intended due to
mistake of blow. The crime committed against the intended victim and victim injured due to aberratio
ictus shall be made a complex crime (compound crime). The court shall impose the penalty for the
most serious crime in its maximum period.
The circumstance of aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) can neither exempt the accused from
criminal responsibility nor mitigate his criminal liability. Under Article 4 of RPC, criminal liability is
incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended (Matic vs. People, G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011).
PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case of praeter intentionem, person is criminally responsible for

committing an intentional felony although its wrongful consequence is graver than that intended.
Requisites: In order to make a person criminally liable under Article 4 (1) in case of praeter
intentionem, the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony;
(2) The wrongful act done, which is graver than that intended, is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender. Praeter intentionem may be appreciated as
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong than that committed.
When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical
injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence the penal law looks particularly to the
material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences
thereof. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused ( Seguritan vs. People, G.R. No.
172896, April 19, 2010).
1. Mitigating circumstance - The mitigating circumstance that “the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed” or praeter intentionem is obtaining when there is a notable
disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime
committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from
the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim (People vs.
Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011).The mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem cannot
be appreciated if the acts employed by accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually
produce the death of the victim (People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
2. Evident premeditation- In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC did not
appreciate evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not contemplated in the
premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988; People vs. Mabug-
at, 51 Phil., 967; People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988). However, praeter intentionem
and evident premeditation can be independently appreciated. there is no incompatibility between
evident premeditation and no intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is based on the
state of mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the crime (Reyes; People vs.
Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
3. Treachery - If accused employed means to render the victim defenseless, treachery shall be
appreciated even if the killing is due to error in personae (People vs. Del Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995,
April 30, 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs. Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, En Banc) or
with the circumstance of praeter intentionem (People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511, October 6, 1933)
4. Conspiracy - Conspirators, who conspired to kill a particular parson, are equally liable for
the killing of another person due to error in personae (People vs. Pinto, Jr. and Buenaflor, G.R. No. No.
39519, November 21, 1991). However, conspirator, who never even fired a single shot and whose only
participation was to drive their getaway vehicle and to lend his firearm to his back rider so that the
latter could finish off the target victim was not found accountable for the injury sustained by the
unintended victim was just a star-crossed bystander who was accidentally hit in the process (aberratio
ictus) (People vs. Herbias, G.R. No. 112716-17, December 16, 1996; People vs. Flora and Flora, G.R. No.
125909, June 23, 2000).
INTENT TO KILL: Intent to kill is an element of homicide and murder. But even if offender had
no intent to kill, he would be held just the same liable for homicide or murder if his felonious act is the
proximate cause of the death of the latter. Even if there is no intent to kill, offender is liable for
homicide or murder if the victim died as a result of the “felonious act” of the former. The offender’s act
is considered felonious if it is accompanied with criminal or evil intent such as intent to inflict injury,
intent to hide the body of the crime, intent to threaten victim, intent to silence the hold-up victim, or
intent to rape. Offender is liable for homicide because it is the natural, direct and logical consequence
of an act committed with criminal intent.
a. With intent to hide the body of the crime – In People vs. Ortega, Jr., G.R. No. 116736, July
24, 1997 - Ortega stabbed the victim. Garcia assisted Ortega in concealing the body of the victim by
throwing the body into the well. Victim died due to drowning. Issue: Is Garcia liable for the death of
the victim as principal in homicide even if his intention was not to kill the victim but merely to assist
Ortega in concealing his dead body not knowing that the victim was still alive at that time? In assisting
Ortega carry the body of victim to the well, Garcia was committing an intentional felony; concealing
the body of the crime to prevent its discovery makes him liable as an accessory in homicide. Hence,
Garcia should be held liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act of
assisting Ortega in hiding the body of the victim. Since proximate cause of death of the victim is the
felonious and accessory act of throwing the victim into the well, Garcia should be held liable for the
death as principal in homicide.
b. With intent to threaten – In US vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 16486, March 22, 1921, En Banc - The
accused in rage he moved towards victim with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. Victim
believing himself in great and immediate peril jumped into the water where he was drowned. The
accused was found guilty of homicide. The act of threatening to stab victim constitutes a felony of
threat. Hence, accused is liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence of his intentional and
felonious act. It was held that: "If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which
causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person who creates such a state of
mind is responsible for the injuries which result."
d. Intent to inflict injury - Intentional infliction of injury resulting in death of the victim
constitutes homicide or murder. In People vs. Pugay, et al., No 74324, November 17, 1988, the deceased,
a retardate, and the accused Pugay were friends. Deceased used to run errands for Pugay and at times
they slept together. During a town fiesta fair was held in the public plaza. Accused, Pugay and Samson
with several companions, who appeared to be drunk, made the deceased dance by tickling him with a
piece of wood. Not content with what they were doing with the deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly
took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the Ferris wheel and poured its contents on the body
of the former. Then, the accused Samson set victim on fire making a human torch out of him. Pugay
and Samson were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning. Crime committed by Samson:
There is no intent to kill. The act of the Accused was merely a part of their fun-making that evening.
Accused merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire. His act, however, does not relieve him
of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of
physical injuries on his person, a felony. Since such felony of physical injuries resulted into a graver
offense, he must be held responsible therefor. (Note: The crime is not murder qualified by means of
fire because the fire was not use to kill but merely to inflict injury).
e. Recklessness – Even if there is no intent to kill and evil intent, offender is liable for
culpable felony if the victim died as a result of the recklessness of the former. Crime committed by
Pugay: Having taken the can from under the engine of the Ferris wheel and holding it before pouring
its contents on the body of the deceased, this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. The
stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice even before pouring the
same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence
arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of
the deceased. The accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
f. Accident - If there is no intent to kill, evil intent and recklessness on the part of the
accused, he is not liable for his intentional act, which caused the death of the victim. In United States
vs. Tanedo (15 Phil. Rep., 196), deceased went with the accused to hunt wild chickens at the forest.
While hunting, the accused came upon a wild chicken, and, not seeing deceased about and not
knowing or having any reason to believe that he was in that vicinity shot the chicken. The bullet that
hit the chicken recoiled and hit the deceased. It was held that accused is not criminally liable. Life was
taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and
without intention of doing harm. Note: The accused could not have foreseen that the slug after hitting
the chicken would recoil and hit deceased. The principle enunciated in Tanedo case will not apply if
the place where the accused lawfully discharged his firearm is populated. In People vs. Nocum, G.R.
No. L-482, 25 February 1947, En Banc - There was a fistic fight between two persons. Desiring to stop
the encounter, accused shouted at the combatants. As these paid him no attention, he drew a .45
caliber pistol and shot twice in the air. The bout continued, however; so he fired another shot at the
ground, but unfortunately the bullet ricocheted, and hit an innocent by-stander, resident of the place.
Victim died. It was held that: “The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence, the
slaying having been unintentional. It is apparent that defendant willfully discharged his gun-for without taking
the precautions demanded by the circumstance that the district was populated, and the likelihood that his bullet
would glance over the hard pavement of the Manila thoroughfare. Note: The accused should have foreseen that
the slug after hitting the pavement would recoil and might hit somebody.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Offender shall be held liable for impossible crime if the following requisites are present: (1)
offender performing an act which would have been an offense against person or property; (2) offender
performed an act with evil intent; (3) offender did not commit the offense because of the impossibility
of its accomplishment or employment of inadequate or ineffectual means; and (4) offender in
performing an act is not violating another provision of the law (Luis B. Reyes).
Impossible crime of theft - X, employee of Mega Inc., received check from the customer of her
employer. Instead of remitting the check to her employer, X deposited the check under her account.
However, the drawee bank dishonored the check because of insufficiency of funds. What is the crime
committed by X? Answer: The crime committed is impossible crime of qualified theft. Qualified theft is
a crime against property. The act of depositing the check is committed with evil intent. The mere act of
unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Inc. showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched.
There is factually impossibility to accomplish the crime of qualified theft since the check is unfunded.
(Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009).
Intod principle - In Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992 – Outside the
house of the victim, accused with intent to kill fired at the bedroom, where the victim is supposed to
be sleeping. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
The accused were convicted of impossible crime. Accused shoot the place where he thought his victim
would be, although in reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, the accused failed to
accomplish their end due to its factual impossibility. In the United States, criminal laws are silent
regarding impossible crimes; hence where the offense sought to be committed is factually impossible
of accomplishment, the offender shall be liable for attempted crime. On the other hand, where the
offense is legally impossible of accomplishment, the actor cannot be held liable for any crime. In the
Philippines, the crime committed is impossible crime if the offense sought to be committed is factually
or legally impossible. Killing a dead person is impossible crime because of legal impossibility. Putting
the hand inside an empty pocket with intention to steal a wallet is impossible crime because of factual
impossibility.
Raping a dead person- Prior to RA 8353, rape is a crime against chastity. Thus, if a person
raped a dead person believing that she was just sleeping, offender could not be held liable for
impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino). In impossible crime the act could have constituted the crime
against person or property if its accomplishment was not impossible. Rape is neither a crime against
person nor against property. However, RA 8353 reclassifies rape from crime against chastity to crime
against person. Hence, an offender for raping a dead person without knowing that she was already
dead may now be held liable for impossible crime.
Committing another crime - “A” discharged shotgun at “B” from a distance of 300 yards; but
because of the limited range of the firepower of the shotgun, it would be impossible for “A” to harm
“B”. “A” is liable of discharged of firearm and not impossible crime. Where the offender unlawful
entered the house and took a watch that turned out to be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling
and not impossible crime (Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). If the accused
administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend whom he believed to be pregnant, which turned out
not to be true, but the woman became ill for more than 30 days, the accused will be liable for serious
physical injuries and not impossible crime of abortion (Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).
STAGES
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES: In attempted felony, the offender performs

directly an overt act, which consists of one or more acts of execution, but not enough to consequently
produce the felony. In frustrated felony, the offenders perform all the acts of execution that would
produce the felony as a matter of consequence. To determine whether the felony is at the attempted
or frustrated stage, acts of execution of execution of a felony must be identified. Example: The acts of
execution that would produce homicide or murder are infliction of mortal wounds upon the victim. If
the wounds inflicted upon the victim with intent to kill are non-mortal, the crime committed is
attempted homicide; if wounds are mortal, the crime committed is frustrated homicide.
In attempted felony and frustrated felony, the external acts performed by the offender and
the intended felony must have a direct connection; but in an attempted felony, the offender failed to
perform all the acts of execution; thus his external acts would “not produce” the felony as a
consequence; on the other hand in a frustrated felony, the offender performed all the acts of
execution; thus, his external acts “would produce” the felony as a consequence.
FRUSTRATEDANDCONSUMMATED- In frustrated and consummated felony, the accused

performed all acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence. If the felony is not
produced due to external cause, the crime committed is frustrated felony; if the felony is produced the
crime committed is consummated.
In frustrated felony, the offender performed all the acts of execution but the felony was not
produced as a consequence due to extraneous cause. However, there are felonies, the commission of
which has no frustrated stage since the performance of all the acts of execution immediately
consummates the felony. In homicide or murder case, once the offender inflicted mortal wound on the
victim, all the acts of execution are considered performed. However, what consummates homicide or
murder is not the infliction of mortal wounds but the death of the victim as a consequence of the
mortal wound inflicted. Thus, if the mortally wounded victim did not die due to medical intervention,
homicide or murder is only at the frustrated stage. On the other hand, in rape once the offender
sexually penetrate the labia of the vagina of the victim, all the acts of execution are considered
performed. But since sexual penetration consummates rape, there are no occasions where the
offender performed all the acts of execution and yet the felony was not produced as a consequence. In
sum, there is no such thing as frustrated rape since the performance of all the acts of execution
immediately consummates rape.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE – In attempted felony and frustrated felony, the offender failed to
accomplish his criminal objective by reason of extraneous causes; if the causes are not extraneous, the
accused will be absolved from criminal liability.
a. Negative Act - In the attempted stage of the execution of a felony, the offender must do a
“negative act” to be exempt from criminal liability for attempted felony; since the offender has not yet
performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence, he must
spontaneously desist from further doing criminal acts that will complete all the acts of execution.
Example: “A” with intent to kill shot “B”; “B” sustained non-mortal wound. To be exempt from
criminal liability for attempted homicide or murder, “A” must spontaneously desist from further
shooting “B” in order not to inflict mortal injury upon him.
b. Positive Act – If the offender performs all the acts of execution, which would produce the
felony as a consequence, offender is not exempted from liability for frustrated felony even if he
voluntary desisted from further doing criminal act. Spontaneous desistance is a defense in attempted
felony but not in frustrated felony. In the frustrated stage of the execution of a felony, the offender
must do a “positive act” to be exempt from criminal liability; since the offender has performed all the
acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence, he must do something to prevent,
or thwart the production of the felony. Example: “A” with intent to kill shot “B”; “B” sustained mortal
wound. To be exempt from criminal liability for frustrated felony, it is not enough that “A” would
desist from further shooting “B”. The spontaneous desistance is not a valid defense since “A” had
already inflicted mortal wound on “B” that would cause his death as a consequence. Thus, “A” must
save the life of “B” by treating his wound. If “B” did not die because “A’s” medical treatment, the latter
will not be held liable for frustrated felony because the homicide was not produced due to the will of
“A”.
c. Not absolutory cause – If the felony is consummated, offender cannot undo what was done.
Offender would not be absolved from criminal liability even if he had done something that will
mitigate the effects of the felonious act. Example: (1) Restitution of funds malversed immediately and
voluntarily made before the case was instituted is not an absolutory cause (Navarro vs. Meneses III,
CBD Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998, En Banc). (2) “A” stole chicken under the house of “B” one
evening. Realizing that what he did was wrong, “A” returned the chicken to the place under the house
of “B”. Since the crime of theft was already consummated, the return of the stolen property does not
relieve “A” of criminal responsibility. “A” had already performed all the acts of execution, which
produced the crime of theft before he returned the chicken (Reyes). (3) The fact that the accused
abandoned victim after six days of captivity does not lessen his criminal culpability much less exempt
him from criminal liability for the kidnapping and detention of victim (Baldogo, G.R. No. 128106-07,
January 24, 2003, En Banc).
SPONTANOEUS DESISTANCE - The term spontaneous is not equivalent to voluntary. Even if

the desistance is voluntary, the same could not exempt the offender from liability for attempted felony
if there is an external constraint. The term “spontaneous” means proceeding from natural feeling or
native tendency without external constraint; it is synonymous with impulsive, automatic and
mechanical (People vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003, En Banc).
Accused had previously raped the victim several times. During the subject incident, accused
was wearing a pair of short pants but naked from waist up. He entered the bedroom of victim, went on
top of her, held her hands, removed her panty, mashed her breasts and touched her sex organ.
However, accused saw Rossel peeping through the door and dismounted. He berated Rossel for peeping
and ordered him to go back to his room and to sleep. Accused then left the room of the victim. Held:
Accused intended to have carnal knowledge of victim. The overt acts of accused proven by the
prosecution were not merely preparatory acts. By the series of his overt acts, accused had commenced
the execution of rape, which, if not for his desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape. Although
accused desisted from performing all the acts of execution, however, his desistance was not
spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of the sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel.
Hence, accused is guilty only of attempted rape (People vs. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003,
EnBanc).
HOMICIDE OR MURDER – The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever

stage, may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill
may consist of, inter alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim; and the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the
victim (Escamilla vs. People, GR No. 188551, February 27, 2013).
X opened the door and while still in the car drew a gun and shot A once, hitting him just below
the left armpit. X sped away. The wound sustained by A is not fatal. What is the crime committed?
Answer: X only shot the victim once and did not hit any vital part of the latter's body. If he intended to
kill him, X could have shot the victim multiple times or even ran him over with the car. Since intent to
kill is lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but physical
injuries only (Pentecostes, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 167766, April 07, 2010).
X was charged with frustrated murder for hacking the neck of victim with the use of a scythe.
Invoking the doctrine in Pentecostes, Jr., X claimed that had he intended to kill victim, he could have
repeatedly hacked him to ensure the latter’s death. Is the argument tenable? Answer: No. Pentesoste Jr.
case is not applicable since the victim in that case was shot in the arm, a non-vital part of the body. In
this case, the use of a scythe against victim’s neck was determinative of the homicidal intent of X. A
single hacking blow in the neck could be enough to decapitate a person and leave him dead. Refraining
from further hacking the victim does not negate intent to kill. What could have been a fatal blow was
already delivered and there was no more desistance to speak of (People vs. Abella, G.R. No. 198400,
October 07, 2013).
Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest. Despite a bloodied right upper torso, the latter still
managed to run towards his house to ask for help. Nonetheless, petitioner continued to shoot at him
three more times, albeit unsuccessfully. The wound sustained by the victim is fatal. The crime
committed is frustrated homicide (Escamilla vs. People, GR No. 188551, February 27, 2013).
COMPLEX CRIME
Killing persons and injuring two more by treacherously detonating a hand grenade in a dancing
place constitutes the complex crime of multiple murders with double attempted murder. Single act of
detonating an explosive device may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct
offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on
which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse
which shows his lesser degree of perversity. Even though the other victim did not suffer mortal
wounds, the crime committed is not physical injuries, because accused was motivated by the same
intent to kill when he detonated the explosive device inside the dancing place (People vs. Barde, G.R.
No. 183094, September 22, 2010).
RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Accused was convicted of crime RA No. 8282 for his failure to remit SSS contributions of his
employees and was sentenced to suffer up to 20 years of reclusion temporal. The penalty is excessive
since he already paid his delinquent contribution. Under Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the courts
are bound to apply the law as it is and impose the proper penalty, no matter how harsh it might be. The
same provision, however, gives the Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions it
deems appropriate but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as
excessive. Although an accused is convicted under a special penal law, the Court is not precluded from
giving the Revised Penal Code suppletory application in light of Article 10 of the same Code (Mendoza
vs. People, G.R. No. 183891, October 19, 2011).
CONSPIRACY
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY - In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No. 181701, January 18, 2012 -The
“evidence of a chain of circumstances,” to wit: that appellant went inside the house of Romines to
ascertain that the victim was there; that he fetched Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave
the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime; and that they both fled after the stabbing, taken
collectively, shows a community of criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently, there was conspiracy in
the commission of the crime.
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY - It is immaterial whether appellant acted as a principal or as

an accomplice because the conspiracy and his participation therein have been established. In
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime
(People vs. Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010).
DISSOCIATION - To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed
an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the
commission thereof (People vs. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635 November 15, 2010).
MASTERMIND - To be held liable as conspirator, it must also be shown that the accused
performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy except in the case of the mastermind of a crime
(People vs. Vera, GR No. 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans the commission of a crime is liable as
conspirator and principal by inducement (People vs. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004, En
banc).Notwithstanding, the fact that one was not at the crime scene, evidence proved that he was the
mastermind of the criminal act or the principal by inducement. What is important is that inducement
was the determining cause of the commission of the crime. The command or advice made by principal
by inducement was of such nature that, without it, the crime would not have materialized (People vs.
Janjalani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011).
PRESENCE - Accused, unarmed, appeared in the company of his employer, and another
person. His employer shot and killedthe victim. Accused did nothing to prevent the killing. Accused
fled together with his employer and other person.The fact that accused appeared together with
employer and another and fled with them proves a certain degree of participation and cooperation in
the execution of the crime. However, there is doubt as to whether accused acted as a principal or just a
mere accomplice. Such doubt should be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability—that
of a mere accomplice (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011). If the accused is armed at
the time, he could be held liable as principal on the basis of implied conspiracy. The fact that the
companion of the criminal actor is armed may mean that the former is supplying moral assistance to
the latter. The armed presence of conspiratorial companion may prove a sense of security and
encouragement on the part of the material executor or may serve as deterrence against possible
defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No. 133887, May 28, 2002, En Banc).
SPECIAL LAW - B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the
provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied supplementarily.
Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for violation of BP Blg. 22 on the basis of
conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005). The principle of conspiracy may be
applied to RA No. 9262. Thus, a person (such as mother-in-law), who has no marital, sexual or dating
relationship with the victim, can be held liable for violence against woman on the basis of conspiracy
(Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
Anti-graft law - May a private person be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of
R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the
filing of the Information? Answer: Yes. The death of the public officer does not meanthat the allegation
of conspiracy between him and private individual can no longer be proved or that their alleged
conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of the public officer is his
criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of
conspiracy between him and private individual (People vs. Go, GR NO. 168539, March 25, 2014, en banc).
Robbery with rape – When a homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of the
robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
whether they actually participated in the killing, unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to
prevent the killing. The records are bereft of any evidence to prove, or even remotely suggest, that
appellant attempted to prevent the killing. Therefore, the basic principle in conspiracy that the "act of
one is the act of all," applies in this case (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs.
De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013)
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the robbery, he
is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery
with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained from the
robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and
can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635,
November 15, 2010; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).
Kidnapping with rape - A, B and C kidnapped X from her house, and then detained her in a
safe house for purpose of extorting ransom. While C went to Jolibee to buy food, A raped X in the
presence of B. What is the crime committed by A, B and C?Answer: A is liable for special complex crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. Since X is a female, taking her away from her
house against her will and holding her as captive constitute kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
Raping the kidnapped victim is a qualifying circumstance. These two crimes should be integrated
together to form a composite crime where the law prescribes a single penalty.
B is also liable for special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape.
Since conspiracy is established between A and B in the commission of kidnapping, the latter is
responsible for the rape committed by former since there is no showing that B endeavored to prevent A
from raping X (People vs. Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, June 08, 2011).
C is only liable for kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Since there is no evidence that he is
aware of the commission of rape, he could not have prevented A from raping the victim. Hence, he is
not responsible for the rape (People vs. Anticamaray, supra).
SELF-DEFENSE
SELF-HELP PRINCIPLE - In People vs. Apolinar, CA, 38 O.G. 2870, it was held: Defense of
property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said
property. However, in People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, the SC found the
presence of unlawful aggression despite the fact that the invasion of his property right was not coupled
by an attack against the accused. The accused has the right to resist pursuant Article 429 of the Civil
Code, which provides: “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property.” However, since the means employed to resist the invader (killing) is not reasonable, the
accused is merely given the benefit of incomplete self-defense. Justice Florenz Regalado stated that the
rule in Apolinar case may be deemed to have been superseded by Narvaez case.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION –The essential requisites of self-defense are the following: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense. Verily, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful
and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe
wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack (Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR
No. 181052, November 14, 2012).
The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is self-
defense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it becomes incumbent upon
him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. The rationale for the shifting
of the burden of evidence is that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he
satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt is not thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the
proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an
affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof. He
must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of
that of the Prosecution, considering that the Prosecution’s evidence, even if weak, cannot be
disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing (People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110, July 31, 2013).
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
Without it, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, that can validly be invoked.
“There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger
the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual
use of a weapon.” It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s
life. It must be continuous; otherwise, it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense ( People
vs. Gamez, GR No. 202847, October 23, 2013).Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of
three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or
assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must
be unlawful (People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110, July 31, 2013).
Kinds of aggression - Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful
aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an
attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of
the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or
at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely
imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to
shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not
be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver
was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot (People v. Del
Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012; People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110, July 31, 2013; People vs.
Malicdem, G.R. No. 184601, November 12, 2012 (Justice De Castro)
Ordinarily there is a difference between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing
one’s gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. For
unlawful aggression to be attendant there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful
aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Here, the act of the victim in drawing a gun from his
waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or
personal safety of appellant. The facts surrounding the case must, however, be differentiated from
current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. Accused was justified in defending himself considering
that victim was a trained police officer and an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if the victim
did not point his firearm at accused, there would still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim (Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012).
In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012 - Indeed, had victim really attacked
accused, the latter would have sustained some injury from the aggression. It remains, however, that no
injury of any kind or gravity was found on the person of accused when he presented himself to the
hospital. In contrast, the physician who examined the cadaver of victim testified that he had been hit
on the head more than once. The plea of self-defense was thus belied, for the weapons used by accused
and the location and number of wounds he inflicted on victim revealed his intent to kill, not merely an
effort to prevent or repel an attack from victim. We consider to be significant that the gravity of the
wounds manifested the determined effort of the accused to kill his victim, not just to defend himself.
Ceased aggression - The unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased when accused
Rodolfo was able to get hold of the bladed weapon. Although there was still some struggle involved
between the victim and accused, there is no doubt that the latter, who was in possession of the same
weapon, already became the unlawful aggressor. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In
retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused
attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the
accused. Such an aggression can also be surmised on the four stab wounds sustained by the victim on
his back. It is hard to believe based on the location of the stab wounds, all at the back portion of the
body, that accused was defending himself. It would have been different if the wounds inflicted were
located in the front portion of the victim's body. Thus, the first element of self-defense is not present
(Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 181052, November 14, 2012).
Necessary means - The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be

commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally
necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. In the present case, four stab wounds that are
the product of direct thrusting of the bladed weapon are not necessary to prevent what the accused
claim to be the continuous unlawful aggression from the victim as the latter was already without any
weapon. In connection therewith, having established that there was no unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim when he was stabbed, accused cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense (Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 181052, November 14, 2012).
Under doctrine of rationale equivalence, plea of self-defense would prosper if there is a rational
equivalence between the means of attack by the unlawful aggressor and the means of defense by the
accused that would characterize the defense as reasonable. The doctrine of rational equivalence
presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender
and the assailant—but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-à-vis, the unlawful
aggression. Clearly, this “continuous attack” by accused despite the fact that aggressor already was
neutralized by the blow constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the aggression—
and is therefore unjustified (Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010).
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME: "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically

defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 3 of RA No. 9262). Each of the phases of the cycle
of violence must be proven to have characterized “at least two battering episodes” between the accused
and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear
of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to
save her life. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). The three phases of the Battered
Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving or non-violent phase (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004; Answer to
the 2010 Bar Examination Questions by UP Law Complex). The essence of this defense of “Battered
Woman Syndrome” as a defense is that battered woman, who suffers from physical and psychological
or emotional distress, is acting under an irresistible impulse to defend herself although at the time of
commission of the crime the batterer-victim had not yet committed unlawful aggression. In Genosa
supra, it was held that “it is crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of
the offense. She must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to
kill him in order to save her life.” That is why even in the absence of “actual aggression” or any other
element of self-defense, a woman, who is found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome is not
criminally liable for killing her husband.
IRRESISTABLE FORCE
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because
he does not act with freedom. Actus me invite factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my
will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere
instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not
enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat (People vs. Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011)
MINORITY
The rights and privileges of a child in conflict with the law are as follows:
1. Exempting circumstance of minority - To exempt a minor, who is 15 years old or more,

from criminal liability, it must be shown that he committed the criminal act without discernment.
Choosing an isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection and boxing the
victim to weaken her defense” are indicative of accused’s mental capacity to fully understand the
consequences of his unlawful action (People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).
A child, who are already serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive
application of RA 9344. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or
other applicable law (Section 68 of RA No. 9344; People vs. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30,
2013).
2. Privilege mitigating circumstance – In People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7, 2013 –
Accused is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, which graduates the penalty
one degree lower. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because
of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment. This is regardless of the fact
that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented
for our consideration, since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state, the
victim and his heirs.
Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions in RPC is not applicable unless the accused is a
minor. In such case, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered reclusion perpetua. In sum, if
the accused is a minor, Article 68 of RPC on the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority shall
apply to crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug even though this is malum prohibitum
punishable by life imprisonment. Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment for illegal possession of
dangerous drug committed by a minor, which is treated as reclusion perpetua, shall be graduated to
reclusion temporal because of the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority (People vs. Montalaba,
G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011)
3. Suspension of sentence - While Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence

can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the
time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of
sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the child in conflict with the law, who
reached 21 years, cannot avail of privilege of suspension of sentence(People vs. Mantalba, G.R. No.
186227, July 20, 2011; People vs. Salcedo, GR No. 186523, June 22, 2011; People vs. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563,
December 14, 2011 (Justice De Castro; People vs. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013).
4. Probation - Right to apply for probation despite appeal- Section 4 of PD No. 968 provides:
“Application for probation must be filed within the period of perfecting an appeal and no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.”
However, RA No. 9344 has expressly amended Section 4 of PD No. 968 and provides that a child in
conflict with the law can apply for probation at any time. Section 42 of RA No. 9344 provides: “The court
may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time,
place the child on probation in lie of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest to the
child. The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section 42 means the child in conflict with the law may file
application for probation even beyond the period of perfecting an appeal and even if the child has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Right of possessor or user of dangerous drugs to apply for probation - The rule under Section
24 of RA No. 9165, which disqualifies drug traffickers and pushers for applying for probations, does not
extend to possessor of dangerous drugs. In Padua vs. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008, it was held
that: “The law considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as victims while the drug traffickers
and pushers as predators. Hence, while drug traffickers and pushers, like Padua, are categorically
disqualified from availing the law on probation, youthful drug dependents, users and possessors alike,
are given the chance to mend their ways.”
Right to apply for probation even if the penalty for possession of dangerous drug is more than 6
years– Under Section 9 of PD 968, one is sentenced to suffer a penalty (maximum indeterminate
penalty) of more than is not qualified to apply for probation. However, under Section 70 of RA No. 9165,
a first time minor offender can apply for probation for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug
even if the penalty is higher than 6 years of imprisonment.
5. Agricultural camp or other training facilities - The child in conflict with the law may,
after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a
regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities in accordance with
Section 51 of RA No. 9344 (People vs. Mantalba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011; People vs. Salcedo, GR No.
186523, June 22, 2011; People vs. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011, Justice De Castro).
6. Full credit of preventive imprisonment - Under Article 29 of RPC, a convicted recidivist is not
entitled to a full or 4/5 credit of his preventive imprisonment. However, if the convict is a child, the
applicable rule for crediting the period of commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but
Section 41, RA 9344. Under the said provision, the full time spent in actual commitment and detention
of juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence (Atizado vs. People, G.R. No.
173822, October 13, 2010.
IMBECILITY
In exempting circumstance of minority under Section 6 of RA No. 9344, what is important is the
chronological age of the accused. If the actual age of the child is 15 years or under, he is exempt from
criminal liability. In People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 04, 2014 - In determining age for purposes of
exemption from criminal liability, Section 6 clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary
of one’s birth date, and not the mental age.
In exempting circumstance of imbecility, what is important is the mental age of the accused. If
the mental age of the accused is 2 years, he is an idiot; if his mental age is 7 years old, he is an imbecile
(People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011). An idiot or imbecile is exempt from criminal
liability.
If the mental age of the accused is 12 years old, he is a feebleminded (People vs. Butiong). A
feebleminded is not an imbecile; hence, he is not exempt from criminal liability (People vs. Nunez, G.R.
NO. 112429-30, July 23, 1997)
In People vs. Roxas, the chronological age of the victim is 18 years while his mental age is 9
years old. Exempting circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated since he is not a minor. His actual
age is not below 18 years. Exempting circumstance of imbecility cannot be appreciated. He is not an
imbecile since his mental age is not 7 years.
INSANITY
Acts penalized by law are always presumed to be voluntary, and it is improper to conclude that
a person acted unconsciously in order to relieve him of liability, unless his insanity is conclusively
proved (People vs. Pambid, GR No. 124453, March 15, 2000).Insanity is the exception rather than the
rule in the human condition. The presumption, under Article 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human
is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with
clear and convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking
insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity
(People vs. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010).
Insanity as an exempting circumstance must relate to the time immediately preceding or

coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which accused is charged (People vs. Tibon, supra).
COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION TEST - The case of Formigones established two
distinguishable tests to determine the insane condition of the accused:
(a) The test of cognition – whether there was a “complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the criminal act” After satisfying his lust, accused threatened the victim. This implies that
accused knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. It also indicated
that the crime was committed during one of his lucid intervals. Accused is not exempt from liability for
failure to pass the cognition test (People vs. Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 5, 2009) and
Evidence tended to show that accused was not deprived of reason at all and can still distinguish
right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust, he threatened victim. This single episode irresistibly
implies, for one, that accused knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a
secret. And for another, it indicated that the crime was committed during one of lucid intervals of
accused (People vs. Alipio, supra).
(b) The test of volition – whether there was a “total deprivation of freedom of the will.” In the
Bonoan case, schizophrenic accused, who acted under irresistible homicidal impulse to kill (volition
test), was acquitted due to insanity. This is not anymore a good rule. Even if the mental condition of the
accused had passed the volition test, the plea of insanity will not prosper unless it also passed the
cognition test. The controlling test is cognition (People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17,
2004).Accused will be convicted if he was not totally deprived of reason and freedom of will (People vs.
Garchitorena, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009 (Justice De Castro). Only when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting
circumstance of insanity be considered (People vs. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 05, 201, Justice De
Castro).
In recent Supreme Court cases, the plea of insanity of person, who is suffering from
schizophrenia, was rejected because of failure to pass the cognition test. In sum, a schizophrenic accused
must be deprived completely of intelligence to be exempt from criminal liability (See: People vs.
Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993).If a person
(such as sex maniac, homicidal maniac or kleptomaniac)had merely passed the volition test but not the
cognition test, he will only be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance of illness. Diminution of
freedom of the will is enough to mitigate the liability of the offender suffering from illness (See: People
vs. Rafanan, Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991).
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE IN CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY
No criminal liability is incurred by the stepfather who commits malicious mischief against his
stepson; by the stepmother who commits theft against her stepson; by the stepfather who steals
something from his stepson; by the grandson who steals from his grandfather; by the accused who
swindles his sister-in-law living with him; and by the son who steals a ring from his mother (Intestate
Estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). The absolutory cause applies to theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply to theft through falsification or estafa through
falsification (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). There are two
viewson whether the extinguishment of marriage by death of the spouse dissolves the relationship by
affinity for purpose of absolutory cause. The first holds that relationship by affinity terminates with the
dissolution of the marriage, while the second maintains that relationship continues even after the
death of the deceased spouse. The principle of pro reocalls for the adoption of the continuing affinity
view because it is more favorable to the accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No.
181409, February 11, 2010).
INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT
“Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to
commit, in order to prosecute him." It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and
means in order to trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent to commit an offense
originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not
have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or
design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the
criminal by using ruses and schemes. Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused, while
entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction.
Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to
commit, in order to prosecute him. It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and
means in order to trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent to commit an offense
originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not
have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or
design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the
criminal by using ruses and schemes. Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused, while
entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction (People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 180919, January 9,
2013).
In People vs. Espiritu et. Al., G.R. No. 180919, January 9, 2013 - Here, the evidence clearly
established that the police operatives employed entrapment, not instigation, to capture appellant and
her cohorts in the act of selling shabu. It must be recalled that it was only upon receipt of a report of
the drug trafficking activities of Espiritu from the confidential informant that a buy-bust team was
formed and negotiations for the sale of shabu were made. Also, appellant testified that she agreed to
the transaction of her own free will when she saw the same as an opportunity to earn money. Notably
too, appellant was able to quickly produce a sample. This confirms that she had a ready supply of the
illegal drugs. Clearly, she was never forced, coerced or induced through incessant entreaties to source
the prohibited drug for Carla and PO3 Cariño and this she even categorically admitted during her
testimony.
Moreover, a police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust
operation, or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate
the buy-bust operation. in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs, any of the following will not exculpate
the accused: "(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or
(2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his
criminal act; or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and
apparently assisted in its commission."
Hence, even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu,
appellant’s defense of instigation will not prosper. This is "especially true in that class of cases where
the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a
course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense
was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer."
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER –To appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,

the following requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. A
surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them
the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Voluntary surrender
presupposes repentance (People vs. Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010, Justice De Castro)
The surrender made after 14 days from the date of killing cannot be considered voluntary since
his act did not emanate from a natural impulse to admit the killing or to save the police officers the
effort and expense that would be incurred in his search and incarceration. (People vs. Agacer, G.R. No.
177751, December 14, 2011).
The accused surrendered only after having been informed of the charge of rape against him or
about two months from the commission of the alleged crime. He even denied the said charge upon his
purported surrender. The alleged surrender, therefore, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance
(People vs. Salle, G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010, Justice De Castro).
Surrender is not voluntary where the accused went to Barangay Chairman after the killings to
seek protection against the retaliation of the victims’ relatives, not to admit his participation in the
killing of the victims (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012).
The evidence shows that the appellants were arrested when the police officers manning the
checkpoint stopped the passenger jeepney driven by appellant Ronald and arrested the appellants. The
fact that the appellants did not resist but went peacefully with the peace officers does not mean that
they surrendered voluntarily (People vs. Castillano, G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003).
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION - A plea of guilty made after the prosecution had begun presenting
its evidence cannot be considered voluntary since it was made only after the accused realized that the
evidence already presented by the prosecution is enough to cause his conviction. It is not required that
the prosecution must have presented all its evidence when the plea of guilty was made to negate the
appreciation of mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession (People vs. Montinola, G.R. No. 131856-
57, July 9, 2001, En Banc).
VENDICATION: The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a

grave offense was, likewise, properly appreciated. The appellant was humiliated, mauled and almost
stabbed by the deceased. Although the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed
Anthony, it was nonetheless a grave offense for which the appellant may be given the benefit of a
mitigating circumstance. But the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances
arose from one and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony, so that they should
be considered as only one mitigating circumstance (People vs. Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 4, 2004).
In vindication of grave offense, criminal exemption of accessories, alternative circumstance of

relationship and defense of stranger, the concept of relationship is the same. It refers to (1) spouse, (2)
ascendants, (3) descendants, or (4) legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or (5) of his
relatives by affinity in the same degrees. However, in defense of relative, there is an additional concept
of relationship. It includes relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Thus, an uncle is a
relative within the concept of defense of stranger (Reyes). However, relationship of uncle and niece is
not an alternative circumstance (People vs. Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February 23, 2004).
PASSION - The following essential requirements must be present: (1) there was an act that was
both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition (passion or obfuscation) of the mind; and (2)
such act was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator might have recovered his normal equanimity (People vs. Comillo, G.R. No.
186538, November 25, 2009). Four days after the victims attempted on the virtue of his wife, accused
killed them. The period of four days was sufficient enough a time within which accused could have
regained his composure and self-control. Hence, passion should not be appreciated (People vs.
Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011, Justice De Castro).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Generic aggravating circumstances has the effect of increasing the penalty for the crime to its
maximum period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. It must always be alleged
and charged in the information, and must be proven during the trial in order to be
appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance (People vs. De Leon, GR
No. 179943, June 26, 2009).
It is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be

expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be
considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they are subsequently proved during trial
(Sombilon, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009, JusticeDe Castro)
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has expressly required that qualifying and aggravating
circumstances be specifically alleged in the information. Due to such requirement being pro reo, the
Court has authorized its retroactive application in favor of even those charged with felonies committed
prior to December 1, 2000, which is the date of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure that embodied the requirement (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011).
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION - The mere use of service firearm is not enough to
constitute taking advantage of public position. Fact that accused made use of firearms which they were
authorized to carry or possess by reason of their positions, could not supply the required connection
between the office and the crime.The crime in question, for example, could have been committed by
the defendants in the same or like manner and with the same case if they had been private individuals
and fired with unlicensed weapons (People vs. Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983; People vs.
Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999, En Banc; People vs. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000;
People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08 and 141908-09, January 15, 2002, En Banc; and People vs.
Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004, En Banc).
IGNOMINY - After killing the victim, the accused severed his sexual organ. Should ignominy be
appreciated? No. For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the offense be committed in a
manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the victim’s moral suffering.
Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered, ignominy
cannot be taken against the accused (People vs. Cachola, G.R. Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004)`
TREACHERY –To appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions must be present, namely, (a) the
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
to retaliate, and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted (People vs. Duavis,
GR No. 190861, December 07, 2011).
Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery

with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible
crime (People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010).
As the killing, in this case, is perpetrated with both treachery and by means of explosives, the
latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal mode of attack. Reason
dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be considered
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance (People vs. Barde G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010).
EMPLOMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE - If the employment of means to weaken the

defense of the victim renders the victim defenseless, treachery absorbs circumstance of employing
means to weaken defense (People vs. Tunhawan, G.R. NO. L-81470, October 27, 1988).
DISGUISE - If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he treacherously killed the
victim, the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by disguise (People vs.
Piring, G.R. No. 45053, October 19, 1936). If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he
killed the victim, the crime committed is murder qualified by employment of means of affords
impunity.
If the accused treacherously stabbed the victim, and the crime committed is murder qualified
by treachery and aggravated by disguise. If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he
killed the victim, the crime committed is murder qualified by employment of means of affords
impunity.
NIGHTTIME - Thus, treachery absorbs nighttime where had it not been at night the offender,
with his cohorts, would not have been able to approach the deceased without the latter's becoming
aware of his presence and guessing his intention; If they were able to catch victim completely
unawares, it was due to the darkness of the night which covered them (People vs. Gumarang , GR N.
46413, October 6, 1939).
As a general rule, nighttime is aggravating because the darkness of the night facilitated the
commission of the crime or insured impunity. Thus, nighttime cannot aggravate the crime if it is
committed in a lighted place although at the wee hours of the night (People vs. Clariño, G.R. NO.
134634, July 31, 2001). The darkness of the night and “not nighttime per se” is important in appreciating it
as modifying circumstance (People vs. Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004). But if the offender
purposely selected the wee hour of the night when neighbors and occupants of the house including the
victim were sleeping to facilitate the commission of the crime or to afford impunity, nighttime is
appreciable even if the place of commission is lighted. (People vs. Demate, G.R. No. 132310, January 20,
2004, En Banc).While accused were already outside the victims’ house at around 11:00 p.m., they
purposely waited until 2:00 a.m. before breaking into the residence so as not to call the attention of the
victims, household members and/or their neighbors. Taking advantage of the fact that the victim and
household members were asleep, accused entered the well-lighted bedroom and killed the victim.
Nighttime should be appreciated since accused took advantage of the silence of the night (People vs.
Ventura and Ventura, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per Curiam).
ABUSE OF SUEPRIOR STRENGHT - Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is

inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, considering that a situation of superiority of
strength is notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and is selected or taken advantage of by him in
the commission of the crime (People vs. Garchitorena, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009 (Justice De
Castro).The victim need not be completely defenseless in order for the said aggravating circumstance
to be appreciated (People vs. Paling, G.R. No. 185390 March 16, 2011). If the victim is completely
defenseless, treachery should be appreciated (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011).When
the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the
latter (People vs. Dadao, et.al., G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014 (Justice De Castro).
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION -To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution

must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c)
a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act (People vs. Sabangan, G.R. No. 191722, December 11, 2013,
Justice De Castro).The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must
be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during
a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment (People vs. Alinao, GR No. 191256, September 18,
2013).
Accused told witness that they were “going to kill the doctor”. After less than thirty minutes,
the accused killed the victim, who is a doctor. Evident premeditation should not be appreciated. The
span of time (less than thirty minutes), from the time the accused showed their determination to kill
the victim up to the time they shot the victim, could not have afforded them full opportunity for
meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed (People vs. Patelan, G.R.
No. 182918, June 6, 2011).Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist
that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and
reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the subject felony (People vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July 6, 2011).
DISREGARD OF SEX: Robbery with homicide is essentially a felony against property. The
aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victim’s age is applied only to crimes against persons and
honor. Moreover, the bare fact that the victim is a woman does not per se constitute disregard of
sex. For this circumstance to be properly considered, the prosecution must adduce evidence that in the
commission of the crime, the accused had particularly intended to insult or commit disrespect to the
sex of the victim (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, April 13, 2004.
The circumstances of disregard of sex, age or rank should be taken singly or together. But the
circumstance of dwelling should be considered independently from the circumstance of disregard of
age, sex and rank since these circumstances signify different concepts. In the latter, the disrespect
shown by offender pertains to the person of the offended due to her rank, age and sex. In the former,
the disrespect pertains to the dwelling of the offended party due to the sanctity of privacy which the
law accords it. In People vs. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981, En Banc - Disregard of rank and
dwelling were appreciated independently.
In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in
this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of
the offended party's house(People vs. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011).
AID OF ARMED MEN: Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires (1) that the
armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or indirectly (People vs. Lozano,
G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003, En Banc) and (2) that the accused availed himself of their aid
or relied upon them when the crime was committed. Thus, this circumstance should not be appreciated
were armed men acted in concert to ensure the commission of the crime (People vs. Carino, G.R. No.
131117, June 15, 2004). In “aid of armed men,” the men act as accomplices only. They must not be acting
in the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused, otherwise they are to
be regarded as co-principals or co-conspirators (People vs. Enoja, GR No. 204894, March 10, 2014).
CRUELTY: The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because the victim sustained ten stab
wounds, three of which were fatal. For cruelty to be considered as an aggravating circumstance there
must be proof that, in inflicting several stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator intended to
exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. The number of wounds inflicted on the victim is not
proof of cruelty (Simangan vs. People, G.R. No. 157984. July 8, 2004).
REPETITION - Differences of recidivism, quasi-recidivism, reiteracion and habitual

delinquency:
(a) Nature of crime – In recidivism, the first crime, and the aggravated second crime are
embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; In quasi-recidivism, the nature of the first crime
and aggravated second crime is not material. In reiteration, the penalty for the first crime is equal or
greater than that for the aggravated second crime or the penalty for the first two crimes is lighter than
that for the aggravated third crime. In habitual delinquency, the first, second and third crimes must be
a habitual-delinquency crime, and that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa
or falsification of document.
(b) Time element – In recidivism, the accused was convicted of the first crime by final judgment at
the time of trial of the second crime. In quasi-recidivism, the accused has been convicted by final
judgment of the first offense but before beginning to serve his sentence or while servicing of his sentence, he
committed the second crime. In reiteration, the accused was convicted of the first crime (or first two
crimes) and served his sentences at the time he was convicted of the second crime (or third crime). In
habitual delinquency, the accused was convicted of first habitual-delinquency crime; within 10 years
after conviction or release, he was found guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the second time;
within 10 years after conviction or release he was found guilty of habitual-delinquency crime for the
third time or oftener.
(c) Nature of the aggravating circumstance - Recidivism and reiteration are ordinary aggravating
circumstances, the presence of any of which will trigger the application of the penalty for the second
crime committed in its maximum period unless it is off-set by mitigating circumstance. Quasi-
recidivism is special aggravating circumstance, the presence of which will trigger the application of the
penalty for the second crime or third crime in its maximum period regardless of the presence of
mitigating circumstance. Habitual delinquency is an extraordinary or special aggravating
circumstance, the presence of which will trigger the imposition of additional penalty for the third or
subsequent crime. This is not subject to the off-set rule.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE
Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its
commission. Based on a strict interpretation, alternative circumstances are thus not aggravating
circumstances per se. (People vs. Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004, En banc).
If the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, this circumstance may be
mitigating or aggravating. If the prosecution claims intoxication as aggravating, it must establish that
the intoxication is habitual or intentional(People vs. Patelan, G.R. No. 182918, June 6, 2011).Even if the
accused could still fully comprehend what is right and what is wrong, intoxication is aggravating as
long as intoxication is habitual or intentional and it boasted the courage of accused that propelled him
to commit the crime. To aggravate the liability of the accused, it is not necessary that degree of
intoxication must have impaired the will power of the accused (People vs. Ga, G.R. No. 49831, June 27,
1990).If accused claims intoxication as mitigating, he must establish that his intoxication was not
habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime and that he took such quantity of alcoholic
beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason (People vs. Fontillas, G.R. No.
184177, December 15, 2010, Justice De Castro). Failure of the prosecution or the accused to do so,
intoxication is neither aggravating nor mitigating.
PARTICIPATION
Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor is the person who actually committed the crime. He is the
one who committed or omitted the act, which causes the criminal result. He directly perpetrated the
acts, which constitute the crime. With or without conspiracy, the chief actor is a principal by direct
participation.
Criminal participator - Criminal participator is the offender who participated in committing a

crime by indispensable or dispensable act. He performed an act, which is not constitutive of felony but
intended to give moral or material aid to the chief actor.
(1) With conspiracy - If there is conspiracy, the criminal participator or cooperator is a principal
by direct participation. The act of the chief actor is considered the act of the criminal participator.
(2) Without conspiracy - If there is no conspiracy, criminal participator may be held liable as
principal by indispensable cooperation, accomplice or accessory depending upon the nature and
time of participation. A criminal participator may participate in the commission of the crime by
previous, simultaneous and/or subsequent acts.
(a) Previous or simultaneous acts– The criminal participator by previous or simultaneous acts
is liable either as principal by indispensable cooperation or accomplice. If the cooperation is
indispensable, the participator is a principal by indispensable cooperation; if dispensable an
accomplice.
(b) Subsequent acts – The criminal participator by subsequent acts is liable as an accessory.
An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of
the felony, but, with knowledge of the commission of the crime, he subsequently takes part by
any of the three modes under Article 19.
The liability of accessory and principal should also be considered as quasi-collective. It is

quasi-collective in the sense that the principal and the accessory are liable for the felony committed
but the penalty for the latter is two degrees lower than that for the former.
ACCOMPLICE AND CONSPIRATOR - In People vs. PO1 Eusebio G.R. No. 182152, February 25,
2013 - It noted that victim had only three gunshot wounds despite the many shots fired at him. Since
Bongon shot victim thrice at very close range, causing him to fall, it appears that it was only Bongon
who inflicted those wounds. And, considering that the prosecution evidence did not show that the
shots three other accused fired from their guns made their marks, there is doubts that the three agreed
beforehand with Bongon to kill victim. It cannot rule out the possibility that they fired their guns
merely to scare off outside interference.
Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement or conspired
to commit a crime, such agreement is usually inferred from their "concerted actions" while committing
it. On the other hand, accomplices are the persons who, not being principals, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
The line that separates a conspirator by concerted action from an accomplice by previous or
simultaneous acts is indeed slight. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed;
but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. The solution in case of doubt is that
such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. It was held that when there is doubt as to
whether a guilty participant in a homicide performed the role of principal or accomplice, the Court
should favor the "milder form of responsibility." He should be given the benefit of the doubt and can be
regarded only as an accomplice. Hence, in the case at bar, the other three accused should be granted
the benefit of doubt and should considered merely as accomplices.
It is immaterial whether accused acted as a principal or an accomplice. What really matters is

that the conspiracy was proven and he took part in it. Without the participation of accused, the offense
would not have been committed. He was the one who paved the way for victim to board the vehicle and
his closeness with the victim led the latter to trust the former, thus, accomplishing their devious plan
of kidnapping him. Consequently, the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime, because in
a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all (People vs. Cruz, Jr., GR No. 168446, September 18, 2009).
ACCOMPLICE - In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, namely, (1) that there
be community of design; that is knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or
simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in
an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice (People vs. Gambao, GR No. 172707, October 01, 2013).
Accused entered the room where the victim was detained and conversed with kidnappers
regarding stories unrelated to the kidnapping. Accused should be held liable as accomplice. The
defenses raised by accused are not sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. Assuming arguendo that
she just came to the resort thinking it was a swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired
knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when she saw victim being guarded in the room. A
rational person would have suspected something was wrong and would have reported such incident to
the police. Accused, however, chose to keep quiet; and to add to that, she even spent the night at the
cottage. It has been held before that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being
committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. It should be noted
that the accused-appellant’s presence and company were not indispensable and essential to the
perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an accomplice. Moreover, in case
of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that
of a principal (People vs. Gambao, GR No. 172707, October 01, 2013).
X and Y did not participate when the victim was forcibly abducted. However, they owned the
safehouse, the basement of their house, where the kidnapped victim was detained. X assisted the
kidnappers when the victim the basement stairs of the safehouse. Y brought foods to the safehouse. Are
X and Y liable as accomplice or principal by direct participation?They are liable as principals because of
conspiracy. Their participations are of minor importance. These acts pertain to those committed by
mere accomplices. However, their acts coincide with their ownership of the safehouse. They provided
the place where the victim is to be detained, which is logically a primary consideration in a conspiracy
to commit the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Ownership of the safehouse and their participations
reasonably indicate that they were among those who at the outset planned, and thereafter concurred
with and participated in the execution of the criminal design (People vs. Salvador, GR No. 201443, April
10, 2013).
FENCING
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has
been committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have known
that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft; and (4) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another
(Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013).
The essential elements of the crime of fencing under PD No. 1612 are as follows: (1) A crime of
robbery or theft has been committed; (2) The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft (or carnapping but not malversation or estafa), buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;
(3) The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) There is on the part of the
accused, intent to gain for himself or for another (Francisco vs. People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004).
a. Proving robbery or theft – Commission of robbery or theft by the principal as an element

of fencing should be proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict the fencer. One may not be convicted
of the crime of fencing if the complainant did not lodge a criminal complaint against the principal in
the crime of theft. This will create doubt if theft was really committed (Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 134298,
August 26, 1999) Failure to show finality of conviction of theft against the principal is fatal to
prosecution for fencing. In Francisco vs. People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004, - The decision of the
trial court convicting the principal of theft does not constitute proof against the accused for the crime
of fencing, that the principal had, indeed, stolen the jewelry. There is no showing that the said
decision was already final and executory when the trial court rendered its decision in the fencing case.
Accused was acquitted.
b. Knowledge - In Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012 – But Presidential Decree
1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof
of criminal intent. Of course, the prosecution must still prove that accused knew or should have known
that the Nissan Safari he acquired and later sold to complainant was derived from theft or robbery and
that he intended to obtain some gain out of his acts. Accused knew that the Nissan Safari he bought
was not properly documented. He said that Tolentino showed him its old certificate of registration and
official receipt. But this certainly could not be true because, the vehicle having been carnapped,
Tolentino had no documents to show. That Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to
produce new documents undoubtedly confirmed to accused that the Nissan Safari came from an illicit
source. Still, accused sold the same to complainant who apparently made no effort to check the papers
covering her purchase. That complainant might herself be liable for fencing is of no moment since she
did not stand accused in the case.
Accused was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the past 24 years, ] ought to have known
the ordinary course of business in purchasing from an unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached
accused and offered to sell the 13 tires (which were stolen) and he did not even ask for proof of
ownership of the tires. The entire transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery of tires
happened in just one day. His experience from the business should have given him doubt as to the
legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it was his first time to transact with Go and the
manner it was sold is as if Go was just peddling the 13 tires in the streets. Accused was convicted of
fencing (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013).
Accused knew the requirement of the law in selling second hand tires. Section 6 of P.D. 1612
requires stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buying and selling of any good, article, item,
object or anything else of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof to secure the
necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the
town or city where that store, establishment or entity is located before offering the item for sale to the
public. In fact, accused has practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances from the police station for
some used tires he wanted to resell but, in this particular transaction, he was remiss in his duty as a
diligent businessman who should have exercised prudence (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10,
2013).
The issuance of a sales invoice or receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be raised
as a defense in the charge of fencing; however, that defense is disputable. In this case, the validity of
the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its
address were fictitious. Accused failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and to
prove the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption
under Section 5 of P.D. 1612 (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013).
c. Presumption: Section 6 of PD No. 1612 provides: “Mere possession of any good, article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing.”Possession is not limited to actual manual control of the offender over the stolen
property but extends to power and dominion over it.
Circumstances normally exist to forewarn, for instance, a reasonably vigilant buyer that the
object of the sale may have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. Such circumstances
include the time and place of the sale, both of which may not be in accord with the usual practices of
commerce. The nature and condition of the goods sold, and the fact that the seller is not regularly
engaged in the business of selling goods may likewise suggest the illegality of their source, and
therefore should caution the buyer. This justifies the presumption found in Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612
that “mere possession of any goods, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing”. This presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical
inference can arise from the established fact of possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft (Ong vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013).
The accessory in theft should materially benefit from it. Riding in a stolen vehicle is “not
profiting” within the contemplation of Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code since it does not improve
his economic position. Profiting is not synonymous to intent to gain as an element of theft (Gregorio).
However, in violation of PD No. 1612, use of stolen property gives rise to the presumption of fencing.
Hence, the user may be held liable for fencing even though he did not materially benefit from crime of
theft.
The presumption of theft is disputable. The presumption of fencing may be overcome by

showing proof that accused bought the item from a licensed dealer of second-hand items (Hizon-
Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. No. 11414, July 11, 1994) or by showing official receipts covering the
purchases of property, which is the subject of fencing (D. M Consunji, Inc. vs. Esguerra, G.R. No.
118590, July 30, 1996).
d. Recently stolen property – If suspect is found in possession of recently stolen property, he

should be charged as principal in the crime of theft or robbery. Under Section 3 (j), Rule 131, a person
found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of recently wrongful act is the taker and the doer of
the whole act. Settled is the rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen property is prima facie
evidence of guilt of the crime of theft ( US vs. Ungal, 37 Phil., 835). If the subject property is not
recently stolen, the presumption under Section 3 (j), Rule 131 will not arise. However, the possessor is
still presumed to have violated PD No. 1612 even if the property being possessed was not recently
stolen. Under the law, mere possession of stolen property gives rise to the presumption of fencing.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Obstruction of justice under PD No. 1829 is committed by any person who knowingly or
willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation
and prosecution of criminal cases by (1) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper,
record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used
in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; (2) harboring or concealing, or
facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and
conviction;
a. Commission of crime, not an element - To be held liable as accessory under the Revised
Penal Code, it is required that the crime was committed by the principal. To be held liable for
obstruction of justice, it is not necessary that the crime was committed by a criminal suspect.
Example: “A” committed suicide. To make it appear that “B” murdered “A, “C” placed the gun used in
perpetrating suicide inside the bag of “B”. “C” committed the crime of obstruction of justice for having
obstructed the investigation of a criminal case involving the death of “A”. “C” cannot be held liable as
accessory because murder was not really committed.
b. Knowledge - An accessory under Revised Penal Code must have knowledge of the
commission of the crime by the principal. To commit obstruction of justice, what is important is not
knowledge of the commission of a crime but awareness of an ongoing or impending investigation and
prosecution of a criminal case. In fact, even though the suspect did not commit a crime, obstruction of
justice is committed if he knowingly obstructs, impedes, or frustrates the said investigation and
prosecution.
c. Obstructing criminal investigation or prosecution - Public officer, who destroyed

dangerous drugs as evidence for monetary consideration, is liable for obstruction of justice in addition
to graft and corruption and direct bribery (2005 Bar Exam)
If a respondent in a preliminary investigation altered the allegation in the complaint-affidavit

as to the date of criminal incident to make it appear that the crime, with which he was charged, had
prescribed, the alteration is constitutive of the crime of falsification of document under Article 172 of
the Revised Penal Code and obstruction of justice under PD No. 1829.
d. Principal of the crime - “A” and “B” killed “X”. After the slaughter, “A” and “B” burned
the dead body of “X” in the forest to prevent its discovery. Can “A” and “B” be charged as accessory of
the crime to murder or obstruction of justice? “A” and “B” are principals by direct participation in the
crime of murder qualified by employment of means to afford impunity. Hence, they cannot be charged
as accessories. Under the Revised Penal Code, accessories must not have participated in the
commission of the crime as principals. However, in addition to murder, they can be charged with the
crime of obstruction of justice for destroying an object to impair its availability as evidence in a case.
Under PD No. 1829, it is not required that the offenders must not have participated as principals.
e. Suspicion - An accessory under Article 19 (3) of the Revised Penal Code must have
knowledge of the commission of the crime by the principal. Entertaining suspicion is not itself proof of
knowledge that a crime has been committed. “Knowledge” and “suspicion” are not synonymous. The
word suspicion is defined as being the imagination of the existence of something without proof, or
upon very slight evidence or upon no evidence at all (Reyes). On the other hand, the offender may
violate Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829 even though he has no knowledge of the commission of the crime
as long as he has reasonable ground to believe or suspects that the person he assisted has committed a
crime. In some, mere suspicion is enough to establish the second element of the offense.
d. Preventing an illegal arrest – Harboring or concealing a criminal suspect in order to

prevent a lawful warrantless arrest or the implementation of a warrant of arrest constitutes obstruction of
justice. However, harboring or concealing a criminal suspect to prevent an illegal arrest is not a crime.
The term “arrest” in Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829 contemplates a lawful arrest (Posadas vs. the Hon.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000)
e. Accessory – To make a person liable as accessory under the Revised Penal Code, it is
required that he is a public officer, who acted with abuse of his public functions, or that the person
assisted is guilty as principal in treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive or a principal, who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. This requirement is
not applicable if the accused is charged with obstruction of justice.
f. No exempting circumstance - Accessories are exempt from criminal liability if the

principal merely committed a light felony (Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code). Accessories of the
second or third kind are exempt also from criminal responsibility if they are related to the criminal
actor (Article 20 of the Code). However, if the accessories of the crime were charged with the crime of
obstruction of justice, they cannot claim criminal exemption under the Revised Penal Code. PD No.
1829 has no provision on criminal exemption.
Article 29 of RPC
RA NO. 10592 and its implementing rules
1. Preventive imprisonment – Under Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592 and its
implementing rules and regulations, an accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
credited, either full or four-fifths (4/5) term, for his actual detention or service of his sentence,
provided he is not disqualified.
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted
from thirty (30) years.
a. No credit by reason of disqualification – The grant of credit of preventive imprisonment

shall not apply to the following:
a. An accused who is recidivist;

b. An accused who has been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
c. An accused who, upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence, has failed to
surrender voluntarily before a court of law.
b. Full time credit - An accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment if;
a. He agrees voluntarily, in writing, to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners; and
b. Such undertaking is executed with the assistance of the counsel.
The undertaking is called detainee’s manifestation, which is defined as a written declaration of a

detained prisoner, with the assistant of a counsel, stating his refusal to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon a convicted prisoner for the purpose of availing the full credit of the period of his
preventive imprisonment
c. 4/5 time credit - An accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment and who does
not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon prisoners convicted by final judgment
shall be credited by the service of his sentence with four-fifths (4/5) of the time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment if;
a. He shall do in writing
b. With the assistance of counsel.
In sum, the detainee must execute a written waiver, which is called detainee’s waiver defined as a
written declaration of a detained prisoner, with the assistant of a counsel, stating his refusal to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon a prisoner convicted by final judgment and thus be entitled
to a credit of four-fifths (4/5) of the time during preventive imprisonment.
d. Full time credit for child in conflict with the law - If the offender is a child, the applicable
rule for crediting the period of commitment and detention is not Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code
but Section 41, RA 9344. Under the said provision, the full time spent in actual commitment and
detention of juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.
2. Immediate release – Under Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592, whenever an

accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the imposable maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet decided, he
shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review, except for the following:
1) Recidivist
2) Habitual Delinquent
3) Escapee
4) Person charged with heinous crimes
If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of imprisonment.
The computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release shall be the
actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance; provided, however, that if the accused is
absent without motu propio order the re-arrest of the accused.
3. Good conduct time allowance (GCTA) – Before, only prisoner service sentence is entitled to
allowance for good conduct. However, under Article 94 of RPC as amended by RA 10592, the following
shall be entitled to good conduct time allowance:
a. A detention prisoner qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment for his good conduct
and exemplary behaviour; and
b. A prisoner convicted by the final judgment in any penal institution, rehabilitation or

detention center or any other local jail for his good conduct and exemplary behaviour.
The good conduct time allowances under Article 97 as amended are as follows:
First 2 years of imprisonment – 20 days for each month of good behavior

3rd to 5th year – 23 days for each month of good behavior
6th to 10th year – 25 days for each month of good behavior
11th year and successive years – 30 days for each month of good behavior
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good
conduct.
4. Time Allowance for Study, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM) - A prisoner is also entitled
to Time Allowance for Study, Teaching and Mentoring, which is privilege granted to a prisoner,
whether detained or convicted by final judgment, as a reward for having earned a post post-graduate
degree or collage degree, a certificate of completion of a vocational or technical skills or values
development course, a high school or elementary diploma or to one serving his fellow prisoner as a
teacher or mentor while incarcerated, equivalent to a deduction of a maximum of fifteen (15) days for
every month of study or mentoring services
5. Special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) - Special time allowance for loyalty is a privilege
granted to a prisoner, whether detained or convicted by final judgment, who has evaded preventive
imprisonment or service of sentence during said calamity, and surrendered to the authorities within
forty-eight (48) hours following the proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity and the
catastrophe referred to in the said article in the form of the deduction of one fifth (1/5) from his
preventive imprisonment or service of sentence or a deduction of two fifth (2/5) if prisoner opted to
stay in jail or prison during the calamity.
However, prisoner is not entitled to special time allowance for loyalty if he has committed
other offense or any act in violation of the law.
In case of disorder in the penal institution resulting from a conflagration, earthquake,

explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which the prisoner has not participated, the
prisoner, entitled to special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) or liable for evasion of sentence.
a. No evasion - In case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement
notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe, he is entitled to deduction of two-fifths
(2/5) of the period of his sentence. This a new rule introduced by RA No. 10592.
Article 98 under the original version does not grant special allowance for loyalty to prisoner
who did not escape despite the existence of calamity (Losada vs. Acenas, GR NO. L-810, March 31, 1947;
Fortuno vs. Director of Prisons, GR NO. L-1782, February 2, 1948). RA No. 10529 sought to correct this
rule since a prisoner who did not escape despite of the calamity manifests a higher degree of loyalty to
the penal system than those who evaded their sentence but thereafter gives themselves up upon the
passing away of the calamity.
b. Evasion – In case the prisoner chose to evade evaded his preventive imprisonment or the
service of his sentence during the calamity and the President issued a proclamation by the President
announcing the passing away of such calamity, he has to options:
1. He may give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the President announcing the passing away of such calamity. In such case, he is
entitled to one fifth (1/5) special time allowance for loyalty under Article 98; or
2. He may not give himself up to the authorities within said period of forty-eight hours. In such
case, he is liable for evasion of sentence under Article 158. The penalty for evasion under Article 158 is
equivalent to one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no
case shall exceed six months.
Prisoner is entitled to special time allowance for loyalty whether he is a convicted or detention
prisoner. Article 98 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592 provides "This Article shall apply to any
prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence." Special allowance is
given to prisoner, who evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence during calamity but
give himself up within the required period.
However, a detention prisoner is not liable for evasion of sentence under Article 158 of RPC if
he fails to give himself up within forty-eight hours following the announcement of the passing away of
such calamity. RA No. 10592 amended Article 98 to extend the benefit of a special allowance to
preventive prisoner but the amendment does not include Article 158. The crime of evasion under
Article 158 is committed only by a convict, who shall evade the service of his sentence during calamity and
fail to give himself up within the period.
PENALTY
In De Castro vs. People, G.R. No. 171672, February 02, 2015, the court should prescribe the
correct penalties in complex crimes in strict observance of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
In estafa through falsification of commercial documents, the court should impose the penalty for the
graver offense in the maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty prescribed is invalid, and will not attain
finality.
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT
If the law was amended to change the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua,
the amendatory law, being more lenient to the accused than the previous law, should be accorded
retroactive application. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment.
(People vs. Pang, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011).
ISLAW
RA 9165 provides that illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu is penalized with
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. The court sentenced the accused to suffer a straight
penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day. Is the penalty imposed by the court correct? No. The
indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that, in case of a special law, the accused shall be sentenced "to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." (Asiatico vs.
People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011)
SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: Under Article 64 (5), the presence of two or more
mitigating circumstances will graduate the “divisible penalty prescribed by law” to one degree lower. This
is called special mitigating circumstance. However, the appreciation of this circumstance is subject to
two conditions: (1) the penalty prescribed by law must be divisible; and (2) there must be no
aggravating circumstance. In People vs. Takbobo, G.R. No. No. 102984, June 30, 1993 - Accused was
found guilty of parricide punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63,
when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the penalty cannot be lowered by one
degree, no matter how many mitigating circumstances are present. The rule on special mitigating
circumstance is found in Article 64 (5) which provides the "rules for the application of penalties which
contain three periods," meaning, divisible penalties. Article 64 (5) is inapplicable. Thus, the rule
applicable in said case is found in Article 63, and not in Article 64.
If there are two mitigating circumstances, the penalty prescribed law shall graduated to one
degree lower, and the graduated penalty shall be applied in it medium period. If there are three
mitigating circumstances taken as special mitigating, the penalty prescribed law shall graduated to one
degree lower, and the graduated penalty shall be applied in it minimum period. Reason: The two
mitigating circumstances were taken to constitute special mitigating circumstance; while the
remaining mitigating circumstance was used to apply the graduated penalty in its minimum period.
GRADUATING DEATH PENALTY - For purposes of graduating penalty, the penalty of death is
still the penalty to be reckoned with. RA No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of death penalty,
does not exclude death penalty in the order of graduation of penalties.In qualified rape, the penalty for
accomplice is reclusion perpetua, the penalty next lower in degree than death prescribed for the crime
(See: People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION - A special law prescribes the penalty of 10 years of imprisonment

for violation thereof while another law prescribes the penalty of arresto mayor. Can the rules on
graduation of penalties or application of penalty on its proper imposable period under RPC applicable
to violation of thesespecial laws?(a) Where the special law has not adopted the Spanish penalties (10
years of imprisonment) under RPC, rules on graduation of penalties or application of penalty on its
proper imposable period is not applicable. Article 10 of RPC on suppletory effects of the Code cannot be
invoked where there is a legal or physical impossibility of such supplementary application (People vs.
Mantalba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011). The penalty of 10 years of imprisonment can neither be
graduated by decrees nor divided into three periods. (b) Where the special law has adopted the Spanish
penalty (arresto mayor) under RPC, rules on graduation of penalties or application of penalty on its
proper imposable period are applicable. Where the penalty under a special law is actually taken from
the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature, the penal system under the Code is necessarily
applicable to this law (See: People vs. Mantalba, supra). This adoption reveals the statutory intent to
give the provisions on penalties for felonies under RPC the corresponding application to said special
law, in the absence of any express or implicit proscription in these special laws (See: People vs. Simon,
G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994).
SUBSIDIARY PENALTYUNDER RA No. 10159
Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 10159 provides: If the convict has no
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall
be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of
conviction by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue
for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall
not exceed fifteen days, if for a fight felony.
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correctional, no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution,

but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding
rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.
Special law - In Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013 -The penalty for election
offense is imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years. Under ISLAW, if the
offense is punished by special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Applying the ISLAW, the imposable penalty
for violation of the election gun ban should have a maximum period, which shall not exceed six (6)
years, and a minimum period which shall not be less than one (1) year.
THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION RULE
Simultaneous service -When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could serve simultaneously
arresto mayor and fine, prision correccional and perpetual absolute disqualification, or reclusion
perpetua and civil interdiction. In sum, while lingering in prison, convict could pay fine, return the
property confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or to act function as a public officer. In Rodriguez
vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-35386, September 28, 1972, En Banc - Penalties which could be served
simultaneously with other penalties, are perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or
temporary special disqualification, public censure, suspension from public office and other accessory
penalties. There are only two modes of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or
successively. Successive service– When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
them successively if the nature of the penalties will not permit simultaneous service. Convict must
serve multiple penalties successively: (1) where the penalties to be served are destierro and
imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to be served are imprisonment. However, the successive
service of sentences is subject to the three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule.
a. Three-fold rule - The maximum period of the imprisonment that convict must suffer in
serving multiple penalties must not exceed threefold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. “A” was sentenced to suffer penalty of 7 years of prision
mayor for serious physical injuries, 6 years of prision correccional for qualified less serious physical
injuries, 5 years of prision correccional for robbery and 5 years of prison correccional for theft. The
total duration of the penalties imposed on him is 23 years. The most severe penalty imposed on him is 7
years of prision mayor. Thus, threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties is 21 years. “A” will be imprisoned for 21 years because of the three-fold rule.
b. Forty-year limitation rule – The maximum period of the imprisonment that convict must
suffer in serving multiple penalties must not exceed forty years. “A” was sentenced to suffer three
penalties of 15 years of reclusion temporal for three counts of homicide and the penalty of 10 years of
prision mayor for serious physical injuries. The total duration of the penalties imposed on him is 55
years. The most severe penalty imposed on him, is 15 years of reclusion temporal. Thus, threefold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties is 45 years. “A” will be imprisoned for
40 years because of the forty year limitation rule.
Article 70 provides that “the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more
than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the said maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.” Applying
said rule, despite the four penalties of reclusion perpetua for four counts of qualified theft, accused-
appellant shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years (People vs. Mirto, G.R. No.
193479, October 19, 2011).
In Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-51065-72, June 30, 1987, En Banc - This article is to be
taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the service of the
sentence imposed. Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence”. Nowhere in the article is anything
mentioned about the "imposition of penalty". It merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made to
serve more than three times the most severe of these penalties the maximum of which is forty years.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
Old rule: (1) Where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him, and he was
in fact killed by his abductor, the crime committed was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder
as the kidnapping of the victim was a necessary means of committing the murder. (2) Where the victim
was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought, two (2)
separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed.Present rule: Where the person kidnapped
is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was
merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed, nor be
treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime ( People vs. Ramos, G.R. No.
118570, October 12, 1998, En Banc, People vs. Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3, 2004, En Banc; People
vs. Montanir, GR No. 187534, April 04, 2011; People vs. Dionaldo, G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014)
However, where there is no actual detention (People vs. Masilang, 1986) or intent to deprive
liberty (People vs. Estacio Jr., G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009, En Banc) killing the person is murder.
Demand for ransom will not convert the crime into kidnapping.
If kidnapping is a necessary means to commit frustrated murder, special complex crime of

kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated homicide. Homicide as a component of special
complex crime must be at the consummated stage. In this situation, the crime committed is complex
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder (See: People vs. Roxas, GR No.
172604, August 17, 2010)
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
Raping a dying victim – Stabbing the victim and raping her while she was dying is not a
special complex crime of rape with homicide because the original design of the victim is kill and not to
rape the victim. These are not separate crimes of murder and rape since the bestiality at the threshhold
of death of the victim shall be regarded either as a form of ignominy causing disgrace or as a form
of cruelty which aggravated the murder because it was unnecessary to the commission thereof (People
vs. Laspardas, G.R. No. L-46146, Oct. 23, 1979). Hitting the victim thrice with a piece of wood and
inserting toothbrush into the anal orifice while the victim was dying is not special complex crime of
rape through sexual assault with homicide because the original design of the victim is kill and not to
sexually assault the victim. These are not separate crimes of murder and rape through sexual assault
since the bestiality at the threshhold of death of the victim shall be regarded as a form of cruelty which
aggravated the murder because it was unnecessary to the commission thereof (People vs. Bernabe, G.R.
No. 185726, October 16, 2009, Justice De Castro)
Homicide - In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term "homicide" is to be
understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason
or on occasion of the rape. Hence, even if the circumstances oftreachery, abuse of superior strength
and evident premeditation are alleged in the information and duly established by the prosecution, the
same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed is still rape with homicide.
However, these circumstances shall be regarded as ordinary aggravating (People vs. Laog, G.R. No.
178321, October 5, 2011).
By reason or on occasion of rape - The phrase “by reason of the rape” obviously conveys the
notion that the killing is due to the rape, which is the crime the offender originally designed to commit.
The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide and the rape
(attempted or consummated) is clear and admits of no doubt. In contrast, the import of the phrase on
the occasion of the rape may not be as easy to determine. The phrase “on the occasion of the rape” as shown
by Senate deliberations refers to a killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the
commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a
person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is linked to the rape, became evident
(People vs. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012).
“A” and “B” were walking along the rice paddies when “X” suddenly assaulted them with a
lead pipe. “X” killed “A”, and thereafter, raped “B”. “X” is liable for special complex crime of rape with
homicide. There is no doubt that “X” killed “A” to prevent her from aiding “B” or calling for help once
she is able to run away, and also to silence her completely so she may not witness the rape of “B”, the
original intent of “X” (People vs. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011).
Stabbing after the rape - In People vs. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012 - With respect
to the stabbings, it appears that Isla committed two acts. The first was while he was ravishing AAA. The
Court considers this and the rape as one continuous act, the stabbing being necessary, as far as he was
concerned, for the successful perpetration of the crime. When he testified, Isla claimed that he had to
use the knife so he could have sexual intercourse with her. The second stabbing took place after
consummation of the rape act. According to AAA, after her defilement, she noticed the knife bloodied
and she tried to wrest it from him. In their struggle, she was stabbed under her lower left breast but she
was able to force Isla to drop the knife. This second stabbing is a separate and distinct offense as it was
not a necessary means to commit the rape. It was intended to do away with her life.
COMPLEX CRIME
There are two kinds of complex crimes. The first is known as compound crime, or when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The second is known as complex crime
proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No.
182551, July 27, 2011).The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which
follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective
of the crimes committed. The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single
criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts
and several criminal resolutions (People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008)
COMPLEX CRIME AND COMPOSITE CRIME - A composite crime, also known as a special
complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a
single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific
crime with a specific penalty provided by law. The distinctions between a composite crime, on the one
hand, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48 are as follows: (1) In a composite crime, the
composition of the offenses is fixed by law; In a complex or compound crime, the combination of the
offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the
necessary means to commit the other; (2) For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified
combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding
to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period; and (3) A light felony that
accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a
complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information (People vs. Villaflores, G.R.
No. 184926, April 11, 2012).
COMPOUND CRIME
The single act of pitching or rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium which
resulted in the death of one victim and injuries to other victims constituted a compound crime of
multiple murders qualified by means of explosion (People vs. Mores, GR No. 189846, June 26, 2013,
Justice De Castro). The single act of running over the victims with a van constitutes compound crime
of multiple murders (People vs. Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012 (Justice De Castro)
X was charged with complex crime with murder and attempted murder. The information
alleges that the accused shot the victim, but it does not allege that he did so several times. However, the
evidence show that accused shot her and her father several times. Can X be convicted of separate
crimes of murder and attempted murder or complex crime? Answer: On the basis of evidence, X
committed separate crimes of murder and attempted murder. Several shootings rule out the
application of the concept of complex crime. However, evidence does not conform to the
Information, which contains no allegation accused shot the victims several times. In the absence of a
clear statement of several shootings in the Information, the accused may be convicted only of the
complex crime of murder with attempted murder. After all, the concept of complex crimes is
intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the number of crimes
committed. Information merely states that accused shot the victims. This is a compound crime since
murder and attempted murder was produced by a single act of shooting. To rule that the accused
should be convicted of two separate offenses of murder and attempted murder pursuant to the
evidence presented but contrary to the allegations in the Information is to violate the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (People vs. Bernardo, GR
No. 198789, June 03, 2013).
Single act rule - If there is more than one death resulting from different acts there is no
compound crime of multiple homicides or murder. Article 48 speaks of a “single act”. In People vs.
Toling, G.R. No. L-27097, January 17, 1975 - Twin brothers, who ran amok like “juramentados” in a
passenger train, and killed their eight co-passengers, were held liable for eight (8) murders and one
attempted murder. The conduct of the twins evinced conspiracy and community of design. The eight
killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts. Hence, they cannot be
regarded as constituting a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which refers to
cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, of, when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other.
In People vs. Punzalan G .R. No. 199892, December 1, 2001 - Appellant was animated by a single
purpose, to kill the navy personnel, and committed a single act of stepping on the accelerator, swerving
to the right side of the road ramming through the navy personnel, causing the death of two persons
and, at the same time, constituting an attempt to kill others. The crime committed is complex crime of
multiple murders and attempted murder.
Single criminal impulse – Several acts committed by several offenders with one criminal impulse
resulting in several deaths constitute one crime: the compound crime of multiple homicides or murders. In People
vs. Lawas, L-7618-20, June 30, 1955 - Members of the Home Guard, upon order of their leader, Lawas,
simultaneously and successively fired at several victims. After a short time, the firing stopped
immediately when Lawas ordered his men to “cease fire”. As a result of the firing, fifty (50) persons
died. It was held that the evidence positively shows that the killing was the result of a single impulse,
which was induced by the order of the leader to fire, and continued with the intention to comply
therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as the leader gave the order to that effect. There was no intent
on the part of the accused either to fire at each and every of the victims as separately and distinctly
from each other. If the act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal impulse, it constitutes
a single offense - compound crime of multiple homicides.
Under the Lawas principle, if accused fired their guns killing several victims pursuant to a
single impulse, they shall be held liable for continued crime of murder. The Lawas principle should only
be applied in a case where (1) there is no conspiracy (People vs. Hon. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21,
1967) and (2) it is impossible to ascertain the number of deaths caused by each accused (People vs.
Tabaco, G.R. No. 100382-100385, March 19, 1997). In conspiracy, each conspirator is not only liable for
deaths attributable to him but also for deaths caused by others because in conspiracy the act of one is
the act of all. Thus, the Lawas doctrine should not be applied if there is conspiracy since the number of
victims actually killed by each conspirator is not anymore material if there is conspiracy (People vs.
Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010).
In People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500. September 11, 2012 - Significantly, there was no
conspiracy in Lawas case. However, the Lawas doctrine is more of an exception than the general rule.
With the presence of conspiracy in the case at bench, appellants had assumed joint criminal
responsibility ─ the act of one is the act of all. The ascertainment of who among them actually hit,
killed and/or caused injury to the victims already becomes immaterial. Collective responsibility
replaced individual responsibility. The Lawas doctrine, premised on the impossibility of determining
who killed whom, cannot be applied.
In Lawas, this Court was merely forced to apply Article 48 of RPC because of the impossibility of
ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused. Since conspiracy was not proven therein,
joint criminal responsibility could not be attributed to the accused. Each accused could not be held
liable for separate crimes because of lack of clear evidence showing the number of persons actually
killed by each of them.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It is as though each one performed the act of each
one of the conspirators. Each one is criminally responsible for each one of the deaths and injuries of the
several victims. The severalty of the acts prevents the application of Article 48. The applicability of
Article 48 depends upon the singularity of the act, thus the definitional phrase "a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies." To apply the first half of Article 48, there must be singularity
of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law.
Single purpose rule - In People vs. Abella, 93 SCRA 25, the “Lawas principle” was applied despite
the presence of conspiracy. In the said case, sixteen prisoners, who are members of the OXO gang, were
able to break into the cell of Sigue-Sigue gang and killed fourteen (14) inmates. All accused were
convicted for a compound crime. It was held: Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single
purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act
of execution, giving rise to a complex offense. Various acts committed under one criminal impulse may
constitute a single complex offense.Basis- The“single purpose rule” was actually adopted in
consideration of the plight of the prisoners. Requisites -There are two requisites to apply the Abella
principle: (1) there must be a conspiracy, which animates several persons to commit crimes under a
single criminal purpose; and (2) the offenders committed crimes in prison against their fellow prisoners
(People vs. Pincalin, et al., G.R. No. L-38755, January 22, 1981).
In People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500. September 11, 2012 - The application of the Abella
doctrine, has already been clarified in Pincalin, thus: where several killings on the same occasion were
perpetrated, but not involving prisoners, a different rule may be applied, that is to say, the killings
would be treated as separate offenses. If the killings did not involve prisoners or it was not a case of
prisoners killing fellow prisoners, Abella would not apply.
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - In U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109, accused Hernandez, who
seduced a 15-year-old girl to live with him by procuring the performance of a fictitious marriage
ceremony with the help of Bautista, who pretended to be a Protestant minister, was held liable for the
complex crime proper of simple seduction (Art. 338) through usurpation of official function (Art. 177).
Usurping the function of a priest to solemnize marriage is a necessary means to seduce a minor.
Comment: The case of Hernandez was decided prior to the effectivity of the RPC. At that time, a
religious official such as a bishop is a person in authority within the purview of the Old Penal Code
(Smith, G.R. No. 14057, January 22, 1919).However, Article 152 of RPC does not include religious
minister as a person in authority. Hence, performing the function of religious minister in solemnizing
marriage is not usurpation of official function.
DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION - What is the effect of the elimination of the overt acts of
violence in Article 135 by RA No. 9668? In People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-6025, July 18, 1956 – The
Supreme Court justified the doctrine of absorption in rebellion since murder, robbery, and arson are
just a part of the “engaging in war against the forces of the government", "committing serious
violence", and “destroying property in Article 135. However, RA No. 6968 eliminated the phrases
"engaging in war against the forces of the government", "committing serious violence" and
“destroying property” in Article 135. According to Florenz Regalado, the amendment of Article 135
does not affect the accepted concept of rebellion and these “overt acts of violence” are deemed
“subsumed” in the provision on rebellion in Article 134. Under this principle of subsumption, engaging
in combat against the forces of the Government, destroying property or committing serious violence is an
essential ingredient of rebellion.
If the accused committed robbery, but thereafter, they detained the victims to forestall their
capture by the police, the crime committed is robbery only. Robbery absorbs kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. The detention was only incidental to the main crime of robbery, and although in the
course thereof women and children were also held, that threats to kill were made, the act should not be
considered as a separate offense (People vs. Astor, G.R. Nos. L-71765-66, 29 April 1987). If the accused
committed robbery, but thereafter, they detained the victims to demand additional money, and later
forestall their capture by the police, the crime committed is complex crime of robbery through
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The detention was availed of as a means of insuring the
consummation of the robbery. The detention was not merely a matter of restraint to enable the
malefactors to escape, but deliberate as a means of extortion for an additional amount. Hence, the
Astor principle is not applicable (People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990). If the accused
committed robbery by band, but thereafter, they took one of the victims and detained him for seven
days in another place for purpose of demanding ransom, they are liable of separate crimes of robbery
by band and kidnapping for ransom (People vs. Basao, G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012, Justice De
Castro).
ABDUCTION AND MULTIPLE RAPES
Main objective is to rape – If the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim, the crime
committed is rape. Forcible abduction (People vs. Mejoraday, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993; People vs.
Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002) or illegal detention (People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991,
January 21, 2004), which is incidental to the commission of rape, is absorbed. The doctrine of
absorption rather than Article 48 of RPC is applicable since forcible abduction or illegal detention is an
indispensable means to commit rape.
Abduction with lewd design – If forcible abduction is a necessary means to commit rape, this
is a complex crime proper under Article 48 of RPC. However, multiple rapes were committed, forcible
abduction will be considered as a necessary means to commit the first rape but not the subsequent
rape. Hence, with respect to the first rape, the crime committed is rape though forcible abduction while
the subsequent rapes will be treated as separate crimes (People vs. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, February 6,
1971; People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, February 28, 2002, En Banc; People vs. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100,
July 18, 2014).
As a rule, forcible abduction is an indispensable means to commit rape; hence, the latter
absorbs the former. However, if the victim was brought in a house or motel or in a place with
considerable distance from the place where she was abducted, forcible abduction will be considered as
a necessary means to commit rape; hence, the crime committed is complex crime proper.
Abduction to deprive liberty – If the accused abducted the victim without clear showing of
lewd design, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention since it will appear that
the intention of the accused is to deprive victim of his liberty. If as a consequence of illegal detention,
the victim was rape, the crime committed is a special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape. This is the crime committed regardless of the number of rapes. Multiple rapes will
be considered as a component of this special complex crime (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417,
July 27, 2011; People vs. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011). If as a consequence of illegal
detention, the victim was rape and then killed, the crime committed is a special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape. Both the homicide and rape will be
considered as a component of this special complex crime (People vs. Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3,
2004, En Banc).
The difference between rape through forcible abduction and kidnapping with rape lies on the
criminal intention of the accused at the precise moment of abduction. If the abduction is committed
with lewd design, the crime committed is rape through forcible abduction. On the other hand, if the
abduction is committed without lewd design, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011).Even if the victim was
detained for one week and in the course thereof, she was rape, the crime committed is rape through
forcible abduction if the abduction is committed with lewd design (People vs. Amaro, G.R. No. 199100,
July 18, 2014).
MULTIPLE KIDDNAPPINGS - In People v Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012 - Since the
prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to kidnap the 5 victims
for ransom, and kidnapped and illegally detained them until they were released by the accused after
the latter received the P2,000,000.00 ransom xxx Appellant Yusop Tadah is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of 5 counts of kidnapping.
DELICTO CONTINUADO
In order that continuous crime may exist, there should be: (1) plurality of acts performed
separately during a period of time; (2) unity of criminal intent and purpose and (3) unity of penal
provision infringed upon or violated (Santiago vs. Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December 2, 1993).
a. Single criminal impulse to steal - In People vs. Tumlos, G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En
Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows owned by six owners involved thirteen (13) acts of taking.
However, the acts of taking took place at the same time and in the same place; consequently, accused
performed but one act. The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the purpose of appropriating
or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. The fact that eight of said cows
pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally liable for as many crimes as
there are owners, for the reason that in such case neither the intention nor the criminal act is
susceptible of division.
b. Single criminal impulse to commit robbery - In People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-1745, May
23, 1950, it was held that ransacking several houses located within the vicinity of a sugar mill while two
of the bandits guarded the victims with guns leveled at them is a continued crime of robbery. Several
acts of robbery were made pursuant to general plan to despoil all those in the said place, which is an
indicative of a single criminal design.
Accused intended only to rob one place; and that is the Energex gasoline station. That they did;
and in the process, also took away by force the money and valuables of the employees working in said
gasoline station. Clearly inferred from these circumstances are the series of acts which were borne
from one criminal resolution. A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on
foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy.
The perpetrated acts were not entirely distinct and unconnected from one another. Thus, there is only
single offense or crime (People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009).
c. Single criminal impulse to satisfy lust - In People vs. Aaron, G.R. NOS. 136300-
02, September 24, 2002 - The accused inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina; he then withdrew it
and ordered the latter to lie down on the floor and, for the second time, he inserted again his penis into
the victim’s vagina; the accused, thereafter, stood up and commanded the victim to lie near the
headboard of the makeshift bed and, for the third time, he inserted again his penis into the victim’s
vagina and continued making pumping motions. Accused is convicted of only one count of
rape. Accused thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part of victim. However, the
three penetrations occurred during one continuing act of rape in which the accused obviously
motivated by a single criminal intent. Accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of
sexual assault merely because of his lustful desire to change positions inside the room where the crime
was committed.
In People vs. Lucena, GR No. 190632, February 26, 2014 - Accused thrice succeeded in inserting
his penis into the private part of victim. The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an
interval of five (5) minutes wherein the accused would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and,
after he has regained his strength, he would again rape the victim. When the accused decided to
commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon victim, he was not motivated by a single
impulse, but rather by several criminal intents. Hence, his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is
indubitable.
d. Foreknowledge doctrine - In Gamboa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November 28, 1975 -
Accused cannot be held to have entertained continuously the same criminal intent in making the first
abstraction on October 2, 1972 for the subsequent abstractions on the following days and months until
December 30, 1972, for the simple reason that he was not possessed of any fore-knowledge of any
deposit by any customer on any day or occasion and which would pass on to his possession and
control. At most, his intent to misappropriate may arise only when he comes in possession of the
deposits on each business day but not in future, since petitioner company operates only on a day-to-
day transaction. As a result, there could be as many acts of misappropriation as there are times the
private respondent abstracted and/or diverted the deposits to his own personal use and benefit
(People vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. L-16943, October 28, 1961).
“X” as punong barangay was angered when he discovered a tap from the main line of the public
water tank. On separate occasions, “X” threatened to kill and crack the skulls of “A”, “B”, and “C”, who
suspected to be responsible for the tapping of water line. There is no continued crime since the three
crimesof grave threatwere not committed under a single criminal impulse. “X’s” intent to
threaten “A”, “B”, and “C” with bodily harm arose only when he chanced upon each of his victims.
Moreover, “X” has no foreknowledge that will change upon the second and third victims at the time
he was committing the first threat. Several threats can only be considered as continued crime if the
offender threatened three individuals at the same place and at the same time (Paera vs. People, G.R. No.
181626, May 30, 2011).
NOVATION
The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court
by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the
parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist
on the original trust. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted
action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the
criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state, only the
latter can renounce it (Degaños vs. People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013).
It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by the Penal
Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either
prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic
transaction, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as
when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to (Degaños vs.
People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013).
Although the novation of a contract of agency to make it one of sale may relieve an offender
from an incipient criminal liability, that did not happen here, for the partial payments and the proposal
to pay the balance the accused made during the barangay proceedings were not at all incompatible with
Degaños’ liability under the agency that had already attached. Rather than converting the agency to
sale, therefore, he even thereby confirmed his liability as the sales agent of the complainants. The
acceptance of partial payments, without further change in the original relation between the
complainant and the accused, cannot produce novation. For the latter to exist, there must be proof of
intent to extinguish the original relationship, and such intent cannot be inferred from the mere
acceptance of payments on account of what is totally due. Much less can it be said that the acceptance
of partial satisfaction can effect the nullification of a criminal liability that is fully matured, and already
in the process of enforcement. Thus, this Court has ruled that the offended party’s acceptance of a
promissory note for all or part of the amount misapplied does not obliterate the criminal offense
(Degaños vs. People, GR No. 162826, October 14, 2013).
DEATH OF THE ACCUSED
Novation can only be used as a defense in a crime where one of its elements is the existence of
contractual relationship between the offender and the victim. Defense of novation is applicable to estafa
through misappropriation because the contractual trust relationship between the parties can be validly
novated or converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the
complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust (People vs. Nery, G.R. No. L-19567, February 5,
1964, En Banc). Novation cannot be used as a defense in case of theft or estafa through falsification of
document. In theft case, there was no contractual relationship or bilateral agreement which can be
modified or altered by the parties (People vs. Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924, April 29, 1968, En Banc). In
estafa through falsification of public documents, the liability of the offender cannot be extinguished by
mere novation (Milla vs. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012).
In People v. Bayotas, the Court laid down the rules in case the accused dies prior to final
judgment:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death
of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex
delicto in senso strictiore.”
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code
enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the
same act or omission: law; contracts; quasi-contracts; quasi-delicts;
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule
111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced
either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of
obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate
civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to
its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case,
the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid
any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription (People vs. Amistoso, GR No. 201447,
August 28, 2013)
PRESCRIPTION
The crime of falsification of a public document involving a deed of sale which was registered
with the Registry of Deeds, the rule on constructive notice can be applied in the construction of Article
91. Hence, the prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned from the time the notarized
deed of sale was recorded in the Registry of Deeds (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 74226, July 27, 1989).
Constructive notice rule is not applicable to registration of bigamous marriage in the Office of the Civil
Registrar. Furthermore, P.D. 1529, which governed registration of document involving real property,
specifically provides the rule on constructive notice. On the other hand, Act No. 3753 or the Family
Code, which governed registration of marriage do not provide rule on constructive notice (Sermonia
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994); hence the period of prescription commences to
run on the date of actual discovery of the bigamous marriage.
COMMENCEMENT - As a rule, period of prescription commence to run from the date of

discovery of its commission. However, if the crime is not yet actionable at the time of its commission,
period of prescription will commence to run from the time it becomes actionable. In false testimony,
the crime was committed at the time the accused falsely testified in court. However, the period of
prescription for false testimony commences to run from the date of the finality of judgment of a case in
which the offender testified falsely. Prior to the date of finality, the crime is not yet actionable (People
vs. Maneja, G.R. No. 47684, June 10, 1941).
In violation of BP Blg. 22, the crime is consummated upon the dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank (Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001). However, the period of
prescription for such crime commences to run from the date of the expiration of the five-day period
from receipt of notice of dishonor by the drawer. Prior to that date, the crime is not yet actionable
since the offender can still avert criminal prosecution by satisfying the amount of the check or making
arrangement for its payment within five day grace period.
Moreover, the running of prescription for crime punishable under special law shall be
interrupted upon filing of complaint with prosecutor office for preliminary investigation. It would be
absurd to consider the prescriptive period for crime under BP Blg. 22 as already running even prior to
the expiration of the grace period despite the fact that the complainant could not cause its
interruption by filing a complaint for preliminary investigation since it is not yet actionable.
In People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012 - This Court reckons the commencement
of the period of prescription for violations of BP Blg. 22 imputed to accused sometime in the latter part
of 1995, as it was within this period that the accused was notified by the private complainant of the fact
of dishonor of the subject checks and, the five (5) days grace period granted by law had elapsed. The
private complainant then had, pursuant to Act 3326, four years there from or until the latter part of
1999 to file her complaint or information against the petitioner before the proper court.
Blameless ignorance doctrine - Generally, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on
the day the crime is committed. An exception to this rule is the "blameless ignorance" doctrine,
incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326. Under this doctrine, "the statute of limitations runs only
upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which will support a cause of action. Considering
that during the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail the legality of the transactions
involving cronies such as behest loan, it would be unreasonable to expect that the discovery of the
unlawful transactions was possible prior to 1986 (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and
174764-65, September 11, 2013). Hence, the prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019 commenced
from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee made an exhaustive investigation
(Presidential Ad hoc fact-finding committee vs. Hon. Desierto, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011)
INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION– Under Act No. 3326, the running of the prescription of
offense punishable under special law shall be interrupted when “judicial proceedings for investigation
and punishment”are instituted against the guilty person. The proceeding is described as “judicial”
since when Act No. 3326 was passed on December 4, 1926, preliminary investigation of criminal
offenses was conducted by justices of the peace. Considering that preliminary investigation in
criminal case for purposes of prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive branch,
the term “proceedings” should now be understood either executive or judicial in character: executive
when it involves the investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage.
Hence, institution of proceeding, whether executive or judicial, interrupts the running of prescriptive
period (Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008).
Thus, the commencement of the following proceedings for the prosecution of the accused
effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the offense charged: (1) Filing of complaint for
violation of BP 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor (Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, supra);
(2) Filing of complaint for violations of the Revised Securities Act and the Securities with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC vs. Interport Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008,
the Supreme Court En Banc); and(3) Filing of complaint for violation of RA No. 3019 with the Office of
the Ombudsman (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September 11, 2013)
Exceptions:
1. Violation of ordinance – In Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992 - The
proceedings referred to in Section 2 of Act No. 3326 are “judicial proceedings” (which does not include
administrative proceedings). Thus, a crime such as violation of ordinance may prescribe even if the
complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor's office if, intentionally or not, he delays the
institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late.
In Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs. Lidua, Sr., GR No. 169588, Oct. 7, 2013, the Supreme Court
applied the Zaldivia principle to prescription of violation of ordinance. In this case, what is involved in
this case is violation of ordinance of Baguio City, a chartered city. Accordingly, when the
representatives of the petitioner filed the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the
prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of the Information. They had two
months to file the Information and institute the judicial proceedings by filing the Information with the
Municipal Trial Court.
While the case of Pangilinan categorically abandoned the Zaldivia principle, the Supreme Court
in Jadewell case ruled the doctrine of Pangilinan pertains to violations of special laws but not to
ordinances. In sum, if what is involved is prescription of violation of special law, institution of
administrative proceeding for investigation interrupts the prescriptive period.Zaldivia is not
controlling. If what is involved is prescription of violation of ordinance, institution of judicial
proceeding is required to interrupt the running of prescription. Zaldivia case is controlling.
2.Invalid proceeding – In People vs. Romualdez and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166510, April 29,
2009 - The investigatory power of the PCGG extended only to alleged ill-gotten wealth cases, absent
previous authority from the President for the PCGG to investigate such graft and corruption cases
involving the Marcos cronies. Accordingly, the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG
leading to the filing of the first information is void ab initio, and thus could not be considered as having
tolled the fifteen (15)-year prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019. After all, a void ab
initio proceeding such as the first preliminary investigation by the PCGG could not be accorded any
legal effect.
MARRIAGE IN RAPE
There are two rules under Article 334 of RPC in connection with marriage as a mode of
criminal extinction. First, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him. Second, the provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable
to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes.
According to Regalado, since rape is now a crime against person, it should be considered ad
deleted from the text of Article 334. In case of rape, the applicable rule is Article 266-C of RPC as
amended by RA 8353. Under this provision, subsequent marriage between the offender and offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or penalty. It seems that RA 8353 adopted the first rule in
Article 344 of RPC but not the second rule. Hence, marriage between the offender and offended party
will not extinguish the criminal liability of the co-principal, accomplice or accessory of the crime of
rape
PROBATION
Probation distinguished from parole and pardon – (1) Grant of probation is judicial while that of
parole and pardon is executive. (2) Probation and parole are suspension sentence while pardon is
remission of penalty. (3) Offender can only apply for probation within the period of perfecting an
appeal; offender is eligible for pardon after conviction by final judgment; offender is eligible for parole
after serving the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. (4) Offender, who was sentenced to suffer a
penalty of more than 6 years of imprisonment, is disqualified to apply for probation. Offender, who
was sentence to suffer reclusion perpetua or death penalty, is not qualified for parole. However, the
President can pardon offender even if the penalty imposed upon him is reclusion perpetua or death
penalty.
a. Mutual exclusive remedies - Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace
and clemency conferred by the State, and may be granted by the court to a deserving defendant.
Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court. It is to be exercised
primarily for the benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused
(Almero vs. People, GR No. 188191, March 12, 2014).
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. It

essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his
liability and save the state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law expressly requires
that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws
the element of speculation on the part of the accused — to wager on the result of his appeal — that
when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal… he now applies for probation as an “escape hatch”
thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance of his conviction(Almero vs. People, GR No.
188191, March 12, 2014).
Aside from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused, the rationale for the
treatment of appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically
opposed legal positions. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have accepted the judgment.
The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which led
to the judgment of conviction. This was the reason why the Probation Law was amended: precisely to
put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction – even if the sentence is
probationable – for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the
accused fails in his bid (Almero vs. People, GR No. 188191, March 12, 2014).
While accused did not file an appeal before applying for probation, he assailed the validity of
the conviction in the guise of a petition supposedly assailing the denial of probation. In so doing, he
attempted to circumvent P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. 1990, which seeks to make appeal and
probation mutually exclusive remedies (Almero vs. People, GR No. 188191, March 12, 2014).
b. Non-probationable offense - The accused, who was convicted by the lower court of a non-
probationable offense (frustrated homicide), but on appeal was found guilty of a probationable offense
(attempted homicide), may apply for probation upon remand of the case to the RTC because of the
following reasons: (1) The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to probation
through no fault of his. The underlying philosophy of probation is one of liberality towards the
accused. Such philosophy is not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory
provisions; (2) If the accused will not be allowed to apply for probation, he will be made to pay for the
trial court’s erroneous judgment with the forfeiture of his right to apply for probation; (3) While it is
true that probation is a mere privilege, the accused has the right to apply for that privilege; (4) It is
true that under the probation law the accused who appeals "from the judgment of conviction" is
disqualified from availing himself of the benefits of probation. But, as it happens, two judgments of
conviction have been meted out to accused: one, a conviction for frustrated homicide by the regional
trial court, now set aside; and, two, a conviction for attempted homicide by the Supreme Court
(Colinares vs. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011). The SC reaffirmed the Colinares case in
Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, December 1, 2014, accused was convicted of homicide, a non-
probationable crime, by the trial court. However, the SC found them liable for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide, which is a probationable crime,because of lack of dolo. They can still apply for
probation.
CRIMES AGAINST FUNDEMENTAL LAW
UNLAWFUL ARREST AND ARBITRARY DETENTION
In unlawful arrest, the private individual or public officer in its private capacity arrests or
detains the victim without reasonable ground or legal authority for purpose of delivering him to the
proper judicial authority. In arbitrary detention, the public officer, who has authority to make arrest,
detains the victim without legal grounds (People vs. Bringas G.R. No. 189093, April 23, 2010)for the
purpose of: (1) Delivering him to judicial authority (U.S. us. Gellada, 15 Phil. 120); (2) Conducting criminal
investigation (People vs. Oliva, 95 Phil. 962; U.S. vs. Agravante, G.R. No. 3947, January 28, 1908); or (3)
Determining if he committed or is committing a crime [U.S. vs. Hawchaw, G.R. No. L-6909, February 20,
1912].
Arbitrary detention is a crime against fundamental law of the law or the Constitution. A public
officer, who is vested with the authority to detain or to order the detention of a person accused of a
crime, is acting in behalf of the State in arresting or detaining a person. If such public officer detained a
person in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable seizure (or not in accordance with
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure), the crime committed is “arbitrary
detention.” Unlawful arrest is a crime against personal liberty and security.A public officer, who is not
vested with the authority to detain or to order the detention of a person (e.g. stenographer, researcher
or municipal treasurer), is not acting in behalf of the State in making a warrantless arrest. Such public
officer acting in his private capacity (or a private individual) could not violate the Constitution ( People
vs Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18,1991); hence, if he arrests or detains a person not in accordance with
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the crime committed is “unlawful arrest”.
The essence of this crime is not violation of fundamental law of the law but deprivation of liberty of the
victim.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
FALSIFICATION
Affidavit - In Lonzanida vs. People, G.R. Nos. 160243-52, July 20, 2009, Justice De Castro -
Petitioner as mayor, who is authorized to administer oath, attested to the fact that the affiants swore
and signed their affidavits in his presence when in fact they never did. He committed falsification by
causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or proceeding when in fact and in truth,
they did not participate in the act or proceeding.
Commercial document - Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments

which are “used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions.”
Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in
lieu of money for convenience in business transactions. A cashier’s check necessarily facilitates bank
transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the check
and withdraw the amount indicated therein (Tanenggee vs. People, GR No. 179448, June 26, 2013).
Damage as an element - Is intent to cause damage an element of falsification of public or

official document? No. In falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be
present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public
document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed (Regidor, Jr., vs. People, G. R. Nos. 166086-92 Feb. 13, 2009).
Falsification and estafa, malversation or theft
When the offender commits falsification of public, official or commercial document as a

necessary means to commit malversation (People vs. Barbas, G.R. No. L-41265, July 27, 1934), estafa
(Ilumin vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85667, February 23, 1995; Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. People,
G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010; Ambito vs. People, G.R. No. 127327, February 13, 2009, Justice De
castro, Tanenggee vs. People, GR No. 179448, June 26, 2013) or theft (People vs. Salonga, G.R. No.
131131, June 21, 2001), the crime committed is complex crime proper under Article 48 of RPC.
If the public officer is an accountable officer, misappropriation of public funds is malversation

(People vs. Barbas). If the public officer is not an accountable officer, misappropriation of funds is
estafa (Ilumin vs. Sandiganbayan).
Using a falsified check to defraud the bank is estafa through falsification of commercial
document (Tanengee vs. People). Using a stolen and falsified check to defraud the bank is theft through
falsification of commercial document (People vs. Salonga).
When the offender commits falsification of public, official or commercial document as a means
to conceal malversation (People vs. Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33252-54, January 20, 1978; People vs.
Villanueva, G.R. No. 39047, October 31, 1933, En Banc), estafa (People vs. Monteverde, G.R. No. 139610,
August 12, 2002; People vs. Benito, G.R. No. 36979, November 23, 1932) or theft, the crimes are separate.
This is not complex crime proper since one is not a necessary means to commit another.
Other view: If falsification is committed for purpose of enabling the accused to commit
malversation (People vs. Silvanna, G.R. No. L-43120, July 27, 1935; Zafra vs. People, G.R. No. 176317, July
23, 2014) or estafa (People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 06, 20140, the accused is liable for complex
crime proper.
Under the doctrine of common element, an element used to complete one crime cannot be
legally re-used to complete the requisites of a subsequent crime (Regalado). The common element of
estafa or malversation and falsification is damage to the victim. Thus, falsification of private document
and estafa cannot co-exist. The use of damage as an element in falsification precludes the re-use
thereof to complete the elements of estafa, and vice versa.
If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper
crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a
private document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa (Batulanon vs. People, G.R. NO. 139857,
September 15, 2006).
If the offender commits falsification of private document as a means to commit estafa, he is

liable for falsification only. Falsification absorbs estafa. (See: U.S. vs Chan Tiao, G.R. No. 12609, October
30, 1917; People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-34516, November 10, 1931).
If a person commits falsification of private document to conceal malversation or estafa, the

crime is malversation or estafa only. Falsification of private document is not committed because: (a) the
use of damage as an element in estafa precludes the re-use thereof to complete the elements of
falsification; and (b) the damage to third person is not caused by the falsity in the document but by the
commission of estafa(See: People vs. Beng, 40 O.G. 1913).
If falsification of private document was used as a means to commit estafa, the former was
committed ahead of the latter; hence, falsification absorbs the element of damage of estafa. If
falsification of private document was used as a means to conceal estafa, the latter was committed ahead
of the former; hence, estafa absorbs the element of damage of falsification.
USURPATION OF FUNCTION
Usurpation of authority is committed by knowingly and falsely representing himself to be an

officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the government or of any foreign
government. Usurpation of function is committed by performing any act under pretense of official
position pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the government or any foreign
government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so (Ruzol vs. Sandiganbayan,
GR Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013).
In Ruzol vs. Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013 - Accused, a mayor issued
permits to transport salvaged forest products. According to prosecution, DENR is the only government
instrumentality that can issue the permits to transport salvaged forest products. The prosecution
asserted that accused usurped the official functions that properly belong to the DENR.
Accused chose to exercise the right to protect the environment and to share in this
responsibility by exercising his authority as municipal mayor––an act which was executed with the
cooperation of non-governmental organizations, stakeholders, and concerned citizens. His acts may be
invalid but it does necessarily mean that such mistakes automatically justify his conviction.
There is no showing that accused possessed that “criminal mind” when he in his capacity as
mayor issued the subject permits. What is clear from the records is that accused, as municipal mayor,
intended to regulate and monitor salvaged forest products in order to avert the occurrence of illegal
logging in the area.
Good faith is a defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions. The
requirement of permits to transport was accused’s decision alone; it was a result of the collective
decision of the participants during the Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly. If, indeed, accused
intended to usurp the official functions of the DENR, he would not have asked the presence of a DENR
official who has the authority and credibility to publicly object against accused’s allegedly intended
usurpation. Thus, the presence of DENR official during the Multi-Sectoral Assembly strengthens
accused’s claim of good faith.
The DENR is not the sole government agency vested with the authority to issue permits
relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest products, considering that, pursuant to the general
welfare clause, LGUs may also exercise such authority.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICER
MALVERSATION
The essential elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code are: (1) That the offender be a public officer; (2) That he had the custody or control of funds
or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) That he had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office; (4) That those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; and (5) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them (Legrama
vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 178626, June 13, 2012).
Accountable officer – An accountable public officeris one who has custody or control of public
funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. The nature of the duties of the public officer or
employee, the fact that as part of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account
and failed to account for it, is the factor which determines whether or not malversation is committed
by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a school principal of a public high school may be
held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same
(Torres vs. People, GR No. 175074, August 31, 2011).
The municipal mayor initiated the request for obligation of allotments and certified and
approved the disbursement vouchers. The municipal accountant obligated the allotments despite lack
of prior certification from the budget officer. Municipal treasurer certified to the availability of funds
and released the money even without the requisite budget officer’s certification. The signatures of
beneficiaries, who supposed to have received the money, were forged. Can the mayor and accountant
be held liable for malversation even though they are not accountable officer? Yes. Ordinarily, a
municipality’s mayor and accountant are not accountable public officers as defined under the
law. However, a public officer who is not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of his official
position, or even a private individual, may be liable for malversation if such public officer or private
individual conspires with an accountable public officer to commit malversation. In this case, combined
acts of the mayor and accountant, and treasurer, an accountable officer, conspired to defraud the
government (People vs. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June 17, 2008).
In addition, municipal mayors are chief executives of their respective municipalities. Under the
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, he is responsible for all government funds pertaining to
the municipality. As a required standard procedure, the signatures of the mayor and the treasurer are
needed before any disbursement of public funds can be made. No checks can be prepared and no
payment can be effected without their signatures on a disbursement voucher and the corresponding
check. In other words, any disbursement and release of public funds require their approval. The mayor
and treasurer had control and responsibility over the funds of the municipality. Hence, they are
accountable officers. Any unlawful disbursement or misappropriation of the municipal funds would
make them accountable for malversation (Evangelista vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158413,
February 08, 2012).
Intentional and culpable malversation – Malversation may be committed either through a

positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property, or passively through negligence. To
sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while
the prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will
not preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence because both areequally
punishable for malversation (Torres vs. People, GR No. 175074, August 31, 2011).
Even when the Information charges intentional malversation, conviction for malversation
through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of
the offense. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or
the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode
charged differs from mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof
is proper (Torres vs. People, GR No. 175074, August 31, 2011).
Presumption of malversation - Mere absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion;

neither is the mere failure of the public officer to turn over the funds at any given time sufficient to
make even the prima facie case. In fine, conversion must be proved. However, an accountable officer
may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation so long as
there is evidence of shortage in his account which he is unable to explain.
Under Article 217, a presumption was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized
officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property – with
which said officer is accountable – should be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds
or properties to personal use. When these circumstances are present, a “presumption of law” arises
that there was malversation of public funds or properties. To be sure, this presumption is disputable
and rebuttable by evidence showing that the public officer had fully accounted for the alleged cash
shortage (Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012).
In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the
accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when
demand therefor was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct
evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot
explain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts (Icdang vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 185960, January
25, 2012).
FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTING
In People vs. Lumauig, G.R. No.166680, July 7, 2014 - Article 218 of RPC consists of the following
elements: (1) that the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom; (2)
that he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property; (3) that he is required by law or
regulation to render accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and (4) that he
fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered.
Petitioner received cash advance for payment of the insurance coverage of motorcycles
purchased by the Municipality in 1994. Under COA Circular, petitioner is required to liquidate the same
within 20 days after the end of the year or on ore before January 20, 1995. To avoid liability under
Article 218, he should have liquidated the cash advance within two months from the time it was due, or
on or before March 20, 1995. Petitioner was liable for failure to render account under Article 218
because it took him over six years before settling his accounts. Demand before an accountable officer is
held liable for a violation of the crime is not required. Article 218 merely provides that the public
officer be required by law and regulation to render account.
KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST JUDGEMENT
To commit the offense of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, the offender must be a
judge who is adequately shown to have rendered an unjust judgment, not one who merely committed
an error of judgment or taken the unpopular side of a controversial point of law. The term knowingly
means “sure knowledge, conscious and deliberate intention to do an injustice.” Thus, the complainant
must not only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently contrary to law or not
supported by the evidence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice.
Good faith and the absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient
defenses that will shield a judge from the charge of rendering an unjust decision. In other words, the
judge was motivated by hatred, revenge, greed or some other similar motive in issuing the
judgment. Bad faith is, therefore, the ground for liability. The failure of the judge to correctly interpret
the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him
administratively liable(Re: Verified Complaint for Disbarment of AMA LAnd Inc. against CA Association
Justice Bueser et.al., OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, March 11, 2014).
USURPATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
Under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of usurpation of judicial authority
involves the following elements: (1) that the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the
government; and (2) that he assumes judicial powers, or obstructs the execution of any order or
decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. These elements were alleged in the information.
Mayor Irisari was an officer of the executive branch (Munez vs. Arino, A.M. No. MTJ-94-985, February
21, 1995). In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to perform an act
the authority for which the law has vested only in a judge (Miñoso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P-05-2067, 31
August 2005; Pace v. Leonardo, A.M. No. P-03-1675, 6 August 2003,). A Provincial Adjudicator, who
rendered judgment in DARAB Case in the performance of a quasi-judicial function, closely akin to the
function of a judge of a court of law, could not be held liable under Article 241 of RPC, therefore,
considering that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were lacking herein (Reyes vs.
People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, August 12, 2010). A clerk of court, who is not an officer of the executive
branch, cannot be held liable for usurpation of judicial function. However, a clerk of court, who
usurped judicial prerogative of the judge by issuing the arrest of an accused in a criminal case, is
administratively liable for grave misconduct (Albior vs. Auguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003).
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
PARRICIDE
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (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 (People vs. Gamez, GR No.
202847, October 23, 2013).
MURDER
Murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3)
the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the
killing is neither parricide nor infanticide (People vs. Camat, G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012
ATTEMPTED MURDER - Accused opened the door of his vehicle and then drew a gun and shot
victim once, hitting him just below the left armpit. Victim immediately ran at the back of the car, while
accused sped away. Is the accused liable for attempted murder? No. Accused only shot the victim once
and did not hit any vital part of the latter’s body. If he intended to kill him, accused could have shot the
victim multiple times or even ran him over with the car. When such intent is lacking but wounds are
inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries only ( Pentecoste, Jr.
vs. People, G.R. No. 167766, April 7, 2010).
EXCESSIVE CHASTISEMENT
“X” tied his son to a coconut tree and, there after hit on his right eye and right leg. As a
consequence, his son sustained injuries that would heal in one week upon medication. Is “X” liable for
slight physical injuries despite the fact that his intention in beating his son is merely to discipline him?
Yes. “X” cannot evade criminal culpability by the circumstance that he merely intended to discipline
his son (People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
RAPE
INTIMIDATION - It is a well-entrenched law that intimidation in rape includes the moral kind
of intimidation or coercion. Intimidation is a relative term, depending on the age, size and strength of
the parties, and their relationship with each other. It can be addressed to the mind as well. For rape to
exist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as
could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate
the purpose which the accused had in mind. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's
perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is therefore
enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the
accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with
death if she reports the incident. Intimidation would also explain why there are no traces of struggle
which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker (People vs. Leonardo G.R. No. 181036. July
6, 2010).
Tenacious resistance - Among the amendments of the law on rape introduced under RA No.
8353 is Section 266-D, which provides “Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in
any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of
giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution rape” (People vs. Sabadlab, G.R. No.
175924, March 14, 2012). The legislators agreed that Article 266-D is intended to soften the
jurisprudence on tenacious resistance (People vs. Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, July 23, 2002, En banc).
Failure to shout should not be taken against the victim (People vs. Rivera, GR No. 200508, September 04,
2013; see: People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012; People vs. Penilla, GR No. 189324, March 20,
2013). It necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries. She need not kick, bite, hit or scratch the
offender with her fingernails to prove that she had been defensive. It is sufficient that she yielded
because of a real application of bodily harm (People vs. Torres, G.R. No. 134766, January 16, 2004). The
use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the
victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission (People vs. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093, February
1, 2012; People vs. Penilla, GR No. 189324, March 20, 2013).
In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where
the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant’s father, would suffice
(People vs. Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February 22, 2012) In rape committed by a father, his moral
ascendancy and influence over the victim substitute for the requisite force, threat, and intimidation,
and strengthen the fear which compels the victim to conceal her dishonor (People vs. Ortega, G.R. No.
186235, January 25, 2012; People vs. Broca, GR No. 201447, January 09, 2013People vs. Candellada, G.R.
No. 189293, July 10, 2013,Justice De Castro). The absence of violence or offer of resistance would not
affect the outcome of the case because the overpowering and overbearing moral influence of the father
over his daughter takes the place of violence and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed
by an accused who did not have blood relationship with the victim (People vs. Osma, G.R. No. 187734,
August 29, 2012, Justice De Castro).In People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos. 148673-75, October 17, 2003, En
Banc - Being the father, appellant’s force or threat was sufficient to create fear in the mind of the
complainant compelling her to submit to his sexual abuse.
Sweetheart theory - The sweetheart theory, as a defense, necessarily admits carnal

knowledge, the first element of rape. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to
defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof; after the prosecution has
successfully established a prima facie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to
adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual (People vs. Deligero, GR No. 189280, April 17,
2013).
Sweetheart defense will not exculpate accused from liability for rape against mentally retarded
person. In the rape of a woman deprived of reason or unconscious, the victim has no will. The absence
of will determines the existence of the rape. Such lack of will may exist not only when the victim is
unconscious or totally deprived of reason, but also when she is suffering some mental deficiency
impairing her reason or free will. Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be incapable
of legal consent constitutes rape (People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013).
A child was not capable of fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in
consequence, remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of adults. Unlike rape,
therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving sexual absue under Section 5 of RA 7610. For
purposes of sexual abuse, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person
(Caballo vs. People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013).
MENTAL RETARDATION – In People vs. Dalan, G.R. No. 203086, June 11, 2014 - The term
statutory rape should only be confined to situations where the victim of rape is a person less than 12
years of age. If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation, the
crime committed is simple rape committed against a person "deprived of reason" . In short, carnal
knowledge with a mental retardate with mental age of below 12 years, while akin to statutory rape
should still be designated as simple rape. At any rate, proof of force, threat or intimidation is dispensed
with in both statutory rape and rape with a person who is deprived of reason.
In rape, the phrase "deprived of reason" refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or

retardation, which includes (a) idiot (equivalent to two-year old child); (b) imbecile (seven-year old child);
(c) moron or feebleminded (twelve-year old child) and (d) borderline intelligence. A person is guilty of
rape when he had sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a "borderline mental
deficiency (People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011; G.R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002,
People vs. Dalandas)
Intimidation - Mental retardation was not alleged in the information. However, the accused
can be convicted of with rape though intimidation alleged in the Information. Having sex with a
mentally retarded person even with consent constitutes rape through intimidation (People vs.
Balatazo, G.R. No. 118027, January 29, 2004).
Demented person - The term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a
condition of deteriorated mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual’s former
intellectual level and often by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, the
phrase deprived of reason includes those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation. Thus,a mental retardate can be properly classified as a person who is “deprived of reason,”
and not one who is “demented.”
Accused was charged in the Information with rape of a demented person with a mental age of 7
years old. Evidence however shows that the victim is not demented but mentally retarded. The mistake
will not exonerate accused. His rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him were violated. The allegation that the victim is a person with a mental age of 7 years old is
sufficient to inform accused of the nature of the charges against him. Carnal knowledge of a woman
who is a mental retardate is rape (People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013,Justice De Castro).
Accused was charged in the Information with rape of a demented personwith mental capacity
below 18 years old. Evidence however shows that the victim is not demented but mentally retarded.
Mistake in the information will not exonerate the accused he failed to raise this as an objection, and the
particular facts stated in the Information were protestation sufficient to inform him of the nature of
the charge against him (People vs. Ventura, Sr. GR. No. 205230, March 12, 2014).
Deafmute - The deprivation of reason need not be complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency
is enough. Cohabitation with a feebleminded, idiotic woman is rape. Sexual intercourse with an insane
woman was considered rape. But a deafmute is not necessarily deprived of reason. These circumstances
must be proven. Intercourse with a deafmute is not rape of a woman deprived of reason, in the absence
of proof that she is an imbecile (People vs. Caoile, GR No. 203041, June 05, 2013).
Borderline intelligence - The traditional but now obsolescent terms applied to those degrees
of mental retardation were (a) idiot, having an IQ of 0-19, and a maximum intellectual factor in adult
life equivalent to that of the average two-year old child; (b)imbecile by an IQ of 20 to 49 and a maximum
intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average seven-year old child;
(c) moron or feebleminded, having an IQ of 50 to 69 and a maximum intellectual function in adult life
equivalent to that of the average twelve-year old child. Psychiatrists and psychologists apply the term
“borderline” intelligence to those with IQ between 70 to 89. A person is guilty of rape when he had
sexual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a “borderline mental deficiency (People vs.
Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012 (Justice De Castro).
STATUTORY RAPE - In statutory rape, what the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman
below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal
knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on
account of her tender years (People vs. Dollano, Jr., GR No. 188851, October 19, 2011).
QUALIFIED RAPE - RPC punishes the rape of a mentally disabled person regardless of the
perpetrator’s awareness of his victim’s mental condition. However, the perpetrator’s knowledge of the
victim’s mental disability, at the time he committed the rape, qualifies the crime ( People vs. Caoile, GR
No. 203041, June 05, 2013). Since knowledge is an element of this qualifying circumstance, it must be
formally alleged in the information and duly proved by the prosecution (People vs. Obogne, GR No.
199740, March 24, 2014).In People vs. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012 –the information in the
present case merely stated that the victim was blind; it did not specifically allege that the appellant
knew of her blindness at the time of the commission of the rape. Hence, the crime committed is simple
rape.
In qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship in rape and special aggravating

circumstance under Section 31(c) of RA No. 7610 in sexual abuse under Section 5, the guardian must be
a person who has legal relationship with his ward. He must be legally appointed was first (People vs.
Flores G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010).
MARITAL RAPE – In People vs. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014 -
Husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the
realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear State policy expressly legislated in Section
266-C of RPC as amended by RA No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which provides “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.” RA No 8353 eradicated the archaic notion that marital
rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute proprietary rights over his wife’s body and thus her
consent to every act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed.Husbands
are once again reminded that marriage is not a license to forcibly rape their wives. A husband does not
own his wife’s body by reason of marriage. By marrying, she does not divest herself of the human right
to an exclusive autonomy over her own body and thus, she can lawfully opt to give or withhold her
consent to marital coitus. A husband aggrieved by his wife’s unremitting refusal to engage in sexual
intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to make her yield. He can seek succor before
the Family Courts that can determine whether her refusal constitutes psychological incapacity
justifying an annulment of the marriage.
CONSPIRACY - Accused are liable for two (2) counts of rape on account of a clear
conspiracy between them, shown by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate, one after the other,
the rapes. Each of them is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but also for
the rape committed by the other as well (People vs. Lascano, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012).
PARDON - For crimes of seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness, pardon and marriage
extinguish criminal liability. However, pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the
criminal actions (People vs. Dollano, Jr., GR No. 188851, October 19, 2011). Rape is no longer a crime
against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. Consequently, rape is no longer
considered a private crime or that which cannot be prosecuted, except upon a complaint filed by the
aggrieved party. Hence, pardon by the offended party of the offender in the crime of rape will not
extinguish the offender's criminal liability (People vs. Bonaagua, GR No. 188897, June 06, 2011).
UNTENABLE DEFENSE - In crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is
not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone, if
credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof (People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 186235, January 25,
2012).
In Sison vs. People, G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012 -While petitioner was portraying AAA as
a prostitute, the latter cried. AAA's crying shows how she might have felt after being raped by the
petitioner and yet be accused of a woman of loose morals. The victim's moral character in rape is
immaterial where it is shown that intimidation was used for the victim to have sex with the accused.
Time and again, we have taken into consideration how rapists are not deterred by the presence
of people nearby, such as the members of their own family inside the same room, with the likelihood of
being discovered, since lust respects no time, locale or circumstance (People vs. Colorado, G.R. No.
200792, November 14, 2012)
It is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that AAA gave birth ten (10) months after
the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. In any event, we dismiss appellant’s
contention as immaterial to the case at bar because jurisprudence tells us that impregnation is not an
element of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some
unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal
knowledge of the victim against the latter’s will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to
by the victim in a truthful manner (People vs. Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014, Justice De
Castro).
STAGES
CONSUMMATED RAPE –If the “touching" of the female organ constitutes the sliding of the
penis into or the touching of either labia majoraor labia minoraof the pudendum, the crime committed is
consummated rape. Anything short of that will only result in either attempted rape or acts of
lasciviousness (People vs. Publico, April 13, 2011, G.R. No. 183569).However, the penis that touches the
external genitalia must be capable of consummating the sexual act to constitute consummated rape
(People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011). Touching must be made in the context of the
presence or existence of an erect penis capable of penetration (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
March 30, 2000).
Circumstantial evidence - In People vs. Castillo, GR No. 193666, February 19, 2014, Justice De
Castro - Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e, touching of
either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape. However, even though
the victim testified that there was no penetration and the accused simply rubbed his penis in the
victim's vagina, accused will be convicted of consummated Rape if there are evidence that the pain felt
by the victim, the sex organ of the victim suffered injury, and there is bleeding of the victim's genitalia.
Hymen is intact - Sexual penetration even without laceration of the hymen or even the
briefest of contact consummates rape (People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011). It is
possible for the victim’s hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. Likewise,
whether the accused’s penis fully or only partially penetrated the victim’s genitalia, it is still possible
that her hymen would remain intact because it was thick and distensible or elastic. The strength and
dilability of the hymen varies from one woman to another such that it may be so elastic as to stretch
without laceration during intercourse, or on the other hand, may be so resistant that its surgical
removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue. In some cases even, the hymen is still intact even
after the woman has given birth (People vs. Deligero, GR No. 189280, April 17, 2013; People vs. Broca, GR
No. 201447, January 09, 2013).
ATTEMPTED RAPE –If the touching merely constitutes an epidermal contact, stroking or
grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or
the mons pubis, the crime committed is either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness (People v.
Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000). Attempted rape is committed when the “touching” of the
vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of
lasciviousness. The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness lies in the intent of
the perpetrator as deduced from his external acts. (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9,
2011; People vs. Collado G.R. Nos. 135667-70, March 1, 2001).
To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that erectile penis is in the position to
penetrate (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014) or the offender actually commenced to
force his penis into the victim's sexual organ (People vs. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013,
Justice De Castro).
Mother of the victim saw “X” was kneeling before victim whose pajamas and panty were
already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. Accused was forcing his penis into
victim’s vagina. Horrified, she cursed the accused and boxed him several times. Is “X” liable for acts of
lasciviousness or attempted rape? “X” should be held liable for attempted rape since it was not shown
that his penis was able to penetrate vagina of victim however slight (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No.
129433, March 30, 2000, En Banc). Intent to have sexual intercourse was clearly established in this case.
The victim’s statements that the accused was “trying to force his sex organ into mine” and
“binundol-undol ang kanyang ari” did not prove that the accused’s penis reached the labia of the
pudendum of the victim’s vagina. Accused was convicted of attempted rape (People vs. Pareja, G.R. No.
188979, September 5, 2012).
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS - The elements of acts of lasciviousness, punishable under Article

336 of the RPC, are: (1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) That it is
done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. When the offended party is under
12 years of age; and (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex (People vs. Garcia, G.R.
No. 200529, September 19, 2012; (People vs. Rellota, GR No. 168103 , August 03, 2010).The modes of
committing acts of lasciviousness are the same as those of committing rape under the old version.
Undressing the victim (People vs. Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014) or touching her
vagina by the hand of the accused (People vs. Banzuela) or rubbing his penis on the mons pubis of the
pudendum (People vs. Abanilla, G.R. Nos. 148673-75, October 17, 2003) is merely acts of lasciviousness.
RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT
It is commonly denominated as “organ rape” or “penile rape” and must be attended by any of
the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. On the other hand, rape
under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. The perpetrator,
under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, commits this kind of rape by
inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the
genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also called “instrument or object rape”, also “gender-free
rape” (People vs. Soria, G.R. No. I 79031, November 14, 2012).
A, a child, testified that X touched her private part and licked it but he did not insert his finger
inside her vagina. What is the crime committed? Answer: If the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches
the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of
rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. This testimony of the victim,
however, is open to various interpretation, since it cannot be identified what specific part of the vagina
was defiled by X. Thus, X cannot be convicted of rape through sexual assault. Thus, X is liable for acts of
lasciviousness (People vs. Bonaagua, GR No. 188897, June 06, 2011).
Prior to RA No. 8353, rape through sexual assault is considered as acts of lasciviousness.
However, upon the passage of RA No. 8353, acts, which were as acts of lasciviousness before, are now
treated as rape through sexual assault. However, the concept of rape through sexual assault has not
acquired some of the characteristic of acts of lasciviousness.
1. Doctrine of absorption – If the accused commits rape and acts of lasciviousness, the latter is
absorbed by the former (People vs. Dy, G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29, 2002). But if the accused
commits rape through sexual intercourse and rape through sexual abuse, the doctrine of absorption is
not applicable. The accused will be convicted of separate crimes of rape through sexual intercourse and
rape through sexual abuse.
In People vs. Crisostomo, GR No. 196435, January 29, 2014 – Accused on the same occasion
inserted a lit cigarette stick into genital orifice of victim (6 years of age) and her anal orifice, and had
sexual intercourse with her. He is guilt for two counts of rape by sexual assault and rape through sexual
intercourse.
In People vs. Espera, G.R. No. 202868, October 02, 2013 - Justice De Castro– Accused inserted
his penis into the mouth of the victim, and thereafter, rape her. He was convicted of rape through
sexual assault by inserting his penis into the mouth of the victim and rape by sexual intercourse.
Doctrine of absorption was not applied.
2. Variance rule – If the crime charged is rape, but the crime proven is acts of lasciviousness,
the accused will be convicted of the latter because of the variance rule. Acts of lasciviousness is
necessarily included in the charge of rape.
If the crime charged is rape through sexual intercourse, but the crime proven is rape through
sexual assault, the accused cannot be convicted of the latter. The variance rule is not applicable since
rape through sexual assault is not necessarily included in the charge of rape through sexual
intercourse. The elements of these two crimes are materially and substantially different. In such case,
the accused will be convicted of acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Pareja, GR No. 202122, January 15,
2014, Justice De Castro; People vs. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051, October 02, 2013, Justice De
Castro;People vs. CA, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015).
CHILD PROSTITUION AND SEXUAL ABUSE
Sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 has three elements: (1) the accused commits an
act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years old.
Sexual abuse and lascivious conduct - "Sexual abuse" includes the employment, use,
persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to
engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with
children;
"Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person (Section 2(g) and (h) of the
Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases)
Child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse - Children, whether male or
female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse (Section 5 of RA No 7610).
The averments in the information against the accused clearly make out a charge for sexual
abuse under Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610 although the caption charged him with child abuse under
Section 10 (a). However, the character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated (People vs.
Rayon, G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013)
Sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists
when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of
the offended party’s free will (Caballo vs. People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013).
Accused (23 years of age) repeatedly assured the victim (17 years) of his love for her, and even,
promised to marry her. In addition, he also guaranteed that she would not get pregnant since he would
be using the "withdrawal method" for safety. These were meant to influence her to set aside her
reservations and eventually give into having sex with accused, with which he succeeded. The age
disparity between an adult and a minor placed accused in a stronger position over the victim so as to
enable him to force his will upon the latter. An important factor is that the victim refused accused's
incipient advances and in fact, asked him to leave. However, the victim eventually yielded. Thus, it
stands to reason that she was put in a situation deprived of the benefit of clear thought and choice. The
actuations of the accused may be classified as "coercion" and "influence" within the purview of Section
5 of RA 7610. Hence, accused is guilty of sexual abuse (Caballo vs. People, GR No. 198732, June 10, 2013).
The Information alleged that accused committed acts of lasciviousness upon the person of
victim, a minor subjected to sexual abuse. Can the accused be convicted for sexual abuse under Section
5 (b) of RA No. 7610? Answer: No. Under the law, committing lascivious conduct upon a child under
coercion or influence of an adult or group is sexual abuse. There is no allegation of coercion or
influence, which is an indispensable ingredient of this crime. It does not contain the essential facts
constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law. Thus, accused cannot be convicted
of sexual abuse under such Information. The information is void for being violative of the accused’s
constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
(People vs. Pangilinan, GR No. 183090, November 14, 2011, ).
Child 12 years of age or above –X taking advantage of his ascendancy committed sexual
intercourse with his daughter (15 years of age). What crime can X be prosecuted for? The child is under
the influence of an adult. This is sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610. The act is committed
with psychological intimidation or grave abuse authority. This is rape. Hence, X can be prosecuted for
either (1) sexual abuse under violation of RA No. 7610; or rape under Article 266-A of RPC. X should not
be charged for Rape in relation to sexual abuse. Existing jurisprudence, however, proscribes charging an
accused for both crimes, rather, he may be charged only for either (Alberto vs. Hon. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 182130, June 19, 2013).X cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right
against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a
single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of RPC, a felony cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law
(People v. Abay, G.R. No. 177752, February 24, 2009; People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, Nov. 14, 2011,
,People v. Dahilig, G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011, People v. Matias, G.R. No. 186469, June 13, 2012 and
Alberto vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013).
Child under 12 years Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims
is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape and for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period (Section 5).
X taking advantage of his ascendancy committed sexual intercourse with his daughter (9 years
of age). What crime can X be prosecuted for? The child, who is under the influence of an adult, is under
12 years of age. Hence, X should be prosecuted for statutory rape. Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 provides
that when the victim (child subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted for rape (People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001).
Accused was convicted of rape through sexual assault committed against a 4 year old child.
There is no allegation in the Information that the child is indulged in lascivious conduct for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.
Accused was punished under RPC. In sum, the penalty under RA 7160 was not imposed since the
information failed to allege that the victim is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse
(Pielago vs. People, GR No. 202020, March 13, 2013)
Rape through sexual assault and sexual abuse - X forced A, a minor, in an isolated place
and inserted his finger into her vagina. (a) For what crimes can X be prosecuted if A is 17 years of age at
the time?
Answer: X committed rape through sexual assault, or object or instrument rape under RPC
since he inserted object, his finger, into the vaginal orifice of A by using force. The crime of sexual
abuse under Section 5 of RA No. 7160 is also committed since A is indulged in lascivious conduct under
coercion of an adult. However, X can only be prosecuted either for rape or sexual abuse.
(b) Would your answer be the same if the age A is 10 years old?
Answer: Since A, who is a child indulged in lascivious conduct under coercion of an adult, is
under 12 years of age, X should be prosecuted for rape through sexual assault under RPC. Under Section
5 of RA No. 7610, when the child subjected to sexual abuse is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape under RPC (People vs. Pangilinan, GR No. 183090, November
14, 2011, ).
(c) The penalty for rape through sexual assault under RPC as amended by RA No. 8353 is
prision mayor while the penalty under RA No. 7610 for acts of lasciviousness committed against a child
subjected to sexual abuse, under 12 years of age, is reclusion temporal in its medium period. If the age
of A is 10 years old, would you impose the penalty under RA No. 8353 or under RA No. 7610?
Answer: One who commits acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA No. 7610 suffers the more
severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the one who commits rape through
sexual assault, which is merely punishable by prision mayor. This is undeniably unfair to the child
victim. To be sure, it was not the intention of the framers of RA No. 8353, to have disallowed the
applicability of RA No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of RA No. 8353,
R.A. No. 7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims are children ( People vs. Chingh,
G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011). The penalty under RA No. 7160 should be imposed.
(d) The penalty for qualified rape through sexual assault is reclusion temporal under RPC as
amended by RA No. 8353. If A is the 10 year-old daughter of X, would you impose penalty penalty under
RA No. 8353 or under RA No. 7610?
Answer:Since the crime committed is rape through sexual assault with qualifying
circumstance of minority and relationship, the rationale of unfairness to the child victim that Chingh
case wanted to correct is absent because RPC as amended by RA No. 8353 already prescribes the penalty
of reclusion temporal for this crime. Hence, there is no more need to apply the penalty prescribed by
RA No. 7610 for sexual abuse (People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011). The penalty under
RPC should be imposed.
CONSENT OF THE VICTIM - Is consent of the victim a defense in rape, or child prostitution or
sexual abuse?A child exploited in prostitution may seem to "consent" to what is being done to her or
him and may appear not to complain. However, a child who is "a person below eighteen years of age or
those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition" is incapable of
giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse (People vs. Dulay, GR No. 193854,
September 24, 2012; People vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007).Submissiveness of child under
influence or psychological coercion of adult is not likewise a defense in sexual abuse (People vs. Larin,
G.R. No. 128777, October, 7 1998).
But if the sexual abuse is committed as alleged in the information against a child, who indulges
in sexual intercourse under coercion, the prosecution must show lack of consent on the part of the
victim. Showing that the child consented to the sexual intercourse will negate “coercion” as an element
of the crime (see: People vs. Abello,G.R. No. 151952, March 25, 2009).
CHILD PROSTITUTION
The elements of child prostitution are:(1) The accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induces
child prostitution;(2) The act is done through, but not limited to, the following means:(a) Acting as a
procurer of a child prostitute;Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written
or oral advertisements or other similar means;(c) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as a prostitute;(d) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a
prostitute; orgiving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to
engage such child in prostitution;(3) The child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution
and(4) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age (People vs. Dulay, GR No. 193854,
X convinced A to accompany her. When they reached Kubuhan, X suddenly pulled A inside a
room where Y. Y gives money to X and tells her to look for a younger girl. Thereafter, Y wielded a knife
and tied A’s hands to the papag and raped her. A asked for X's help when she saw the latter peeping into
the room while she was being raped, but X did not do so. After the rape, X and Y told A not to tell
anyone what had happened or else they would get back at her. What is the crime committed by X?
Answer: X is not liable as principal by indispensable cooperation. From the time X convinced A
to go with her until X received money from Y are not indispensable in the crime of rape. Anyone could
have accompanied A and offered the latter's services in exchange for money and A could still have been
raped. Note: Conspiracy was not alleged in the information.
X is liable for child prostitution under Section 5 of RA No. 7610. X facilitated or induced child
prostitution. The act of X in convincing A, who was 12 years old at that time, to go with her and
thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in exchange for money makes her liable for child prostitution
(People vs. Dulay, GR No. 193854, September 24, 2012).
CHILD ABUSE
Under Section 10 (a) of RA No. 7610, child abuse or cruelty is committed by any person who
shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of PD No. 603
but not covered by the RPC.
Under Section 3 (b), "child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child which includes any of the following: (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual
abuse and emotional maltreatment; (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic
needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
Section 10 (a) punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 of PD No. 603, but also four
distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being responsible for
conditions prejudicial to the child's development. We stress that Section 10 refers to acts of child abuse
other than child prostitution and other sexual abuse under Section 5, attempt to commit child
prostitution under Section 6, child trafficking under Section 7, attempt to commit child trafficking
under Section 8, and obscene publications and indecent shows under Section 9 (People vs. Rayon, G.R.
No. 194236, January 30, 2013).
In Bongalon vs. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013 - Accused saw the victim and his
companions hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused struck minor-victim at the back with his
hand and slapped his face. Since the accused committed the act at the spur of the moment, they are
perpetrated without intent to debase his "intrinsic worth and dignity" as a human being, or to
humiliate or embarrass him. Without such intent, the crime committed is not child abuse under RA
7610 but merely slight physical injuries.
In Rosaldes vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014 - Although the accused, as a
schoolteacher, could duly discipline her minor student, her infliction of the physical injuries on him
was unnecessary, violent and excessive. The boy even fainted from the violence suffered at her
hands. She could not justifiably claim that she acted only for the sake of disciplining him. Her physical
maltreatment of him was precisely prohibited by no less than the Family Code, which has expressly
banned the infliction of corporal punishment by a school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in
child care exercising special parental authority. Accused was convicted of child abuse under Section 10
(a) of RA No. 7610.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ESTAFA
ESTAFA THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION –The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b)
of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(d) there is demand by the offended party to the offender (Tabaniag vs. People, GR No. 165411, June 18,
2009;Magtira vs. People, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012). However, demand is not necessary if there is
evidence of misappropriation.
Misappropriation as an element of the offense of estafa connotes 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. Failure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust without offering any
satisfactory explanation for the inability to account is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account are
similarly circumstantial evidence that the courts can appreciate (Magtira vs. People, G.R. No. 170964,
March 7, 2012).
The essence of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" 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. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion
to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right
(Tabaniag vs. People, GR No. 165411, June 18, 2009).
X received from A jewelry with obligation to return the same if unsold or deliver the proceeds
of sale. In the acknowledgement receipt, X is prohibited from selling jewelry the jewelry on credits or
giving it for safekeeping. X transferred the jewelry to Y, a subagent. Y failed to return the jewelry. Is X
liable for estafa through conversion?
Answer: No. It must be pointed out that the law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the
appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an express agreement to the
contrary between the agent and the principal. In the case at bar, the appointment of sub-agent was not
expressly prohibited by A. Neither does it appear that X was verbally forbidden by A from passing on
the jewelry to another person. Thus, it cannot be said that X's act of entrusting the jewelry to Y is
characterized by abuse of confidence because such an act was not proscribed and is, in fact, legally
sanctioned.
Since properties were given by X to Y to achieve the very same end for which they were
delivered to her in the first place, there is no conversion since the same were not devoted to a purpose
or use different from that agreed upon. Similarly, it cannot be said that X delivered them to Y "without
right." Aside from the fact that no condition or limitation was imposed on the mode or manner by
which X was to effect the sale, it is also consistent with usual practice for the seller to necessarily part
with the valuables in order to find a buyer and allow inspection of the items for sale (Tabaniag vs.
People, GR No. 165411, June 18, 2009).
Can X be held liable for estafa through negligence? Answer: No. In estafa, the profit or gain
must be obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere negligence in
permitting another to take advantage or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa
Can X be held liable for estafa on the basis of conspiracy? Answer: No. If an agent acted in
conspiracy with subagent in carrying out the actual misappropriation, then the former would be
answerable for the acts of his co-conspirators. However, the mere fact that X failed to return the pieces
of jewelry upon demand is not proof of conspiracy, nor is it proof of misappropriation or conversion
ESTFA THROUGH ISSUANCE OF BOUNCING CHECK - The essential elements of estafa through
bouncing check: (1) the accused shall defraud another by issuing or postdating check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; (3) check was issued or postdated prior to or simultaneously with the parting of money or
property by the payee; and (4) damage to the payee thereof.
It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable, not the non-
payment of a debt. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check
failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice
of dishonor. To be guilty of estafa the accused must have used the check in order to defraud the
complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless
check. Accused could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he had issued the check used to
defraud complainant. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it had been accused as the drawer
who had defrauded complainant by means of the check. Complainant admitted that it was another
person who received the rice from him and who delivered the bearer check to him (People vs. Reyes,
GR No. 157943, September 04, 2013).
In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender
must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the
check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the Prosecution must show that the person to
whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the
issuance of the check by the offender (People vs. Reyes, GR No. 157943, September 04, 2013).
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND DECEIT - The offense of estafa, in general, is committed either
by (a) abuse of confidence or (b) means of deceit. The acts constituting estafa committed with abuse of
confidence are enumerated in item (1) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; item (2) of
Article 315 enumerates estafa committed by means of deceit. Deceit is not an essential requisite
of estafa by abuse of confidence; the breach of confidence takes the place of fraud or deceit, which is a
usual element in the other estafas (Brokmann vs. People, G.R. No. 199150, February 6, 2012).
ESTAFA AND OTHER DECEIT - What is the difference between estafa through false
representation and other deceit? The common elements of these two crimes are: (1) false pretense,
fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud; and (2) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. It is essential that
such false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive for the
private complainant to part with her property. In estafa under Article 315, the false representation is
committed by using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
Following the principle of ejusdem generis, other deceit as a means to commit estafa must be similar to
pretending to possess power, imaginary transaction etc. If the deceit is not similar to pretending to
possess power or imaginary transaction, the crime committed is other deceit under Article 318. In
Guinhawa vs. People, G.R. No. 162822 August 25, 2005 () - Fraudulent representation of the seller that
the van to be sold is brand new constitutes other deceit under Article 318. On the other hand, in People
vs. Rubaton, C.A., 65 O.G. 5048, issue of May 19, 1069, false representation that accused has a palay by
reason of which the victim parted his money in consideration of the palay constitutes estafa under
Article 315. Unlike in the Guinhawa case, the transaction in Rubaton case is imaginary.
Authority to sell - Primelink entered into joint venture agreement with the owner of a certain
land to develop a club. Accused represent to complainant on October 10, 1996 Primelink will finished
the Club by July 1998. Because of this representation complainant purchased a Club share. However, the
Club was not completed because the owner of the property mortgaged it in violation of their
agreement. The projected was aborted. Accused is not liable for estafa for such representation. False
pretense of power to develop the Club resulting in damage to buyer is estafa. However, the law requires
that the false pretense be used “prior to or simultaneous with the execution of the fraud, and that is
October 10, 1996. In this case, there is no showing that Primelink possessed no power (capability) to
develop the Club and that accused knew that the Club was a bogus project. Primelink is a legitimate
developer. In fact, it has already released money for the initial funding of the project. The project was
only aborted because of the problem with the owner of the land, which occurred after October 10, 1996.
However, the false pretense made by accused that Primelink was authorized to sell membership shares
is estafa. False pretense of qualification (to sell securities) is within the contemplation of the provision
on estafa (Lopez vs. People, GR NO. 199294, July 31, 2013)
SUBSEQUENT FRAUD - Is the fraudulent act committed by the accused subsequent to the time
the victim parted his money constitutes estafa? In the prosecution for this kind of estafa, it is
indispensable that the false pretense or fraudulent act is committed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the
very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence
of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might
appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa (Ambito, vs. People, G. R. No. 127327, Feb. 13,
2009).
REPRESENTATION OF FUTURE PROFIT - When will a representation of a future profits or

income be considered as an actionable fraud or estafa? Where one states that the future profits or
income of an enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he actually knows that there will be none, or that
they will be substantially less than he represents, the statements constitute an actionable fraud where
the hearer believes him and relies on the statement to his injury. In the present case, it is abundantly
clear that the profits which Elvira and her co-conspirators promised to Elizabeth would not be realized
(Joson vs. People, G. R. No. 178836, July 23, 2008).
OTHER DECEIT- Other deceit under Article 316 (a) of RPC is committed by any person who,
knowing that the real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance
be not recorded. The law was taken from Article 455 of the Spanish Penal Code. However, the words
"como libre" in the Spanish Penal Code, which means "free from encumbrance" do not appear in the
English text of RPC, nonetheless, the same are deemed incorporated in the RPC. The gravamen of the
crime is the disposition of legally encumbered real property by the offender under the express
representation that there is no encumbrance thereon. Hence, for one to be criminally liable for estafa
under the law, the accused must make an express representation in the deed of conveyance that the
property sold or disposed of is free from any encumbrance (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No. 146770, February
27, 2003, ).
THEFT
QUALIFIED THEFT - The elements of the crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)
that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished
without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft becomes
qualified "if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property
stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of
a plantation, 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
(People vs. Bayon, GR No. 168627, July 02, 2010).
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE - To warrant the conviction and, hence, imposition of the penalty for
qualified theft, there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed between the
offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence ]or that the stolen goods have been
entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused. In other words, where the accused had never been
vested physical access to, or material possession of, the stolen goods, it may not be said that he or she
exploited such access or material possession thereby committing such grave abuse of confidence in
taking the property (Viray vs. People, GR No. 205180, November 11, 2013).
In Zapanta vs. People, G.R. No. 170863, March 20, 2013 - Accused betrayed the trust and
confidence reposed on him when he, as project manager, repeatedly took construction materials from
the project site, without the authority and consent of Engr. Marigondon, the owner of the construction
materials. He is liable for qualified theft.
Taking committed by accused cannot be qualified by the breaking of the door, as it was not
alleged in the Information. Moreover, the same breaking of the door does not constitute the qualifying
element of grave abuse of confidence. The very fact that accused “forced open” the main door because
he was denied access to complainant’s house negates the presence of such confidence in him by private
complainant. Without ready access to the interior of the house where the properties were taken, it
cannot be said that complaint had a “firm trust” on accused and that the same trust facilitated taking of
the personal properties (Viray vs. People, GR No. 205180, November 11, 2013).
If the subject matter of a crime against property was money, identity of the offended party is
material and necessary for the proper identification of the offense charged. Since money is genericand
has no earmarks that could properly identify it, the only way that it (money) could be described and
identified in a complaint is by connecting it to the offended party or the individual who was robbed as
its owner or possessor. Thus, the erroneous designation of the offended party would also be material, as
the subject matter of the offense could no longer be described with such particularity as to properly
identify the offense charged (Senador vs. People, GR No. 201620, March 06, 2013).
If the subject matter of a crime against property is specific or one described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged, then an erroneous designation of the offended
party is not material and would not result in the violation of the accused’s constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. Such error would not result in the
acquittal of the accused (Senador vs. People, GR No. 201620, March 06, 2013).
Accused asserted that the person named as the offended party in the Information is not the
same person who made the demand and filed the complaint. According to accused, the private
complainant in the Information went by the name “Cynthia Jaime,” whereas, during trial, the private
complainant turned out to be “Rita Jaime.” Applying the Uba principle, the case should be dismissed. Is
the argument tenable?
Answer: No. The principle in People vs. Uba, 106 Phil. 332 is not applicable. In Uba case, the
appellant was charged with oral defamation, a crime against honor, wherein the identity of the person
against whom the defamatory words were directed is a material element. Thus, an erroneous
designation of the person injured is material. On the contrary, in the instant case, accused was charged
with estafa, a crime against property that does not absolutely require as indispensable the proper
designation of the name of the offended party. Rather, what is absolutely necessary is the correct
identification of the criminal act charged in the information. Thus, in case of an error in the
designation of the offended party in crimes against property, Rule 110, Sec. 12 of the Rules of Court
mandates the correction of the information, not its dismissal.
In this case, the subject matter of the offense does not refer to money or any other generic
property. Instead, the information specified the subject of the offense as “various kinds of jewelry
valued in the total amount of P705,685.00.” Thus, The error in the designation of the offended party in
the information is immaterial and did not violate accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against her.
THEFT THROUGH MISAPPROPRIATION - Misappropriation of personal property in possession

of the accused may constitute estafa or theft depending upon the nature of possession. If his possession
of the property is physical or de facto, misappropriation thereof is constitutive of theft. If the
possession is juridical or legal, misappropriation thereof is estafa through misappropriation.
1. Agency - A travelling sales agent, who failed to return to his principal the proceeds of goods
he was commissioned or authorized to sell, is liable for estafa because his possession is juridical. Under
the Civil Code Article 1914 of the Civil Code, an agent can even assert, as against his own principal, an
independent, autonomous, right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as
when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages
suffered without his fault (Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703). On the other hand, branch manager
of the company, who misappropriate payments from customers that he collected and accepted, is liable
for qualified theft. Because of this employer-employee relationship, he cannot be considered an agent
of the company and is not covered by the Civil Code provisions on agency. Money received by an
employee in behalf of his employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the
employee(People vs. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011).
In Carganillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014 – Accused received money from
complainant for the purpose of buying palay with the corresponding obligations to (1) deliver
the palay to the Palay Buying Station or (2) return the money in case of failure to purchase palay.
Possession is juridical. Failure to return is estafa.
In Tria vs. People, G.R. No. 204755, September 17, 2014 - By selling the jewelry on credit, the
petitioner used the property for a purpose other than that agreed upon. The words “convert” and
“misappropriate” connote an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.
In Velayo vs. People, G.R. No. 204025, November 26, 2014 – Accused induced to complainant to
entrust to her the funds for the taxes because she knew someone at the BIR who could help her
facilitate the remittance, and even reduce the amounts due. She received the money for remit the same
to the BIR with full freedom and discretion. Thus, she had juridical possession of money. The crime
committed is estafa,
2. Employer-employee relationship – As a rule, the possession of the employee is only
physical possession. Hence, misappropriation of property is considered as theft. If the property is
accessible to the employee, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of confidence can be appreciated.
In People v. Locson, G.R. No. L-35681, October 18, 1932 - The receiving teller of a bank, who
misappropriated the money received by him for the bank, is liable for qualified theft. The possession of
the teller is the possession of the bank. Payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank
itself. The teller has no independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank.
In Balerta vs. People, G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014 – Accused was handling the funds lent
by Care Philippines to his employer as cash custodian. Over the funds, she had mere physical or
material possession, but she held no independent right or title, which she can set up against employer.
Hence, juridical possession of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation is
absent.
In Benabaye vs. People, G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015 - Accused was merely a collector of
loan payments from clients of his employer. Hence, as an employee of the Bank, specifically, its
temporary cash custodian whose tasks are akin to a bank teller, she had no juridical possession over the
missing funds but only their physical or material possession. Since the accused was charged with estafa,
but the crime proven is theft, the case was dismissed without prejudice,
Driver of jeepney under boundary arrangement, who did not return the vehicle to it’s owner, is
liable for carnapping.In People v. Isaac G.R. No. L-7561, April 30, 1955, the rules prohibits motor vehicle
operator from allowing the use and operation of his equipment by another person under a fixed rental
basis. In the eye of the law the driver was only an employee of the owner rather than a lessee. For being
an employee, his possession of the jeepney is physical, and misappropriation thereof is qualified theft.
In People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle in Isaac
case, but found the accused guilty of carnapping in view of the passage of RA No. 6539(Anti-Carnapping
Act).
However, there are instances where the possession of the employee is considered as juridical.
1. In Aigle vs. People, G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012 -A corporate officer received the property
to be utilized in the fabrication of bending machines in trust from the corporation and he has absolute
option on how to use them without the participation of the corporation. Upon demand, the officer
failed to account the property. Since the corporate officer received the property in trust with absolute
option on how to use them without the participation of the corporation, he acquired not only physical
possession but also juridical possession over the equipment. He is liable for estafa through
misappropriation.
2. In People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014 – The President of the Bank is holding the
bank’s fund in trust or for administration for the bank’s benefit. His possession is juridical. Hence,
misappropriating the funds by making fictitious loan is estafa.
3. In Gamboa vs. People, G.R. No. 188052, April 21, 2014 - Accused employed as Liaison Officer of
a pawnshop received money in trust to secure or renew licenses and permits. His possession is juridical.
Hence, misappropriating the money is estafa.
THEFT OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY - The term "personal property" in the Revised Penal
Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code. Consequently, any personal property,
tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.
Business may be appropriated under Bulk Sales Law. Thus, the business of providing
telecommunication and the telephone service is a personal property (Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No.
155076, January 13, 2009,).
The word "take" in the RPC includes controlling the destination of the property stolen to
deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of a meter tampering, use of a device to fraudulently
obtain gas, and the use of a jumper to divert electricity. Appropriation of forces of nature which are
brought under control by science such as electrical energy can be achieved by tampering with any
apparatus used for generating or measuring such forces of nature, wrongfully redirecting such forces of
nature from such apparatus, or using any device to fraudulently obtain such forces of nature (Laurel vs.
Abrogar).
A "phreaker" is one who engages in the act of manipulating phones and illegally markets
telephone services. Phreaking includes the act of engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the
unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae,
and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange
facilities of the country where destined (Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, February 27, 2006 and
January 13, 2009).
Can PLDT validly claim that the “long distance calls” are its properties stolen by the phreaker?
No. “International long distance calls” take the form of electrical energy. It cannot be said that such
international long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not
have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and
transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the
owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were taken
without its consent (Laurel vs. Abrogar). Telephone calls belong to the persons making the calls.
Can phreaker be held criminally liable for engaging in ISR involving the telephone facilities of
PLDT? Yes. Phreaker can be held liable for access device fraud under RA No. 8484 and theft under the
Revised Penal Code.PLDT’s business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is personal
property which can be the object of theft. While telephone calls are not properties belonging to PLDT
that can be stolen, it is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that
constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.The
act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to PLDT’s
telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance
calls using respondent PLDT’s facilities constitutes acts of subtraction (taking)penalized under the said
article(Laurel vs. Abrogar).
THEFT OF BULKY GOODS - Is the ability of the accused to freely dispose of bulky goods stolen
from the owner determinative as to the consummation of theft? No. In Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No.
160188, June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc expressly abandoned the principle in Diño case. It was
held that: The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive
element of the crime of theft. Such factor runs immaterial to the statutory definition of theft, which is
the taking, with intent to gain, of personal property of another without the latter’s consent. While
the Diño dictum is considerate to the mindset of the offender, the statutory definition of theft considers
only the perspective of intent to gain on the part of the offender, compounded by the deprivation of
property on the part of the victim.
Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the
thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation
of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the
same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if
at all. Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated
(Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, En Banc).
THEFT OF CHECK - In Miranda vs. People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012 - Petitioner was
entrusted with checks payable to complainant by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper.
She deposited the said checks to the joint account maintained by complainant, then withdrew a total
of P797,187.85 from said joint account using the pre-signed checks, with her as the payee. Petitioner
argued that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be
convicted of qualified theft. Held: The subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging
to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused, who has a valid claim
thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a
thief of the property.
ROBBERY
Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion,
of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the
following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation
against persons; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is animo lucrandi or with intent to
gain; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in the generic
sense, was committed.
a. Intent to rob -A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and
objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must
precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery (People
vs. Ladiana, GR No. 174660, May 30, 2011).
Assuming that robbery was indeed committed, the prosecution must establish with certitude
that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery, the latter being the perpetrator’s main purpose
and objective. It is not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob; a
mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient. Stated in a different manner, a conviction requires
certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and objective of the malefactor and the killing is
merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the
killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. What is crucial for a conviction for the crime of
robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to firmly establish the offender’s intent to take personal
property before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out (People
vs. Gatarin, GR NO. 198022, April 07, 2014).
b. Intent to kill and rob - However, the law does not require that the sole motive of the
malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. In one case, it was
ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction
for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The fact that the intent of the felons was
tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against the victim killed, does not negate the
conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide (People vs. Daniela, G.R. No.
139230, April 24, 2003).
c. Robbing, killing and raping - A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the
homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be
committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Even if two or more persons
are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by
reason of robbery, there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is
primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause,
modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime (People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230,
April 24, 2003).
d. One of the robbers is the victim of homicide - It is immaterial that the death would
supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that
two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or
usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is
the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still
be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the
felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion
of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word
“homicide” is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide
(People vs. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011; (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010;
People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).
In People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012 - Accused snatched victim’s shoulder
bag which was hanging on her left shoulder. No violence, intimidation or force was used in snatching
her shoulder bag. Given the facts, the snatching of shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not
robbery. Accused’s co-conspirator, who was driving the motorcycle, died because he lost control of the
motorcycle and crashed in front of a taxi. Since accused as passenger in the motorcycle, did not
perform or execute any act that caused the death of his companion, he cannot be held liable for
homicide.
e. Homicide through reckless imprudence - In robbery with homicide, the original criminal
design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason
of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may
take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide
through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely,
robbery and homicide, must be consummated (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010;
People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).
f. Failure to present the stolen property - Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred
from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of taking has been
established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject
of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or
thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. The prosecution is not burdened
to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber
knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for robbery
can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November
15, 2010; People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03, 2013).
g. Direct connection between robbery and homicide - Essential for conviction of robbery
with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing,
whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were committed at the
same time (People vs. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012).Homicide is said to have been
committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the
robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to
prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of
the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be
committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15,
2010,).
h. Claim of ownership - The 10th floor unit of a building is owned by a corporation and served
as the family residence prior to the death of the parents of X and A. The unit, including the personal
properties inside, is the subject of estate proceedings pending in another court and is, therefore,
involved in the disputed claims among the siblings. X armed with a Board Resolution authorizing him
to break open the door lock system of 10 th floor unit of a building and to install a new door lock system
went up to the subject unit to implement said resolution. According to A, X brought out from the unit
her personal belongings. Is X liable for robbery?
Answer: No. X took property openly and avowedly under that claim of ownership. The fact that
these properties were taken under claim of ownership negates the element of intent to gain. One who
takes the property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of
robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable. X should not be held liable for the alleged
unlawful act absent a felonious intent. “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. A crime is not committed if
the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent” (Sy vs. Gutierrez, GR No. 171579,
November 14, 2012).
i. Robbery with rape - To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must
concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or
animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape (People vs. Evangelio, GR No. 181902,
August 31, 2011).
The following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, when analyzed and taken
together, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the accused raped AAA: first, while two of the robbers
were stealing, appellant and one of the robbers brought AAA inside the comfort room; second, inside the
comfort room, AAA was stripped off her clothes and her panty; third, when AAA resisted and struggled,
appellant and the other robber banged her head against the wall, causing her to lose
consciousness; fourth, when she regained consciousness, the culprits were already gone and she saw her
shorts and panty strewn at her side; and fifth, she suffered pain in her knees, head, stomach and, most
of all, in her vagina which was then bleeding (People vs. Evangelio, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011).
UNINHABITED HOUSE - In Marquez vs. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3, 2012 - The
records show that the store alleged to have been robbed by petitioners is not an inhabited house, public
building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299 and as
defined under Article 301. From Valderosa’s testimony, it can be deduced that the establishment
allegedly robbed was a store not used as a dwelling. In fact, after the robbery took place, there was a
need to inform Valderosa of the same as she was obviously not residing in the store. “If the store was
not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was not used as a dwelling, since the owner lived
in a separate house, the robbery committed therein is punished under Article 302. Neither was the
place where the store is located owned by the government. It was actually just a stall rented by
Valderosa from a private person. Hence, the applicable provision in this case is Article 302 and not
Article 299 of the RPC.
CARNAPPING - Under the Anti-Carnapping Act, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
shall be imposed when the owner or driver of the vehicle is killed in the course of the commission of
the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the
original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission
of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof" (People vs. Nocum et. Al., G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013).
Under RA 9346, persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this law, shall not be eligible for parole.
ARSON
Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove wrongful intent to burn on the part of the accused
to establish arson? No. Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of arson, it may be inferred
from the acts of the accused. There is a presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his
act; and when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is not bound to
produce further evidence of his wrongful intent. If there is an eyewitness to the crime of arson, he can
give in detail the acts of the accused. When this is done the only substantial issue is the credibility of
the witness (People vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009).
What is the crime committed if the offender burned the building and there is person who died?
In the classification of crimes committed by fire involving the killing of the victim, attention must be
given to the intention of the author. Main objective of the offender determines the kind of crime
committed. (a) Intent to burn – If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death
results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson (qualified by dead of the
victim), and the resulting homicide is absorbed. (b) Intent to kill – If the main objective is to kill a
particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only. When the Code declares that killing
committed by means of fire is murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to
that end. There can be no murder without a design to take life. Murder qualified by means of fire
absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is an inherent means to commit the former (People vs.
Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010; People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994) (c) Intent to
conceal – If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already done so, and arson is resorted to
as a means to cover up the killing, the offender may be convicted of two separate crimes of either
homicide or murder, and arson.
Article 320 of RPC contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private,
hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military, government or
commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. Section 3 of PD No. 1613, on the other
hand, currently governs simple arson. P.D. No. 1613 contemplates the malicious burning of public and
private structures, regardless of size, not included in Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659. This law punishes simple arson with a lesser penalty because the acts that constitute it have a
lesser degree of perversity and viciousness. Simple arson contemplates crimes with less significant
social, economic, political, and national security implications than destructive arson (People vs.
Macabando, GR No. 188708, July 31, 2013). Burning of inhabited house or dwelling is simple arson under
Section 3 of P.D. No. 1613, and not destructive arson under RPC. Burning personal property is also
simple arson under Section 1 of PD No. 1613.
The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity
or viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of The Revised Penal Code
constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes "for being grievous, odious and
hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity
and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613
constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law
punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant
social, economic, political and national security implications than Destructive Arson (People vs.
Macabando, GR No. 188708, July 31, 2013).
The Information alleged that the appellant set fire to his own house, and that the fire spread to
other inhabited houses. These allegations were established by evidence. The accused testified that his
burnt two-story house was used as a residence. That the appellant’s act affected many families will not
convert the crime to destructive arson, since the appellant’s act does not appear to be heinous or
represents a greater degree of perversity and viciousness when compared to those acts punished under
Article 320 of the RPC. The established evidence only showed that the appellant intended to burn his
own house, but the conflagration spread to the neighboring houses (People vs. Macabando, GR No.
188708, July 31, 2013). Note: Setting fire to his own property under circumstances which expose to
danger the life or property of another is arson under Section 1 of PD No. 1613.
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY AND SECURITY

KIDNAPPING
As for the crime of kidnapping, the following elements, as provided in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, must be proven: (a) a person has been deprived of his liberty, (b) the offender is a private
individual, and (c) the detention is unlawful. (People vs. Jovel, G.R. No. 189820. October 10, 2012).
The crime has the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is
present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by
simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a
public official (People vs. Jacalney, GR No. 168552, October 03, 2011).
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled
with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also
the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It involves a situation
where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention, or is restricted or impeded in
his liberty to move (People vs. Jacalney, GR No. 168552, October 03, 2011).
X dragged A, a minor, to his house after the latter refused to go with him. Upon reaching the
house, X tied her hands. When A pleaded that she be allowed to go home, he refused. After more or less
one hour, X released A and instructed her on how she could go home. What is the crime committed?
Answer: The crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention. When X tied the hands of A,
the former's intention to deprive the latter of her liberty has been clearly shown. For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Because of her tender age, and
because she did not know her way back home, she was then and there deprived of her liberty. This is
irrespective of the length of time that she stayed in such a situation. If the victim is a minor, the
duration of his detention is immaterial (People vs. Jacalney, GR No. 168552, October 03, 2011).
X seized A, 9 years of age, him by twisting his right arm, pointed a knife at him. X brought A to
a in a place strange and unfamiliar to him. Because of his tender age, he did not know the way back
home. X called victim’s mother to inform her that the child is in his custody and of threatening her that
she will no longer see her son if she failed to show his wife to him. In a case for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, X argued s free to go home if he wanted to because he was not confined, detained or
deprived of his liberty. Is the argument tenable? Answer:No. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary
that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly. Where the victim in a
kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained
the victim. Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the
freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under
such a situation, the child’s freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor (People vs.
Baluya, GR No. 181822, April 13, 2011, ).
In this case, victim, a minor, was not locked up. However, she was seized and taken from her
house through force and dragged to the mountain. Since then, she was restrained of her liberty by and
kept under the control of accused. She was prevented from going back home for a period of about six
days. Accused is guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining victim even if she was not lock-up. Under
the Spanish Penal Code, the modes of committing illegal detention is "Secuestrare" and "Encerrare".
"Secuestrare" means sequestration. To sequester is to separate for a special purpose, remove or set
apart, withdraw from circulation. It also means to lock-up or imprison. "Encerrare" is a broader concept
than secuestrare. Encerrare includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of
his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time (People vs. Baldago, G.R. No. 128106-07,
January 24, 2003).
THREATS
What is the difference among grave threats, light threats and other light threats? In grave
threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a
condition. In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always
accompanied by a condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime
and there is no condition (Calauag vs. People, (G. R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009).
BLACKMAIL
Blackmailing may constitute: (1) Light threats under Article 283; (2) Threatening to publish, or
offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for compensation under Article 356; and (3) robbery with
intimidation against person. Example: X, DENR officer, threatened to confiscate the hot logs from
complainant and prosecute it for illegal logging unless the latter will give her P100,000. Complainant
gave X the amount demanded. The crime committed is robbery with intimidation (extortion). In
robbery with intimidation of persons, the intimidation consists in causing or creating fear in the mind
of a person or in bringing in a sense of mental distress in view of a risk or evil that may be impending,
real or imagined. Such fear of injury to person or property must continue to operate in the mind of the
victim at the time of the delivery of the money. In this case, the P100,000.00 "grease money" was taken
by X from complainant through intimidation. By using her position as the DENR officer, X succeeded in
coercing the complainants to choose between two alternatives: to part with their money, or suffer the
burden and humiliation of prosecution and confiscation of the logs (Sazon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
150873, February 10, 2009).
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
A priest, who performed a marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the couple had no
marriage license, is liable for illegal marriage. The non-filing of a criminal complaint against the couple
does not negate criminal liability of the petitioner. Article 352 does not make this an element of the
crime.
Bigamy
Even if the first marriage is null and avoid because of psychological incapacity of either or both
parties (Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499) or the absence of a marriage license or of an affidavit of
cohabitation (Lasanas vs. People, G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014), contracting a second marriage
constitutes the crime of bigamy unless a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage has been
secured beforehand.
However, the principle that “one who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining
such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy” is not applicable where the parties merely signed the marriage
contract without marriage ceremony performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. The mere
private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no
judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an
ostensibly valid marriage for which one might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. The law abhors an injustice and the
Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every
circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done ( Morigo vs.
People, G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004).
X married A, but during the subsistence of such marriage X married B. A filed a complaint for
bigamy against X. X filed a petition for the annulment of his first marriage with A on the ground of
psychological incapacity which was granted. X moved for the quashal of the information and dismissal
of the criminal complaint alleging that his first marriage had already been declared void ab initio. (a) Is
the argument tenable?
No. Article 40 of the Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on
the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a
cause of action or a ground for defense. It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial declaration
of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent
marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to
judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts
and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no
such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second
marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy. Otherwise, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by
immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a
favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him (People vs.
Odtuhan, GR No. 191566, July 17, 2013).
(b) Would your answer be the same if the declaration of nullity of the first marriage was
obtained before the filing of the complaint for bigamy against X?
Yes. Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission
of the offense and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law and
that the time of filing of the criminal complaint or information is material only for determining
prescription (People vs. Odtuhan, GR No. 191566, July 17, 2013, ).
(c) Would your answer be the same if the first marriage was contracted prior to the Family
Code?
Yes. Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively because Article 256
of the Family Code itself provides that said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights." The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect
the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive
application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural
laws (Jarillo vs. People, GR No. 164435, June 29, 2010, ).
(d) Would your answer be the same if the second marriage was the one declared null and void?
Yes. It is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the
commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as
provided by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by X from the time he
contracted the second marriage with B. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of X’s
second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him (Walter vs.
People, GR No. 183805, July 03, 2013, ).
(e) Would your answer be the same if both the first marriage and the second marriage are
declared null and void?
Yes. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of X’s two marriages cannot be considered a
valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment X contracted a second marriage without the
previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already
consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, first marriage, which had
not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and
subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of second marriage make any difference.
Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity
of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy.
What the law penalizes is the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
a valid marriage" (Jarillo vs. People, GR No. 164435, September 29, 2009)
Illegal marriage
In Ronulo vs. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 02, 2014 - Article 352 of the RPC, as amended,
penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony. The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer; and (2) his
performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. The law sets the minimum requirements constituting a
marriage ceremony: first, there should be the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a
solemnizing officer; and second, their declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses that
they take each other as husband and wife. For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has
been conducted, a marriage certificate is not included in the requirements.
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
DEFAMATION
Is truthful defamatory imputation against private individual and government employee a

defense in libel? Proof of truth of defamatory imputation against private individual is a defense if it is
published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Proof of the truth of defamatory imputation
against government employees is a defense: (1) if it is published with good motives and for justifiable
ends; or (2) if the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime; or (3) if the imputation not constituting
a crime is related to the discharge of his duties. Truthfulness of imputation of a crime or a function-
related defamatory act against a public officer is a defense even though he does not prove that the
imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends (Vasquez vs. CA, G.R. No. 118971,
MALICE - What are the different rules on presumption involving malice as an element of libel
or oral defamation? 1. Disputable presumption of malice - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious. Presumed malice is also known as “malice in law.” However, the following circumstances
negate the presumption of malice in a defamatory statement: (1) if there is a good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown; (2) if the defamatory statements is a qualified privilege
communication such (a) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance
of any legal, moral or social duty; and (b) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions (Article 354 of RPC). The enumeration
under Article 354 is not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications since fair
commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No. 126466 January
14, 1999). 2. Conclusive presumption of lack of malice – If the defamatory statements are an absolute
privilege communication, lack of malice is conclusively presumed. Thus, the person making defamatory
imputation is not answerable for libel. Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not
actionable even if the author has acted in bad faith such as speech or debate in the Congress or in any
Committee thereof (Philippine Journalists, Inc vs. Thoenen, G.R. No. 143372, December 13, 2005) or
words uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided the statements are pertinent
or relevant to the case (Malit vs. People, G.R. No. L-58681, May 31, 1982).
FAIR COMMENT DOCTRINE - What is the doctrine of fair comment? Under this doctrine, fair
commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action
for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every defamatory and
public imputation is deemed false, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when
the defamatory imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable. In order that such defamatory imputation to a public official may be actionable,
it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is
an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to
be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No. 126466,
January 14, 1999).
What is the difference between fair and true report, and fair comment as a privilege
communications?(1) In fair and true report, the accused makes a report on the function-related acts
performed by public officers without any comments or remarks. On the other hand, in fair comment, the
accused is making a comment on the function-related acts performed by public officers. (2) In fair and
true report, the prosecution must prove actual malice i.e., such as the report was made in bad faith. In
fair comment, the prosecution must actual malice i.e., comment was made with knowledge that comment
was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Sulivan vs. Newyork Times doctrine;
Guingguing vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, September 30, 2005) Only false
statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York
Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions (Flor vs. People, G.R. No. 139987, March 31,
2005). (3) In fair and true report, the report involving defamatory statement must be true. In fair
comment, the defamatory imputation in the commentary is not true but the accused has no knowledge
that it is false and has not recklessly disregarded to know whether it is false or not.
Is error or misstatement in commentaries on function related acts of public officer actionable

in a news articles for being libelous? Even assuming that the contents of the articles are false, mere
error, inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice. Errors or misstatements are
inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. Consistent with good faith and reasonable
care, the press should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or
imperfections in the choice of language. There must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as
for misjudgment. Only by giving them much leeway and tolerance can they courageously and
effectively function as critical agencies in our democracy (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,
1999).
Brillante implicated JejomarBinay, then the OIC Mayor of Makati, and Dr. NemesioPrudente,
then President of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines in a planned assassination of Syjuco as
well as election-related terrorism. Is the doctrine of fair comment applicable in this libel case? The New
York Times principle is not applicable since the utterances are unrelated to a public officer’s
performance of his duties (Brillante vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004). Obviously,
commission of murder and terrorism is not related to the performance of their duties as public officers.
CristyFermin imputed to Annabelle Rama Gutierrez an actress the crime of malversation and of
vices or defects for being fugitives from the law and of being a wastrel. Is the doctrine of fair comment
applicable in this libel case? No. It is unrelated to public figure’s work (Fermin vs. People, G.R. No. 157643,
March 28, 2008). The defamatory imputation has nothing to do to with works of Annabelle as a as an
actress.
In his series of articles of Erwin Tulfo, he targeted one Atty. "Ding" So of the Bureau of Customs
as being involved in criminal activities, and was using his public position for personal gain. He went
even further than that, and called Atty. So an embarrassment to his religion, saying
"ikawnayataangpinakagago at magnanakawsamiyembronito." He accused Atty. So of stealing from the
government with his alleged corrupt activities. And when Atty. So filed a libel suit against him, Tulfo
wrote another article, challenging Atty. So, saying, "Nagalititongtarantadongsi Atty. So
dahilbinabantayankosiya at in-expose angkagaguhanniyasa [Bureau of Customs]." In his testimony,
Tulfo admitted that he did not personally know Atty. So, and had neither met nor known him prior to
the publication of the subject articles. He also admitted that he did not conduct a more in-depth
research of his allegations before he published them, and relied only on his source at the Bureau of
Customs. Is Tulfo liable for Libel? Yes. Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when
practicing their profession, even when writing about public figures or matters of public interest. The
report made by Tulfo cannot be considered as "fair" and "true" since he did not do research before
making his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not
"fair and true reports," but merely wild accusations. He had written and published the subject articles
with reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not (Erwin Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032,
The article in Bander newspaper details the sexual activities of a certain “Miss S” and one
“Philip Henson” who had a romantic liaison. The words used in the article convey that “Miss S” is a
sexual libertine with unusually wanton proclivities in the bedroom. Is the article defamatory and
malicious? Is the writer liable for libel? Yes. In a society such as ours, where modesty is still highly
prized among young ladies, the behavior attributed to “Miss S” by the article in question had
besmirched both her character and reputation. Since on its face the article is defamatory, there is a
presumption that the offender acted with malice. However, the writer cannot be held liable for libel.
The libelous article, while referring to "Miss S," does not give a sufficient description or other
indications which identify "Miss S." In short, the article fails to show that "Miss S" and complainant are
one and the same person. Although the article is libelous, complainant could not have been the person
defamed therein (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 159787, May 25, 2007).
INTERNET LIBEL - Under Article 355, a libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition,
or any similar means. Is the internet used to post a malicious defamatory imputation through facebook
within the contemplation of the phrase “any similar means” in Article 355? Yes. Writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition
has a common characteristic, and that is, their permanent nature as a means of publication, and this
explains the graver penalty for libel than that prescribed for oral defamation (People vs. Santiago, G.R.
No. L-17663, May 30, 1962). Hence, the phrase “any similar means” should be understood in the lights of
the said common characteristic of the means to commit libel. Since nature of internet as a means of
publication is likewise permanent, it should be considered as a means to commit libel.
What is the venue for internet libel committed? As a general rule, the venue of libel cases
where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where
the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged
defamatory article was printed and first published (Article 360 of RPC).However, the place where
libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the internet is not equivalent to the place where
the libelous article is “printed and first published”. To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be
prevented by the amendment to Article 360, and that was the indiscriminate laying of the venue in libel
cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas, to harass an accused. At any rate, Article 360 still allow
offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for internet libel in their respective places of
residence (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).
Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to
protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyber libel is actually not a new crime since
Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4)
above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel (Disini
vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 20335, February 18. 2014).
VENUE - The rules on venue for libel in Article 360 of RPC are as follows: (1) Whether the
offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Regional
Trial Court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published; (2) If the
offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Regional Trial Court
of the province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense. (3) If the
offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense,
the action may be filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. (4) If the offended party is a public officer
holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province or
city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense ( Foz, Jr., vs. People, GR No.
167764, October 09, 2009, ).
Information alleged that the libelous writings were published in Panay News, a daily
publication with a considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and that complainant (private
individual) is a physician in Iloilo. Is the Information quashable for improper venue?
Answer: Yes. The allegations in the Information that "Panay News, a daily publication with a
considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo" only showed that Iloilo was the place where Panay
News was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said publication was printed and first
published in Iloilo City.
The Information failed to allege the residence of complainant. While the Information alleges
that complainant is a physician in Iloilo City, such allegation did not clearly and positively indicate that
he was actually residing in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offense. It is possible that
complainant was actually residing in another place (Foz, Jr., vs. People, GR No. 167764, October 09,
2009).
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by Maria and reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of Nestor and damage to their
vehicle. Court convicted Jason for the first charged. Should the information for the second charge be
quashed on the basis of the rule on double jeopardy? Reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single
quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes; hence conviction or acquittal of
such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various
consequences. The essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The
gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the
substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect
one person or several persons, the offense criminal negligence remains one and the same, and cannot
be split into different crimes and prosecutions (Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November
17, 2010). Note: The principle in Ivler case has abandoned the principle (Ortega view) that culpa is just a
modality by which a felony may be committed.
In People vs. Dumayag, G.R. No. 172778, 26 November 2012 - The evidence indubitably shows
that before the collision, the passenger bus was cruising along its rightful lane when the tricycle
coming from the opposite direction suddenly swerved and encroached on its lane. The accident would
not have happened had Genayas, the tricycle driver, stayed on his lane and did not recklessly try to
overtake another vehicle while approaching a blind curve. Section 37 of R.A. No. 4136 mandates all
motorists to drive and operate vehicles on the right side of the road or highway. When overtaking
another, it should be made only if the highway is clearly visible and is free from oncoming vehicle.
Overtaking while approaching a curve in the highway, where the driver’s view is obstructed, is not
allowed. Corollarily, drivers of automobiles, when overtaking another vehicle, are charged with a high
degree of care and diligence to avoid collision. The obligation rests upon him to see to it that vehicles
coming from the opposite direction are not taken unaware by his presence on the side of the road upon
which they have the right to pass.
In Sevilla vs. People, G.R. No. 194390, August 13, 2014 - That in answer to the question of
whether there is a pending criminal case against him, accused, a a municipal councilor marked the box
corresponding to the “no” answer despite the pendency of a criminal case against him for direct
assault. According to the accused, the PDS was prepared by his secretary. It was held that there was a
legal obligation on the part of accused a to disclose in his PDS that there was a pending case against
him. However, accused cannot be convicted of falsification of public document since he did not act
with malicious intent to falsify the aforementioned entry in his PDS. However, considering that
accused’s PDS was haphazardly and recklessly done, which resulted in several false entries therein,
accused was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of document.
In Solidum vs. People, GR No. 192123, March 10, 2014 - The standard of medical care of a prudent
physician must be determined from expert testimony in most cases; and in the case of a specialist (like
an anesthesiologist), the standard of care by which the specialist is judged is the care and skillcommonly
possessed and exercised by similar specialists under similar circumstances. The specialty standard of care may
be higher than that required of the general practitioner.Here, the Prosecution presented no
witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what
standard of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine
whether the first three elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN
Are the acts of attaching the face of his ex-girlfriend on a nude body of a woman in a picture,
sending the picture to her through cell phone text message and threatening to post it in the internet
for all to see that caused substantial emotional and psychological distress to her constitutive of
psychological violence against woman under Section 5 (h) of RA No. 9262? Yes. Under Section 5 (h) of
RA No. 9262 the following conduct that caused substantial emotional and psychological distress to the
woman with whom the offender has a marital, sexual or dating relationship is punishable: (1) Stalking
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child; (3) Entering or
remaining in the dwelling against her will; (4) Destroying property and inflicting harm to animals; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence.The acts described above are considered
harassment within the contemplation of the phrase “any form of harassment” in Section 5 (h) (5) (Ang
vs. The Honorable CA, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010).
Is habituality an element of violence against women and their children under Section 5 (h)?
No. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against
women. This means that a single act of harassment contemplated in Section 5 (h), which translates into
violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only
violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones (Ang vs. The Honorable CA, G.R. No.
182835, April 20, 2010).
HAZING
The night before the commencement of the rites, the neophytes of “AngGaling” fraternity
were briefed on what to expect. They were told that there would be physical beatings, that the whole
event would last for three days, that that they could quit anytime. “A”, a neophyte, consented to the
initiation ritual, having asked his parents for permission to join the fraternity. Even after going
through the fraternity’s grueling tradition rituals—mainly being beaten by a paddle on the arms and
legs—during the first day, “A” continued and completed the second day of initiation. As consequence of
the hazing, “A” died. What is the crime committed by members of the fraternity, who directly
participated in the infliction of harm against “A”? The crime committed is hazing. The principle in
Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012 finding the accused liable for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide is not anymore controlling in the light of RA No. 8049 (Anti-hazing Law).
The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential elements are established:
(1) a person is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or
psychological suffering or injury; and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s
admission or entry into an organization (People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015).
Failure to allege that the physical or psychological harm were employed as a prerequisite for
admission or entry into the organization would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal
responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Plain
reference to a technical term – in this case, hazing – is insufficient and incomplete, as it is but a
characterization of the acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law (People vs.
Bayabos).
Under Section 4 of RA 8049, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization
who actually participated in the infliction of physical harmupon recruit, neophyte or applicant on
occasion of hazing shall be liable as principals for the crime of hazing. Hazing is an initiation rite or
practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization or a
requirement for employment in a corporation by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations.
Organization includes – but is not limited to – groups, teams, fraternities, sororities, citizen army
training corps, educational institutions, clubs, societies, cooperatives, companies, partnerships,
corporations, the PNP, and the AFP. The Philippine Merchant Marine Academy is included in the
termorganization within the meaning of the law(People vs. Bayabos).
What are the differences between hazing and homicide or murder? The differences of homicide
or murder and hazing are as follows: (a) In homicide or murder, what is criminal is the killing of person.
Hence, intent to kill is an indispensable element. Death of the victim consummates the crime. In
hazing, what is prohibited is the infliction of the infliction of physical or psychological suffering on
another in furtherance of the latter’s admission or entry into an organization(People vs.
Bayabos).Hence, intent to kill is not material. Death of the neophyte is only important to determine the
proper imposable penalty. (b) Homicide or murder is malum in se. Consent of the victim to the
infliction of harm may negate dolo or criminal intent, which would make the killing punishable as
reckless imprudence (Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012). Hazing is
malumprohibitum. Consent of the neophyte is not a defense. (c) In homicide or murder,
praeterintentionem is appreciable as a mitigating circumstance. In hazing, the law expressly disallows
the appreciation of this circumstance. In homicide or murder, the basis of criminal liability is the actual
and conspiratorial participation of the offender in killing the victim. In hazing, criminal responsibility
is based on (1) actual participation in inflicting physical harm, (2) presumed participation (of those who
are present during the hazing), (3) the presence of adviser, (4) participation in the planning (by officers,
former officers and alumni of the fraternity); (5) knowledge (of the parent of frat member in the home
of whom hazing occurred, owner of the place commission, and school authorities).
The owner of the place commission, and school authorities are liable for hazing as accomplices.
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no direct participation in
the act, they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by
the above elements, occurred; (2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they
consented to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof
(People vs. Bayabos).
The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from
each other. As long as the commission of the offense (hazing) can be duly established in evidence, the
determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the
principal (People vs. Bayabos).
In hazing, taking action to prevent the occurrence of hazing is a defense by any offender except
(1) those who actually inflicted physical harm and (2) those (officers, former officers and alumni of the
fraternity), who planned the hazing.
LOOSE FIREARM
Section 29 of RA No. 10591 provides:
“SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when
inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws,
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use
of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed
in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm
shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged:Provided, further, That if the crime
committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is
equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat,such violation shall be absorbed as an element of
the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this
Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.”
USE OF LOOSE FIREARM AS AGGRVATING CIRCUMSTANCE - As a rule, when use of a loose

firearm in committing is inherent in the commission of other crime, such circumstance shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. For example, if a loose firearm was used in committing
homicide, the penalty of reclusion temporal prescribed for shall be applied in its maximum period.
However, if the penalty for illegal possession of loose firearm is graver than that prescribed for
other crime committed, the penalty for the latter shall be applied. For example, the penalty for simple
robbery is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period while the
penalty for illegal possession of small arm under Section 28 of RA No. 10591 is prision mayor in its
medium period. If a loose firearm classified as small arm is used in committing simple robbery, the
penalty of prision mayor in its medium period prescribed under RA 10591 shall be imposed.
Furthermore, if the maximum penalty prescribed for the other crime is equal to that for illegal
possession of loose firearm, prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the
penalty for the other crime. For example, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is prescribed for homicide
and illegal possession of a Class B light weapon. If a loose firearm involving a Class B light weapon is
used to commit homicide, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period in addition to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed.
Lastly, if a loose firearm is used in the commission of rebellion, sedition or coup ‘d etat, the
latter shall be absorbed in the former.
DISTINCT AND SEPARATE CRIME - If the crime is committed by the person without using the
loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense (RA No.
10591). Conversely, if the crime is committed by the person with the use of loose firearm, illegal
possession of loose firearm is not a separate offense. In such a case, the illegal possession of loose
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance or a special circumstance that justifies that
imposition of graver penalty or additional penalty, or as a mere element of rebellion, sedition or coup
d’ etat.
QUASABLE INFORMATION - Prior to RA 8294, the rules obtaining, if the offender killed a
person with the use of unlicensed firearm, were as follows: (1) use of unlicensed firearm was not an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide under PD 1866; (2) offender is liable independently for
homicide or murder and illegal possession of firearm.
Under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, the rules, if the offender killed a person with the use of
unlicensed firearm, are as follows: (1) offender is liable for homicide or murder with aggravating
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm; and (2) the crimes of murder or homicide and illegal use or
possession of firearm are integrated into a single offense.
In People vs. Bergante, G.R. No. 120369-70, February 27, 1998 - The violation of PD No. 1866
should have been punished separately conformably with our ruling in the case of Quijada G.R. No.
115008-09, July 24, 1996, En Banc. Nevertheless, fortunately for appellant, PD No. 1866 was recently
amended by RA No. 8294, which provides that “if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance .” In
short, only one offense should be punished, viz., either homicide or murder, and the use of the
unlicensed firearm should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
In Celino vs. CA, G.R. No. 170562, June 29, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that:
“When the other crime involved is one of those enumerated under RA 8294 (e.g. homicide, murder,
rebellion, sedition or coup d’ etat) any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the
illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or
attempted coup detat.
When the other crime involved is not one of those enumerated under RA 8294, any information for illegal
possession of firearm should not be quashed. The separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to
be prosecuted. Settled is the rule that an accused cannot be convicted for illegal possession of firearm if another
crime was committed at the same time. Since accusation is not synonymous with guilt, it cannot establish
outright that “other crime” was committed. However, the accused must be exonerated of illegal possession of
firearms if he is convicted of some other crime.”
Considering that under RA No. 10591 use of loose firearm is not only an aggravating
circumstance in murder or homicide but also in other crime such as robbery or grave threat, the
illegal possession of firearm should not be considered a separate and distinct crime if other crime is
committed and the use of loose firearm in inherent therein. Following the same line of reasoning in
the case of Celino, any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the
illegal possession of loose firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either
considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,, robbery, grave threat, alarm and
scandal, physical injuries or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted
coup detat.
DANGEROUS DRUGS
POSSESSION OF DRUGS –For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to
prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be
a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug (David vs. People, Gr No. 181861,
October 17, 2011, ).
This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However,
the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On
the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.
Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to
exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another
(Del Castillo vs. People, GR No. 185128, January 30, 2012, ).
Mere possession of a dangerous drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such
possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus
possidendi (Miclat, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 176077, August 31, 2011, ).
KNOWLEDGE - Is knowledge an element of dangerous drugs despite this crime is malum

prohibitum? Yes. For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that the
accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority. However, mere
possession of dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation (Asiatico vs. People, G.R.
No. 195005, September 12, 2011).
ATTEMPTED SALE - “A”, poseur buyer, asked “X” if he has available “shabu” for sale. “X”
answered in the affirmative and showed to “A” a plastic sachet containing shabu. “A” immediately
identified himself as a policeman, and then, apprehended “X” and confiscated the “shabu” from his
pocket. What is the crime committed by “X”? “X” is liable for attempted sale of shabu punishable under
Section 26 of RA 9165. Attempt to sell shabu was shown by the overt act of appellant therein of showing
the substance to the poseur-buyer. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves
and placed appellant under arrest (People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012).
DELIVERY - Is the absence of marked money as evidence fatal to prosecution of sale and
delivery of dangerous drugs? No. The law defines deliver as “a person’s act of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another with or without consideration.” Considering that the appellant was charged
with the sale and the delivery of prohibited drugs, the consummation of the crime of delivery of
marijuana may be sufficiently established even in the absence of the marked money (People vs.
Domingcil, G.R. No. 140679, January 14, 2004).
LACK OF COORDINATION WITH PDEA - Silence of the law as to the consequences of the
failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the PDEA cannot be interpreted as
a legislative intent to make an arrest without such PDEA participation illegal or evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible (People vs. Clarite, G.R. No. 187157, February 15, 2012). Lack of
coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. Such coordination is not an
indispensable requirement in buy-bust operations. Neither Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 nor its
Implementing Rules and Regulations make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for the conduct
of a buy-bust operation (People vs. Mendosa, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012)
CONFIRMATORY TEST - In Ambre vs. People, G.R. No. 191532. August 15, 2012 - In no instance
did accused challenge, at the RTC, the supposed absence of confirmatory drug test conducted on
her. Accused only questioned the alleged omission when she appealed her conviction before the CA. It
was too late in the day for her to do so. Well entrenched is the rule that litigants cannot raise an issue
for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice.
PHOTOGRAPHY AND INVENTORY –Under Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the apprehending team
having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; However, the
Implementing rules of RA No. 9165 provides that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items.
Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not necessarily
render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the
letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are,
without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation. Hence, once the
possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody
over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus
delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed
pursuant to Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165 (David vs. People, Gr No. 181861, October 17, 2011, ;
Marquez vs. People, G.R. No. 197207, March 13, 2013; People vs. Morate, GR No. 201156, January 29, 2014;
People vs. Ladip, GR No. 196146, March 12, 2014; People vs. Bis, GR No. 191360, March 10, 2014).
InPeople vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013 - By way of exception, Republic Act No.
9165 and its IRR both state that the non-compliance with the procedures thereby delineated and set
would not necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs provided there were
justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and provided that the integrity of the evidence of the
corpus delicti was preserved. But the non-compliance with the procedures, to be excusable, must have
to be justified by the State’s agents themselves. Considering that PO1 Dimla tendered no justification in
court for the non-compliance with the procedures, the exception did not apply herein. The absolution
of accused should then follow, for we cannot deny that the observance of the chain of custody as
defined by the law was the only assurance to him that his incrimination for the very serious crime had
been legitimate and insulated from either invention or malice. In this connection, the Court states that
the unexplained non-compliance with the procedures for preserving the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs has frequently caused the Court to absolve those found guilty by the lower courts.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY – As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule

requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which
it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same
(People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR No. 199689, March 12, 2014).
Thus, the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked
illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR No. 199689,
March 12, 2014)
MARKING - Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous
drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused, for the marking upon
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as
reference point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence
from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until
disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting” or contamination of
evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of
custody that the law requires (People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR No. 199689, March 12, 2014)
The rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the
apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that
enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.There are occasions when the chain of
custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and
confiscation is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as
long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. However, even a less-than-
stringent application of the requirement would not suffice to sustain the conviction in this case. There
was no categorical statement from any of the prosecution witnesses that markings were made, much
less immediately upon confiscation of the seized items. There was also no showing that markings were
made in the presence of the accused in this case (Lopez vs. People, GR No. 188653, January 29, 2014).
Drug peddling in schools is prevalent; the scenario attending this case is likely to be repeated
many times. To impose on school personnel the observance of the same procedure required of law
enforces (like marking) – processes that are unfamiliar to them – is to set a dangerous precedent that
may eventually lead to the acquittal of many drug peddlers. To our mind, the evidentiary value of the
seized specimen remains intact as long as the school personnel who had initial contact with the drug/s
was able to establish that the evidence had not been tampered with when he handed it to the police
(Marquez vs. People, G.R. No. 197207, March 13, 2013)
PARAPHERNALIA WITH TRACES OF SHABU – In People vs. Matinez, G.R. No. 191366,
December 13, 2010 - This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in
cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of
residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more
in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first
time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under
Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is
imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of
drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec.
11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and
provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls
on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing
charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form of residue and the
confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford
the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous
drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere
residue, is found in the possession of the accused as provided for in Sec. 15.
PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA AND SHABU - Possession of different kinds of
dangerous drugs in a single occasion constitutes a single offense of possession of dangerous drugs
(David vs. People, G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011).
PLANTING OF EVIDENCE - As a general rule, planting of evidence to incriminate an innocent

person constitutes the crime of incriminating an innocent person under Article 363 of RPC. However,
if the incriminatory evidence planted is dangerous drugs or unauthorized explosives, loose firearm,
the crime committed is planting of evidence under RA 9165 for the dangerous drug, PD 1866 as
amended by RA 9516 for the explosive and RA No. 10591.
PLEA BARGAINING - Section 23 of RA No. 9165, any person charged under any crime
involving dangerous drugs regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea-bargaining.
TRAFFICKING IN PERSON
Can accused be convicted of illegal recruitment and trafficking in person for the same of act of
recruiting a person for prostitution without violating the rule on double jeopardy? Yes. When an act or
acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a prosecution under one
will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only
applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act punished by a law and an
ordinance. The prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting
different offenses (People vs. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011).
Is trafficking in persons limited to transportation of victims? No. Trafficking in Persons under

Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to transportation of victims, but also includes the act
of recruitment of victims for trafficking (People vs. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011).
Is recruitment of the victim for prostitution with her consent or knowledge constitutive of the
crime of trafficking in person? Yes. The crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victim’s
consent or knowledge (People vs. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011).
In People vs. Casio, G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014 - Accused took advantage of AAA’s
vulnerability as a child and as one who need money. The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due
to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even
without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or
her own free will.
If the accused sell the child to another for purpose of prostitution on a single occasion, the crime
committed is child prostitution under Section 5 (a) of RA No 7610 (People vs. Dulay, GR No. 193854,
September 24, 2012). If the accused maintained the child for prostitution, the crime committed is
qualified trafficking in person under Section 4 and 6 of RA No. 9208 (People vs. Casio).
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both
illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative (People vs. Chua, G. R. No. 187052, September 13,
2012).
BP BLG. 22
What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punished was the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law
did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made,
drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer. Also, that the check was not
intended to be deposited was really of no consequence to her incurring criminal liability under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 (Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. 177438. September 24, 2012).
The giving of the written notice of dishonor does not only supply the proof for the second
element arising from the presumption of knowledge the law puts up but also affords the offender due
process. The law thereby allows the offender to avoid prosecution if she pays the holder of the check
the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for the payment in full of the check by the drawee
within five banking days from receipt of the written notice that the check had not been paid. The
Court cannot permit a deprivation of the offender of this statutory right by not giving the proper
notice of dishonor (Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. 177438. September 24, 2012).
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who
actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act." This provision
recognizes the reality that a corporation can only act through its officers. Hence, its wording is
unequivocal and mandatory – that the person who actually signed the corporate check shall be held liable
for a violation of BP 22. This provision does not contain any condition, qualification or limitation
(Mitra Vs. People and Tarcelo, G.R. No. 191404. July 5, 2010)
NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN ESTAFA CASE - The essential elements of the felony are: (1) a
check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. It is criminal fraud or
deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the RPC, and not the non-payment of
a debt. The postdating or issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no
funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is
a false pretense or a fraudulent act. However deceit is presumed if the drawer of the check fails to
deposit the amount needed to cover his check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor.
a. No notice of dishonor - If there is no notice of dishonor, the prosecution can still prove the
existence of deceit such as in a case where the accused knows that his checking account is closed. The
receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an element of the estafa through bouncing
check.
b. With notice of dishonor - If there is notice of dishonor, the presumption of deceit can still
be rebutted by: (1) proof that the check is issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation or (1)
evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check. Good faith may be demonstrated, for
instance, by a debtor’s offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor or making full payment of
the entire amount of the dishonored checks. However, simply empty promise to pay complainant the
value of the bum checks issued in order to induce her to part with her property in favor of accused is
not an evidence of good faith that will rebut the presumption of deceit. (See: People vs. Ojeda, G.R.
Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004, Corona; Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 166810, June 26, 2008, De Castro;
Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006, )
NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP BLG. 22 - Notice of dishonor of a check to the maker in BP Blg.

22 must be in writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is not
enough. If the maker or drawer pays, or makes arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of
the amount due within the five-day period from notice of the dishonor given to the drawer, it is a
complete defense; the accused may no longer be indicted for violation of Section 1, B.P. Blg. 22. If he is
so indicted, he may set up the payment of the amount due as a complete defense. Assuming that the
accused had knowledge that he had insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issued the
questioned checks, he could still have paid the checks or made arrangements with the drawee bank for
the payment of the said checks if he had been duly notified of their dishonor. In not sending a notice
or letter of dishonor to the petitioner as required by law, the complaint deprived the accused of his
right to avoid prosecution for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Sia vs. G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004).
In San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013 - Complainant tried to serve the notice
of dishonor to the accused two times. On the first occasion, complainant’s counsel sent a demand letter
to accused’s residence at Greenhills, San Juan which the security guard refused to accept. Thus, the
liaison officer left the letter with the security guard with the instruction to hand it to accused. But the
prosecution failed to show that the letter ever reached accused. On the second occasion, counsel sent a
demand letter to accused by registered mail which was returned with the notation "N/S Party Out
12/12/05" and that accused did not claim it despite three notices to her. Since there is insufficient
proof that accused actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the
insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her with moral
certainty of violation of B.P. 22.
Nevertheless, accused’s acquittal does not entail the extinguishment of her civil liability for the
dishonored checks. An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the
award of civil damages. For this reason, the trial court’s directive for San Mateo to pay the civil liability
in the amount representing the total value of the checks plus 12% interest per annum from the time the
said sum became due and demandable until fully paid, stands.
In Campos vs. People. G.R. No. 187401, September 17, 2014 - Exerting efforts to reach an
amicable settlement with her creditor after the checks which she issued were dishonored by the
drawee bankis a circumstantial evidence of receipt of notice of dishonor.Accused would not have
entered into the alleged arrangements if she had not received a notice of dishonor from her creditor,
and had no knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds with the bank and the dishonor of her checks.
Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 166810, June 26, 2008, Justice De Castro-Under Section 114(d) of the
Negotiable Instruments Law, notice of dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer in either of
the following cases where the drawer has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will
honor the check. Since petitioner's bank account was already closed even before the issuance of the
subject check, he had no right to expect or require the drawee bank to honor his check. By virtue of the
aforequoted provision of law, petitioner is not entitled to be given a notice of dishonor.
The crime involved in Lopez vs. People is estafa through issuance of bouncing check. However,
it is submitted the Lopez principle can be applied to violation of BP 22.
PAYMENT - In Lim vs. People, G.R. No. 190834, November 26, 2014 - The fact that the issuer of
the check had already paid the value of the dishonored check after having received the subpoena from
the Office of the Prosecutor should have forestalled the filing of the Information in court. The spirit of
the law which, for B.P. Big. 22, is the protection of the credibility and stability of the banking system,
would not be served by penalizing people who have evidently made amends for their mistakes and
made restitution for damages even before charges have been filed against them. In effect, the payment
of the checks before the filing of the informations has already attained the purpose of the law.
It should be emphasized as well that payment of the value of the bounced check after the
information has been filed in court would no longer have the effect of exonerating the accused from
possible conviction for violation of B.P. Big. 22. Since from the commencement of the criminal
proceedings in court, there is no circumstance whatsoever to show that the accused had every
intention to mitigate or totally alleviate the ill effects of his issuance of the unfunded check, then there
is no equitable and compelling reason to preclude his prosecution. In such a case, the letter of the law
should be applied to its full extent.
Furthermore, to avoid any confusion, the Court's ruling in this case should be well
differentiated from cases where the accused is charged with estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, where the fraud is perpetuated by postdating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. In said case of estafa, damage and deceit are the
essential elements of the offense, and the check is merely the accused's tool in committing fraud. In
such a case, paying the value of the dishonored check will not free the accused from criminal liability. It
will merely satisfy the civil liability of the crime but not the criminal liability.
SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT - X in his capacity as officer of Z corporation issued a corporate

check in favor of A. The check bounced due to DAIF. Notice of dishonor was received by X. After three
months, SEC issued order creating the Management Committee and ordering the suspension of all
pending actions for claims against Z corporation. (a) Is X liable for violation of BP Blg. 22?
Answer: Yes. X was formally notified of the dishonor of the checks. Yet, it was only more than
three months after, that the SEC issued order for the suspension of all pending actions for claims
against Z corporation. Thus, X was not precluded from making good the checks during that three-
month gap when he received the letter and when the SEC issued the order (Tiong Rosario vs. Co, G.R.
No. 133608, August 26, 2008)
(b) Would your answer be the same if the order of suspension was issued before the
presentment for payment of the check when the drawee bank and the sending of notice of dishonor?
Answer: No. X is not liable for violation of BP Blg. 22. Considering that there was a lawful Order
from the SEC, the contract is deemed suspended. When a contract is suspended, it temporarily ceases to
be operative; and it again becomes operative when a condition occurs - or a situation arises -
warranting the termination of the suspension of the contract.When a contract is subject to a suspensive
condition, its birth takes place or its effectivity commences only if and when the event that constitutes
the condition happens or is fulfilled. Thus, at the time A presented the check for encashment, it had no
right to do so, as there was yet no obligation due from X (Gidwani vs. People, GR No. 195064, January 15,
2014).
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES LAW
RA NO. 3019
Conspiracy – Only public officer can be held criminally liable for violation of RA No. 3019.
However, if there is conspiracy, the act of the public officer in violating RA No. 3019 is imputable to the
private individual although there are not similarly situated in relation to the object of the crime.
Moreover, Section 9 provides penalty for public officer or private person for crime under Section 3.
Hence, a private individual can be prosecuted for violation of RA No. 3019 (Go vs. The Fifth Division,
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007). Even if the public officer with whom the private
individual allegedly conspired, the latter can still be prosecuted for violation of RA No. 3019. Death
extinguishes the criminal liability but not the crime. Hence, if there is proof of the crime and
conspiracy of dead public officer with private individual, the latter can still be convicted of violation of
RA No. 3019 (People vs. Go, GR NO. 168539, March 25, 2014).However, the public officer with whom the
private individual allegedly conspired is acquitted, the latter should also be acquitted (Marcos vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998).
SECTION 3 (a) - The elements of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 are: 1. The offender is
public officer; 2. The offender persuades, induces or influences another public officer to perform an act
or the offender allows himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit an act; 3. That the act
performed by the other public officer or committed by another constitutes a violation of ruled and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duty
of the latter (Ampil vs. Hon. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013.
In Baviera vs. Zoleta, G.R. No. 169098, Oct. 12, 2006 - The Supreme Court considered the Senate
deliberation of Section 3 (a) of RA No. 3019 in resolving the case. According to Senator Tolentino, if
there is no proof of the consideration in the use of the influence, the offense is not committed under
the bill. Because the logic and intention of the sponsor (Senator TOLENTINO) of the aforecited
provision, the SC said that Acting Secretary of Justice did not commit a violation of the same as there is
no proof that she received consideration in exchange for her decision to allow Mr. Raman to travel
abroad despite the Hold Departure Order issued by the Secretary of Justice.
SECTION 3 (b) - The elements of the crime under Section 3 (b) of RA No. 3019 are: (1) the
offender is a public officer; (2) he requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit; (3)
he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) the request or receipt
was made in connection with a contract or transaction with the government and (5) he has the right to
intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in connection with a contract or transaction has the
right to intervene (Merencillo vs. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70, April 13, 2007).
Section 3 (b) of RA No. 3019, directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law is punishable. Section 3 (b) is limited only to contracts or
transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene
under the law.Preliminary investigation is not a contract or transaction is not a contract or transaction
within the contemplated of Section 3 (b). Hence, requesting or receiving money in connection with a
preliminary investigation is not a violation of this provision (Soriano, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
65952, July 31, 1984; People vs. Sandiganbayan. and Justice Secretary Perez).
SECTION 3 (e) - In Dela Cuersta vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, November 19, 2013 -
The informations alleged that accused as members of the Philippine Coconut Authority, acting in
conspiracy with each other and with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, gave financial assistance
to COCOFED, a private entity, without an appropriate budget, giving unwarranted benefit to the same
and causing undue injury to the Government.
The element in the crime of technical malversation that public fund be appropriated for a
public use requires an earmarking of the fund or property for a specific project. For instance there is no
earmarking if money was part of the municipality’s “general fund,” intended by internal arrangement
for use in paving a particular road but applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay workers in
the municipality. That portion of the general fund was not considered appropriated since it had not
been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no allegation in the
informations that the P2 million and P6 million grants to COCOFED had been earmarked for some
specific expenditures.
What is more, the informations do not allege that the subject P2 million and P6 million were
applied to a public use other than that for which such sums had been appropriated. Quite the contrary,
those informations allege that those sums were unlawfully donated to “a private entity,” not applied to
some public use. Clearly, the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the crimes with
which they are charged would be violated if they are tried for technical malversation under criminal
informations for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 filed against them.
This crime has the following essential elements: 1. The accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;2. He must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his functions (People vs. Atienza, GR No. 171671, June 18, 2012).
First element - The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official
functions. In Consigna vs. People, G.R. no. 175750, April 2, 2014 – Petitioner, a municipal treasurer, is
considered a public officer discharging official functions when she misused such position to be able to
take out a loan from complainant, who was misled into the belief that former, as municipal treasurer,
was acting on behalf of the municipality. The petitioner misrepresented that the loan is to be used to
pay for the salaries of the employees of the municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium .
The victim could have been the Municipality of General Luna since the checks signed by the mayor was
issued to the complainant. It was just fortunate that the mayor instructed the bank to stop payment of
the checks issued by petitioner. Thus, the municipal treasurer can be held liable for violation of
Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 for causing damage to complainant.
Mejorada principle - In Stilgrove vs. Sabas, A.M. No. P-06-2257, March 28, 2008 – Admittedly,
the Court made a statement in Zoomzat that for one to be held liable under Section 3 (e), he must be an
officer or employee of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits
or other concessions. The earlier case of Mejorada however, squarely addressed the issue on the proper
interpretation of Section 3 (e). Mejorada was decided by the Court en banc. Following the constitutional
mandate that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc, the case of Zoomzat cannot
reverse the pronouncement in Mejorada, the former case having been decided by a Division of the
Court. In Consigna vs. People, G.R. No. 175750, April 2, 2014, the SC re-affirmed the principle in
Mejorada.
Second element - The accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.Section 3(e) of RA 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused
acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross
inexcusable negligence (Plameras vs. People, GR No. 187268, September 04, 2013).
Arias principle - In Arias v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 81563 & 82512, 19 December 1989 - All
heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those
who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. If a department secretary entertains
important visitors, the auditor is not ordinarily expected to call the restaurant about the amount of the
bill, question each guest whether he was present at the luncheon, inquire whether the correct amount
of food was served, and otherwise personally look into the reimbursement voucher's accuracy,
propriety, and sufficiency. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in
such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the
volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda,
vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or
departments is even more appalling. There should be other grounds than the mere signature or
approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.
Non-applicability of the Arias principle – The principle of Arias case where reliance on the
subordinate was considered as a defense in case of violation of Section 3 (e) RA No. 3019 is not
applicable:
(1) Where the accused has foreknowledge of existing anomaly - e.g. mayor signed the
inspection report and the disbursement voucher despite the fact that he had foreknowledge that the
materials delivered by Guadines have already been confiscated by the DENR (Escara vs. People, G.R. No.
164921, July 8, 2005);
(2) Where there is deviation from ordinary procedure – e.g. mayor issued and encashed
municipal checks despite the facts that the disbursement vouchers were in the name of Kelly Lumber but
the checks were not payable to the supplier, Kelly Lumber and that checks were payable upon his order
(Cruz vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134493, August 16, 2005).
(3) Where the public official invoking the Arias principle is not acting in his capacity as head of
office, who is relying on his subordinate e.g. head of the office of the city administrator relied on the
acts of the heads of the Office of the City Treasurer, the Office of the City Accountant in granting cash
advance to a paymaster (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No. 166967, January 28, 2013).
4. Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 156577, December 03, 2014 - In the case at bench, Perez should
have placed himself on guard when the documents and vouchers given to him by his subordinates did
not indicate the retention money required by P.D. No. 1594. Moreover, when he personally inspected
the construction site of PAL Boat, he should have noticed the financial weakness of the contractor and
the defective works. Deplorably, Perez kept mum and chose to continue causing undue injury to the
government. No other conclusion can be inferred other than his manifest partiality towards PAL Boat
Conspiracy of silence or inaction - As a rule, the principle of conspiracy as a mode of

committing a crime or for purpose of applying the collective responsibility rule is only applicable to
intentional felony. The concept of conspiracy, the elements of which are agreement and decision to
commit a crime, are not consistent with culpable felony. Persons cannot definitely agree and decide to
commit a culpable crime.
Exception:
Public officers can incur collective criminal responsibility through a conspiracy for violation of
Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 through gross and inexcusable negligence, and of incurring. This is called
conspiracy of silence and inaction arising from gross inexcusable negligence. To establish this kind of
conspiracy, it is essential to prove the breach of duty borders on malice and is characterized by
flagrant, palpable and willful indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
Conspiracy of silence or inaction would almost always be inferred only from the surrounding
circumstances and the parties' acts or omissions that, taken together, indicate a common
understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting the commission of the offense. The duties
and responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry and the degree of relationship of
interdependence of the different offices involved here determine the existence of conspiracy where
gross inexcusable negligence was the mode or commission of the offense (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No.
166967, January 28, 2013).
In Jaca vs. People, supra - A paymaster obtained cash advances despite the fact that she has
previous unliquidated cash advances. The cash advance remained unliquidated to the damage of the
city. The City Treasurer certified that the cash advances are necessary, lawful and incurred under my
direct supervision. The City Accountant certified that the expenditures are supported by documents
and previous cash advances are liquidated and accounted for. The City Administrator approved the
voucher and countersigned the check. The paymaster is liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No.
3019. The City Treasurer, City Accountant and City administrator are liable because of conspiracy of
silence or inaction. According to SC, the petitioners are all heads or their respective offices that
perform interdependent functions in the processing of cash advances. The petitioners' attitude of
buck-passing in the face of the irregularities in the voucher and the absence of supporting documents
and their indifference to their individual and collective duties to ensure that laws and regulations are
observed in the disbursement of the funds of the local government of Cebu can only lead to a finding of
conspiracy of silence and inaction.
Erroneous interpretation of the law - An erroneous interpretation of a provision of law

regarding the entitlement of a government employee who was wrongfylly removed to RATA, absent
any showing of some dishonest or wrongful purpose, does not constitute and does not necessarily
amount to bad faith (Ysidoro vs. Hon. Leonardo-De Castro, G.R. No. 171513, February 06, 2012).
Third element - His action caused undue injury to any party, including the government or gave any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
There are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 in the
performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the
Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The
accused may be charged under either mode or both. The disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act
qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) (Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 156577, December 03, 2014).
The concept of "undue injury," in the context of Section 3(e) RA No. 3019 is the same as the civil
law concept of "actual damage." It is required that undue injury must be specified, quantified and
proven to the point of moral certainty. Speculative or incidental injury is not sufficient. The damages
suffered cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture or
guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding specific
facts which could afford some basis for measuring compensatory or actual damage (M.A. Jimenez Inc.
vs. The Hon. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 155307, June 06, 2011).
In Braza vs. the Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013 - There are two (2)
ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the performance of his functions,
namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any
private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under
either mode or under both. The disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.] In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. "To be
found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit
to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative and judicial functions." The element of damage is
not required for violation of Section 3 (e) under the second mode.
Private party - In Ambil vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, July 06, 2011 - In drafting the
Anti-Graft Law, the lawmakers opted to use "private party" rather than "private person" to describe
the recipient of the unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference for a reason. The term "party" is a
technical word having a precise meaning in legal parlance as distinguished from "person" which, in
general usage, refers to a human being. Thus, a private person simply pertains to one who is not a
public officer. While a private party is more comprehensive in scope to mean either a private person or
a public officer acting in a private capacity to protect his personal interest. In the present case, when
petitioners transferred Mayor Adalim from the provincial jail and detained him at petitioner Ambil,
Jr.'s residence, they accorded such privilege to Adalim, not in his official capacity as a mayor, but as a
detainee charged with murder. Thus, for purposes of applying the provisions of Section 3(e), R.A. No.
3019, Adalim was a private party.
SECTION 3 (g) – In Braza vs. the Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013 - For
conviction of violation of Sec. 3(g), the prosecution must establish the following elements: 1. The
offender is a public officer; 2. He entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government;
and 3. The contract or transaction is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
On the other hand, an accused may be held criminally liable of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
No. 3019, provided that the following elements are present: 1. The accused must be a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2. The accused must have acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused undue injury to
any party, including the government or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his functions.
Although violation of Sec. 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019 and violation of Sec. 3(e) of the same law share a
common element, the accused being a public officer, the latter is not inclusive of the former. The
essential elements of each are not included among or do not form part of those enumerated in the
other. For double jeopardy to exist, the elements of one offense should ideally encompass or include
those of the other. What the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two
offenses.
Overpricing – In Sajul vs. Sandiganbayan, supra - To substantiate the assertion that the price of
Bato-Bato Enterprises was exorbitant, the prosecution presented a quotation from Zodiac Trading
which states that a fire extinguisher of the same make and kind would allegedly cost only about P1,500
which was P1,000 less of Bato-Bato’s price. It was held that: The comparison of prices between Bato-
bato Enterprises with that of Zodiac Trading is rather unacceptable. In the first place, Zodiac trading
was not properly identified as a company dealing with fire extinguishers or a leading company selling
fire extinguishers, for that matter. Nobody from the company appeared in court to testify about its
company or its product. The components of its fire extinguishers were not actually proven to be the
same as that of Bato-Bato Enterprises. The quotation of Zodiac Trading was merely solicited. The
veracity of such quotation was not proven. Considering all these circumstances, it is rather unfair to
compare the prices of Bato-Bato Enterprises with that of Zodiac Trading when the basis of the
comparison has not been established. It could not be concluded that there was an overpricing of the
fire extinguishers when the prosecution single out only one company, which apparently quoted a lower
price than that of Bato-Bato Enterprises.
In order to show that there was an overpricing in the subject transaction, a canvass of different suppliers
with their corresponding prices should have been procured which could readily show the differences in the price
quotations. Absent this competent evidence, it is rather unfair to conclude that the price of Bato-Bato
Enterprises was exorbitant on the basis alone of a submitted quotation of one company and to further
rule that the contract was grossly injurious to the government. The contract entered into by the
petitioner would not cause obvious or glaring injury to the government when petitioner merely
continued the purchase from a regular supplier, which he had authority to do so even without the
benefit of bidding.
In Caunan vs. People, G.R. Nos. 181999 & 182001-04 and Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan, Fourth
Division, G.R. Nos. 182020-24, September 2, 2009 – The evidence of the prosecution did not include a
signed price quotation from the walis tingting suppliers of Parañaque City. In fact, even the walis
tingting furnished the audit team by petitioners and the other accused was different from the walis
tingting actually utilized by the Parañaque City street sweepers at the time of ocular inspection by the
audit team. At the barest minimum, the evidence presented by the prosecution, in order to substantiate
the allegation of overpricing, should have been identical to the walis tingting purchased in 1996-1998.
Only then could it be concluded that the walis tingting purchases were disadvantageous to the
government because only then could a determination have been made to show that the disadvantage
was so manifest and gross as to make a public official liable under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
SECTION 4 (a) - In Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September 11,
2013 – The elements of the offense under Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 3019 are: (1) That the offender has
family or close personal relation with a public official; (2) That he capitalizes or exploits or takes
advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business, transaction,
application, request, or contract with the government; (3) That the public official with whom the
offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business transaction, application,
request, or contract with the government.
The allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019, if
hypothetically admitted, would establish the elements of the offense, considering that: (1) Disini, being
the husband of Paciencia Escolin-Disini, the first cousin of First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, and at
the same time the family physician of the Marcoses, had close personal relations and intimacy with and
free access to President Marcos, a public official; (2) Disini, taking advantage of such family and close
personal relations, requested and received $1,000,000.00 from Burns & Roe and $17,000,000.00 from
Westinghouse, the entities then having business, transaction, and application with the Government in
connection with the PNPPP; (3) President Marcos, the public officer with whom Disini had family or
close personal relations, intervened to secure and obtain for Burns & Roe the engineering and
architectural contract, and for Westinghouse the construction of the PNPPP.
SECTION 7 – Section 7 of RA No. 3019 provides: “Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every
public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming office, and within the month of
January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation
or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the
case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the case of
members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the
corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the
amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income
taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two
months before the end of the calendar year, may file their statements in the following months of January. ”
On the other hand, Section 8 of RA No. 6713 provides: “SECTION 8. Statements and Disclosure. —
Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the
public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those
of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. (A)
Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. — All public officials and employees, except those
who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement
of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of
their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. XXXXXX The
documents must be filed: (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office; (b) on or before April 30, of every
year thereafter; and (c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.”
The rule directing full disclosure of wealth in the SALN is a means of preventing said evil and is
aimed particularly at minimizing if not altogether curtailing the opportunities for official corruption
and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. By the SALN, the public is able to monitor
movement in the fortune of a public official; it serves as a valid check and balance mechanism to verify
undisclosed properties and wealth (Gupilan-Aguilar vs. Office of the Umbudsman, G.R. No. 197307,
February 26, 2014).
It is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a
complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable
accumulation of wealth. This serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the
income and lifestyle of public officials and employees in compliance with the constitutional policy to
eradicate corruption, to promote transparency in government, and to ensure that all government
employees and officials lead just and modest lives, with the end in view of curtailing and minimizing
the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service
(OCA vs. Usman, A.M. No. SCC-08-12, October 19, 2011). In fact, filing SALN is a constitutional duty.
Article 11, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon
assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his
assets, liabilities, and net worth.”
Failure to file SALN as required by law is a violation of Section 8 of RA No. 6713 and Section 7 of
RA No. 3019 (Concerned Taxpayer vs. Doblada, A.M. No. P-99-1342, June 8, 2005). Since both laws
provide a penalty for failure to file SALN, the offender should only be prosecuted and punished either
under one or the other.
However, it is submitted that Section 7 of RA No. 3019 has been modified by Section 8 of RA No.
6713. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that public officers are now submitting SALN in
compliance with Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees issued by the Civil Service Commission. They are required to file the SALN “on or before April
30, of every year” as required under RA No. 6713 and not “within the month of January of every other year” as
mandated under RA No. 3019.
Section 8 of RA No. 6713 excludes public officials and employees, who serve in an honorary capacity,
laborers and casual or temporary workers from the requirement of filling SALN. If these public officers
are excused from filling SALN under RA 6713, it would be absurd to criminally make them responsible
under RA No. 3019 for failure to file it. By parity of reasoning, if a public officer filed a SALN in April of a
certain year in compliance of RA No. 6713 he should not be made criminally liable under RA No. 3019
which requires that the SALN should be filed within the month of January.
RA No. 3019 is enacted in 1960 or prior to the 1987 Constitution, while RA No.6713 is passed
precisely to implement the constitutional provision on SALN. Section 8 of RA No. 6713 is the latest
legislative expression that gives spirit and substance to State policy of transparency and public
accountability. Hence, the time regulation and the exclusionary rule under RA No. 6713 regarding the
filing of SALN is controlling even if the accused is charged for failure to file SALN under Section 7 of RA
No. 3019.
SECTION 13 - Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a
valid information for crime of corruption under RA 3019, crimes committed by public officer under RPC
or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or
as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court,
shall be suspended from office. Usurpation of public authority (Miranda vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. NO.
154098, July 27, 2005, En Banc) and election offense(Juan vs. People, G.R. No. 132378, January 18, 2000) are
offenses involving fraud upon the government. Falsification of document (voucher) is offense involving
fraud upon public funds or property (Bustillo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 146217, April 7, 2006).
Presumption of innocence - The preventive suspension under Section 13 of RA No. 3019 is not
penalty. Thus, suspension, which is being ordered before a judgment of conviction is reached, is not
violation of constitutional right to be presumed innocent (Bunye vs. Escareal, G.R. No. 110216,
September 10, 1993). The suspended accused, whose culpability remains to be proven, are still entitled
to the constitutional presumption of innocence (Juan vs. People, G.R. No. 132378, January 18, 2000).
Ex post facto law - Article 24 (3) of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that suspension from
the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as
penalty. It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings . In fact, if acquitted, the
official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits, which he failed to
receive during suspension. This is merely preventive measures before final judgment. Not being a penal
provision, therefore, the suspension from office, pending trial, of the public officer charged with crimes
mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its effectivity does not violate the
constitutional provision on ex post facto law (Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-61776 to L-61861,
March 23, 1984).
Pre-suspension hearing - While the suspension of a public officer under this provision is
mandatory, the suspension requires a prior hearing to determine “the validity of the information” filed
against him, “taking into account the serious and far reaching consequences of a suspension of an
elective public official even before his conviction.” The accused public official’s right to challenge the
validity of the information before a suspension order may be issued includes the right to challenge the
(i) validity of the criminal proceeding leading to the filing of an information against him, and (ii)
propriety of his prosecution on the ground that the acts charged do not constitute a violation of R.A.
No. 3019 or of the provisions on bribery of the Revised Penal Code (Miguel vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 172035, July 04, 2012).
In Luciano vs. Mariano, G.R. N L-32950, July 30, 1971 – Where the preliminary investigation was
for falsification, the office of the prosecutor could not validly charged the petitioner with the graver
crime of violation of RA No. 3019. Thus, he is entitled to a new preliminary investigation. The ruling on
the validity of the information is to be held in abeyance until after the outcome of the preliminary
investigation of violation of RA No. 3019, and hence no suspension order can issue. Should the fiscal
find no case, he will then so inform the trial court and move to dismiss the case. In the contrary case,
respondent court will then have to hear and decide petitioners' pending motion to quash before it,
which squarely raises question that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and are not
punishable under section 3 (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, contrary to the information's averment.
Procedure - Upon the filing of such information, the trial court should issue an order with
proper notice requiring the accused officer to show cause at a specific date of hearing why he should
not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to 13 of RA No. 3019. Where either the prosecution
seasonably files a motion for an order of suspension or the accused in turn files a motion to quash the
information or challenges the validity thereof, such show-cause order of the trial court would no
longer be necessary. What is indispensable is that the trial court duly hear the parties at a hearing held
for determining the validity of the information, and thereafter hand down its ruling, issuing the
corresponding order of suspension should it uphold the validity of the information or withholding such
suspension in the contrary case.
No specific rules need be laid down for such pre-suspension hearing. Suffice it to state that the
accused should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal
proceedings against him, e.g. that he has not been afforded the right of due preliminary investigation;
that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic Act
No. 3019 or of the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his mandatory
suspension from office under section 13 of the Act; or he may present a motion to quash the
information on any of the grounds provided in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (Miguel vs. Hon.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035, July 04, 2012)
Period of preventive suspension- Even though the law is silent on the duration of the
preventive suspension, the suspension should not be indefinite. Section 13 of RA No. 3019 does not
provide the period of preventive suspension. Hence, the duration of suspension under the
Administrative Code, which provides that the suspension may not exceed 90 days (Layus M.D. vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134272, December 8, 1999) may be adopted in fixing the duration of suspension
under RA 3019. The said 90-day maximum period for suspension shall apply to all those who are validly
charged under RA 3019, whether elective or appointive officer or employee (Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 96131, September 6, 1991).
SPEEDY DISOPOSITION OF CASES - In People vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, and Perez, G.R. No.
188165, December 11, 2013 - There was really no sufficient justification tendered by the State for the
long delay of more than five years in bringing the charges against the respondents before the proper
court. On the charge of robbery, the preliminary investigation would not require more than five years
to ascertain the relevant factual and legal matters. The basic elements of the offense, that is, the
intimidation or pressure allegedly exerted on Cong. Jimenez, the manner by which the money extorted
had been delivered, and the respondents had been identified as the perpetrators, had been adequately
bared before the Office of the Ombudsman. The obtention of the bank documents was not indispensable
to establish probable cause to charge them with the offense. In fine, the Office of the Ombudsman
transgressed the respondents’ right to due process as well as their right to the speedy disposition of
their case. Because of the inordinate delay in resolving the criminal complaint by the Ombudsman
against respondent, the cases against respondent were dismissed.
PLUNDER
RA No. 7080
1. The elements of plunder are:
(1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of
his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
(2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series
of the following overt or criminal acts:
(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or

raids on the public treasury;
(b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage,

kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection
with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public
officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the

National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries;
(d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity
or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in
any business enterprise or undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other

combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular
persons or special interests; or
(f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or

influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
(3) That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50,000,000.00 (Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001).
2. A Senator on three occasions identified Napoles’ bogus non-governmental as recipient of his

PDAP in the total amount of 100 million. Instead of using the fund for legitimate purpose, the Senator
and Napoles divided the money on the basis of 40-60 sharing. Napoles got the lion’s share. Did they
commit plunder?
No. The Senator as a public officer did not amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth
through series of misuse or malversation of public funds in the aggregate amount of at least
P50,000,000.00. The Senator merely acquired 40 million pesos in this modus operandi. On the other
hand, Napoles on her private capacity cannot commit plunder.
3. Would you answer be the same if the Senator got the lion’s share of 60%?
Yes. The Senator, who acquired 60 million pesos, is liable for plunder. Under RA 7080, plunder
can be committed by a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance other persons
Napoles is likewise liable on the basis of conspiracy. Because of conspiracy, the acts of plunder
committed by the Senator, a public officer, is attributable to Napoles, a private individual, although
they are not similarly situated in relation to the object of the crime.
4. Can the Senator use the defense in malversation that he is not responsible for the misuse of
his PDAP since it is the duty of the appropriate implementing agency of the government to check that
the recipient of the fund is not bogus?
No. Assuming that the duty to check that the recipient of the Senator’s PDAP is not bogus
belongs to the appropriate agency of the government, the Senator is still liable since malversation can
be committed through culpa.
CYBERLIBEL
Writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,

cinematographic exhibition are means of publication in libel (2002 Bar Examination). They have a
common characteristic, and that is, their permanent nature as a means of publication and this explains
the graver penalty for libel than that prescribed for oral defamation. Hence, the phrase “any similar
means” should be understood in the lights of the said common characteristic of the means to commit
libel. Thus, defamation thorough amplifier constitutes slander under Article 358 and not libel since its
nature as means of publication is not permanent, and thus, it is not similar to radio or other means
mentioned in Article 355 since (People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. L-17663, May 30, 1962). On the other hand,
television though not expressly mentioned in Article 355 easily qualifies under the general provision
“or any similar means” (People vs. Casten, CA-G.R. No. 07924-CR, December 13, 1974; 2005 Bar
Examination). Since nature of internet as a means of publication is permanent, it should be considered
as a means to commit libel. In Disini, the Supreme Court ruled:
“The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech
and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed,
cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code, already
punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes "similar
means" for committing libel.”
Venue of cyber libel - As a general rule, the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a
private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was
printed and first published (Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code).
However, the place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the internet is
not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is printed and first published within the
contemplation of the rule on venue under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.
To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be prevented by the amendment to Article 360,
and that was the indiscriminate or arbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far-
flung areas, meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an accused. The disparity or
unevenness of the situation becomes even more acute where the offended party is a person of
sufficient means or possesses influence, and is motivated by spite or the need for revenge.
To equate the “first access to the defamatory article on website” with "printing and first
publication of the article" would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC
sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would
ensue in situations where the website’s author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages
therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may have
allegedly accessed the offending website.
At any rate, Article 360 still allow offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for
internet libel in their respective places of residence (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149,G.R. No.
184800, May 5, 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW

JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA Twenty19 1

POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL THERORY

CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: Under the principle of territoriality, the Philippines has

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - Under the principle of extra-territoriality, the Philippines has

MISTAKE OF FACT PRINCIPLE:

VOLUNTARINESS – Concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent makes up the “criminal

Circumstantial or inconclusive evidence - Indeed, motive becomes material when the

ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of error in personae, person is criminally responsible for

ABERRATIO ICTUS - In case of aberratio ictus, person is criminally responsible for

PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case of praeter intentionem, person is criminally responsible for

ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES: In attempted felony, the offender performs

FRUSTRATEDANDCONSUMMATED- In frustrated and consummated felony, the accused

SPONTANOEUS DESISTANCE - The term spontaneous is not equivalent to voluntary. Even if

HOMICIDE OR MURDER – The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever

RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY - It is immaterial whether appellant acted as a principal or as

Necessary means - The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME: "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically

1. Exempting circumstance of minority - To exempt a minor, who is 15 years old or more,

3. Suspension of sentence - While Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence

Insanity as an exempting circumstance must relate to the time immediately preceding or

ABSOLUTORY CAUSE IN CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY

INSTIGATION AND ENTRAPMENT

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER –To appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,

VENDICATION: The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a

In vindication of grave offense, criminal exemption of accessories, alternative circumstance of

It is now a requirement that the aggravating as well as the qualifying circumstances be

Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery

EMPLOMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE - If the employment of means to weaken the

ABUSE OF SUEPRIOR STRENGHT - Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION -To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution

REPETITION - Differences of recidivism, quasi-recidivism, reiteracion and habitual

Criminal participator - Criminal participator is the offender who participated in committing a

The liability of accessory and principal should also be considered as quasi-collective. It is

It is immaterial whether accused acted as a principal or an accomplice. What really matters is

a. Proving robbery or theft – Commission of robbery or theft by the principal as an element

The presumption of theft is disputable. The presumption of fencing may be overcome by

d. Recently stolen property – If suspect is found in possession of recently stolen property, he

c. Obstructing criminal investigation or prosecution - Public officer, who destroyed

If a respondent in a preliminary investigation altered the allegation in the complaint-affidavit

d. Preventing an illegal arrest – Harboring or concealing a criminal suspect in order to

f. No exempting circumstance - Accessories are exempt from criminal liability if the

a. No credit by reason of disqualification – The grant of credit of preventive imprisonment

a. An accused who is recidivist;

The undertaking is called detainee’s manifestation, which is defined as a written declaration of a

2. Immediate release – Under Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592, whenever an

b. A prisoner convicted by the final judgment in any penal institution, rehabilitation or

First 2 years of imprisonment – 20 days for each month of good behavior

In case of disorder in the penal institution resulting from a conflagration, earthquake,

RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION - A special law prescribes the penalty of 10 years of imprisonment

SUBSIDIARY PENALTYUNDER RA No. 10159

4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution,

THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION RULE

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE

If kidnapping is a necessary means to commit frustrated murder, special complex crime of

RAPE WITH HOMICIDE

ABDUCTION AND MULTIPLE RAPES

DEATH OF THE ACCUSED