Arellano LMT Crimlaw

BOOK ONE
FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW
1. Distinguish crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.
BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

There must be a criminal intent Sufficient that the prohibited act was done
As to their concepts Wrong from its very nature Wrong merely because prohibited by statute
Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not necessary

Punished under the RPC and special
Violations of special laws
laws (e.g.plunder)
Good faith or lack of criminal intent is not
Good faith, lack of criminal intent, or valid defense; it is enough that the
negligence is valid defense prohibition
was voluntarily violated
As to legal implication
Criminal liability is incurred even when Criminal liability is generally incurred only
the crime is Attempted or Frustrated when the crime is Consummated
The penalty of the offender is the same as

Penalty is computed on the basis of
they
whether he is a principal offender,
are all deemed principals unless the law also
or merely an accomplice or accessory
punishes accomplice or accessory
Mitigating and aggravating Such circumstances are not appreciated
circumstances are appreciated in unless the special law has adopted the
imposing the penalties scheme or scale of penalties under the RPC
2. May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. An act may be malum in se
and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum if it is punishable under a special law, and yet, malice is
an element thereof. For example, planting of evidence is malum prohibitum since it is punishable
under R.A. No. 9165, and yet, Section 29 thereof requires malice as an element of this crime. Since
good faith or lack of malice is a defense in this crime, it partakes of the character of malum in se
(Judge Marlo Campanilla).
3. Is Plunder malum prohibitum or malum in se?
The legislative declaration in RA No. 7659 that the crime of plunder under RA No. 7080 is a heinous
offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or
inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special
law, especially since in the case of plunder, the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. (Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001).
4. What are the Characteristics of Criminal law? Explain each.

Criminal law is General, Territorial and Prosepective in character. Generality means that Penal laws
shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in the Philippine territory. Territoriality means that
2018 CRIMINAL LAW |1

Pre-week Notes
>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

penal laws of the Philippines have force and effect only within its territory. Prospectivity means that
Criminal law cannot penalize an act that was not punishable at the time of its commission.
5. The Territoriality Principle states that penal laws of the Philippines have force and
effect only within its territory. Give the exception to such rule.
Under the principle of extra-territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed
outside its territory as provided in Art. 2, pars. 1 to 5 of the RPC (Page 9, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. I,
2018 Ed., Judge Marlo Campanilla). Hence, a Korean citizen may be prosecuted in the Philippines for the
murder that he committed in an aircraft duly registered in the Philippines cruising in the international
airspace. The nationality of the aircraft is determined by the place of registration.
6. A foreign merchant vessel was sailing in the waters of Mactan, Cebu on October 1,
2017. While on board the foreign merchant vessel, XXX, a Japanese national had an
altercation with another crew who is also a Japanese which resulted to the latter’s death.
XXX comes to you now and is asking for advice as to whether or not the Philippine courts
have jurisdiction over the case. Argue.
The waters in Mactan, Cebu are internal waters. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, all waters
surrounding, between, and connecting the islands of the Philippines Archipelago form part of the
national water in the Philippines. Hence, applying the Territoriality principle, the Philippines has
jurisdiction over crimes committed within its national waters. The English rule and provisions on
Convention on the Law of the Sea pertaining to crimes committed on aboard foreign merchant vessel
are only applicable if the vessel is traveling on the 12-mile territorial water of the coastal state.
FELONIES
7.Distinguish Error in Personae from Aberratio Ictus and Praeter Intentionem.
ERROR IN PERSONAE ABERRATIO ICTUS PRAETER INTENTIONEM

Mistake of Identity Mistake in the Blow Greater Injury Results
There is involved only one offended The offender intends to inflict It is when the injury is on the
party but the offender committed a injury on one person but the harm intended victim but the resulting
mistake in ascertaining the identity fell on another, which may be in wrong is graver than that intended
of the victim. addition to the injury on the
originally intended victim.
There are two persons who are There are three persons present: There are two persons who are
present, the offender and the the offender, the intended victim present, the offender and the actual
actual victim. and the actual victim. victim.
8. When may a crime be committed without criminal intent?
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in the following instances:

1. If such is a culpable felony;
2. In crimes which are mala prohibita in nature.
2|CLEAR
BarOps
9. When is motive relevant to prove a case?
Motive becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inclusive, and there is some
doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has committed it. Indeed,
motive is totally irrelevant when ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt (People vs. Astorga, G.R. No. 110097, December 22, 1997). Motive may also be relevant
when the identity of the offender is in doubt.
10. XXX, an employee of AAA Company, had free access inside the establishment of his
employer. While in there, he took, steal, and intended to deposit to his own bank account
a check amounting to P10,000. Such check was supposed to be the payment made by
GGG, who was AAA Company’s client, to the company. However, when XXX presented the
check to the bank, the bank dishonored the same due to the insufficiency of funds of the
maker. XXX turned to GGG and asked the latter to pay the amount in cash. It was then
that XXX was apprehended and caught. What crime/crimes did XXX commit?
XXX committed an Impossible Crime under Art. 4 of the RPC. The requisites of an impossible crime
are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was
done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means
employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.
As to the aspect of inherent impossibility, to be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the
offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must either be 1) legal
impossibility, or 2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act
as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would
not amount to a crime. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
Here, there was factual impossibility. XXX performed all the acts to consummate the crime
of qualified theft, which is a crime against property. His evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act
of unlawfully taking the check meant for AAA Company showed his intent to gain to be unjustly
enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, he would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully his. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the
check being unfunded, a fact unknown to him at the time, that prevented the crime from being
produced. The thing unlawfully taken by XXX turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the
check was eventually dishonored (Jacinto vs People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009, PERALTA).
11. Compare and distinguish Frustrated Felony from Attempted and Impossible Crime
FRUSTRATED FELONY ATTEMPTED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Accomplishment
Criminal Purpose not accomplished Criminal Purpose not accomplished Criminal Purpose not
accomplished
Acts of Execution
The offender has performed all the The offender merely commences The offender has performed
acts of execution which would produce the commission of a felony directly the acts which would have
the felony as a consequence. by overt acts and does not perform constituted a crime against
all the acts of execution. person or property.
2018 CRIMINAL LAW|3

Pre-week Notes

Reason for non-accomplishment
Causes independent of the will of the Some cause or accident other than Inherent impossibility of its
perpetrator. his own spontaneous desistance. accomplishment or on account
of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Note: There is no crime of frustrated rape (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 192433, March 30, 2000).
There is no crime of frustrated robbery/theft (Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007).
CONTINUING CRIME
12. XXX, a public officer, was charged with a violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for approving the applications for legalization of the stay
of aliens, notwithstanding the fact that those aliens were allegedly disqualified by law,
thereby giving them unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference through manifest
partiality and evident bad faith. The prosecution filed a total of 32 Amended Informations
against XXX as a total of 32 disqualified aliens benefited by XXX’s act in the same day. Is
the filing of 32 Amended Informationsproper?
NO. The public officer was charged in these 32 Informations to have committed several acts of
approving applications for legalization under a single criminal impulse to give unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference through manifest partiality and evident bad faith in violation of a single penal
provision, and that is, Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. The acts as alleged in these information
constitutes delito continuado. Hence, the accused should have been charged in one Information
(Santiago vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993).
COMPLEX CRIME
13. What are the kinds of Complex Crime?
Compound Crime Complex Crime Proper Special Complex Crime
Compound crime (delito Complex Crime Proper (delito Composite Crime or Special
compuesto) - a single act complejo) – when an offense is a complex Crime – refers to two
constituting two or more grave or necessary means of committing another. or more crimes where the law
less grave felonies. Its requisites Its requisite are: prescribes a single penalty
are: 1. That at least two felonies are
1. That a single act is committed;
performed by the 2. That one or some of the
offender: and felonies must be
2. That the single act necessarymeans to commit
produces (a) two or more the other, and
grave or less grave 3. That both or all the crimes
felonies. must be punished under the
Light felonies produced by the Revised Penal Code
same act should be treated and
punished as separate offenses or
may be absorbed by the grave
felony.
4|CLEAR
BarOps
14. AAA, in her capacity as duly appointed administratrix of her mother’s intestate estate,
filed a complaint-affidavit for Estafa against her brother-in-law, BBB, a Japanese national.
BBB moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under Art. 332 of the
Revised Penal Code, his relationship to the person allegedly defrauded -- his mother-in-
law, was an exempting circumstance.
a. Is the contention of BBB correct?
Yes. Art. 332 of the RPC provides for an absolutory cause in the crimes of theft, estafa (or
swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil liability and
frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party. Such absolutory
cause includes: 1.) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; 2.)
The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
same shall have passed into the possession of another; and, 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-
law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
b. If the crime being charged is a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents, will the contention of BBB still be correct?
NO. The absolutory cause under Art. 332 of the RPC only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling,
and malicious mischief. The coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Art. 332 is complexed with
another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
c. If marriage gives rise to one’s relationship by affinity to the blood relatives of one’s
spouse, does the extinguishment of marriage by the death of the spouse dissolve the
relationship by affinity?
There are two views regarding this matter:
The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship by affinity terminates with the
dissolution of the marriage either by death or divorce which gave rise to the relationship of affinity
between the parties. Under this view, the relationship by affinity is simply coextensive and coexistent
with the marriage that produced it. Its duration is indispensably and necessarily determined by the
marriage that created it. Thus, it exists only for so long as the marriage subsists, such that the death
of a spouse ipso facto ends the relationship by affinity of the surviving spouse to the deceased
spouses blood relatives.
The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity continues even after the death of
one spouse when there is a surviving issue. The rationale is that the relationship is preserved because
of the living issue of the marriage in whose veins the blood of both parties is commingled.
The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains that relationship by affinity between the
surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the
deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not. Under this view, the
relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a result
of the death of one of the parties to the said marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have
2018 CRIMINAL LAW|5

Pre-week Notes

indicated intent to benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the tie of affinity between these people and their
relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon the death of one of the married
parties.
In this jurisdiction, the second view is more consistent with the language and spirit of Art. 332(1) of
the Revised Penal Code. The continuing affinity view has been applied in the interpretation of laws
that intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the purpose of the absolutory cause in Art.
332(1) is meant to be beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered under the said
provision, the continuing affinity view is more appropriate.
d. What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo?
The fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor
of the accused. In dubio pro reo.When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with
the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.
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. Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed through the
lens of the basic purpose of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to preserve family harmony by
providing an absolutory cause. Since the goal of Article 332(1) is to benefit the accused, the court
should adopt an application or interpretation that is more favorable to the accused. In this case, that
interpretation is the continuing affinity view (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vs. Sato, G.R. No. G.R.
No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
15. What is the Doctrine of Common Elements? Give an example.
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). For instance, the common element
of estafa or malversation and falsification of private document is damage to the complainant. Thus,
falsification of private document and estafa cannot co-exist. The use of damage as an element of
falsification of private document precludes the reuse thereof to complete the elements of estafa, and
vice-versa (Judge Campanilla). 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 document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa (Batulanon v. People,
G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006, YNARES-SANTIAGO).
16. When may a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document
prosper?
For a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document to prosper, all the elements
of both the crimes of estafa and falsification of a public document must exist. (Ansaldo vs. People, G.R.
No. 159381, March 26, 2010, DEL CASTILLO) and falsification must be a necessary means to commit
estafa. Note: The Common Element Doctrine is not applicable in this case since damage is not an
element of falsification of public document.
6|CLEAR
BarOps
17. X barged inside a conference room. With the use of a high-powered firearm, he
pressed the gun and several bullets came out in assault and 4 people died. What crime or
crimes is/are committed by X?
X is liable for four counts of murder. Single act of pressing the trigger of high power firearm is treated
as several acts as many as there are bullets fired from gun. Because of special mechanism of this
firearm, the single act of pressing its trigger will cause the continuous firing of bullets. Thus, the
accused is liable for as many homicides as there are victims (People vs. Desierto, (C.A.) 45 O.G. 4542;
People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August, 27, 1999; People vs. Tabaco, G.R. Nos. 100382-
100385, March 19, 1997; Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla). As held in People v. Valdez, 304
SCRA 611 (1999), each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming
each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give
rise to a complex crime (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500 September 11, 2012).
18. XXX, with the intention of killing AAA, wore a mask and went to the latter’s house.
Upon seeing AAA in the azotea, he fired several shots into AAA’s location. AAA was not hit
by any bullet. However, AAA’s mother, wife, and daughter were hit instead, causing their
death. What is the crime committed by XXX?
XXX is guilty of three counts of murder considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery and one
count of attempted murder. Since two aggravating circumstances of dwelling and use of disguise
attended the commission of the crime of murder, XXX should be sentenced to death in accordance
with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code . (People vs. Sibbu, G.R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017, DEL
CASTILLO). Note: This is not a compound crime because the three murders and attempted murder
were produced by several acts (People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015.)
19. A group of navy personnel went to a canteen to have some drinks. At around 10:00 in
the evening, they transferred to a videoke bar, “Aquarius”, where they continued their
drinking session. Shortly thereafter, a heated argument ensued between AAA and XXX. To
avoid further trouble, the other navy personnel tried to pacify the two and decided to
leave “Aquarius” and return to their camp. Soon after the navy personnel passed the
sentry gate, a maroon Nissan van was rushing and zigzagging the road towards the group
of navy personnel. XXX was recognized as the driver. The van sped away towards the
camp and suddenly swerved to the right hitting the group of the walking navy personnel.
Two of the navy personnel died while the others sustained serious injuries in their body.
What is the criminal liability of XXX?
XXX is guilty of the complex crime of murder with attempted murder. When a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period. XXX 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 and ramming through the navy personnel. (People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012).
2018 CRIMINAL LAW|7

Pre-week Notes

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
20. Distinguish justifying circumstances and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor,
not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred, except
for those mentioned in par. 4, Art. 11; while in exempting circumstance, there is no criminal liability
but civil liability is generally incurred, except for those mentioned in par. 4 and 7, Art. 12.
21. While AAA was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by XXX, a thief. AAA
tried to stop XXX by shouting at him, but XXX ignored him. To prevent his car from being
carnapped, AAA drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew
the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle,
killing the tricycle driver (BAR 2008).
a. What is the criminal liability of AAA, if any? Explain.
AAA did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of the car to stop the
vehicle and prevent XXX from taking away his car is neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does
not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
b. What is the criminal liability of XXX, if any? Explain.
XXX is criminally liable for (1) carnapping under R.A. No. 10883 for taking the motor vehicle of
AAA without his consent and with intent to gain; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
for the death of the tricycle driver which resulted from the criminal act deliberately being committed
by Paolo (which is the carnapping). He shall incur liability for homicide although the wrongful act
done be different from that intended. Note: This is not qualified carnapping because the victim of
homicide is not the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle.
22. State the two Kinds of Unlawful Aggression (Rustia vs. People, G.R. No. 208351, October 5,
2016)
ACTUAL OR MATERIAL UNLAWFUL IMMINENT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

AGGRESSION
An attack with physical force or with a weapon, An attack that is impending or at the point of
an offensive act that positively determines the happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening
intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. 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).
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.
23. In a fiesta, XXX shot AAA using a homemade gun. When AAA fell to the ground, XXX
and YYY approached AAA and simultaneously stabbed him with a bolo. ZZZ joined and
8|CLEAR
BarOps
stabbed AAA. AAA died as a result. In his defense, XXX alleged that before the event,
AAA, being intoxicated from the town fiesta, challenged XXX to a fight. AAA delivered a
hacking blow using a bolo to XXX. XXX was able to parry the blows, and upon being
successful in disarming AAA, he fired his gun at the latter. XXX surrendered thereafter.
a. May the justifying circumstance of self-defense be appreciated in favor of XXX?
NO. The most important among all the elements of self-defense as a justifying circumstance is
unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be
successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. There can be no self-defense unless there was
unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing
to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real
imminent injury, upon a person. Once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but
raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. Here, the
unlawful aggression on the part of AAA already ceased to exist when he was stopped and disarmed by
XXX. Hence, there was failure to comply with the requisites for self-defense to be invoked.
b. Was the killing of AAA aggravated by treachery and evident premeditation
NO. For alevosia to qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: (1) the malefactor employed
such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or
retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner of execution were
deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the
witness right at the inception of the attack.
Evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the
crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse
of time between the decision and the execution, allowing the accused to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. The evidence must show that the decision to kill prior to the moment of its
execution was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such
evidence, mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient. Evident premeditation may not be
appreciated where there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time that
elapsed before it was carried out. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.
c. May the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender be appreciated in favor of

XXX?
YES. For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be
spontaneous and in a manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to the
authorities, either based on recognition of guilt or from the desire to save the authorities from the
trouble and expenses that would be involved in the accused’s search and capture. (People vs.
Concillado, G.R. 181204, November 28, 2011, DEL CASTILLO). It must also be made to a person in
authority or the latter's agents (People vs PO3 Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004).
24. May the justifying circumstance of self-defense be invoked at the same time with the
exempting circumstance of accident?
2018 CRIMINAL LAW|9

Pre-week Notes

No. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in which there is no
intent to kill. On the otherhand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in
order to defend oneself from imminent danger (Pomoy v. People, G.R. No. 150647, September 29, 2004).
25. PPP and LLL have been married for 10 years. One night, LLL came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, LLL started hitting PPP only to apologize the following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred – LLL came home drunk and started hitting PPP.
Fearing for her life, PPP left and stayed with her sister. To woo PPP back, LLL sent floral
arrangements of lilies and tulips. Two days later, PPP returned home and decided to give
LLL another chance. After several days, however, LLL again came home drunk. The
following day, he was found dead. PPP was charged with parricide but raised the defense
of Battered Woman Syndrome.
a. What are the three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome? Identify the phases in
the case at hand.
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three
phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving
(or, at least, nonviolent) phase. In invoking BWS, there must be at least two battering episodes.
In this case, the tension-building phase happened when LLL started beating her because there was no
food on the table. The acute battering phase happened when LLL continues to beat his wife PPP. The
tranquil, loving phase occurred when LLL sent flowers to PPP as an apology to what he did.
b. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense under the RPC?
YES. The defense would prosper even if the elements for the justifying circumstance of self-defense
were not satisfied. According to Sec. 26, RA 9262, victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code (People vs Genosa, G.R NO. 135981, January 15, 2004).
26. AAA’s real property was the subject of an ownership dispute, with XXX as the other
party. One day, while AAA was asleep, he heard noises coming from the outside of his
house. He got up and saw XXX on his real property, who happened to be chiselling the
wall of his house with a crowbar. AAA addressed XXX and asked if they could talk it over,
to which the latter answered “No.”. AAA lost his equilibrium, got his gun, and shot XXX,
causing his death. AAA surrendered to the police thereafter. In charging AAA of the
crime of homicide, may AAA invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense of
property?
No. For self-defense to be appreciated as a justifying circumstance, the three requisites mentioned in
Art. 11(1) of the RPC must be complied with. The first requisite was present because the assault on
AAA’s property by XXX amounted to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. The third requisite
was present as well because there was no provocation at all on AAA’s part. However, the second
requirement,which is the reasonableness of the resistance, was not present. When AAA fired his gun,
his resistance was disproportionate to the attack of XXX on AAA’s property.
10|CLEAR
BarOps
Be that as it may, AAA could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete
defense, pursuant to par. 6, Art. 13 of the RPC. (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. No. 33466, April 20, 1983).
27. Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances.
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

If penalty is divisible, apply the penalty in its minimum
period.
Lower the penalty by degree/s
If penalty is indivisible, apply the lesser penalty.
Cannot be offset by any aggravating
Can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance.
circumstance.
Not considered when what is prescribed is single indivisible Always considered, whether the prescribed
penalty. penalty is divisible or indivisible.
28. Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the
penalty of crimes and nature thereof.
ORDINARY SPECIAL QUALIFYING INHERENT

AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AGGRAVATING
Those that requires the Those that requires the Those that change the Those that essentially
application of the penalty application of the penalty nature of the crime to a accompany the
in its maximum period if in its maximum period. graver one, or brings commission of the crime
prescribed penalty is about a penalty next and do not affect the
divisible; or the greater [e.g. ignominy – chastity] higher in degree, and penalty for the crime.
penalty if the prescribed cannot be offset by
penalty is indivisible; and mitigating circumstances. [e.g. evident
can be offset by premeditation – robbery,
mitigating circumstances. [e.g. treachery/evident theft, estafa]
premeditation – murder]
[e.g. dwelling, nighttime,
recidivism]
29. AAA was on his way home from a party when XXX and YYY suddenly appeared. XXX
and YYY assaulted AAA, who then scrambled for safety and ran towards the yard of victim
BBB and hid in a dark area. BBB and his son were roused from their sleep by a voice
coming from the road in front of their house. BBB went outside and saw AAA who readily
identified himself and said that XXX pointed a knife at him. As XXX and YYY entered the
yard of the BBB’s house, AAA hid himself. While in hiding, he saw XXX and YYY
approached BBB. YYY slapped BBB while XXX stabbed him on the left side of his body.
On the next day, BBB died due to septic and hypovolemic shock secondary to stabbed
wound.
The trial court held that the circumstance of abuse of superior strength qualified the
killing to murder, and that XXX and YYY's combined assault gave them the advantage
over BBB who must have been taken by surprise. Was the trial court correct?
NO. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
2018 CRIMINAL LAW|11

Pre-week Notes

advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the
crime.
The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime
was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the
aggressors and the victim. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this
circumstance. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or
that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength
means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and
strength of the parties. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se
establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the
relative strength of the aggressors and the victim.
What has been shown with certainty and clarity is XXX and YYY's intent to kill as shown by the stab
wound on BBB’s body which resulted in his death two days later. Hence, their guilt must be limited to
the crime of homicide. (People vs. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, April 9, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
30. X was clearing and preparing the soil bedding section of his farm. Suddenly, AA, BB,
CC, and DD came out of the nearby banana plantation and went in the direction of X. The
group of men then surrounded X and intimidated him. X tried to get away but the men
started fire on his harvest, which prompted him to return for his burning crops. While X
was trying to put the fire out, AA ordered BB to go near X. BB did what was told and
pulled out a shotgun from the rice sack that he was holding, and shot X on the left portion
of his chest. As X fell, they fired another shot inflicting mortal wounds. The gang of men
then fled the scene.
AA, BB, CC, and DD now assail the existence of conspiracy among them and argue that
there was no evidence sufficient to establish their intentional participation in the crime to
achieve a common purpose. They also contend that treachery did not attend the
commission of the crime.
a. Whether or not there was conspiracy.
YES. Conspiracy is sufficiently established when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, which in this case, been proven.
While there is no proof of any previous agreement among appellants to commit the crime and while
BB alone shot X, the acts of all of them before, during, and after the incident establish the existence
of conspiracy to kill X beyond reasonable doubt. The acts of the assailants constitute proof of their
unanimity in design, intent and execution. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
b. Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder due to the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.
YES. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might
make.
12|CLEAR
BarOps
Here, treachery is evident. The victim could not have been aware that he would be surrounded,
attacked and killed by the appellants who were all related to him. The crime was committed in a
manner that there was no opportunity for the victim to defend himself. Also, the mode of attack did
not spring from the unexpected turn of events but was clearly thought of by the appellants. Hence, it
no longer matters that the assault was frontal since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived the
victim of a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his person. (People vs. Agacer, G.R.
177751, December 14, 2011, DEL CASTILLO).
31. Are additional counts of rape or homicides considered as aggravating circumstance

when committed on the occasion of robbery?
NO. It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should
be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the
same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10)
providing for analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the
robbery) would result in an anomalous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of the
offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However,
the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no
person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. (People v. Gano,
G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001).
32. Discuss the alternative circumstances under Article 15 of the RPC.
Alternative circumstances are relationship, intoxication, and lack of instruction.
In alternative circumstance of relationship, it refers to: 1) spouse; 2) ascendants; 3) descendants; 4)

legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters; or 5) relative by affinity in the same degree. Art.
15 cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations (People vs. Atop, G.R. No.
124303, February 10, 1998). On the otherhand, under R.A. 8552, the adoptee and adopter are
considered relatives for civil and criminal purposes, and hence, should also be appreciated as an
alternative circumstance (Page 213, Criminal Law Review Vol. 1, Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
Intoxication of offender shall be considered as mitigating if such intoxication is not habitual or not
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It becomes aggravating if it is habitual or intentional.
As for lack of instruction, not illiteracy alone but also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary to
invoke the benefit of the circumstance. A person able to sign his name but otherwise so densely
ignorant and of such low intelligence that he does not realize the full consequences of a criminal act,
may still be entitled to this mitigating circumstance. On the otherhand, another person who is unable
to write because of lack of educational facilities or opportunities, may yet be highly or exceptionally
intelligent and mentally alert that he easily and even realizes the full significance of his acts, in which
case he may not invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor (People vs. Ripas, G.R. No. 6246, May 26,
1954).

Pre-week Notes

33.What are absolutory causes?
Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment, there is no penalty imposed(People vs. Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, September 5, 1997) . An
example of absolutory cause is spontaneous desistance in attempted felony (Page 220, Criminal Law
Review Vol. 1, Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION
34. What is conspiracy and give its legal effects.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it (People v. Dimacuha, G.R. 191060,
February 2, 2015, DEL CASTILLO). Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective
active participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the
conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all (People vs. Go, G.R.
168539, March 25, 2014).
Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular

purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing
out of the purpose intended (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011).
35. What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy, and give its legal effects.
An “implied conspiracy” is one which is inferred or deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense is committed. It can be inferred when the persons who committed the crime acted in concert
simultaneously, indicative of meeting of the minds towards common goal or objective.
36. What is a wheel conspiracy? Provide an illustration. What is the effect of this kind of
conspiracy?
A wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually
with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub
rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed,
there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the
success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
An illustration of wheel conspiracy wherein there is only one conspiracy involved was the conspiracy
alleged in the Information for plunder filed against former President Estrada and his co-conspirators.
Former President Estrada was the hub while the spokes were all the other accused individuals. The
rim that enclosed the spokes was the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. People, GR 220598, July 19,
2016).
14|CLEAR
BarOps
37. What is chain conspiracy? Provide an illustration.
In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple conspiracies commonly
involves two structures: (1) the so-called wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there is a single person
or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes); and
(2) the chain conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which
there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer (Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, PUNO).
This involves individuals linked together in a vertical chain to achieve a criminal objective. Illustrative
of chain conspiracy was that involved in United States v. Bruno. There, 88 defendants were indicted
for a conspiracy to import, sell, and possess narcotics. This case involved several smugglers who had
brought narcotics to retailers who, in turn, had sold the narcotics to operatives in Texas and Louisiana
for distribution to addicts. The US Court ruled that what transpired was a single chain conspiracy in
which the smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers for distribution to addicts, and the
retailers knew that the middle men must purchase drugs from smugglers. As reasoned by the court,
"the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not and could not,
stop with their buyers; and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their sellers." Each
conspirator knew that "the success of that part with which he was immediately concerned was
dependent upon success of the whole." This means, therefore, that "every member of the conspiracy
was liable for every illegal transaction carried out by other members of the conspiracy in Texas and in
Louisiana." (Macapagal-Arroyo vs People, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016, BERSAMIN).
38. XXX, with the help of the other police officers YYY and ZZZ, apprehended AAA while
he was driving becausehe was found positive for alcoholic breath. AAA was then brought
to the police station for investigation and was subsequently shoved into a cell. While in
there, AAA continuously shouted for his release. Infuriated, XXX, YYY, and ZZZ entered
his cell and boxed him. ZZZ then took a plastic cord and strangled AAA. AAA died
thereafter. The three police officers were then charged with Murder and Arbitrary
Detention.
In their defense, the three accused contended that there was no conspiracy as they did
not have any well-crafted plan of killing AAA before the event, and that all of them were
not present at the exact site when the crime took place. To support this, the three
alleged that they were stationed a short distance away from the scene of the crime when
the incident happened, and that it would have taken a little over a few seconds or
minutes of leisure walking to leave their posts and go to AAA’s cell. Are their contentions
tenable?
NO. It is not required for conspiracy to exist that there be an agreement for an appreciable period
prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused
had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Direct proof of such agreement is not
necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or
inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest. (People vs. Bustamante, G.R. No. 172357, March 19, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).

Pre-week Notes

39. AAA and BBB saw accused XXX, YYY, and ZZZ while they were walking. XXX suddenly
stabbed AAA on the chest, who then retaliated by boxing XXX. BBB tried to pacify the
two, but XXX stabbed him in the abdomen. XXX then immediately fled. After BBB fell
down, ZZZ threw a drinking glass at BBB's face, while YYY, unarmed, boxed BBB's jaw.
ZZZ stabbed AAA who was then lying on the ground. As a result, AAA died, while BBB
sustained wounds. May YYY be held liable for the stabbing made by XXX and ZZZ?
NO. In determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and
simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of
action and purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants. What is determinative is
proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose. Simultaneousness
does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose.
Here, the overt acts of the YYY before, during and after the incident shows that there is no unity of
purpose among them. The stabbing incident arose from a purely accidental encounter between the
two groups. YYY’s participation was limited to boxing AAA and BBB after XXX and ZZZ stabbed them.
His acts were neither necessary nor indispensable to the commission of the crimes as they were done
after the stabbing. (Quidet vs. People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
40. AAA and BBB, both Hongkong nationals, arrived in NAIA.The two were not talking to
each other, but they both boarded off from the same plane. Because the two looked
suspicious, police officer XXX examined their baggages. XXX found shabu inside the
baggages.With the assistance of NARCOM and NBI, separate informations were filed
against AAA and BBB for violation of R.A. 6425 in carrying and transporting shabu. Upon
reinvestigation, it was found out that they have known each other prior to their departure
from Hongkong because their tickets were booked at the same time, the times of their
departure and arrival were the same, and they sat next to each other inside the plane.
Thus, conspiracy was found and a single amended Information was filed against them.
Was the the finding of conspiracy proper?
YES. Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony. Conspiracy which determines criminal
culpability need not entail a close personal association or at least an acquaintance between or among
the participants to a crime. It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed
in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and,
from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken
together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. Here, it can be deduced from AAA and
BBB’s collective conduct, viewed in its totality, that there was a common design, concerted action and
concurrence of sentiments in bringing about the crime committed (Ho Wai Pang vs. People, G.R. 176229,
October 19, 2011, DEL CASTILLO).
41. In a coffee shop, A, B and C were conceiving a plan to kill their professor. Upon
hearing this D reported them to the police station. What is the criminal liability of A, B,
and C, if any?
A, B and C are not criminally liable.Conspiracy to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor (Art. 8, RPC). Here, the conspiracy to commit
murder is not among those in which the law specially provides a penalty by mere conspiracy to
commit it.
16|CLEAR
BarOps
a. Will your answer be the same if A, B, and C agreed and decided to rise publicly and
take arms against the government, but failed to carry out their plan to overthrow the
government?
No, A, B and C are now liable for conspiracy to commit rebellion. As a general rule, conspiracy to
commit a felony are not punishable. However,one of the exceptions to such general rule is conspiracy
to commit the crime of rebellion (Art. 136, RPC). Here, the law specially provides a penalty for
conspiracy to commit the crime.
42. Distinguish an Accomplice from an Accessory.
ACCOMPLICE ACCESSORY
Participates before or during the commission of the Takes part subsequent to the commission of the
offense offense
Knows of and concurs with the criminal design of the Knows the commission of the offense
principal
Provides material or moral aid in an efficacious way but Acts in the three specific ways in Article 19
not in a manner indispensable to the offense
No exemption from liability May be exempted liability per Articles 19 and 20 such
as by reason of relationship and for light felonies
under Article 16
NOTE: Art. 20 states that the penalties prescribed

for accessories shall not be imposed upon the
offended party’s spouses, ascendants, descendants,
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees. An exception thereto is when the
offender profits from the effects of the crime, as
mentioned in par. 1, Art. 19.
The penalty is One degree lower than the principal’s The penalty is Two degrees lower than the principal’s
43. Distinguish an Accomplice from a Conspirator.
Accomplices Conspirator
Knowledge of They know and concurs with the criminal They agree and decide to commit the crime.
the criminal designof the principals after the latter
design of the have reached the decision and only then
perpetrator do former agree to cooperate in its
execution.
Extent of Conspirators are the authors of the crime.
Participation Accomplices are mere instruments who They are liable as principals regardless of
perform acts not indispensable to the whether or not their participations are
commission of the crime. indispensable to the commission of the
crime. Extent of their participation is not
important.
Penalty One degree lower than the penalty of Penalty of the principal
the principal

Pre-week Notes

Time of The performance of previous or Performance of a previous, simultaneous or
participation simultaneous acts. subsequent act in furtherance of conspiracy.
Time of participation is not important.
Note: A person who, not a principal or accomplice in a 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 such
crime, and he knows of such fact, may be held liable for the crime of fencing under P.D. 1612
(Francisco vs. People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004).
44. AAA was seized at gun point by XXX and taken on board a tricycle to a house some
distance away. XXX was with YYY ZZZ, and QQQ, who drove the tricycle. At the house,
XXX, YYY, and ZZZ succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA against her will and
under the threat of XXX’s gun. QQQ was not around when the sexual assaults took place
as he left after bringing his colleagues and AAA to their destination, but he returned
everyday to bring food and the news in town about AAA’s disappearance. Discuss XXX,
YYY, ZZZ, and QQQ’s criminal liabilities.
XXX, YYYY and ZZZ are liable for kidnapping with rape since AAA was raped in th course of the
detention. However, QQQ is only liable for kidnapping. Once conspiracy is established between several
accused in the commission of the crime of kidnapping, they would all be equally liable for the rape
committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the kidnapping, unless anyone of them proves that
he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape. However, there is no evidence that QQQ
is aware of the commission of rape, he could not have prevented the rape. Hence, QQQ is only liable
for kidnapping and not special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No.
178771, June 8, 2011, PERALTA).
45. XXX and YYY are brothers. XXX asked YYY to keep the two bags in his vault until he
comes back to get them. When YYY later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of
money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He heard the news that
a gang that included XXX had been engaged in bank robberies. YYY, unsure of what to do
under the circumstances, kept the money hidden. Soon after, the police captured and
secured a confession from XXX who admitted that their loot had been deposited with a
third person. What is YYYS’s liability?
NO. YYY is not liable as an accessory because he has no knowledge of the commission of the crime
of robbery. Mere presumption will not suffice. Moreover, granting for the sake of argument that his
act would amount to that of an accessory – concealing the body of the crime or the effects or
instruments thereof to prevent its discovery (Article 19, par.2, RPC) – he is exempted from criminal
liability, being the brother of XXX (Article 20, RPC). However, he is liable for obstruction of justice for
concealing an object to impair its availability as an evidence in a criminal investigation or proceeding.
Actual knowledge of the commission of the crime is not required in this crime. The exempting
circumstance of relationship appreciable in favor of an accessory is not applicable since YYY
committed obstruction of justice as principal and not as a mere accessory (Supplied by Judge Marlo
Campanilla).
18|CLEAR
BarOps
46. XXX was drinking with his buddies, YYY and ZZZ, when he saw BBB with his former
girlfriend, AAA. Already drunk, XXX declared in a loud voice that if he could not have AAA,
no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room and told YYY and ZZZ to take care of
BBB. YYY and ZZZ asked XXXwhat he meant but XXX simply said, “You already know
what I want,” and then left. YYY and ZZZ proceeded to kill BBB and hurt AAA.
a. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of XXX, YYY, and ZZZ for the death of BBB?
YYY and ZZZ are liable for the death of BBB as principals by direct participation. They
were the ones who directly took part in the killing of the victim. XXX is not liable as a
principal by inducement because his statement that YYY and ZZZ were “to take care of
BBB” was not made directly with the intent of procuring the commission of the crime. The words he
uttered to YYY and ZZZ, “You already know what I want,” may not be considered as powerful and
threatening so as to amount to physical or moral coercion. Likewise, there is no showing that XXX
exercised moral ascendency or influence over YYY and ZZZ.
b.What, if any, are the respective liabilities of XXX, YYY, and ZZZ for the injuries suffered
by AAA?
YYY and ZZZ are liable as principals by direct participation for the crime of physical injuries for hurting
AAA. Their liability would depend on the extent of the physical injuries inflicted – either serious, less
serious, or slight physical injuries. XXX has no criminal liability because he did not participate in the
act of hurting AAA(Art. 17, RPC).
PENALTIES
47. Distinguish Recidivism, Reiteracion, Habitual Delinquency and Quasi-Recidivism.
Recidivism Reiteracion/ Quasi-Recidivism Habitual Delinquency

Art. 14(9) Habituality Art. 160 Art. 62
Art. 14(10)
Ordinary Aggravating Ordinary Aggravating Special Aggravating
Judgment of Sentence involving the Judgment of conviction Judgments of conviction
conviction involving first crime had involving the first crime involving the previous
the first crime is alreadybeen served is already finaland the crimes are already final,
already final at that outwhen the second second crime is or the accused was
time when the crime is committed committed before already released when
second crime is being beginning to serve he was convicted of the
tried such sentence, or while subsequent
serving the same crimesrespectively,within
10 years from last final
judgement or last
release
Offenses must be Previous and The character of the Previous conviction
included in the same subsequent offenses crime is not important ONLY of either of the
title of the RPC need not be embraced following: [FERTS]
in the same title of the Note: Even if the second Falsification, Estafa,
code crime is punishable Robbery Theft, Serious
under special law, if the or Less Serious Physical

Pre-week Notes

Recidivism Reiteracion/ Quasi-Recidivism Habitual Delinquency
Art. 14(9) Habituality Art. 160 Art. 62
Art. 14(10)
penalty is borrowed Injury
from RPC, quasi-
recidivism can still be
considered
At least 2 convictions At least 2 convictions. At least 2 convictions. It At least 3 convictions
It does not matter when does not matter when
the last sentence was the last one was
served. committed.
Divisible penalty shall Divisible penalty shall be Divisible penalty shall be Additional penalty,
be applied in its applied in its maximum applied in its maximum depending on the
maximum period or period or the lesser period or the lesser number of convictions
the lesser component component of reclusion component of reclusion as mentioned in Art.
of reclusion perpetau perpetua to death shall perpetua to death shall 62(5).
to death shall be be applied. This is be applied. This is NOT
applied. This is subject to the off-set subject to the off-set
subject to the off-set rule rule
rule
48. Differentiate Pardon by the President and Pardon by the Offended Party.
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY

(Article. 36) (Article. 23)
As to the crime covered
Executive pardon can extend to any crime Private pardon as bar from criminal prosecution
except election offense unless there is a applies only toacts of lasciviousness, seduction,
favorable recommendation from the Comelec abduction, adultery, and concubinage
and impeachable offense.
At to the effect on civil liability
Cannot affect the civil liability ex delicto of the The offended party can waive the civil liability
offender
As to extinguishment of criminal liability
Private pardon DOES NOT extinguish criminal
Executive pardon extinguishes criminal liability liability although it may constitute a bar to the
prosecution of the offender in seduction, abduction,
and acts of lasciviousness and in adultery and
concubinage.
When granted
Executive pardon can be extended only after Private pardon as a bar from criminal prosecution
conviction by final judgment of the accused can be validly granted only before the institution
of the criminal action
To whom granted
In seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness,
To any or all of the accused pardon as a bar for criminal prosecution or pardon by
marriage as a mode of criminal extintion benefits the
co–principals, accomplices and accessories.
In adultery and concubinage, pardon to the spouse

as a bar for criminal proecution will benefit her
paramour or concubine, and vice versa.
20|CLEAR
BarOps
As to whether it can be conditional
May be absolute or conditional It may be conditional if there is express waiver of
civil liability.
49. When will marriage of the offended party with the offender extinguish the criminal
liability?
In cases of seduction, abduction, rape, and acts of lasciviousness, the marriage of the offender with
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal liability or remit the penalty already imposed upon
him. The provision of this paragraph (last par., Art. 344, RPC) shall also be applicable to the co-
principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-named crimes (Page 100, Pointers in
Criminal Law by Justice Sandoval, 2016 Edition). The marriage must be entered into in good faith (People
vs. Santiago, 51 Phil. 68). If done in good faith, the marriage benefits the accessory or accomplice even
if he is already serving sentence. (Laceste vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 472).
50. In cases of marital rape, when will forgiveness by the offended party be sufficient to
extinguish criminal liability?
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 (Art. 266-C, RPC). Marriage is not a
mode of extinguishing criminal liability for marital rape because the parties are already married. (Page
362, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. 1 by Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
51. Is a person, who was convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the
President, and one year thereafter, convicted of homicide, a recidivist?
Yes. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted
by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. Rape is now a crime
against persons and, like the crime of homicide, is embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal
Code. The absolute pardon extinguishes his criminal liability for rape but not the rape itself. Since rape
is not extinguished by pardon, it shall be considered in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism in homicide.
52. A was convicted of and served sentence for theft in 1935; after his release he
committed homicide, was convicted in 1937, and was released in 1951; and in 1957 was
convicted of rape. Is A considered a habitual delinquent?
No, A is not a habitual delinquent even if he was convicted the third time. A person is a habitual
delinquent if within a period of ten years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the
crimes of (1) serious or less serious physical injuries, (2) robbery, (3) theft, (4) estafa, or (5)
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Homicide and rape are not
mentioned in the definition of habitual delinquency. Hence, A is not considered a habitual delinquent
(Art. 62, par. 5)
53. When can the accused, either as an adult or as a minor, apply for and/or be granted a
suspended sentence?
a. where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated (Art 79, RPC);

Pre-week Notes

b. where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed an application for probation which has
been granted (Baclayon v Mutia, 129 SCRA 148 [1984]);
c. where the crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of age and he is found guilty
thereof in accordance with R.A. 9344, otherwise known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006”, but the trial court subjects him to appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the
Supreme Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
Note: Suspension of sentence of child in conflict with the law is now covered by Section 38 of RA
No. 9344 (Padua vs. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008; People vs. Montalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July
20, 2011; Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla). Sec. 38 states that once the child who is under
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be
applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of
the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
54. What are the rules for the application of DIVISIBLE PENALTIES?
1. No aggravating and No mitigating: MEDIUM PERIOD

2. One mitigating: MINIMUM PERIOD
3. One aggravating: (but regardless of the number of aggravating circumstances, the courts
cannot exceed the penalty provided by law in its maximum period): MAXIMUM PERIOD
4. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances present:
- to offset each other according to relative weight
5. 2 or more mitigating and absolutely no aggravating:
- one degree lower (has the effect of a privileged mitigating circumstance) (Art. 64, RPC).
If there are 2 mitigating circumstances such as confession and surrender, these 2 mitigating
circumstances shall be considered in lowering the penalty prescribed by law by one degree. Since the
2 mitigating circumstances were already used in lowering the penalty by degree, and there is no
remaining mitigating circumstance that can be used to adjust the penalty in its minimum period,
hence,the reduced penalty shall be imposed in its medium period (Bacar vs. Guzman, A.M. No. RTJ-96-
1349, April 18, 1997; Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012; Pelonia vs. People, G.R. No.
168997, April 13, 2007; People vs. Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 04, 2004).
If there are 3 mitigating circumstances, the 2 mitigating circumstances shall be considered in lowering
the penalty prescribed by law by one degree and 1 mitigating circumstance shall be taken to apply the
reduced penalty in its minimum period (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107838, December 07, 1994;
People vs. Castuera, G.R. No. L-62607, December 15, 1982; Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
55. How would you get the three (3) periods (Minimum, Medium and Maximum) of a
penalty? Illustrate using Prision Mayor which has duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12
years.
i. Subtract the minimum (disregarding the 1 day) from the maximum12 years – 6 years = 6 years
ii. Divide the difference by 3.
22|CLEAR
BarOps
6 years / 3 = 2 years
iii. Use the minimum of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayoras minimum of the MINIMUM
PERIOD. Then add 2 years to the minimum (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of
the MINIMUM PERIOD.
Range of the MINIMUM PERIOD = 6 years and 1 day to 8 years
iv. Use the maximum of the minimum period as minimum of the MEDIUM PERIOD, and add 1
day to distinguish it from the maximum of the minimum period. Then add 2 years to the
minimum of the medium period (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of the MEDIUM
PERIOD
Range of the MEDIUM PERIOD = 8 years and 1 day to 10 years
v. Use the maximum of the medium period as minimum of the MAXIMUM PERIOD, and add 1
day to distinguish it from the maximum of the medium period. Then add 2 years to the
minimum of the maximum period (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of the
MAXIMUM PERIOD.
Range of the MAXIMUM PERIOD = 10 years and 1 day to 12 years (Art. 65, RPC).
56. What are the kinds of penalties and their corresponding periods? (full, minimum,
medium and maximum).
Penalties Full Min. Med. Max.

Reclusion Temporal 12 yrs. and 1 day 12 yrs. and 1 day 14 yrs., 8 mos., 1 17 yrs., 4 mos.
to 20 yrs. to 14 yrs. and 8 day to 17 yrs. and and 1 day to 20
mos. 4 mos. yrs.
Prision mayor, absolute 6 yrs. and 1 day 6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs. and 1 day
disqualification and to 12 yrs. 8 yrs. 10 yrs. to 12 yrs.
special temporary
disqualification
Prision correccional, 6 mos. and 1 day 6 mos. and 1 day 2 yrs., 4 mos. and 4 yrs., 2 mos. and
suspension and to 6 yrs. to 2 yrs. and 4 1 day to 4 yrs. and 1 day to 6 yrs.
destierro mos. 2 mos.
Arresto mayor 1 mo. and 1 day 1 and 1 day to 2 2 mos. and 1 day 4 mos. and 1 day
to 6 mos. mos. to 4 mos. to 6 mos.
Arresto menor From 1 to 30 1 to 10 days. 11 to 20 days. 21 to 30 days.

days.
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES
57. How can criminal liability be totally extinguished?
Criminal liability can be totally extinguished:

1. By death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
2. By service of the sentence;
Pre-week Notes

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman in acts of lasciviousness, abduction and seduction as
provided in Article 344 of this Code (Art.89, RPC).
8. By marriage of the offended party in rape and forgiveness of the husband by the wife in marital
rape (Article 266-C);
9. By discharge of a person under probation (PD No. 968 as amended by RA No. 10707).
58. How can criminal liability be partially extinguished?
Criminal liability can be partially extinguished:

1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence;
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive
imprisonment or serving his sentence (Art. 94, RPC).
59.How can civil liability be extinguished?
Civil liability is extinguished

1. By payment or performance;
2. By condonation or remission of the debt;
3. By confusion or merger of the rights of the creditor or debtor;
4. By compensation;
5. By novation;
6. Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a
resolutory condition, and prescription (Art. 112, RPC).
60. Suppose that the accused was found guilty of a criminal act and was ordered to pay
for civil liability. What is the effect of the death of the accused during the pendency of his
appeal?
The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as
civil liability ex delicto. (People v. Bayot, G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012). Under Art 89 of the RPC,
criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs
before final judgment.
Only civil liability predicated on another source of obligation other than the delict survives the death of
the accused, which the offended party can recover by means of a separate civil action (People vs
Bunay, G.R. No. 171268, September 14, 2010).
61. Will the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case necessarily lead to the
extinguishment of his civil liability?
NO. It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the
acquittal of the accused does not necessarily extinguish his civil liability. Our law recognizes two (2)
24|CLEAR
BarOps
kinds of acquittal. First, an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or
omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has not been
found to be the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or
omission. Second, an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case,
even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only (DR. LUMANTAS, M.D. vs. CALAPIZ, GR.
No. 163753, January 15, 2014).
62. ABC Bank charged accused XXX and YYY with the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par.
1(b) of the RPC, after uncovering the anomalous and fraudulent transactions perpetrated
by XXX and YYY in connivance with a bank client, XYZ. In their defense, accused denied
responsibility in the transactions, and claimed that they only intended to help the client
solicit and increase its deposit accounts and daily transactions; and that ABC Bank and
client XYZ entered into a "Debt Settlement Agreement", wherein the latter acknowledged
its indebtedness and undertook to pay the same.
The prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground that since the
execution of the Debt Settlement Agreement (DSA) was made even before the filing of
this case, the relations between the parties have changed and novation has set in. It thus
prevented any inception of criminal liability on the part of respondents. Is the contention
of the prosecutor tenable?
NO. Novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the RPC for the extinguishment of criminal
liability. Reimbursement or belated payment to the offended party of the money swindled by the
accused does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. At most, the reimbursement of or
compromise as to the amount misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, affects only the
civil liability of the offender, and not his criminal liability.
Criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise or novation of contract for it is a public
offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion even though
complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended party. Since a
criminal offense like estafa is committed against the State, the private offended party may not waive
or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the crime (MBTC vs.
Reynaldo, G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
63. Discuss Prescription of Crime and Prescription of Penalty.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY

As to Nature Forfeiture or the loss of the right of Forfeiture or the loss of the right of the
the State to prosecute the offender government to punish the offender
after the lapse of a certaim time after the lapse of a certain time fixed
fixed by law by law
As to Commencement From the date of discovery by the From the date of evasion of service of
Period offended party, authorities, and sentence by the accused
their agents
As to Interruption Interrupted by the filing of the Interrupted if the defendant should
Complaint or Information; and shall give himself up, be captured, should go
commence to run again when such to some foreign country with which this
proceedings are terminated without government has no extradition treaty,
Pre-week Notes

the accused being convicted or or should commit another crime before
acquitted, or are unjustifiably the expiration of the period of
stopped for any reason not prescription (Page 359, Criminal Law
imputable to him(Art. 91, RPC). Reviewer Vol. 1 by Judge Marlo
Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
As to Penalty Prescribed penalty under the law Penalty actually imposed by final
Contemplated judgment
64. Give some prescriptions of crimes under the Revised Penal Code.
a. 20 years – crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal;

b. 15 years – crimes punishable by other afflictive penalty (such as prision mayor);
c. 10 years – crimes punishable by correctional penalty (such as prision correccional) except
arresto mayor;
d. 5 years – crimes punishable by arresto mayor;
e. 1 year – crimes of libel or other similar offenses;
f. 6 months – serious oral defamation and slander by deed offenses;
g. 2 months – light offenses (including simple oral defamation);
h. Crimes punishable by fines
i. 15 years – if it is afflictive
ii. 10 years – if it is correctional
iii. 2 years – if it is light
65. Give some prescription of violations penalized by Special Laws.
a. After one (1) year – offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than
one (1) month, or both;
b. After four (4) years – offenses punished by imprisonment for more than one (1), but not less
than two (2) years
c. After eight (8) years – offenses punished by imprisonment for two (2) years or more, but less
than six (6) years
d. After twelve (12) years – for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six (6) years or
more
e. After five (5) years – all offenses against any law or part of law administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue
f. After two (2) months – violations penalized by municipal ordinances (Section 1, Act No. 3326)
66. Are there situations that do not follow the rules for running of prescription of
offenses under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code?
Yes:
a. In cases of continuing crimes;
b. In crimes of giving of false testimony when given against the accused, such period runs from
the date of finality of judgment in that main case. Prior to the finality of the judgment, false
testimony is not yet actionable since the penalty for this crime depends on the penalty imposed
in case where the accused falsely testified.
Note: In false testimony in a civil case, or administrative case; or in criminal case where it was
given in favor of the accused, the period runs from the date when the false testimony is given in
26|CLEAR
BarOps
court. The penalty for this crime will not depend on the result of the case. Hence, the crime is
already actionable when the testimony is made. Prescription will commence to run from the
date when the false testimony was made.
c. In case of falsification involving a document registered in the Registry of Deeds, since the period
of prescription will commence to run from the date of registration and not from the date of
discovery because of the constructive notice rule (Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
67. A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He immediately went into hiding in
the mountains. Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were discovered by X, the
gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the
matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but returned three years
later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with parricide
but raised the defense of prescription
a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription of a crime
commence to run?
The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered
by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents(Art. 91, RPC).
b. When is it interrupted?
The period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and
shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him .(Art. 91,
RPC)
c. Is A’s defense tenable? Explain.
No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not tenable. The crime committed is parricide which
prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC).
Since the parricide was filed after 6 years from the time of his return after hiding for 15 years in
the Philippines and for 3 years outside the Philippines, the period of time that lapses between the
commission of crime and filing of parricide is 24 years. However, since the period of prescription
had commenced to run only when the matter was reported to the police after 5 years and the
same was suspended while A was out of the country for 3 years,the period of 5 years and the
period of 3 years shall be deducted from 24 years. In sum, the prescriptive period merely ran for
16 years. Hence, the 20 years prescriptive period has not yet set in (Supplied by Judge Marlo
Campanilla).
68. AAA and BBB were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, AAA left BBB and
settled in Mindanao where he later met and married CCC on 12 June 1960. The second
marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration.
On 10 October 1975,BBB who remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of AAA to
CCC. On 1 March 1976,BBB filed a complaint for bigamy against AAA.The crime of bigamy
Pre-week Notes

prescribes in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents. AAA raised the defense of prescription of the crime,
more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up
to the filing of BBB's complaint. He contended that the registration of his second marriage
in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the
celebration thereof thus binding upon BBB. Has the crime of bigamy charged against AAA
already prescribed? Discuss fully.(1995)
NO. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice
which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as
marriage is not property. Thus, when BBB filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well
within the reglementary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10
October 1975 (Sermonia v. CA, G.R. No. 109454, June 14,1994).
69. AAA and BBB are married. AAA and CCC knew each other for 4 years. Subsequently,
AAA and CCC got married despite having knowledge that they did not have a required
marriage license. They misrepresented themselves to have been living together for at
least 5 years. BBB filed a case of bigamy against AAA and CCC. CCC argued that she
cannot be held liable because she married AAA under the belief that AAA was single.
Further, no valid marriage existed due to lack of marriage license. Can CCC he held liable
as an accomplice for the crime of bigamy?
YES, CCC can be held liable as an accomplice. For the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the second
or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity. The cause of action of CCC
is that her marriage with AAA was void for having been secured without a marriage license. In
violation of our law against illegal marriages, CCC married AAA while knowing fully well that they had
not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code.
Consequently, it will be the height of absurdity for the court to allow CCC to use her illegal act to
escape criminal conviction. (Santiago v People, GR No. 200233 July 15, 2015).
BOOK TWO
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY; PIRACY
70. AAA, BBB, and CCC were on board their pump boat along the river of their barangay.
As they were on their way, a smaller boat suddenly blocked their path. For fear of
collision, AAA stopped the boat, and immediately, 3 armed men boarded the boat and
took the following items from the passengers: 13 sacks of dried coconuts, 2 pieces
automatic watch, Nokia 3350 cellphone; 1 unit Briggs and Stratton 16 horse power with
propeller, and cash money worth ₱1,000.00. Julieta recognized the one of the armed men
and filed for Piracy against the accused. Was the crime of Piracy committed?
YES. Piracy was committed. It may be committed in two ways: 1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on
the high seas or in the Philippine waters (P.D. 532); and, 2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo
of said vehicles, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. The offenders
not being members or passengers of the vessel, who seized a vessel or seized the whole or in part the
cargo of the said vessel, its equipments or personal belongings of its complement or passengers, and
28|CLEAR
BarOps
such vessel on the high seas or Philippine waters during such seizure, constitute a crime of piracy.
“Philippine waters”, within which piracy under PD No. 532 must be committed, includes river. (People
vs. Dela Peňa, G.R. 219581, January 31, 2018, DEL CASTILLO)
NOTE: If while piracy was taking place, the pirates stabbed a member or the criew while sleeping,
the crime committed is qualified piracy. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not
material. The law considers qualified piracy as a special complex crime regardless of the number of
victims (People vs. Siyoh, G.R. 57292, February 18, 1986; (Page 11, Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B.
Campanilla, 2018, ed.).
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
71. Distinguish Treason from Sedition.
TREASON SEDITION
Levy war against the Philippines or adheres to its Public and tumultuous uprising
enemies, giving them aid or comfort
Intent to betray the government Intent to cause disturbance in one’s country
Committed by Filipino ciitizen or resident alien Committed by any person
War crime Not a war crime
Extraterritoriality principle Territoriality principle
72. Distinguish Treason from Rebellion, Coup d’etat, and Sedition.
TREASON (114) REBELLION (134) COUP D’ETAT SEDITION (139)

(134-A)
Nature of National Security Public Order Public Order Public Order
Crime
Overt acts Levying war against Public uprising; AND Swift attack Rising publicly and
the government; OR Taking up arms against tumultuously (more than 3
giving aid or comfort to against the authorities, men who are armed or
enemies. government. military camp, provided with means of
networks or violence)
public utilities or
other facilities for
power.
Criminal Intent to betray the Intent to removing Intent to seize Intent to prevent the
intent government or intent territory or parts ordiminish State promulgation or execution
to adhere to the thereof from the power. of any law or
enemy allegiance to the administrative order, or
goverment and its the holding of any
laws or to popular election, or the
depriveexecutive or government or public
legislative power officer thereof from freely
exercising its or his
functions; to inflict any
act of hate or revenge
upon the person or
property of any public
officer or against private

Pre-week Notes

TREASON (114) REBELLION (134) COUP D’ETAT SEDITION (139)
(134-A)
persons or any social
class for any political or
social end; or to despoil,
for any political or social
end, person or
government of all its
property or any part
thereof.
73. Distinguish Rebellion from Treason.
REBELLION TREASON
As to criminal intent
1. To remove from the allegiance to said
Government or the laws the territory of the Intent to betray the government or to adhere to its
Philippines or body of land, naval or other armed enemy
forces;
2. To deprive the Executive or Congress of any of
their powers
As to the criminal act
1. Public uprising; and 1. By levying war against the Government; and
2. By taking arms against the Government 2. By giving aid and comfort to the enemy of
Philippines
As to time of commission
May be committed during both times of peace and war Committed during time of war
As to proof needed for conviction

Two witnesses or confession rule is not applicable 1. Testimony of two (2) witnesses, at least to the
same overt act, or
2. Confession of accused in open court
74. Distinguish direct assault, indirect assault and resistance or disobedience to a person
in authority.
RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO A
DIRECT ASSAULT (148) INDIRECT ASSAULT (149) PERSON IN AUTHORITY (PIA) OR
AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON (151)
PIA or his agent (APIA) must be APIA aided by the victim must be PIA or his agent must be in the
engaged in the performance of engaged in the performance of actual performance of his duties
official duties or that he is official duties and that he is
assaulted by reason thereof assaulted by reason thereof
Direct assault is committed in 4 Committed by using force or Committed by resisting or
ways: by attacking, employing intimidation against a person who disobeying a PIA or his agent.
force, seriously intimidating, and comes to the aid of APIA
seriously resisting a PIA or agent.
30|CLEAR
BarOps
RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO A
DIRECT ASSAULT (148) INDIRECT ASSAULT (149) PERSON IN AUTHORITY (PIA) OR
AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON (151)
Use of force against an agent of Use of force must be committed to In simple resistance, the resistance
PIA must be serious and deliberate a person aiding APIA who is a must not be serious without
with intent to defy the law and its victim of direct assault. manifest intention to defy the law
representative at all hazards. and officers enforcing it.
Simple laying of hands upon a In disobedience, the degree of

person in authority is direct assault. disobedience may be serious or
not.
75. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority?
The following are persons in authority:

1. Any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some
court or governmental corporation, board, or commission;
2. In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and
universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion
on such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority (Article 152 of RPC).
The following are agents of persons in authority:

1. Any person who by law, election, or appointment (LEA) is charged with the maintenance of public
order and protection and security of life and property (Section 388, LGC)
2. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
Note: Attacking a person who ceased to be a judge when he was attacked is not Direct Assault, as
he is not a person in authority anymore. However, if the attack was by reason of his past
performance as a lawyer, then there is Direct Assault. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by
virtue of B.P. 873, which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or
on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.
76. AAA and BBB were both public school teachers in the Tabing Ilog Elementary School.
AAA’s son, XXX, was a student of BBB. While BBB was busily checking the test papers of
her students and watching over her class at recess time, AAA confronted BBB after
learning from XXX that BBB called XXX a “bipolar” while in class. AAA slapped BBB in the
cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall and hit the wall divider. As the result of
AAA’s violent assault, BBB suffered a contusion in her cheek. She continued to experience
abdominal pains and started bleeding two days after the incident. After about six weeks,
she was admitted to the hospital and was diagnosed, to her surprise, to have suffered
from incomplete abortion. What crime or crimes, if any, did AAA commit? Is she liable for
the abortion suffered by BBB?
AAA is liable for direct assault. On the day of the commission of the assault, BBB was busy with the
paper works and supervising the pupils during recess time. BBB being a public school teacher, is a
person in authority. However, BBB cannot be held liable for the crime of unintentional abortion. It has

Pre-week Notes

to be proven that the slapping and pushing of AAA was the proximate cause of the abortion. Here, the
interval of time is too lengthy, that is six weeks, to prove that the discharge of the fetus from BBB’s
womb was a direct outcome of the assault. (Gelig v People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010, DEL
CASTILLO).
77. XXX, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X
Province. YYY, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited XXX. AAA, the guard in
charge who had been receiving gifts from YYY everytime he visited XXX, became friendly
with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In
one of YYY's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which XXX used to disarm the
guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling XXX to escape. What
crime(s) did XXX, YYY, and AAA commit? Explain (BAR 2015).
XXX committed the crime of direct assault under Article 148 for disarming the guards with the use of
pistol while they are engaged in the performance of their duties. Using a pistol to disarm the guards
constitutes a serious intimidation with manifest criminal intention to defy the law and its
representative at all hazard.
Note: Using loose firearm in committing a crime is not a separate crime but a special or qualifying
aggravating circumstance under Section 29 of RA No. 10591 (Supplied by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla).
AAA committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or evasion through negligence under Article 224.
As the guard in charge, AAA was negligent in relaxing the inspection of the YYY’s belongings during
jail visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to XXX, which he subsequently used to escape. By accepting
gifts from YYY, who was part of the syndicate to which XXX belonged, he is also guilty of indirect
bribery under Article 211.
YYY committed delivery of prisoner from jail under Article 156, qualified by his bribery of AAA. Helping
a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime. “Helping” means furnishing the prisoner with
the material means or tools which greatly facilitate his escape; hence, providing a pistol which helped
XXX to escape is delivery of prisoner from jail.
78. XXX was on his way home when he was signalled to stop by police officers. They
asked XXX to open the vehicle’s door and alight for a body and vehicle search, a directive
which he refused to heed. Instead, he opened the vehicle window, uttering, "plain view
lang boss, plain view lang." Obviously irked by this remark, one of the policemen told XXX
that he was drunk, pointing to three cases of empty beer bottles in the trunk of the
vehicle. The officers then pulled XXX out of the driver’s seat and pushed him into the
police mobile car. May XXX be held guilty of the crime of resistance and disobedience to a
person in authority under Art. 151 of RPC?
No. What triggered the confrontational stand-off between the police team, on one hand, and XXX on
the other, was the latter’s refusal to get off of the vehicle for a body and vehicle search juxtaposed by
his insistence on a plain view search only. XXX’s twin gestures cannot plausibly be considered as
resisting a lawful order. To determine whether an act is resistance and serious disobedience punished
under Art. 151 of the RPC, the following elements must exist: (1) That a person in authority or his
agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and, (2)
That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent. XXX’s act of exercising his
right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the night cannot be equated to
32|CLEAR
BarOps
disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in contemplation of the law (People v. Sydeco, G.R. No.
202692, November 12, 2014).
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
79. In falsification of public documents, is it necessary that there be the idea of gain or
intent to injure a third person?
No. In falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of
gain or intent to injure a third person. This is so 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. Hence, a public officer may commit such crime just by leaving several items on his SALN
as blank or “N/A” (Galeos vs. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011).
80. In an action for involuntary dissolution with the SEC, XXX testified that there was “no
Board meeting held” and that the “Deed of Exchange was fictitious”. However, the
prosecution was able to prove that in the minutes of the meeting, XXX’s signature was
included therein. Hence, a complaint for perjury was filed against XXX.
XXX contended that his signature was on the minutes because it was brought to his house
and he was made to sign, believing that said transaction would be beneficial to his son. In
addition, he presented evidence that the transaction was void as his son was not a
stockholder as evidenced by the lack of any record of transfer of stock to his name. May
XXX be held liable for perjury?
NO. Under Article 183 of the RPC, the elements of perjury are (1) there must be a sworn statement
that is required by law; (2) it must be made under oath before a competent officer; (3) the statement
contains a deliberate assertion of falsehood; and (4) the false declaration is with regard to a
material matter.
A conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the inconsistent or
contradictory statements of the accused, even if both statements are sworn. The deliberate falsehood
must be proven by evidence other than the contradictory statements. Proof of contradictory
testimonies under oath will not be sufficient to establish the falsity of his testimony charged as perjury
as the two statements will simply neutralize each other. There must be some corroboration of the
contradictory testimony. (Masangkay vs People, G.R. 164443, June 18, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
81. Compare direct bribery from indirect bribery.
DIRECT BRIBERY INDIRECT BRIBERY

The act desired by the briber to be done by the public Gifts are offered and received by reason of the office.
officer is in connection with the performance of the
latter’s official duties.
Mere promise or offer of a gift or present is sufficient It is necessary that the public officer actually receives
the gifts offered to him by reason of his office.

Pre-week Notes

There is an agreement between the officer and the No agreement exists.
giver.
The offender agrees to perform or performs an act or Offenderaccepts gifts offered to him by reason of his
refrains from doing something, because of the gift or office.
promise.
82. When is bribery qualified?
According to Art. 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, bribery is qualified when the public officer is
entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present.
83. Distinguish malversation from technical malversation.
MALVERSATION (ART. 217) TECHNICAL MALVERSATION (ART. 220)

Funds or property are usually public Funds or property are always public
Offender is usually a public officer who is accountable Offender is always a public officer, and the public
for the public funds or property funds or property is under his administration
Crime is committed by appropriating, taking or Crime is committed by applying public funds or
misappropriating or consenting or through property, appropriated by a law or ordinance for
abandonment or negligence, permitting any other specific use, to a public use other than for which such
person to take the public funds or property fund or property has been appropriated
Malum in se Malum prohibitum
84. Sangguniang Bayan passed Municipal Ordinance No. 357, prohibiting certain
pyrotechnics products, except for those installed within the premises of the public
market. Subsequently, Mayor XXX approved a permit allowing vendors to sell firecrackers
at the site. However, a fire befell the public market which caused extensive damage and
destroyed fire hydrants of the town’s Water District. Subsequently, a private citizen filed
a complaint against Mayor XXX before the Office of the Ombudsman, questionning the
approval and issuance of a mayor's permit agreeing to sell firecrackers, in violation of
Municipal Ordinance No. 357. Ombudsman found probable cause existed to charge Mayor
AAA with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. May Mayor XXX be held liable for the
crime charged?
YES. In every prosecution for the violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the State must prove the
following essential elements, namely: 1. The accused is a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions; 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence in the discharge of his functions; 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.
Here, the elements of the crime punishable under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 existed.
Mayor XXX was a public officer when the alleged acts were committed. There was "unwarranted
benefit and advantage given to the firecracker vendors." The issuance of the mayor's permit was
"tainted with bad faith" or gross inexcusable negligence, despite fully knowing the existence of a
34|CLEAR
BarOps
municipal ordinance expressly prohibiting the storing, displaying, selling, and blowing-up of
firecrackers at the public market. (Reyes vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 208243, June 5, 2017)
85. MAJOR XXX was assigned to supervise the disbursement of funds for the PSG
personnel and to perform other finance duties. He placed the money in a duffel bag and
kept it inside the steel cabinet in his office. One day, he inspected the steel cabinet and
discovered that the duffel bag which contained the money was missing. He was found
liable by the RTC for malversation. MAJOR XXX contends that he could not be liable for
malversation for mere failure to produce the funds does not necessarily mean that he
misappropriated the same. Is he liable for malversation of public funds?
Yes, the presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that the failure of
a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable,
upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing
fund or property to personal use. The presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if petitioner
is able to present adequate evidence that can nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or property
to personal use, then that presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively
negated. In this case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima facie evidence of guilt (Cantos
vs People; GR No. 184908, July 3, 2013).
86. When may a public officer be held guilty of Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
under Art. 266 of the RPC?
When during or after office hours, if the removal by a public officer of any official document from its
usual place of safe-keeping is for an illicit purpose, such as to tamper with or to otherwise profit by it,
or to do in connection therewith an act which would constitute a breach of trust in his official care
thereof, the crime of infidelity in the custody of public documents is committed.
On the other hand, where the act of removal is actuated with lawful or commendable motives, as
when the public officer removes the public documents committed to his trust for examination in
connection with official duty, or with a view to securing them from imminent danger of loss, there
would be no crime committed under the law. This is so, because the act of removal, destruction or
concealment of public documents is punished by law only when any of such acts would constitute
infidelity in the custody thereof (Kataniag vs. People, G.R. 48398, November 28, 1942).
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
87. AAA decided to buy cigarettes from a nearby videoke bar. Inside the bar, three men,
XXX, YYY, and ZZZ, who belonged to a group then singing and drinking, suddenly stabbed
him on different parts of his body. They only stopped when bystanders started throwing
stones at them. Barangay tanods immediately responded and apprehended the three
while inside the videoke bar. Meanwhile, AAA was rushed to the hospital where he, as per
the doctor, would have died were it not for the timely medical assistance. What crime did
XXX, YYY, and ZZZ commit?
XXX, YYY, and ZZZ should be charged with Frustrated Homicide. The elements of frustrated homicide
are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his
assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical
Pre-week Notes

assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code exist.
Here, the elements were complied with: 1) AAA sustained seven stab wounds on vital parts of his
body caused by a pointed sharp object; 2) The nature, location and number of wounds sustained by
him were fatal and demonstrated the accused’s intent to kill; and 3) AAA would have succumbed to
death due to the said injuries if not for the timely medical attention (Olarte v. People, G.R.No. 197731,
July 6, 2015, DEL CASTILLO).
88. Discuss abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance.
The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime
(Espineli vs People, G.R. No.179535 June 9, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
89. AAA was smoking a cigarette and talking to another person when they saw XXX
running towards him, closely followed by YYY. Before AAA was able to utter a word, XXX
swiftly stabbed AAA at the lower right side of his torso with a “plamingko”, while YYY
stood nearby. After stabbing, XXX and YYY fled. AAA died in the hospital as a result.
What felony was committed?
Murder. Treachery attended the killing of the victim. There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specifically to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. To establish treachery, two elements must
concur: (a) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and, (b)
that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed. Treachery qualifies
the killing to murder.
Here, there was treachery in that the attack on AAA was sudden and deliberate. The attack was
unexpected and without the slightest provocation on the part of the unarmed AAA, considering that
he was casually talking to someone else, with no inkling that the attack was forthcoming. The attack
was executed in a manner that AAA was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. The severity of
the lone stab wound forestalled any possibility of resisting the attack (People vs. Campos, G.R. No.
176061, July 4, 2011, DEL CASTILLO).
90. AAA and BBB, minors and legitimate sons of XXX, left their residence without the
permission of their parents, and failed to return that night. When the two returned home,
they were confronted by their furious father, XXX, who bound their hands and feet to a
tree, and started beating them with a thick piece of wood. When the beating finally
stopped, the three walked back to the house. Thereafter, AAA collapsed and died. A day
after, XXX voluntarily surrendered and admitted beating his sons as a disciplinary
measure, but denied battering BBB to death, as he did not die during his whipping.
a. What crime or crimes, if any, did XXX committed?
36|CLEAR
BarOps
XXX committed the crime of parricide. Under Article 246, Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is
killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused.Here, AAA died after he and his brother were beaten by their furious
father XXX.
b. Is it proper for XXX to invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong?
No. Only the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated. The presentation by
XXX of himself to the police officer on duty in a spontaneous manner is a manifestation of his intent
to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and
capture which is the essence of voluntary surrender.
The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated
cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce
and did actually produce the death of the victim.XXX adopted means to ensure the success of the
savage battering of his sons. He tied their wrists to a coconut tree to prevent their escape while they
were battered with a stick to inflict as much pain as possible. XXX suffered injuries in his face, head
and legs that immediately caused his death (People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218. October 3, 2011, DEL
CASTILLO)
91. XXX, a pregnant woman, tried to commit suicide by poison, but she did not die and
the fetus in her womb was expelled instead. What is the criminal liability, if any?
NONE. XXX cannot be held liable for abortion because intent to abort, which is an essential element
of this crime, is lacking. Neither can she be held liable for unintentional abortion, because the element
of violence is wanting.
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from what which he intended (Article 4, RPC). Attempt to commit suicide,
although an intentional act, is not constitutive of a felony. Hence, the woman, who tried to
commit suicide, is not liable or the direct, natural and logical consequence of her non-felonious act.
92. Distinguish Rape from Seduction, Acts of Lasciviousness, and Abduction.
ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
RAPE SEDUCTION and CONSENTED ABDUCTION
(Art. 266-A) (Art. 338) ACTS OF (Art. 342, 343)
LASCIVIOUSNESS
(Art. 336)
1. By using force or Qualified Acts of Forcible
intimidation, or Seduction: lasciviousness: abduction:
1. abuse of 1. By using force or Female was
Circumstances 2. When the woman authority; intimidation, or abducted against
Present is deprived of 2. abuse of her will, with lewd
reason or otherwise confidence; or 2. When the woman is designs.
unconscious, or 3. relationship deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, If the female

Pre-week Notes

3. By means of Simple Seduction: or abducted is under
fraudulent by means of deceit 12 years of age,
machination or 3. When the woman is the crime is
grave abuse of under 12 years of age forcible abduction
authority, or (with the same
Consented acts of penalty), even if
4. When the woman lasciviousness: she voluntarily
is under 12 years of 1. Abuse of authority goes with her
age or demented, 2. Abuse of confidence abductor.
even in the absence 3. Relationship
of numbers 1-3 4. By means of deceit Consented
above. Abduction:
Female was
abducted with her
consent but only
after solicitation
or cajolery from
the offender
Qualified Acts of Forcible
Seduction with the lasciviousness: age, abduction:
Age except in circumstance of except in statutory
statutory rape and relationship: Age rape, and reputation of If it is
reputation of the and reputation of the the victim is not committed
victim is not victim is not material material against the will,
material age and
Qualified Consented acts of reputation is not
circumstance with lasciviousness: same material.
the circumstance as Seduction If committed
of abuse of with consent,
confidence or the age of the
authority: victim must under
12 years of age
1. The victim must
Are Age and
be a virgin, or must Consented
Reputation
have a good Abduction:
Material?
reputation Reputation of the
victim is material.
2. The age of the Her age must be
victim must be 12 12 years or above
years of age or but under 18
above but under 18 years of age
years of age
Simple Seduction:
Reputation of the
victim is material.
Her age must be 12
years or above but
under 18 years of
age
93. Differentiate acts of lasciviousness from attempted rape.
38|CLEAR
BarOps
The fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the offender’s intent
to lie (or have sexual intercourse) with the female. In rape, intent to lie with the female is
indispensable, but this element is not required in acts of lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed,
therefore, when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. The
intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts
of lasciviousness is committed (Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014).
94. If the victim voluntarily accepted the invitation to enter accused’s room; that she did
not make any outcry or sought the help of the neighbors despite the lack of danger to her
life; that she was conscious during the intercourse; that she only used her hands but not
her feet in warding off accused’s advances; and that the medical report did not indicate
that she suffered any physical injury, may the accused still be convicted of rape?
Yes. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.
Besides, the victim’s failure to cry for help during the incident did not make her testimony improbable
inasmuch as it is not uncommon for a woman to be easily intimidated into silence and conceal for
sometime the violation of her honor, even by the mildest threat to her life. Physical resistance is
immaterial in a rape case when the victim is sufficiently intimidated by her assailant and she submits
against her will because of fear of her personal safety (People v. Madeo; G.R. No. 176070, October 2, 2009,
DEL CASTILLO)
95. The victim attended a pre-wedding dance. When she felt the need to urinate, she left
the dance hall and went up to a hill about 50-100 meters away. Suddenly, two persons
came out of nowhere and forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. The accused used a knife
to bring his victim into submission. Although the victim felt pain, she did not shout for
fear that the accused would kill her.
a. Should physical resistance be established in rape cases?
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and
the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear. When the sharp point of a
knife is staring down the eyes of the victim, struggle is futile and the only option left in the mind of a
frightened lady is to submit rather than lose her life. That the victim allowed the entry of her
aggressor’s penis rather than his knife does not detract from the fact that rape was committed by
means of force and intimidation and certainly against her will.
b. Can rape be committed only in secluded places?
No. It is well-settled that lust respects neither time nor place. There is no rule that rape can be
committed only in seclusion. What the evidence reveals is that despite the proximity to neighboring
houses, the accused, by means of force or intimidation, did in fact have sexual intercourse with the
victim against her will. Thus, it is immaterial that an inhabited house was near the place where the
crime was committed. This fact will neither render the victim any less credible nor make the
commission of the crime less conceivable.
c. If the accused alleges that he and the victim are sweethearts or lovers, will it be
sufficient to exonerate the accused from the crime charged?

Pre-week Notes

No. The 'sweetheart theory' hardly deserves any attention when an accused does not present any
evidence, such as love letters, gifts, pictures, and the like to show that, indeed, he and the victim
were sweethearts. His bare testimony that he and the victim are lovers is insufficient for the defense
of “sweetheart theory” to prosper. Moreover, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, mere
assertion of a romantic relationship would not necessarily exclude the use of force or intimidation in
sexual intercourse. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have the unbridled license
to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will. (People v Banig, GR No. 177137, August 23,
2012, DEL CASTILLO; People v. Dumpa, G.R. No. 207633, December 9, 2015, DEL CASTILLO).
96. Does lack of physical injuries or hymenal lacerations negate the commission of rape?
No. Lack of any form of injury or fresh hymenal lacerations does not negate the commission of rape.
Settled is the doctrine that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the
commission of rape. Physical injuries or hymenal lacerations are not essential elements of rape (People
v. Venturina; G.R. No. 183097, September 12, 2012, DEL CASTILLO)
97. AAA, a 7-year-old minor, went into her room to get some rest. Her father, XXX,
followed her. Once inside the room, XXX positioned himself on top of AAA, took off her
clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. “AAA” felt intense pain from her breast
down to her vagina and thus told her father it was painful. At that point, AAA apologized
to his daughter, stood up and left the room. The whole incident was witnessed by BBB,
AAA’s older brother. During trial, AAA testified that she was unsure whether it was indeed
XXX’s penis which touched her labia and entered her organ, since she was pinned down
by the latter’s weight; and that AAA only knew that it was the organ of her father which
was inserted into her vagina after being told by BBB.BBB failed to testify during trial. The
lower courts held XXX guilty of rape by sexual intercourse. Was the judgement proper?
No. Instead, AAA is guilty of the crime of rape through sexual assault. Rape can now be committed
either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault. In rape through sexual intercourse, carnal
knowledge is the central element and it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 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 otherhand, in rape by sexual
assault, the perpetrator, under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, inserts
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." In
determining whether appellant is indeed guilty of rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1
of Art. 266-A, it is essential to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had carnal knowledge of
“AAA.” There must be proof that his penis touched the labia of “AAA“ or slid into her female organ,
and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual
intercourse.
Here, AAA was unsure whether it was indeed appellant’s penis which touched her labia and entered
her organ since she was pinned down by the latter’s weight. “AAA“ stated that she only knew that it
was the “bird“ of her father which was inserted into her vagina after being told by her brother “BBB.“
Clearly, “AAA“ had no personal knowledge that it was XXX’s penis which touched her labia and
inserted into her vagina. Hence, it would be erroneous to conclude that there was penile contact
based solely on the declaration of “BBB“, which declaration was hearsay due to “BBB‘s“ failure to
testify. Based on the foregoing, it was an error to conclude that XXX raped “AAA“ through sexual
40|CLEAR
BarOps
intercourse. Instead, XXX should be held guilty of rape by sexual assault (People v. Soria; G.R. No.
179031, November 14, 2012, DEL CASTILLO).
98. What is the crime committed when the accused inserts a lighted cigarette stick into a
6-year-old victim’s genital and anal orifice?
The crime is rape by sexual assault. Under the Revised Penal Code, rape by sexual assault is
committed by any person who, a) through force, threat or intimidation; b) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c) by means of fraudulent machinations or grave
abuse of authority; or d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above should be present; e) shall insert his penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice
of another person(People vs. Cristostomo, G.R. No. 196435, January 29, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
99. AAA (24 years old) was having a drinking session with XXX (14 years old) and YYY (18
years old) in the house of the latter. AAA felt dizzy so she took a nap. At around 11PM,
she was roused from her sleep by XXX who was mounting her and inserting his penis into
her vagina. She felt the pain but could only cry in silence for fear that the knife lying on
top of the table will be used to stab her in case she resisted. XXX left after raping her and
while she was still dizzy and shivering, YYY approached her and asked if he could have
sex with her, but she did not reply. YYY proceeded in having intercourse with AAA but
stopped only when she tried to reposition her body. AAA then left and immediately
returned to her house with her live-in partner. When arraigned, YYY pleaded not guilty.
XXX was involved in the commission of the crime but could not be prosecuted due to his
minority. Should YYY be held guilty of the crime of rape, notwithstanding the lack of force
in the commission of the crime, and the age difference between AAA and YYY?
No. The elements of rape by sexual intercourse under par. 1, Art. 266-A of the RPC are: (1) the
offender is a man; (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; (3) such act was
accomplished by using force, threat or intimidation. In rape cases alleged to have been committed by
force, threat or intimidation, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the element of
voluntariness on the part of the victim be absolutely lacking. The prosecution must prove that force
or intimidation was actually employed by accused upon his victim to achieve his end. Failure to do
so is fatal to its cause. Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes
which the accused had in mind. On the other hand, intimidation must produce fear that if the victim
does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment
or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation
includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol.
In this case, YYY was an 18-year old man who had sexual intercourse with "AAA," a woman who was
24 years old during the incident. However, YYY did not use force, threat or intimidation during his
sexual congress with "AAA." Resistance should be made before the rape is consummated. The age
gap between the victim and the appellant negates force, threat, or intimidation. (People v. Tionloc; G.R.
No. 212193, February 15, 2017, DEL CASTILLO)
100. Rustom, a Filipino male went to America to undergo sex reassignment. After the
operation became successful, Rustom return to Philippines and changed her name to
“Bebe Gandang Reyna” who now has all the biological anatomy of a female. One evening,
while walking in the streets of Tondo, Robin saw “Bebe Gandang Reyna” and raped her by

Pre-week Notes

inserting his penis forcibly into the “operated vagina” of “Bebe Gandang Reyna”. What
crime/s, if any, did Robin commit?
Robin committed the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. Having sexual intercourse through force with a
gay, who underwent gender reassignment, is not rape through sexual intercourse since the victim is
not a woman. Female gender of the victim is an element of this crime. Neither instrument or object
rape is committed since the offender used his penis, and not an instrument or object, in committing
the crime, and the opening made through surgery to resemble the appearance of a vagina is not
within the contemplation of the words ‘genital or anal orifice’; nor rape through oral intercourse or
sodomy is committed because such surgical orifice is not a mouth or anal orifice. Hence, the crime
committed is acts of lasciviousness. (Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
101. In one instance, XXX, with force and intimidation, committed acts of lewdness upon
AAA, her 8-year-old stepdaughter, by caressing her breast and her vagina, smelling her
private parts, and inserting his finger inside her vagina. In another instance, XXX
successfully had carnal knowledge of AAA, still a minor, which eventually caused the
pregnancy of AAA. What crime/s did XXX commit?
Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness.
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rape is qualified when the victim is below 18
years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
The elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 are: “1. That the offender commits any acts
of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances: a) By using
force or intimidation; 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.” To obtain conviction for the same, the prosecution is also bound to establish
the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610, to wit: “1. The accused commits
the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18
years of age.”
Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 2(H) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
7610 as "a crime committed through the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks with the intention to abuse, humiliate,
harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, among others." In this case, it is
undisputed that XXX committed lascivious conduct when he smelled "AAA’s" genital area and inserted
his finger inside her vagina to gratify or arouse his sexual desire. At the time the crime took place,
"AAA" was barely eight years. Without a doubt, all the afore-stated elements are obtaining in this
case (People v. Lomaque; G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013, DEL CASTILLO)
102. Marvin and Jolina were legally married. One night, when Marvin came home early
from work, she saw her wife Jolina having an oral sex (cunnilingus, where Betty was
inserting her tongue into Jolina’s genital) with another woman named Betty. Marvin was
shocked and killed them both on the spot. Marvin is being prosecuted for the crime of
murder but raising the defense of Art. 247 or Death under Exceptional Circumstances. Is
his contention valid?
42|CLEAR
BarOps
No. His contention is not valid. Art. 247 is not applicable. We must look into the intention of our
lawmakers.
Under Article 423 of the Old Penal Code, death under exceptional circumstance is committed if the
husband surprised his wife in the act of adultery ( en adulterio a su mujer). Adultery under this Code is
committed by a “married woman” who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband.
The Revised Penal Code extended the benefit of the original Article 423 of the Penal Code to both
husband and wife, and for this reason, the phrase "in the act of adultery" was changed to "in the act
of committing sexual intercourse" (Opinion of Justice Luarel in People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310, October
31, 1939). Thus, the phrase "in the act of committing sexual intercourse" in Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code should be interpreted within the Spanish context of adulterio, which excludes
homosexual intercourse between a wife and another woman. However, passion may be
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance (Page 219, Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla,
2017, ed.).
103. May the accused be convicted of rape based on the victim’s testimony alone?
Yes. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim
provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and
normal course of things.
The testimony of rape victims are given full weight and credence, considering that no young woman,
especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated
solely by the desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her. It is highly improbable that a girl of
tender years, who is not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so
serious as rape if what she claims is false. Considering that the victim underwent a harrowing
experience and exposed herself to the rigors of public trial, it is unlikely that she would concoct false
accusations against the accused (People vs. Escoton, G.R. No. 183577, February 1, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
104. "AAA’s" lifeless body lay face up with her buttocks on top of a small rock. Her body
was slanted downward with her legs spread apart and dangling on the sides of the small
boulder. She was no longer wearing short pants and panty, and blood oozed from her
vagina. Wrapped around her right hand, which was positioned near her right ear, was a
white sando. "AAA’s" panty was found a meter away from her body, while her short pants
was about two meters farther. A bracelet and a pendant were also recovered from the
crime scene. Witnesses identified these pieces of jewelry as those earlier seen on the
accused XXX. They also identified the sando on "AAA’s" arm as XXX’s.
When XXX was apprehended, his briefs revealed bloodstains. The medico-legal report also
showed that the ease with which two fingers entered "AAA’s" vaginal orifice could have
been caused by a prior sexual intercourse. The lacerations in her vaginal wall could also
have been the result of sexual intercourse or by the forcible entry of an object into the
vaginal canal, such as a penis. Supposing that the court ruled that the circumstantial
evidence is enough to warrant XXX’s conviction, what crime did he commit?
Special complex crime of rape with homicide. It is satisfied if the following elements concur: (1) the
appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by
means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by
Pre-week Notes

means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. When the victim is a minor,
however, it is sufficient that the evidence proves that the accused had sexual intercourse or sexual
bodily connections with the victim. Here, there is an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence from
which a court can infer that XXX raped "AAA"(People vs. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010, DEL
CASTILLO).
105. Discuss the effect of mental retardation of the victim on the crime of rape.
It makes the accused guilty of the crime of qualified rape. Accused’s knowledge of the mental
disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape must be properly alleged in
the Information. Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the
commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime. Mental retardation is a chronic condition present
from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by
standardized tests. Intellectual or mental disability is a term synonymous with and is now preferred
over the older term, mental retardation. (People vs. Brion, G.R. No. 189822, September 2, 2013, DEL
CASTILLO).
106. When may relationship by consanguinity or affinity qualify the crime of rape?
Under the requirements of Art. 335 RPC, as amended by RA 7659, it must be succinctly stated and
alleged in the Information that the accused is a relative within the third civil degree by consanguinity
or affinity to suffice to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship.
Note that a qualifying circumstance which has not been alleged in the Information would violate the
accused's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Without such allegation in the Information, the accused can only be convicted of simple
rape (People v. Estrada, GR 178318, 1997, DEL CASTILLO).
107. Accused committed an act of sexual assault upon his 3-year-old daughter, AAA, by
inserting his finger into her vagina. On the same day, he willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge of BBB, his 5-year-old daughter to her
damage and prejudice. Both crimes were committed with the following attendant
aggravating/ qualifying circumstances: the victim was a child below seven years old, and
the offender was the father of the victim. Can the accused be held guilty of both rape by
sexual assault and statutory rape?
YES. Under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who,
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person. In the present case, there is no doubt that appellant
inserted his finger into the genital of AAA. Also, under Art. 266-A (1d) of the RPC, statutory rape is
committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman who is under twelve (12) years of
age. In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal
knowledge of BBB who was only 5 years of age at the time (People v Alfonso, GR No. 182094, August 18,
2010, DEL CASTILLO).
108. One evening, BBB dragged AAA against her will to a nearby hut, boxed her at the
leg, and raped her. After the incident, AAA ran to her boyfriend’s house but her boyfriend
44|CLEAR
BarOps
was not around. She narrated to MMM, the mother of her boyfriend, that she had been
raped by BBB. She was then escorted by CCC, her boyfriend’s cousin, upon instruction of
MMM and upon AAA’s insistence to go to her uncle’s house. Unbeknownst to AAA, CCC led
her to a remote shanty, boxed her in the abdomen and leg, then raped her too. BBB and
CCC were arrested for different charges of rape.
During trial, both BBB and CCC denied raping AAA. BBB pointed out the inconsistency
between the statement of facts in AAA’s testimony and in her complaint-affidavit.
Further, BBB is questioning how AAA was able to identify him when AAA admitted that at
that time, the area was dark and not illuminated. For CCC, he interposed the defense of
alibi. Lastly, the defense further presented the testimony of the medico-legal officer that
the lacerations were found only in specific areas of the vaginal orifice and that there were
no bruises noted in the body of AAA.
a. In rape cases, what is the so-called “Women’s Honor/Maria Clara” Doctrine?
The Women’s Honor Doctrine states that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that
she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her
honor.
b. From the foregoing facts, may BBB and CCC be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape?
No, reasonable doubt exists. First, the inconsistency in the testimony of AAA placed her credibility in
question, thereby raising a good ground of reasonable doubt. Second, the prosecution failed to
establish the identity of BBB as the perpetrator. It is unclear how AAA was able to identify BBB when
she herself testified that the area was dark and not illuminated. Thirdly, it is way beyond human
experience for a victim of rape to not seek redress from the proper authorities. In this case, AAA was
not even brought to the police station after narrating that BBB had raped her.
In sum, the presence of instances of reasonable doubt is inconsistent with the requirement of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt as quantum of evidence to convict an accused in a criminal case. In effect,
BBB and CCC are entitled to be acquitted of the charges against them.
c. Discuss the relevance of a medico-legal’s findings with the nature of the crime of rape.
A medico-legal report is not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely
corroborative in nature. In convicting rapists based entirely on the testimony of their victim, we have
said that a medico-legal report is by no means controlling. A medico-legal's testimony cannot establish
a certain fact as it can only suggest what most likely happened. In the same way, a medico-legal's
findings can raise serious doubt as to the credibility of the alleged rape victim.
d. Discuss the element of consent in relation to the crime of rape.
Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or intimidation, that is, against the will of the
female. It is also committed without force or intimidation when carnal knowledge of a female is
alleged and shown to be without her consent. Carnal knowledge of the female with her consent is not

Pre-week Notes

rape, provided she is above the age of consent or is capable in the eyes of the law of giving consent.
The female must not at any time consent; her consent, given at any time prior to penetration,
however reluctantly given, or if accompanied with mere verbal protests and refusals, prevents the act
from being rape, provided the consent is willing and free of initial coercion. (People vs. Amarela, G.R. No.
225642-63, January 17, 2018, MARTIRES).
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
109. Distinguish Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Detention, and Unlawful Arrest
SERIOUS SLIGHT UNLAWFUL ARBITRARY

ILLEGAL DETENTION ILLEGAL DETENTION ARREST DETENTION
Offender
Any private person Any private person Any private person or Any public officer
any public officer not vested with authority to
vested with authority to detain or order the
detain or order the detention of another
detention of another
Necessity of specific purpose
Intent to deprive liberty Intent to deprive liberty Intent to deliver the Intent to disregard the
victim to the proper constitutional right
authorities against unreasonable
seizure
Is period of detention an element?
More than 3 days, unless any Not more than 3 days No Yes, penalty is
of the circumstances of dependent on the
simulation of authority, length of detention
serious physical injuiries,
threat to kill, minority or the
offended party is a female or
public officer,are present
110. In the crime of kidnapping for ransom, is the payment of ransom indispensable?
No. That no ransom was actually paid does not negate the fact of the commission of the crime, it
being sufficient that a demand for it was made (People v. Salvador, et.al., G.R. No.201443, April 10, 2013).
111. XXX, a private individual kidnapped, AAA, a minor. On the second day, XXX released
AAA even before any criminal Information was filed against him. At the trial of his case,
XXX raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the
child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping
were instituted. Will XXX’s defense prosper? Can the special mitigating circumstance of
voluntary release be considered?
No, XXX’s defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in
kidnapping is not absolutory cause. The special mitigating circumstance of voluntary release can only
be considered in slight illegal detention. In this case, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention because the victim is a minor. Voluntary release is not a special mitigating
circumstance (Asistio v. San Diego, G.R. No. 21991, March 31, 1964).
46|CLEAR
BarOps
112. Distinguish Grave Threats, Light Threats and Other Light Threats.
GRAVE THREATS LIGHT THREATS OTHER LIGHT THREATS

The wrong threatened amounts to a The wrong threatened does not The wrong threatened does
crime which may or may not be amount to a crime but is always not amount to a crime and
accompanied by a condition. accompanied by a condition. there is no condition.
113. Distinguish Kidnapping with Rape from Forcible Abduction with Rape
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE RAPE THROUGH FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

The crime is composite (or special complex crime) if The crime is complex (under Article 48) since forcible
the woman kidnapped is also raped. abduction is a necessary means to commit rape.
There is no lewd design at the time of abduction There is lewd design at the time of abduction
Regardless of the number of rapes, there is only one If there are multiple rapes, only the first rape shall be
special complex crime of kidnapping with rape complexed with forcible abduction; subsequent rapes
will be treated as separate crimes.
If rape was merely attempted, kidnapping and serious If rape was merely attempted, the crime committed is
illegal detention and attempted rape will be treated as only forcible abduction. Attempted rape, for being a
separate crimes. mere manifestation of lewd design which is an
element of forcible abduction, is absorbed
114. A young woman was found dead somewhere in Cebu; her pants were torn, her t-
shirt was raised up to her breast, and her bra was pulled down. Her face and neck were
covered with masking tape, and her left wrist was handcuffed. The woman was identified
as AA Chiong. Ten months thereafter, witness-accused MM admitted to the police that he,
together with accused XX and several other co-accused, participated in the abduction of
the Chiong sisters. MM testified that one time, XX and several other people stopped in
front of the AA Chiong and her sister BB, and forced them to ride their car; that they
drank and had a pot session; and that they eventually started to rape AA Chiong inside
the vehicle; and thereafter raped BB Chiong. They eventually beat the two until they
passed out. AA was thrown into the ravine, the very same place where she was found
dead, and BB remains missing as of this date.
a. Does conspiracy exist between the co-accused?
Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated,
or may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when such points to a joint design and
community of interest. The actions of the accused showed that they had the same objective to kidnap
and detain the Chiong sisters.
b. What is the crime committed by them?

Pre-week Notes

All of them are guilty of special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
homicide and rape in the criminal case where AA is the victim; and simple kidnapping and serious
illegal detention in the criminal case wherein BB is the victim.
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267 of RPC, as amended by Sec. 8 of R.A. 7659. -
The elements of the crime defined in Art. 267 are: “(a) the accused is a private individual; (b) he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention
or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances are present: xxx the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is
raped xxx.”
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 under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659." In a
special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily prove each of the component offenses with
the same precision that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. As
earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 267 of the RPC by adding thereto this provision:
"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed; and that this provision gives
rise to a special complex crime.
Here, theaccused, who are private individuals, forcibly dragged AA and BB into the car, beat them so
they would not be able to resist, and held them captive against their will. AA was thrown to a deep
ravine, resulting to her death. BB, on the other hand, has remained missing until now (People vs.
Larrañaga, G.R. No. 138874-75, February 3, 2004, PER CURIAM).
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
115. Compare and contrast Robbery and Theft.
ROBBERY THEFT
Both involve unlawful taking as element.
Both involve personal property belonging to another.
There is intent to gain.

The taking is done with the use of violence or There is no employment of violence or
intimidation of persons or by using force upon thing. intimidation of persons or using force upon thing.
116. Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage?
No, unlawful taking is deemed complete form 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 v. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007).
48|CLEAR
BarOps
117. While A, B, C, and D were robbing a bank, policemen arrived. A gunfight ensued
between the bank robbers and the responding policemen, and one of the policemen was
killed. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed?
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding policemen was killed by reason
or on occasion of the robbery being committed. The complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple
Attempted Homicides was committed with respect to the offenders firing guns at the responding
policemen who are agents of person in authority performing their duties (People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R.
Nos. 136149-51, Sept 19, 2000).However, direct assault with muitiple homicides committed by reason or
on occassion of robbery shall be integrated into the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
(People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016;
Supplied by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla).
118. XXX was the legal secretary and liaison officer of AAA. As legal secretary and liaison
officer, she was tasked to process land titles of AAA’s clients. Her duties included the
payment of taxes (documentary stamp taxes, capital gains taxes, transfer tax) for the
transfer of title from previous owners to new owners/buyers of the property. Because of
the nature of XXX’s work and the trust reposed in her by AAA, the latter confidently gave
her considerable amounts of cash without need of receipts. XXX was given a free hand in
liquidating her expenses in her own handwriting. Upon verification from banks and
government agencies with which XXX transacted in relation to her tasks, AAA discovered
that XXX submitted handwritten ‘padded’ liquidation statements because her reported
expenses turned out to be higher than what she actually spent; and worse, the ‘official’
receipts she submitted to her were fake. What crime, if any, did XXX commit?
XXX is guilty of qualified theft. Theft is the taking of personal property of another with intent to gain
but without violence against or intimidation of neither person nor force upon things. There is qualified
theft when a domestic servant or a person, who abuses the confidence entrusted to him/her, commits
theft. Such act qualifies theft because of the circumstance of trust given to the offender.
As AAA trusted XXX completely, and by reason of her being the liaison officer, she handed the monies
to appellant without requiring the latter to sign any paper to evidence her receipt thereof.
Circumstances made it clear that it is because of the trust and confidence reposed by AAA upon XXX
that the latter was able to make it appear from her liquidation statements that she spent the sums
she received from AAA for their intended purposes. XXX took undue advantage of AAA’s confidence in
her when she appropriated for herself sums of money that the latter entrusted to her for a different
purpose. Therefore, the theft in this case was thus committed with grave abuse of confidence (Gaviola
vs People, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006, DEL CASTILLO).
119. An Information was filed against XXX and YYY for the crime of Robbery, after they,
aiding each other, destroyed the door lock of the stall of the victim AAA, and once inside,
took the personal effects of the latter, the value of which totalling to P42,000.00.
According to AAA’s testimony, the establishment was a store not used as a dwelling, and
that she was not residing in the store. Was the crime robbery in an inhabited house or
public building or edifice devoted to worship under Art. 299 of the RPC, or robbery in an
uninhabited place or in a private building under Article 302?

Pre-week Notes

The crime committed was Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building under Article 302 of
the Revised Penal Code. Since the store was not actually occupied at the time of the robbery and was
not used as a dwelling because the owner lived in a separate house, and not an inhabited house,
public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies under Article 299, the
robbery committed therein is punished under Article 302(Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 181138, December 3,
120. At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, AAA and BBB were watching television inside
their house. Suddenly, three armed men barged inside. XXX poked a gun at AAA, while
YYY and ZZZ ransacked the house, taking a wallet, crach helmet, and a .45 caliber
firearm. After they left, AAA and BBB followed them. At the yard, they saw the three men
together with more or less 10 other persons surrounding CCC, AAA’s husband, who was
lying on the ground. Despite AAA’s pleas not to kill her husband, XXX and YYY still fired
shots, causing CCC’s instantaneous death. A criminal charge for Robbery with Homicide
was filed against XXX, YYY, and ZZZ. Was the charge proper?
YES. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the
use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude
that the robbery is the malefactor’s main purpose and objective, 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. Here, XXX poked the gun at AAA, while the other accused took the
properties. After the robbery incident, XXX and YYY fired at CCC, causing the latter’s death (Vidar vs.
People, G.R. No. 177361, February 1, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
121. AAA was walking along Acacia Street on her way home from work when she saw
XXX and YYY standing near a lamp post. The two men followed her and XXX pointed a
knife at her neck and held her left shoulder. He told her not to shout or else he would kill
her. XXX and YYY then dragged her to a vacant lot along Acacia Street. These two took all
of her belongings and alternately raped her.What crime was committed?
The crime of Robbery with Rape was committed under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC. The
essential elements of such felony are present, to wit: a) the taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons; b) the property taken belongs to another; c) the taking
is done with animo lucrandi, and d) the robbery is accompanied by rape. Here, rape was undoubtedly
committed with robbery when XXX and YYY forcibly dragged AAA to a vacant lot, removed her
clothes, and took turns in raping her by placing their penis inside her vagina (People vs. Gabuya, G.R.
No. 209038, June 8, 2016, DEL CASTILLO).
122. XXX is the owner of XYZ Enterprises and a dealer of beer products of San Miguel
Corporation (SMC). XXX purchased SMC products on credit. To ensure payment and as a
business practice, SMC required him to issue post-dated checks equivalent to the value of
the products purchased on credit before the same were released to him. Said checks were
returned to Pedro when the transactions covered by these checks were paid or settled in
full. In one instance, after purchasing some products on credit, XXX, together with his
accountant, visited the SMC Sales Office to allegedly reconcile his account with SMC. He
requested to see the checks that he formerly issued. However, after getting hold of such
50|CLEAR
BarOps
checks, he immediately left the office, bringing the checks with him. SMC sent a letter to
XXX demanding the return of the said checks. XXX ignored the demand, hence, SMC filed
a complaint against him for theft. On the other hand, XXX contends that there is no
probable cause to charge him with theft because the subject checks were issued only as
security and he therefore retained ownership of the same. Is XXX’s contention correct?
Yes. The personal property must belong to another to constitute the crime of theft. Theft is
committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
The essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a 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 or intimidation against persons or force upon things.
Considering that the second element is that the thing taken belongs to another, it is relevant to
determine whether ownership of the subject check was transferred to SMC. If the subject check was
given by XXX to SMC in payment of the obligation, the purpose of giving effect to the instrument is
evident, thus, title to or ownership of the check was transferred upon delivery. However, if the check
was not given as payment, there being no intent to give effect to the instrument, then ownership of
the check was not transferred to SMC. When the check was not given as payment and is
merely used to secure an obligation, the ownership of the check was not transferred.Here,
there is ambiguity as to whether or not the check was given to SMC as payment of the obligation of
XXX. Hence, XXX is not guilty of theft (San Miguel vs. Puzon, G.R. No. 167567, September 22, 2010, DEL
CASTILLO).
123. Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio’s house. There, Manolo noticed a
nice painting that exactly looked like the painting which he reported was stolen from him
some years back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but Tonio denied any
knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately from a friend. Manolo later
proved to Tonio that the painting was indeed the stolen painting.
a. What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?
Tonio may be charged with Fencing. Under RA 8049, Fencing is committed by any person who buys or
acquires any article or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him to have been
derived from the proceeds of theft. The mere possession of anything of value stolen is a prima facie
evidence of fencing. Here, Tonio bought a painting which he should have known to have been derived
from the proceeds of theft. Hence, Tonio may be charged with Fencing since his mere possession of
the painting is a prima facie evidence of the crime.
b. Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one night, broke into Tonio’s
house by destroying the wall and taking the painting. What, if any, would be the liability
of Manolo?
Manolo is liable for tresspass to dweling for entering the house against the will of Tonio. There is
implied prohibition in this case since the entry was made by breaking the wall. He is not liable for
robbery by using force upon thing since he is the owner of that painting (Supplied by Judge Marlo
Campanilla).

Pre-week Notes

124. With intent to cause damage, CCC deliberately set fire upon the two-storey
residential house of his employer, mostly made of wooden materials. The blaze spread
and gutted down seven neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire, six (6) persons
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death. What crime was
committed by CCC?
CCC committed simple arson. If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or
office, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simple arson, and the
resulting homicide is absorbed (People v. Baluntog, GR No. 182061, March 15, 2010; People v. Cedenio, GR
No. 93485, June 27, 1994). However, since death resulted by reason or on occasion of arson, the graver
penalty (reclusion perpetua to death) prescribed under Section 5 of PD No. 1613. Since the law
prescribes a single penalty for committing two crimes (arson and homicide), the act should be
classified as special complex crime of arson with homicide (People vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 172468, October
15, 2008; Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
125. The couples AAA and BBB met XXX, a real estate agent who sold to them a 300-
square meter lot in Tagaytay City. The couple paid for the lot and a Deed of Absolute Sale
was executed. Later, XXX borrowed their owner’s duplicate copy of the title, claiming that
there was a mistake which must be corrected. The couple worked overseas for a year.
When they came home, they were surprised to find out that their property has already
been transferred by Deed of Absolute Sale to another couple, apparently executed by
AAA. AAA denied his signature and that of his wife in the Deed of Absolute Sale. He
argued that they were overseas when the deed was notarized. The couple confronted
XXX, who denied forging the signature of AAA and BBB but later admitted that he sold the
property. The couple charged XXX with the crime of estafa through falsification of public
document. Will the case prosper?
Yes, the case will prosper. It was established that the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT covering the
Tagaytay property was in the possession of XXX as he deceitfully took the same from AAA under the
false pretense that the same was needed for correction of the measurement of the area of AAA’s
property, when in truth and in fact, what XXX did was to sell the property. Since AAA and BBB were
overseas, clearly, XXX, as the material author, made it appear that the spouses participated in the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale to sell their Tagaytay property, when the couple as owners
thereof did not in fact do so, to their damage and prejudice. Evidently, XXX is guilty of the crime of
estafa through falsification of public document. (Nicolas v People GR No. 186107, April 20, 2016, DEL
CASTILLO).
126. Enumerate the elements of falsification by a public officer or employee or notary

public and falsification by a private individual.
The elements of falsification by a public officer or employee or notary public as defined in

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code are that:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee or notary public;

2. The offender takes advantage of his official position; and
3. He or she falsifies a document by committing any of the acts mentioned in Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code.
52|CLEAR
BarOps
On the other hand, the elements of falsification by a private individual under paragraph 1, Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code are that:
1. The offender is a private individual, or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
2. The offender committed any of the acts mentioned in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code;
3. The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.
127. AAA alleged that XXX, a friend of her niece, swindled her. XXX offered to assist AAA
in purchasing a used car and introduced herself as an Assistant Administrative
Coordinator of Fine Cars Marketing, which was engaged in the sale and financing of
second-hand and repossessed vehicles. AAA agreed to the offer since she and her
husband were looking for a used cab for their taxicab operation. They went to a
showroom and chose a Blue Mazda 323 from the display. ZZZ, an employer of XXX, went
to AAA’s house to collect the downpayment of P80,000. ZZZ promised that the car will be
delivered in 3 days but such did not materialize and he could not be reached or found
anymore. AAA filed a case of estafa against XXX.
In XXX’s defense, she alleged that it was ZZZ, the owner, who was the swindler and like
AAA, she was a victim too. She asserted that she only knew of ZZZ’s fraudulent scheme
after AAA reported the same to the authorities. Is XXX’s contention tenable?
NO. XXX is also liable together with ZZZ for committing conspiracy for the crime of estafa by means of
fraud or deceit. The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) are: (1) there must be a
false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.
Several circumstances in the facts conclusively show XXX’s role in defrauding AAA. She was the one
who personally approached AAA and actively made representations as an Assistant Administrative
Coordinator on behalf of Fine Cars Marketing, to help AAA purchase a second-hand car. ZZZ, for his
part, actively conspired with XXX by inducing AAA to part with her money. He also went to the house
of AAA and induced the latter to make a down payment for the purchase of the car and to sign the
Sales Proposal Agreement. He and XXX collected the money from AAA and promised her that the car
would be delivered. However, the car was not delivered. It was proven that the well-planned
swindling scheme of XXX and ZZZ resulted to estafa (Franco v People, G.R. No. 171328, February 16, 2011,
DEL CASTILLO).
128. AAA wanted to subdivide her lot in Muntinlupa City. Her niece introduced XXX and
his wife as the people who could help with her problem. XXX and his wife represented
themselves as having direct connections with the Land Registration Authority and
assured AAA that they could have her property subdivided. AAA thus entrusted to them
her owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title on condition that it would be
returned after a month.

Pre-week Notes

After the one-month period, XXX and his wife failed to inform AAA of the status of the
anticipated subdivision. AAA’s repeated demands for the return of her owner’s duplicate
title of the land were to no avail. She later found out that the land covered by her TCT was
mortgaged to a third person with the deed annotated at the back of the TCT. However,
AAA claimed that her signature in the document was a forgery. At the time of the
mortgage, there were no other persons other than XXX and his wife to whom she
entrusted her TCT. Is there a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents?
No. XXX and his wife are guilty of the crime of estafa alone. For a complex crime of estafa through
falsification of a public document to prosper, all the elements of both the crimes of estafa and
falsification of a public document must exist.
Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must concur to
secure conviction of estafa: (1) The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to
his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (2)
The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the fraud; (3) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very
cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property; (4) That as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage. Here, it is undisputed that XXX and his wife falsely
represented to AAA that they had the influence and capability to cause the subdivision of the lot.
Hence, they were guilty of estafa.
However, under Article 172 of the RPC, the following requisites must concur for the conviction of the
crime of falsification of a public document, to wit: (1) That the offender is a private individual or a
public officer or employee who took advantage of his official position; (2) That he committed any of
the acts of falsification enumerated in article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (which in this case
involves forging a signature); (3) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or
commercial document. Here, there is no showing that XXX and his wife falsified the subject Deed of
Mortgage, or that they had any participation in the execution of the mortgage document. There is no
proof at all that he was the one who signed the Deed of Mortgage . (Ansaldo vs. People, G.R. No. 159381,
March 26, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
129. X, representing himself to have a tie-up with some Japanese firms, promised A, B, C,
D, and E of employment in Japan as conversion mechanics, welders, or fitters for a fee. X
promised that they could facilitate private complainants' employment as direct hires and
assured their departure within three weeks. However, after paying the required fees, X
failed to secure any overseas employment for them and likewise failed to return their
money. This prompted A to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) where he was issued a certification stating that X is not licensed to recruit
applicants for overseas employment. What were the crime/s committed by X, if any?
X committed the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995 as well as Estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the person
charged undertook any recruitment activity; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to
lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the same against three or
54|CLEAR
BarOps
more persons individually or as a group. Here, X have undertaken a recruitment activity when he
promised the victims employment in Japan for a fee. He was not licensed to recruit workers for
overseas employment, and it was committed against five persons.
Moreover, well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may, for
the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The elements of
estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2)
the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.
Here, X committed deceit against the victims by making it appear as though he had the authority and
resources to send them to Japan for employment wherein the victim suffered damages. Hence, X shall
be liable for the offense. (People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 198012, April 22, 2015, DEL CASTILLO).
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
130. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction? Give
an example of each.
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public authority, guardian, teacher or a
person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced.
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Examples: priest, house servant, domestics.
3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother who seduced his sister; ascendant who
seduced his descendant (Art. 337, RPC).
131. Does a promise to marry before the sexual intercourse constitute deceit in the crime
of simple seduction?
Yes, deceit takes the form of promise to marry. If the promise to marry is made after the sexual
intercourse, there is no deceit. But there is no deceit if the promise to marry was made by a married
man, the woman knowing him to be married.
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
132. If you were the judge in a bigamy case where the defense was able to prove that the
first marriage was null and void or a nullity, would you render a judgment of conviction or
acquittal? Explain your answer.
I will render a judgment of conviction. For an accused to be convicted of bigamy, the prosecution
must prove all of the following elements: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the
first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites
for validity. (Vitangcol v. People, GR 207406, January 13, 2016).
Proof that the first marriage is null and void is not a defense in bigamy (Manuel v. People, 476 SCRA
461). What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent
Pre-week Notes

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 (People v. Odtuhan, 701 SCRA
506).
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
133. How are crimes against honor classified?

Crimes against honor are classified according to the manner of their commission. Specifically:
a. Libel is committed by making use of the mass media and literary forms or literary outlets.
b. Oral Defamation by the use of oral utterances.
c. Slander by Deed by performing an act intended to cast dishonor, disrespect or contempt upon
a person.
d. Incriminatory machinations which may either be:
i. Incriminating an innocent person in the commission of a crime by planting evidence
ii. Intriguing against honor by resorting to any scheme, plot, design, but not by direct
spoken words, to destroy the reputation of another
134. How is Libel committed?
A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt
of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Art. 355 of RPC states
that libel is committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. In addition, under
R.A. No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cyber libel as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, may be committed through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.
135. What are the elements of Libel?
To be liable for libel under Article 353, the following elements must be shown to exist:
a. The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;
b. Publication of the charge;
c. Identity of the person defamed; and
d. Existence of malice (Brillante v. CA, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004)
136. Who can be charged with Libel under the Revised Penal Code?
a. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or causethe publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means; and
b. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper, magazine or serial publication (Article 360, RPC).
137. Where is the venue of libel cases?
56|CLEAR
BarOps
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously
or separately with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense (Article 360 as amended by R.A. 4363).
138. X placed the words "gay" to a billboard against Y, who was a voted public officer. Y
was offended and believed that it was highly libelous, offensive and defamatory to the
good name, character, and reputation of Y and his office, and that the said
billboards/signboards were read by thousands if not hundreds of thousands of persons
which caused damage and prejudice to him. Was there libel committed?
No. There are no derogatory imputations of a crime, vice or defect or any act, omission, condition,
status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his dishonor. Neither does the phrase in
its entirety, employ any unpleasant language or somewhat harsh and uncalled for that would reflect
on private respondent’s integrity. The word did not cast aspersion upon Y’s integrity and reputation
much less convey the idea that he was guilty of any offense. Simply worded as it was with nary a
notion of corruption and dishonesty in government service, it is SC’s view to appropriately consider it
as mere epithet or personal reaction on Y’s performance of official duty and not purposely designed to
malign and besmirch his reputation and dignity more so to deprive him of public confidence. (Lopez vs.
People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011,DEL CASTILLO).
139. AAA was the Plant Manager of the Monroe Herbal Processing Plant (MHPP) of the
Philippine Association of Traditional and Alternative Medicine Producers (PATAMP). She
attended the Mid-Year Performance Evaluation Seminar conducted at the Manila Hotel by
Schnieders International Consulting Corporation (Schnieders). The latter was engaged by
the PATAMP with the prime objective of developing its marketing arm and the personality
of each personnel of the Sales Department. The participants in the seminar were Sales
Managers, various Plant Managers, Sales Agents from the different Regional Offices and
other staff of PATAMP. However, during the seminar, AAA and one of the female resource
speakers, XXX had a misunderstanding as a result of the alleged abusive remarks made
by the latter pertaining to the former’s capability as a supervisor. After that, a
memorandum was signed by XXX, he being then the Director General of PATAMP,
addressed to all the plant managers and staff and was distributed to the different plants
all over the country, a salient portion thereof states that private respondent needs to
undergo psychological and psychiatric treatment to prevent deterioration of her mental
and emotional stability as recommended by Schnieders. Was XXX liable for libel?
YES. For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a) it must be defamatory;
b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity; and d) the victim must be identifiable. The four
aforementioned requisites are present in this case (Lagaya vs. People, GR No. 176251, July 25, 2012, DEL
CASTILLO).
The memorandum was defamatory since it ascribes to a person the possession of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, which tends to dishonor or discredit AAA. It dealt more on her supposedly abnormal
behavior which to an ordinary reader automatically means a judgment of mental deficiency. The
element of malice was also established since the memorandum on its face shows the injurious nature
of the imputations to AAA. Under Article 354 of the RPC, every defamatory imputation is presumed to
be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. The
element of publication was also present; XXX allowed the distribution of the subject memorandum.
Pre-week Notes

Anent the last element, that is, the identity of the offended party, there is no doubt that AAA was the
person referred to by the defamatory remarks, as she was in fact, particularly named therein.
QUASI-OFFENSES
140. What are the elements of Reckless Imprudence and Simple Imprudence?
The elements of Reckless Imprudence are:

a. The offender does or fails to do an act
b. The doing of or the failure to do the act is voluntary
c. It is without malice
d. Material damage results
e. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration:
1. His employment/occupation
2. Physical condition
3. Degree of intelligence
4. Other circumstances regarding the persons, time and place
The elements of Simple Imprudence are:
a. There is lack of precaution on the part of the offender

b. The damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
141. Dr. X conducted a surgical procedure to AAA for colostomy. During the operation AAA
went into coma which lasted for two weeks, but he regained consciousness after a month
without being able to see, hear and move. Dr. X was charged with reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide. Is he liable?
No, he is not liable. To make a doctor liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, it must
be shown that he did not treat his patient in accordance with the standard of care and skill commonly
possessed and exercised by similar specialists under similar circumstances. Failure to present specialist
as witness to testify on this standard is fatal to the prosecution of the case (Solidum vs. People, GR No.
192123, March 10, 2014).
142. A complaint was filed against G&S Transport Corporation (G&S), a common carrier,
for damages resulting from the death of JJJ while on board a Taxicab owned and operated
by G&S and driven by its employee and authorized driver, BBB. The heirs of the deceased,
through counsel, sent G&S a letter demanding indemnification for JJJ’s death. In its
defense, G&S claims that the proximate cause of the accident is a fortuitous event and/or
the negligence of the driver of the delivery van. It insists that it exercised the required
diligence of a good father of a family when it hired and continued to employ BBB.
Furthermore, BBB has already been acquitted in a separate criminal case against him.
Hence, G&S alleged that it cannot be held liable anymore. Is the contention of G&S
tenable?
58|CLEAR
BarOps
NO. Art. 31 of the NCC provides, viz: When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from
the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
In this case, the action filed by the heirs is primarily for the recovery of damages arising from breach
of contract of carriage allegedly committed by G&S. Clearly, it is an independent civil action arising
from contract, which is separate and distinct from the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide filed by the heirs against BBB by reason of the same incident. Not being deemed
instituted in the criminal action based on culpa criminal, the acquittal of BBB in the criminal case is
immaterial to the instant case for breach of contract (Heirs of Ochoa vs. G&S Transport, G.R. No. 170071,
July 16, 2012, DEL CASTILLO).
143. Sevilla, a former councilor of Malabon City, was charged with the felony of
falsification of public document, penalized under Article 171(4) of the RPC, after he stated
in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), both official documents which were submitted to the
Malabon City Council, that he “had no criminal case pending against him”, when in fact,
he knew fully well that he is an accused in a pending criminal case for the crime of assault
upon an agent of a person in authority. Sevilla averred that he did not intend to falsify his
PDS, that it was a member of his staff, who actually prepared his PDS wherein he just
signed the same without checking the veracity of the entries therein. Sandiganbayan
opined that Sevilla cannot be convicted of falsification of public document under Article
171(4) of the RPC since he did not act with malicious intent to falsify the aforementioned
entry in his PDS. However, considering that Sevilla’s PDS was haphazardly and recklessly
done, which resulted in the false entry therein, the Sandiganbayan convicted Sevilla of
falsification of public document through reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the
RPC. Is the designation of the crime “falsification of public document through reckless
imprudence” correct? Explain.
No, the designation “falsification of public document through reckless imprudence” is incorrect. Quasi-
offenses under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code are distinct and separate crimes and not a mere
modality in the commission of the crime. Here, the designation of “falsification of public document
through reckless imprudence” implies that reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a
modality of committing it. The proper nomenclature of the crime should have been reckless
imprudence resulting in falsification of public document (Sevilla v. People, G.R. 194390, August 13, 2014).
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. 1613)
144. Where both burning and death occurred at the same occasion, what crime/crimes
was/were committed?
CRIME DEATH OCCURRED AT MAIN OBJECTIVE

THE SAME OCCASION?
Arson (Simple or Destructive as the case No Burning of the building or edifice
may be)
Special complex crime of arson with Yes Burning of the building or edifice
homicide

Pre-week Notes

Murder Yes Kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to
as the means to accomplish such goal
Two separate and distinct crimes – Yes Kill a particular person and in fact the
homicide/murder and arson offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted as a means to cover up the killing
(People vs. Baluntong, 615 SCRA 455, G.R. 182061, March 15, 2010; People vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 172468,
October 15, 2008; Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla)
Note: Destructive arson is characterized as heinous crime; while simple arson under PD No. 1613 is a
crime manifesting a lesser degree of perversity. Simple arson contemplates the malicious burning of
property not included in Article 320 of the RPC. Burning of inhabited house or dwelling is simple arson
under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1613 because it is not included in Article 320 of RPC (People vs. Macabando,
GR No. 188708, July 31, 2013; Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW (R.A. 6539, as amended by R.A. 7659 and 10883)
145. What is the crime committed when persons, armed with guns, by means of violence
and intimidation, with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner, took, stole,
and carried away with them a motor vehicle owned by the victim, and in furtherance
thereof, killed another?
R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended, defines carnapping as the taking,
with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means
of violence against or intimidation against persons, or by using force upon things. By the amendment
in Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act added: (1) the penalty of life
imprisonment was changed to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the
phrase "in the commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of the commission of the carnapping
or on the occasion thereof." This third amendment clarifies the law's intent to make the offense a
special complex crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code on
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of
the Anti-Carnapping Act, the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of
the homicide or murder of the victim, and more importantly, it must show that the original criminal
design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof". (People vs. Fernandez, GR 226846, June 21,
2017)
The unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is covered by the Anti-Carnapping Law (RA 6539), and not by
the provisions on qualified theft or robbery. The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized
under the R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the following: 1. That there is an actual taking of the
vehicle; 2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; 3. That the taking is
without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and, 4. That the offender intends to
gain from the taking of the vehicle. (People vs. Bustinera, GR 148233, June 8, 2004).
SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION, AND
DISCRIMINATION ACT (R.A. 7610)
60|CLEAR
BarOps
146. Does the passage of R.A. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the
provisions of rape on the RPC, affected the applicability of Sec. 5(b), Art. III, of R.A.
7610?
No. In instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610,
where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault
under Art. 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, which is punishable by prision mayor, the offender should
be liable for violation of Section 5(b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610, where the law provides for the higher
penalty of reclusion temporal medium, if the offended party is a child victim. But if the victim is at
least 18 years of age, the offender should be liable under Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the RPC and not R.A.
7610, unless the victim is at least 18 years old and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect
herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable for sexual abuse under R.A.
No. 7610.
The reason for the foregoing is that, aside from affording special protection and stronger deterrence
against child abuse, R.A. No. 7610 is a special law which should clearly prevail over R.A. 8353, which
is a mere general law amending the RPC. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still
good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those 'persons below eighteen (18)
years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition." (People v. Macapagal, G.R. 218574, November 22, 2017).
147. AAA a 14-year-old boy went with P in Subic for initiation rites in a fraternity. After
succumbing to P’s persuasion to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, he lost control of
himself. P then isolated AAA from his companions and forcibly disrobed him and
performed oral sex on him by sucking his penis until he ejaculated. The following day, P
again performed oral sex on AAA. P was charged with Section 5(b) Article III of RA 7610.
Is P liable?
Yes. P is liable for violating Sec. 5(b), Art. III of R.A. 7610, which have the following elements: (1) the
accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with
a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or
female, is below 18 years of age. In this case, “AAA” was 14 years of age when he was subjected to
sexual abuse by petitioner.
RA 7610 applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other
sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to “other sexual abuse” when he or she indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. Here, P influenced minor AAA to go to
Subic, made him take drugs and drink liquor; and when he was already high and out of control, P
performed lascivious conduct on AAA, and when such incident happened, AAA was 14 years old.
(Pinlac vs People, GR No.197458, November 11, 2015, DEL CASTILLO).
148. An Information against XXX was filed when committed the following three acts: 1)
he, taking advantage of his moral authority and ascendancy, and by means of force and
intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA, her 12-year-old daughter; 2) he committed
lascivious conduct on AAA when he touched her breast and rubbed her arms without her

Pre-week Notes

consent; 3) he inserted his finger into the genital orifice of AAA. What are the crimes
committed by XXX?
1. Qualified Rape. Rape can now be committed either through sexual intercourse or through sexual
assault. In rape through sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge is the crucial element which must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. There must be evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the perpetrator’s penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her female organ, and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure his conviction of rape by sexual intercourse. Here,
there was carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse through force, threat and intimidation. The
qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority were also established where the appellant is the
father of "AAA" and the latter being a minor.
2. Rape by Sexual Assault. The perpetrator 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", or the narrower
"homosexual rape." Here, XXX committed rape by sexual assault when he inserted his finger into the
genitalia of "AAA."
3. The crime of sexual abuse under R.A. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act", defines and penalizes child prostitution and
other sexual abuse. "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." Here, "AAA," a minor at 12 years of
age, suffered from sexual abuse by means of lascivious conduct through intimidation or influence
when XXX mashed her breasts and stroked her arms. (People vs. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11,
149. XXX was charged with the crime of child abuse under Sec. 10 (a) of R.A. 7610. XXX
allegedly physically abused and/or maltreated AAA (12 years old) with his palm hitting
the latter at his back and by slapping said minor hitting his left check and uttering
derogatory remarks to the latter’s family. On his part, XXX denied having physically
abused or maltreated AAA but only confronted him when the latter threw stones at her
daughters, calling them as “Kimi” and for burning one of his daughters’ hair. Did XXX acts
amounted to child abuse under R.A. 7610?
No. When XXX struck and slapped AAA, he did not do so with the intention to debase the child’s
“intrinsic worth and dignity” or to humiliate or embarrass him. Rather, XXX did so at the spur of the
moment and in anger which only indicated his being overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personal safety of his own minor daughter. Not every instance of laying of hands on a child
constitutes the crime of child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610. The Court explained that a person
can only be punished for child abuse when there’s an intention to debase, degrade or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being (People v. Bongalon, G.R. No. 169533, March 20,
2013).
62|CLEAR
BarOps
ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAW (R.A. 9775)
150. Can an offender be charged with both Cybercrime Law and Anti-Child Pornography
Act for committing child pornography without violating the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy?
No. Cybercrime Law merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so
as to include identical activities in cyberspace. ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already
covers the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.” Thus,
charging the offender under both Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a
violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretary of Justice,
G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014).
ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. 1612)
151. What are the elements of fencing? (2010, 1995)
The elements of fencing are:

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. Accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, 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 said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of value has
been derived from the 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.
152. Distinguished Fencing and an Accessory to Theft or Robbery.
Fencing Accessory to theft or Robbery

A fence is punished as a principal under PD 1612 As a general rule, an accessory to robbery or theft under
and the penalty is higher. the RPC is punished two degrees lower than the principal.
Fencing is a Malum Prohibitum and therefore there In accessory to the crime of robbery or theft under RPC,
is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused. intent is an element of the crime therefore good faith is a
Good Faith is not a defense. proper defense.
All the acts of one who is an accessory to the crime The accessory in crimes of robbery and theft could be
of robbery and theft are included in the acts defined prosecuted as such under the RPC or as a fence under
as fencing. PD 1612.
(Festin, 2013, Special Penal Laws Criminal Reviewer, Volume II)
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. 3019 as amended)
153. May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly
or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for
himself of 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

Pre-week Notes

to intervene under the law”] also be simultaneously or successively charged with direct
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (BAR 2010)
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may
also be charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the
Revised Penal Code because two crimes are essentially different and are penalized under distinct legal
philosophies. Violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the
Code is a malum in se.Moreover, Section 3 of RA No. 3019 provides “in addition to acts or omissions
of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of
any public officer.” Thus, it is clear then that one may be charged with violation of RA No. 3019 in
addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either
concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the Code (Ramiscal, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28, August 18, 2006).
154. Is the court mandated to automatically issue an order for preventive suspension
once a criminal Information for violation of RA 3019 is filed against a public officer?
No. It is true that the law provides that a public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under
a valid Information under R.A. 3019 or under Title 7, Book II of RPC, or for any offense involving
fraud upon government or public funds or property, whether as simple or as complex offense, and in
whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from
office. However, prevailing jurisprudence provides that suspension cannot be automatic. There must
first be a hearing on the issue of the validity of information. This pre-suspension hearing is conducted
to determine basically the validity of the Information, from which the court can have a basis to either
suspend the accused and proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or withhold the suspension
of the latter and dismiss the case, or correct any part of the proceeding which impairs its validity
(People vs Albano, 163 SCRA 511).
155. May a private person be indicted under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act RA
3019?
Yes. The requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019
is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The
law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the
public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in
the case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone (People
v. Go, GR No. 168539, March 25, 2014).
156. An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan charging Mayor XXX, the Vice
Mayor, several Sangguniang Bayan members, and San Francisco Water District (SFWD)
General Manager Luzon, for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, committed by passing
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 95-27 which transferred to SFWD, without cost, 1
vehicle and 6 motorcycles purchased for the Municipality of Bunawan, in violation of
Section 381 of R.A. 7160. The transfer was, as alleged by Mayor XXX, due to SFWD’s
technical expertise. Despite the subsequent nullification of said Resolution by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the repeated demands, Luzon and SFWD refused to
surrender the vehicles to the Municipality of Bunawan, thereby depriving it of the
possession, ownership and use thereof. May Mayor XXX be held guilty of violation of R.A.
3019?
64|CLEAR
BarOps
NO. The elements of the offense under Sec. 3(e) of Anti-Graft Law are as follows: (1) that the
accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public
officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their
public positions; (3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private
party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence.
In this case, only the first element was proven. All the other elements were not present. The transfer
of the vehicles to SFWD was made in furtherance of the purpose for which the funds were released
which is to help in the waterworks projects throughout the province. Clearly, the vehicles were
donated to SFWD not because it was given any preference, unwarranted benefits or undue
advantage, but in recognition of its technical expertise. No evidence would show that petitioners were
motivated by bad faith when they transferred the vehicles to SFWD. They have in their favor the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which the records failed to rebut. The
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes
conclusive. (Bustillo vs People, G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
157. XXX obtained the cash advance of P101,736.00 during his incumbency as municipal
mayor. This amount was intended for the payment of freight and insurance coverage of
12 units of motorcycles to be donated to the municipality by the City of Manila. However,
instead of motorcycles, he was able to secure two buses and five patrol cars. He claimed
that it never came to his mind to settle or liquidate the amount advanced since the
vehicles were already turned over to the municipality. He alleged that he was neither
informed nor did he receive any demand from COA to liquidate his cash advances. It was
only later on while he was claiming for separation pay when he came to know that he still
has an unliquidated cash advance. And so as not to prolong the issue, he paid the full
amount to the municipal treasurer.
XXX was charged with two criminal cases, first, for a violation of Sec. 3e, RA 3019, and
second, for the felony of Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts under Article
218 of the Revised Penal Code because of having allegedly utilized the cash advance for a
purpose other than for which it was obtained. In the first case, the court acquitted XXX.
Petitioner argued that (1) since the cases for which he was indicted involve the same
subject cash advance in the amount of P101,736.00, his exoneration in the anti-graft case
should likewise exculpate him from further liability in the present case; and (2) that he
was not reminded of his unliquidated cash advances. Is his contention tenable?
NO. The acquittal of petitioner in the anti-graft case is not a bar to his conviction for failure to render
an account in the present case. It is undisputed that the two charges stemmed from the same
incident. However, SC has consistently held that the same act may give rise to two or more separate
and distinct charges. Further, because there is a variance between the elements of the two offenses
charged, XXX cannot safely assume that his innocence in one case will extend to the other case even
if both cases hinge on the same set of evidence.

Pre-week Notes

To hold a person criminally liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the following elements must be
present: (1) That the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the
former; (2) That said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her
official duties or in relation to his or her public positions; (3) That he or she causes undue injury to
any party, whether the government or a private party; (4) That such injury is caused by giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) That the public officer has
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. On the other hand,
the elements of the felony punishable under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code are: (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 COA or to a provincial auditor; and (4) That he fails to do so for a period of two
months after such account should be rendered. The glaring differences between the elements of
these two offenses necessarily imply that the requisite evidence to establish the guilt or innocence of
the accused would certainly differ in each case.
Moreover, prior demand to liquidate is not a requisite for conviction under Article 218 of the Revised
Penal Code. Article 218 does not require the COA or the provincial auditor to first make a demand
before the public officer should render an account. It is sufficient that there is a law or regulation
requiring him to render an account. (Lumauig vs People, G.R. No. 166680, July 7, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
ANTI-HAZING LAW(R.A. No. 8049)
158. What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (2002)
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation rites may be
performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall be given seven (7) days
before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate: (a) the period of the initiation
activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and
(c) an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.
159. Atiu was among the freshmen law students who wished to join the Eagles Fraternity.
He, along with his fellow neophytes, were informed that they were required to undergo
the initiation rites, and that such rites would include physical beatings. On the first day of
the initiation rites, they were subjected to traditional forms of Eagles Fraternity initiation
rites. On the second day, they were likewise subjected to similar rites and beatings. The
rites for the second day initially ended, however, due to the insistence of Bugs Bunny and
Donald Duck, alumni fraternity members. However, the beatings eventually resumed.
Later that night, Atiu started shivering and mumbling incoherently. He was rushed to the
hospital wherein he was found dead on arrival. May Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck and his co-
accused be found liable for a crime in this case?
Yes. They are liable for hazing. Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the
recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to
do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury. In this case, the initiation is a prerequisite for admission into the
66|CLEAR
BarOps
Eagles Fraternity. During the hazing, they inflicted physical injury and, as a consequence, the victim
died (Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
160. Who are the different classes of persons that can be held liable under the hazing
law?
Any person who commits the crime of hazing shall be liable in accordance with Section 4 of the law,
which provides different classes of persons who are held liable as principals and accomplices.
The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the hazing. If the person
subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result
thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated
in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission
of the punishable acts.
The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. Although these
planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be liable
as principals. The provision took into consideration the non-resident members of the organization,
such as their former officers or alumni.
The third class of principals would be officers or members of an organization group,
fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing
the victim to be present thereat. These officers or members are penalized, not because of their
direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by
inducing the victim to attend the hazing.
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser who was present
when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take action to prevent
them from occurring. The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the
hazing, but also from his failure to prevent the same.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the
fraternity, group, or organization. The hazing must be held in the home of one of the officers or
members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes
and failed to take any action to avoid the same from occurring.
The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The school authorities, including
faculty members, who consented to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to
take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices. Likewise, the
owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also be an accomplice to the crime. The
owner of the place shall be liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein and
he failed to take any steps to stop the same (Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015).
ANTI-PIRACY and ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY (P.D. 532)

Pre-week Notes

161. What are the elements of a highway robbery under P.D. 532?
The elements of highway robbery under P.D. 532 are:

1. That there is unlawful taking of property of another;
2. That said taking is with intent to gain;
3. That said taking is done with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things or
other unlawful means; and
4. That it was committed on any Philippine highway.
Note: To sustain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution must prove that the acts of the
accused are organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. If the purpose is only a
particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed men
(People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, February 23, 1996; Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October
16, 1996).
162. Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery
committed on a highway.
Highway Robbery (PD No. 532) Robbery Committed on a Highway

The robbery is committed indiscriminately against The robbery is committed only against
persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the predetermined victim; under the Revised Penal
potentiality they offer; when the offender is a brigand or Code when the commission thereof in a public
one who roams in public highways and carries out his highway is only incidental and the offender is not a
robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the brigand, only occasional against a predetermined
opportunity to do so arises. There is frequency in the victim, without frequency in public highways.
commission of the robbery in public highways and against
persons travelling thereat.
ANTI-PLUNDERACT (R.A. 7080, as amended)
163. City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards
Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an
ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for the construction of a road leading to
the poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the road leading to his
farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in the amount of P10
million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually lost in the bidding.
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million could not be
accounted for although reports showed that these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized
drivers but the same were never returned. Further, there were funds under City Engr. A’s
custody amounting to P10 million which were found to be missing and could not be
accounted for. In another project, he was instrumental in awarding a contract for the
construction of a city school building costing P10 million to a close relative, although the
lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed that City Engr. A has a net worth of
more than P50 million,which was way beyond his legitimate income. (2014)
a. If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file against City Engr. A?
68|CLEAR
BarOps
I will file a case of Plunder under R.A. 7080 against City Engr. A. It is very clear from the facts
given that all the elements of plunder are present, namely:
1. The offender is a public officer holding a public office in the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines;
2. The offender amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination
of overt or criminal acts of misuse, misappropriation, conversion or malversation of public
funds, receiving kickbacks from persons in connection with a government contract or
project by reason of his office or position and illegally or fraudulently conveying or
disposing of assets belonging to the national government or any of its subdivisions; and
3. The aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated, or
acquired is at least P50M.
b. Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less than P50 million, will your
answer still be the same?
No. My answer will be different. In this case, there is no showing that Eng. A acquired, amassed
and accumulated ill-gotten wealth in the amount of 50 million. Although the amount of public
money misused is more than P50 million, there is no plunder. To determine whether the P50
million threshold was reached in this crime, what is important is not the amount of money
misused but the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired, amassed or accumulated by the public
officer. For example, the amount of P100 million, which is the construction value of the road shall
not be considered to determine if plunder is committed since the road is not part of the wealth of
City Engineer A. (Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
164. Distinguish series from combination under the Anti-Plunder Act.
"Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1 (d) of the
R.A. 7080; While, "combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two different
predicate acts in any of said items (Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, November 19, 2001).
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (R.A. 7877)
165. Differentiate RA 7877 from RA 7610 and Article 336 of the RPC.
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW

(RA 7877) (ART. 336) (RA 7610)

Pre-week Notes

Sec. 3. Work, Education or Art. 336 of the RPC: Acts of Sec. 2 (h)“Lascivious
Training-related, Sexual lasciviousness. – Any person who conduct” means the
Harassment iscommitted by an shall commit any act of lasciviousness intentional touching, either
employer, employee, manager, upon other persons of either sex, directly or through clothing,
supervisor, agent of the employer, under any of the circumstances of the genitalia, anus, groin,
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, mentioned on the preceding article, breast, inner thigh, or
trainor or any other person who, shall be punished by prision buttocks, or the introduction
HAVING AUTHORITY, INFLUENCE, or correccional. of any object into the
MORAL ASCENDANCY OVER ANOTHER genitalia, anus or mouth, of
in a work or training or education (Art. 339. Acts of lasciviousness with any person, whether of the
environment, demands, requests or the consent of the offended party. – same or opposite sex, with
otherwise requires any sexual favor The penalty of arresto mayor shall be an intent to abuse,
from the other, regardless of whether imposed to same persons and the humiliate, harass, degrade,
the demand, request or requirement same circumstances as those or arouse or gratify the
for submission is accepted by the provided in Article 337 and 338) sexual desire of any person,
object of said Act. bestiality, masturbation,
lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a
person;
Not absorbed by Article 336 of the RPC In order to be guilty of this crime, the
because it can be committed by words acts of lasciviousness must be
alone committed under any of the
circumstances that had there been
sexual intercourse, the crime would
have been Rape.
ANTI-TORTURE ACT (R.A. 9745)
166. The CHR received information that a number of drug suspects are being tortured to
acquire information about the drug trade in Tondo, Manila. Upon their visit and inspection
to Police Station 1 of Tondo, Manila, they found out that there is a hidden hallway at the
back of a cabinet used as detention area for suspects. The CHR then filed a case for
violation of Anti-Torture Act against the police on duty and the Station Commander. The
Station Commander contends that they did not inflict any physical or mental torture
against the suspects, hence, they cannot be held liable for R.A.9745. Will the case
prosper?
Yes. Sec. 7 of R.A. 9745 provides that, “Secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado
or other similar forms of detention, where torture may be carried out with impunity, are hereby
prohibited.” Agencies concerned shall make an updated list of all detention centers and facilities under
their respective jurisdictions with the corresponding data on the prisoners or detainees incarcerated or
detained therein such as, among others, names, date of arrest and incarceration, and the crime or
offense committed. Thus, the mere existence of a secret detention areas makes them liable under
Anti-Torture Act.
167. AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary
confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of detention. During the period
70|CLEAR
BarOps
of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him physically
discomfort. What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the solitary
confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (2012)
The crime of torture and maltreatment of prisoner is committed. Food deprivation and confinement in
solitary cell are considered as physical and psychological torture under Sec. 4(2) of the Anti-Torture
Act of 2009 orR.A. 9745. “Torture” refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her
or a third person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act which he/she or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a
third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority (R.A. 9745, Sec. 3).
ANTI-TRAFFICKING INPERSONS ACT (R.A. 9208)
168. Sira advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial models for a TV
advertisement. Cute, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project. Sira offered her a
contract, which Cute signed. She was asked to report to an address which turned out to
be a high-end brothel. Cute became one of its most featured attractions. What is Sira’s
liability, if any? What effect would Cute’s minority have on Sira’s liability? (BAR 2014)
Sira is liable of the crime of Trafficking in Persons under R.A.9208. He recruited, offered and hired
Cute by means of fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation or prostitution. By means of
deceit, i.e., in the guise of making her a commercial model, Sira recruited Cute for the purpose of
prostitution.
Cute’s minority is a qualifying circumstance. Under Section 6, R.A.9208, when the trafficked person is
a child, the crime committed is Qualified Trafficking in Persons, penalized by life imprisonment.
169. When the adoption of a child is effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for
the purpose of prostitution, what is the proper charge against the offender who is a public
officer in relation to the exploitative purpose?
The proper charge is qualified trafficking in persons. Adoption or facilitating the adoption of child for
the purpose of prostitution constitutes trafficking in person (Section 4 [f] of RA No. 9208). The means to
commit trafficking in person such as taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim, fraud etc. can
be dispensed with since the trafficking is qualified when trafficked person is a child or when the
adoption is effected through Inter-Country Adoption Act and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution (Section 6 [a] and [b]).
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN ACT (R.A. 9262)
170. What are the elements of Violence against Women and Their Children Act (VAW-C)
through harassment?
The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are:

Pre-week Notes

1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her
(Pascua vs. CA, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010).
171. May a woman be held liable under R.A. No. 9262 or VAW-C?
Yes. 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; Criminal
Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla, 2017 ed.).
172. In order to avail Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense, what matters are needed
to be proven first?
First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering
episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have 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. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not
necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence
perpetrated by the former against the latter (People v. Genosa, G.R.No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22)
173. Who are the persons liable under B.P. 22?
1. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing
at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored
by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment; or
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the
check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it
is dishonored by the drawee bank.
174. Mitzi issued two blank checks to the offended party. The offended party completed
them by writing the amounts on them. When presented for payment, the checks were
dishonored, one for being drawn against insufficient funds and the other for being drawn
against uncollected deposit. Is Mitzi liable for violation of BP 22? If yes, how many counts
of violation is he liable?
72|CLEAR
BarOps
Mitzi is liable only for one count of violation of BP 22 for the check which was dishonored for being
drawn against insufficient funds. What the law punishes is simply the issuance of a bouncing check
and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto. However,
accused should be exonerated for the check that was dishonored for being drawn against uncollected
deposit. BP 22 speaks only of insufficiency of funds and does not treat of uncollected deposits (Dy v.
People, 571 SCRA 59, G.R. No. 158312, November 14, 2008).
Violation of B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith
is not a defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose for which the
check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution
of the offender.
175. XXX and private complainant AAA were long-time friends and neighbor. On the
years 1992 and 1993, XXX issued 54 postdated PS Bank checks of various amounts to
AAA. However, AAA claimed that when he deposited the checks, they were dishonored
either due to insufficient funds or closed account. AAA allegedly sent demand letters to
XXX, but XXX failed to make good the checks. A complaint for violation of BP 22 was filed
against XXX. In his defense, XXX contended that the demand letter, while bearing the
signature of XXX, did not indicate any date as to his receipt thereof; and thus, the date of
the said letter could be considered as the date when XXX received the same for the
purpose of reckoning the five-day period to make good the checks. Is XXX’s contention
tenable?
Yes. In the case of XXX, there is no way to ascertain when the five-day period under Section 22 of BP
22 would start and end since there is no showing when XXX actually received the demand letter.
Thus, there is no proof as to when such notice was received by Chua. The presumption or prima facie
evidence as provided in Section 2 of B.P. 22 cannot arise, since there would simply be no way of
reckoning the crucial 5-day period.
In all the three (3) elements, the second element is the hardest to prove as it involves a state of
mind. Thus, Sec. 2 of B.P. 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds,
which, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of
dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the
check or to make arrangements for its payment. In order to prove the second element, the Supreme
Court cited its former ruling in King vs. People, that Sec. 2 of B.P. 22 creates a prima facie
presumption of the knowledge of the insufficiency of the fund or credit. Thus, in order to create the
prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that (1)
he or she received a notice of dishonor and; (2) within five banking days thereafter, he failed to
satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment. Therefore, failing to prove the
presumption of the knowledge of the insufficiency of the funds or credit, the second element of BP 22,
is not present. Thus, XXX is not guilty of violation of BP 22. (Chua vs. People, G.R. No. 196853, July 13,
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (R.A. 9165)
176. What are the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs
under R.A. 9165?

Pre-week Notes

In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be
established:
1. Proof that the transaction or sale took place; and
2. The presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown
that,
1. The accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law, and
3. The accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable
doubt. Failure to comply with RA 9165 equates to failure on the part of prosecution to establish the
identity of the corpus delicti (People vs. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, DEL CASTILLO; People
vs. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, DEL CASTILLO; People v. Araza y Sagun, G.R. No. 190623,
November 17, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
177. Distinguish Instigation from Entrapment.
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT
The criminal intent originates in the mind of the The idea to commit the crime originates from the
instigator and the accused is lured into the commission accused; Nobody induces or prods him into
of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. committing the offense
It was not and could not have been committed were it The crime had already been committed (People v.
not for the instigation by the peace officer Ramos, G.R. No. 88301, October 28, 1991)
178. What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its rationale?
What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement?
“Chain of custody” is the duly recorded authorized movement and custody of seized drugs or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment at each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation; transmittal to the forensic laboratory
for examination and safekeeping; presentation of the evidence in court and up to its destruction. Such
record, of movement and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the dates and time when such transfers of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and for its use in court as evidence and final disposition (2014
Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation 2014; People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
193670, December 3, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
It must be stressed that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This
means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential. As a
mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the seized
prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter
in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every
link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a
way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to
74|CLEAR
BarOps
include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the
chain.(Cacao vs. People, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. There can be no crime
of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item
confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug. The
accused may be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug
which constitutes the corpus delicti. (People vs. Suan, G.R. No. 184546, February 2, 2010, DEL CASTILLO;
People v. Brita, G.R. No. 191260, November 24, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
179. What must be proven in order to establish the “chain of custody” in buy-bust
operations?
The different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in the
buy-bust operations, namely:
a. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
b. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
c. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
d. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to
the court(People vs. Quesido, GR No. 189351, April 10, 2013; People vs. Hermentiza, G.R. No. 227398,
March 22, 2017).
180.Would non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements in the chain of
custody render the seizure void?
No. Mere lapses in procedure do not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items can be shown to have been preserved. (People vs. Brita, G.R. No. 191260, November 24,
2014, DEL CASTILLO).The seizure may still be held to be valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable
ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are shown to have been properly preserved.
Further, in another case, SC stressed that the failure on the part of the police officers to take
photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the
prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs (People v.
Llamado, G.R No. 185278, March 13, 2009).It is valid for as long as the prosecution was able to establish
the necessary links in the chain of custody of the subject specimen from the moment it was seized
from appellant up to the time it was presented during trial as proof of the corpus delicti. (People v.
Roxas, G.R. No. 197818, February 25, 2015, DEL CASTILLO).However, failure to follow the procedure
mandated under R.A. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for non-
compliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they
even exist (People v. De Guzman, G.R No. 186498, March 26, 2010).
181. The accused was arrested in a buy-bust operation, where a plastic sachet containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, was seized. In her
defense, the accused maintained that serious doubt exists on whether the alleged shabu
was actually seized from her, due to the failure of the buy-bust team to observe the

Pre-week Notes

proper procedure in the seizure of the alleged shabu and the subsequent delay in
transmitting the same for laboratory examination. The accused argued that, under the
law, the buy-bust team is mandated to physically inventory and photograph the seized
drug in his presence, or in the presence of his representative or counsel, and
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. She further contended
that it was also imperative for the prosecution to submit the alleged shabu to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Forensic Laboratory for qualitative and
quantitative examinations within 24 hours from its confiscation. However, the laboratory
report shows that the said item was submitted for examination only five days after the
alleged buy-bust operation. Will the failure of the buy-bust team to observe the proper
procedure in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 result in the acquittal of the accused?
NO. Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Sec. 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Law is
not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor and the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
Here, there is no doubt that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug confiscated from the
accused during the entrapment operation were properly preserved and safeguarded. The specimen
was immediately and adequately marked. Thereafter, it was sent to the crime laboratory for the
requisite chemistry report. In other words, the sachet of drug seized from the accused was the same
specimen submitted to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis. It was not shown to be
contaminated in any manner. (People vs. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
182. In the prosecution of a drug-related case, the accused contended: a) that the
testimonies of the police operatives contained material inconsistencies and contradictions
as to (i) whether a surveillance was made prior to the buy-bust operation, (ii) whether
there was marked money used in the operation, and, (iii) the amount of the shabu sold;
b) there was no proper identification of the illegal drug; and c) the prosecution witnesses
failed to testify on matters regarding the possession of the illegal drug.
a. Will these matters affect the validity of buy-bust operation?
NO. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police operatives as regards prior surveillance and
use of marked money are immaterial. While witnesses may differ in their recollection of an incident, it
does not necessarily follow from their disagreements that both or all of them are not credible and
their testimonies completely discarded as worthless. Also, a prior surveillance much less a lengthy
one, is not necessary during an entrapment. To be sure, there is no textbook method of conducting
buy-bust operations. Finally, the doubt cast by the accused on whether marked money was used in
the operation did not in any way shatter the factuality of the transaction. Neither law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation.
b. Explain the effect of failure to comply with the requirements for proving the chain of
custody under Sec. 21, R.A. 9165.
The accused must be acquitted for failure to establish the identity of the substance allegedly seized
from him. The same must be made in case there was a break in the chain of custody, thereby casting
doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the substance seized from the accused. Sale or
possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the
76|CLEAR
BarOps
prohibited drug. The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the
illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime. Of
paramount importance is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond
reasonable doubt.There can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug when nagging
doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to
be the prohibited drug. (People vs. Suan, G.R. No. 184546, February 2, 2010, DEL CASTILLO).
183. XXX was charged in two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) with possession and sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The
testimonies of PO1 AAA and PO3 CCC were presented by the prosecution. According to
the police officers, they conducted a buy-bust operation where two sachets of shabu,
aluminum foil and marked money were in XXX's possession. However, XXX denied the
charges against him. He stated that while he was working as a parking attendant, two
male persons in civilian clothes suddenly approached him and his co-attendant, identified
themselves as policemen, and handcuffed and frisked them. Nothing was found, but still,
XXX was brought to the police station. He also averred that PO1 AAA produced a plastic
of shabu from his (PO1 AAA's) pocket and once at the station, the said policeman showed
it to the desk officer and claimed that the plastic sachet was found on XXX.
In addition, the circumstances show the following procedural lapses as testified by PO1
AAA and PO3 CCC: failure to identify the items seized; failure to make the list of the items
seized; failure to present the person who took the item from PO1 AAA and PO3 CCC and
turned it over to the police station; failure to present the person who had custody over
the item after it was turned over to police station and before the court trial; failure to
mark the seized drugs after XXX was arrested and in his presence; failure to make
inventory and take photograph of the items in XXX’s presence; and failure to present any
representative of media, DOJ, or any elected public official who participated in the
operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given
copies thereof.
May XXX be held liable for the crime charged?
NO. Failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implied a concomitant
failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.In the instant case,
it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs,
as mandated in Section 21 of RA 9165, were not observed. The facts utterly failed to show that the
buy-bust team complied with these procedures despite their mandatory nature as indicated by the use
of shall in the directives of the law. The procedural lapse is plainly evident from the testimonies of
PO1 AAA and PO3 CCC.
While non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there is
a justifiable ground therefor and for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the siezed
items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, these conditions were not met in this case.
No explanation was offered by the testifying police officers for their failure to observe the rule. In fine,
there was serious doubt whether the drug presented in court was the same drug recovered from XXX.
Consequently, there was failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the corpus delicti
and failure to establish the chain of custody (People vs. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, DEL
CASTILLO).

Pre-week Notes

184. A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein the police authorities acted as poseur-
buyers together with the confidential informant. The poseur-buyer handed the money to
the accused, and they received a carton in exchange. They examined the contents of the
carton and upon seeing that it contained plastic sachets with white crystalline granules,
they made the pre-arranged signal. The authorities rushed into the scene, the buy-bust
money and the carton were seized, and the police officers arrested the accused. May the
accused be held guilty of violating R.A. 9165 as far as illegal sale of shabu is concerned?
YES. The elements in prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identities
of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof. Moreover, it has been held that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. (People v. Baturi G.R. No. 189812,
September 1, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
185. Is the presentation of money used in the buy-bust operation required in the
prosecution for violations of R.A. 9165?
NO. The delivery of the illicit drugs to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. Suffice it to say that neither law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. It is
sufficient to show that the illicit transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti in evidence. (People v. Gapas, G.R. No. 193385, December 1, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
186. May the failure of the officers to take a photograph and inventory of the seized
shabu reverse the conviction of the accused?
NO, the crucial factor in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused is whether or not the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. (People v. Pedraza, G.R. No.
194999 February 9, 2015, DEL CASTILLO).
187. May the public authorities’ failure to mark the seized illegal drug in the presence of
the accused upon his arrest acquit the accused from the crime?
Yes. In one case, the arresting officers failed to mark the items seized in the presence of the
accused. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that
the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the
drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution’s
case. The requirements of making an inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs were
likewise omitted without offering an explanation for its noncompliance. This break in the chain tainted
the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court; the very identity of the seized drugs became
highly questionable. (People vs. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017, DEL CASTILLO).
188. In the sale of illegal drugs, is lack of consideration a defense that will bar the
accused from the conviction of the crime?
NO. The elements for there to be a consummated illegal selling of Dangerous Drugs are the following:
1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by
any means; 2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and 3) the accused knowingly made the delivery
with or without consideration.
78|CLEAR
BarOps
Consideration is not material for there to be an illegal selling of dangerous drugs. The act of the
accused of knowingly delivering the possession of dangerous drugs that such act was not authorized
by law is enough to establish that indeed, there was a consummated illegal selling of dangerous
drugs. Hence, the argument that there can be no consummated illegal selling of dangerous drugs
because of the absence of consideration is without merit. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 194606, February 18,
189. Is the prohibition on plea bargaining, as enunciated in Sec. 23 of R.A. 9165,

constitutional?
NO. Sec. 23 of R.A. 9165, on the prohibition of plea bargaining in drug cases, is unconstitutional for
being contrary to the rule-marking authority of the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution
(Estipona vs. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017).
ILLEGAL POSSESION OF LOOSE FIREARMS

(P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294 AND R.A. 10591)
190. Vhan has long been wanted by the police authorities for various crimes committed
by him. Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment
where Vhan was often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that Vhan is always
armed. At the given address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of Vhan,
opened the door and let the policemen inside, the team found Vhan sleeping on the floor.
Immediately beside him was a clutch bag which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber
paltik revolver and a hand grenade. After verification, the authorities discovered that he
was not a licensed holder of the .38 caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it
was established that only military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades.
Subsequently, Vhan was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition. During trial, Vhan maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm
and hand grenade belonged to his friend and that he was not in actual possession thereof
at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations meritorious? Explain.
No, Vhan’s allegations are not meritorious. The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of
illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and, (2) the
fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for
it. Ownership is not an essential element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only actual physical
possession but also constructive possession where the firearm and explosive are subject to one’s
control and management. (Arnulfo v. People, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015).
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (Act 4103 as amended)
191. What is the purpose of fixing the maximum penalty under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL or ISLaw)?
The purpose of fixing the ISL is to determine up to when the convict must serve his sentence in
prison. Upon serving the maximum penalty, the accused will be released. On the other hand, the

Pre-week Notes

reason in fixing the minimum is to determine when the convict will be eligible for parole. Upon serving
the minimum penalty, the accused may be released on parole. However, his release upon serving the
minimum penalty is indeterminate since the President may or may not grant him parole (2002 Bar
Exam). Allowing the convict to be released on parole upon serving the minimum penalty will achieve
the purpose of the ISL (1975 Bar Exam; Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla, 2017, ed.).
192. What are the instances/crimes to which the benefits of ISLAW are not applicable?
(1947, 1959, 1964, 1970, 1988, 1999 and 2003)
1. Treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason (2012 Bar Exam), misprision of treason,
rebellion or sedition, espionage or piracy;
2. Habitual Delinquents (Note: A recidivist is not excluded from the coverage of the ISLAW-2012
Bar Exam);
3. Those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence (1983 Bar exam; Note: The
law contemplates confinement in prison and not in a mental hospital; 1991 Bar Exam);
4. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon;
5. Penalty of imprisonment, the maximum term of which does not exceed one year;
6. Death Penalty or life imprisonment (Section 2 of Act No. 4103); or reclusion Perpetual (R.A.
No. 9346; 1990 Bar Exam; and
7. Use of trafficked victim. (Section 11 of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364; Page 302,
Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla, 2017, ed.).
193. What are the rules in computing the maximum and minimum periods under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law?
HOW TO COMPUTE UNDER RPC UNDER SPECIAL LAW

Consider attending/modifying Should not exceed what is prescribed
MAXIMUM
circumstances (Mitigating/Aggravating) under the Special Law
Court has discretion to fix the minimum Should not be less than the minimum
term any period of imprisonment within prescribed by law
MINIMUM
the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by the Code
194. Squall is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for
the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10)
years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty.
a. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law
be applied?
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw) should be applied because the minimum
requirement for the application of ISLaw is imprisonment for more than one (1) year.
However, applying the Batistis case, the Court may opt not to apply ISLAW by fixing the
penalty at exactly 5 years of imprisonment since this straight penalty is favorable to the
accused.
b. If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Squall?
80|CLEAR
BarOps
I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the
maximum penalty fixed by law (not more than 10 years), and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum penalty prescribed (not less than 5 years). As a judge, I shall sentence the
accused to suffer 5 years of imprisonment as minimum penalty to 10 years as maximum
penalty.
c. Assume that the crime charged was Frustrated Homicide with one mitigating
circumstance. Compute for the penalty to be imposed on Squall.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since the crime is at the frustrated stage, the
penalty shall be reduced to one degree lower, and that is prision mayor. Since one mitigating
circumstance is present, prision mayor shall be applied in its minimum period. Applying
ISLAW, the maximum penalty shall be fixed within the proper imposable period, and that is,
minimum period of prision mayor, while the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the range
of the penalty next lower in degree, and that is prision correccional. Hence, if I were the
judge, I will sentence the accused to suffer 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as
minimum penalty to 8 years of prision mayor as maxium penalty (Supplied by Judge Campanilla).
195. Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his rooming
house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his death, and that
the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the victim and Bruno lived.
Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime charged; that it was the victim who first
attacked and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed
because he managed to draw his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for
homicide is reclusion temporal. What is the proper penalty that a judge should impose
under the circumstances? Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable in this case?
Considering that Bruno was initially attacked by the owner of the house, it could not be said that he in
committing homicide deliberately intended to offend or insult the senior age of the victim (Peopls vs.
Paraiso, GR No. 127840, November 29, 1999, En Banc). Hence, the aggravating circumstance of disregard
of age should not be appreciated.
The nighttime as an aggravating circumstance is not appreciable even though the crime was
committed at 10PM since there is no showing that the place of commission was dark and Bruno
specially sought or took advantage of the darkness of the night to facilitate the commission of the
crime (People vs Alberca, G.R. No. 117106, June 26, 1996, En Banc).
The circumstance of dwelling cannot also aggravate the criminal liability of Bruno since he and the
victim were living in the same dwelling, and hence, he could not have transgressed the sanctity of
privacy due to the dwelling by committing a crime therein (People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, Jan. 21,
2004, En Banc).
Since there was unprovoked unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, but the means employed
by Bruno is not reasonably necessary to repel the aggression, he is entitled to privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua prescribed for
homicide shall be graduated to one or two degrees (Article 69). The penalty of reclusion perpetua can
be graduated to prision correccional.
Pre-week Notes

The mitigating circumstances of confession and voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of
Bruno. Considering that there is no aggravating circumstance, these two mitigating circumstances will
be considered as a special mitigating circumstance (Article 64 of RPC). Hence, the penalty of prision
correccional will be lowered by one degree, and that is, arresto mayor.
This penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed in its medium period considering that no other
modifying circumstance attended the commission of the offense, the two (2) mitigating circumstances
having been already taken into account in reducing the penalty by one (1) degree lower (Bacar vs.
Guzman, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1349, April 18, 1997; Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, June
13, 2012; Pelonia vs. People, G.R. No. 168997, April 13, 2007; People vs. Torpio, G.R. No. 138984,
June 04, 2004). Hence, the penalty to be imposed should be taken from the medium period of arresto
mayor, which has a range from 2 month and 1 day to 4 months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is
not applicable since the penalty is not more than one year of imprisonment (Supplied by Judge Marlo
Campanilla).
196. While the victim and the other witnesses were watching a school dance, the accused
Archie and Reggie appeared and passed by them. Archie suddenly approached and
stabbed the victim with a machete, and left thereafter. At that juncture, Reggie
attempted to attack the victim, but the latter evaded the blow. The victim pulled out the
machete from his body and with it, hit Reggie in the chest. Both the victim and Reggie fell
down. Eventually, the victim died. RTC pronounced the accused Archie guilty of the crime
of homicide penalized under Art. 249 of RPC. Taking the absence of any modifying
circumstances into consideration, the RTC fixed the indeterminate penalty of 10 years
and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of the medium
period of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The CA affirmed the penalty fixed by the RTC.
Was the penalty imposed on Archie correct?
NO. Homicide is punished with reclusion temporal. SC declared that the lower courts could not impose
17 years and four months of the medium period of reclusion temporal, which was the ceiling of the
medium period of reclusion temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty without specifying
the justification for so imposing. RTC and CA ignored that even though Art. 64 of RPC, which has set
the rules "for the application of penalties which contain three periods," requires under its first rule that
the courts should impose the penalty prescribed by law in the medium period should there be neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, its seventh rule expressly demands that "[w]ithin the limits
of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and
nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil
produced by the crime." By not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling of the period of the
imposable penalty, the fixing of the indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or whimsical, or
capricious. In the absence of the specification, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence for the
petitioner should be the lowest of the medium period of reclusion temporal, which is 14 years, eight
months and one day of reclusion temporal.
To impose the highest within a period of the imposable penalty without specifying the justification for
doing so is an error on the part of the trial court that should be corrected on appeal. In default of
such justification, the penalty to be imposed is the lowest of the period . (PEDRO LADINES v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES; G.R. No. 167333, January 11, 2016).
82|CLEAR
BarOps
197. De Guzman was charged of frustrated homicide. After trial the RTC rendered a
decision to wit: “The court finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE defined and penalized in Article 250 of the Revised Penal Codem,
and in the absence of any modifying circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Months and One (1) day of PRISION CORRECCIONAL as
MINIMUM to Six (6) Years and One (1) day of PRISION MAYOR as MAXIMUM”.Is the
penalty imposed proper?
NO. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, an indeterminate sentence is imposed on
the offender consisting of a maximum term and a minimum term. The maximum term is the penalty
properly imposed under the RPC after considering any attending modifying circumstances; while the
minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the RPC for the
offense committed.
Conformably with Art. 50 of RPC, frustrated homicide is punished by prision mayor, which is next
lower to reclusion temporal, the penalty for homicide under Art. 249 of RPC. There being no
aggravating or mitigating circumstances present, however, prision mayor in its medium period – from
8 years and 1 day to 10 years – is proper. As can be seen, the maximum of 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor as fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was not within the medium period of prision
mayor. Accordingly, the correct indeterminate sentence is 4 years of prision correccional, as the
minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as the maximum (DE GUZMAN, JR., vs. PEOPLE GR No.
178512, Nov. 26, 2014).
198. May a person convicted of murder be eligible for parole?
NO. The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A. No.
9346 which states that “persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. (People v.
Amora y Viscarra, G.R. No. 190322, November 26, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
199. May a person convicted of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua be eligible
for parole?
NO. Pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 which states that “persons convicted of offenses punished
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this
Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended” (People v. Delfin,
G.R. No. 190349 December 10, 2014, DEL CASTILLO).
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630, and in
relation to P.D. 603)
200. What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility? (Sec. 6, R.A. 9344).
AGE CRIMINAL LIABILITY CIVIL LIABILITY

15 years of age or
under at the time of Exempt
Subject to civil liability
the commission of the
offense

Pre-week Notes

Above 15 years but
below 18 years of age Exempt Subject to civil liability
without discernment
Above 15 years but
Subject to criminal liability but shall
below 18 years of age Subject to civil liability
undergo diversion program
with discernment
Note: Between the ages of above 15 but below 18, a rebuttable presumption operates to deem a
child incapable of committing a criminal act.
The age of doli incapax (criminal incapacity) is 15 years old or below since the accused in such
age is exempt from criminal liability regardless of whether or not he discerned the consequence of his
criminal act. As far as the law is concerned, he cannot do evil, and lack of discernment is conclusively
presumed (Supplied by Judge Campanilla).
201. What is the Diversion Program under the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act?
Diversion refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and

treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court proceedings (Sec. 4[i], R.A.
9344).
202. Carlito was charged for raping Carmen, a 13-year-old girl, under the RTC of Davao.
During the trial, Carlito admitted committing the crime charged but testified that he was
15 years old at the time of the commission of the offense.The prosecution did not object
to this testimonial evidence and failed to present contrary evidence.Should the exempting
circumstance of minority be appreciated despite the non-presentation of his birth
certificate?
Yes. If the age of the accused is 15 years or under, he is exempt from criminal liability.
The defense, not the prosecution, has the burden of showing by evidence that the accused was 15
years old or less when he committed the rape charged. Despite the absence of birth certificate, the
testimonial evidence shall be considered since the prosecution failed to object thereto and to present
contrary evidence. To be exempt from criminal liability, the accused must not be more than 15 years
of age at the time of the commission of the crime (People vs. Sierra, G.R. No.182941, July 3, 2009;
Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
203. Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is
punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or
diversion. (2009, 2003)
a. What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to intervention or diversion? Explain.
“Intervention” refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the
child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may
include counselling, skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her
psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being. This is available to a child 15 years old or less
at the time of the commission of the crime or although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of
84|CLEAR
BarOps
commission of the crime, the child acted without discernment. “Diversion” refers to an alternative,
child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child conflict with the
law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court proceedings. This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but
below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment.
Yes. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed the crime of
homicide, he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under R.A. 9344.
b. Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention or diversion was denied, and he was convicted
two (2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the judge apply the
suspension of sentence? Explain.
No. The Judge should not suspend sentence anymore because Joe was already 21 years old and no
longer a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of
sentence, the offender's age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered,
not his age when he committed the crime. Suspension of sentence is availing under R.A. 9344
only until a child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
c. Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a special aggravating

circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence, would he be eligible for probation
under Presidential Decree 968, considering that the reclusion perpetua to death penalty is
imposable for the consummated felony? Explain.
Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years
imprisonment. Since the murder is at the attempted stage, reclusion perpetua to death shall be
reduced to two degrees lower, and that is, prision mayor. Since the accused is a minor, which is a
privileged mitigating circumstance, prision mayor shall be reduced to prision correccional. Since the
range of prision correccional is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, Joe is entitled to apply for
probation(Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (P.D. 1829)
204. Ria and Rio were walking along the streets of Manila when Loonie, a police officer,
suddenly arrested Rio for a supposed robbery that happened an hour ago in the area. Ria,
knowing that Rio was innocent, tried to prevent Loonie from arresting Rio. May Ria be
held liable for obstruction of justice?
No. Ria cannot be held liable for the violation of PD 1829 because third persons have a right to
prevent the arrest of suspects where such arrest is illegal, and the same cannot be construed as a
violation of P.D. No. 1829 (Posadas v Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000).
PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. 10707)
205. Arnel Colinares was found guilty of frustrated homicide by the RTC. On appeal, CA
affirmed. On petition for review, SC ruled that he was only guilty of attempted homicide,
in which the penalty is “probationable”. Is Colinares now entitled to apply for probation

Pre-week Notes

upon remand of the case to the lower court, even after he has perfected his appeal to a
previous conviction (frustrated homicide) which was not “probationable”?
Yes. The Probation Law, as amended, provides that, “xxx No application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction;
Provided, That when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the
defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before
such decision becomes final.” (Sec. 4, P.D. 968)
206. Rain was convicted of frustrated homicide and was sentenced to suffer a non-
probationable penalty. On appeal, the CA convicted Rain only for the lesser crime of
attempted homicide with its imposable penalty of imprisonment of four months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as maximum.
May Rain still apply for probation despite appealing the trial court’s decision?
YES. Rain may still apply for probation because the penalty is now probationable. The Probation Law
requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of
probation. Here, Rain did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for
probation. It remains that those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have the
option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege. The Probation Law never
intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no fault of his (Colinares v. People, G.R.
No. 182748, December 13, 2011).
207. Who are disqualified to avail the benefits of Probation?
The benefits of probation shall not be extended to:

1.) Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years (Section 9
of P.D. No. 968) unless the crime involved is possession or use of dangerous drugs committed
by first-time minor offender (Section 70 or R.A. No. 9165);
2.) Those convicted of any crime against national security;
Note: R.A. 10707 has amended P.D. No. 968 by deleting the crime against public order in
Section 9 thereof. In sum, under the present law on probation, crimes against public order
such as alarm and scandal and direct assault are now probationable.)
Note: Rebellion is a crime against public order and not a crime against national security. But
it is not probationable since the penalty prescribed for it is higher than six years of
imprisonment.
3.) Those who have been previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six months and one day and/or a fine of more than P1,000;
4.) Those who have been once on probation;
5.) Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the law
became applicable (Section 9 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707); and
6.) Those convicted of dangerous drug trafficking or pushing (Section 24 of R.A. No. 9165; 1988
Bar Exam; (Criminal Law Reviewer by Judge Marlo B. Campanilla, 2017, ed.).
208. The Sandiganbayan convicted XXX of malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of
the RPC, to which the decision became final and executory for failure of XXX to appeal
within the reglementary period. Sandiganbayan imposed upon her the penalty of prision
86|CLEAR
BarOps
mayor. Such decision was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. A year
thereafter, XXX moved to reopen the case for further reception of evidence and the recall
of Entry of Judgment, to which the Sandiganbayan denied, prompting XXX to appeal the
case before the SC under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
At the time that the SC decided the case, RA 10951 entitled An Act Adjusting the Amount
or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed
Under the Revised Penal Code Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815 Otherwise Known
as the "Revised Penal Code" as Amended was passed, which accordingly reduced the
penalty applicable to the crime charged from prision mayor to prision correctional. Is RA
10951 retroactively applicable to XXX?
YES. A judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. When, however,
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable,
the Court may sit en banc and give due regard to such exceptional circumstance warranting the
relaxation of the doctrine of immutability. The passage of RA 10951 is an example of such
exceptional circumstance.
The penalty prior to the passage of law, and the one imposed on XXX when she was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan, was prision mayor. The passage of RA 10951 reduced the penalty of the crime
defined under Art. 217 of RPC, and imposed the penalty of "prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed
Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000.00)." Because of this, not only must XXX's sentence be modified
respecting the settled rule on the retroactive effectivity of laws, the sentencing being favorable to the
accused; she may even apply for probation, as long as she does not possess any ground for
disqualification (Hernan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017, J. PERALTA.)
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT (R.A. 10175)
209. AA posted on her Facebook account that BB is the mistress of CC without actual
proof for such. CC is the husband of DD. AA is the neighbor of BB and the officemate of
DD. Later, the post of AA garnered so much likes and shares that it reached BB’s relatives
and officemates causing BB to be alienated from social events, leading to problems in her
personal and work life. BB then learned of AA’s post as the cause of the alienation. BB
then confronted AA and was told by AA that she did it because she does not like BB. BB
filed a case for libel and violation of R.A. 10175 against AA and all the other persons who
liked and shared AA’s post.
a. May the case prosper against AA? Why?
Yes. The case against AA may prosper because all the elements of libel are present in this case. The
following elements constitute libel: (i) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (ii)
publication of the imputation; (iii) identity of the person defamed; and (iv) existence of malice. Here,

Pre-week Notes

AA imputed that BB is a mistress of CC through a Facebook post that reached persons who can easily
identify that it was BB whom AA is talking about; and that AA did this to damage BB’s reputation.
Thus, AA can be held liable.
b. What is the penalty to be imposed?
The penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be, since it was committed by, through, and
with the use of information and communications technologies (Sec. 6 of R.A. 10175).
c. May the persons who “liked” and “shared” AA’s post be held liable?
No. Persons who “liked” and “shared” the libelous post of AA cannot be held liable because of its
questionable effect on the freedom of expression of the people concerned. The provisions of
Cybercrime Law on the Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of Cyber crimes
are unconstitutional because its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users due to
its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting
ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. Thus, the case against the persons who
liked and shared AA’s post cannot prosper (Disni et.al. v Secreteary of Justice et.al G.R. No. 203335,
February 11, 2014).
HUMAN SECURITY ACT (R.A. 9372)

210. What is terrorism under the Human Security Act of 2007?
Terrorism refers to an act punishable under the specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code
(Predicate Crimes), thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand (Sec.
3, R.A. 9372).
Terrorism = Predicate Crime + Widespread Terror + Unlawful demand to government
Predicate Crimes (Sec. 3, R.A. 9372):

 Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
 Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
 Article 134-a (Coup d'état), including acts committed by private persons;
 Article 248 (Murder);
 Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
 Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction, or under Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on
Arson);
 Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of
1990);
 Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
 Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
 Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives) (Source: Human Security Act of 2007 or R.A. No. 9372).
88|CLEAR
BarOps
Pre-week Notes

Arellano LMT Crimlaw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arellano LMT Crimlaw

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

Arellano LMT Crimlaw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOOK ONE

FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Distinguish crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.

BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not necessary

The penalty of the offender is the same as

3. Is Plunder malum prohibitum or malum in se?

4. What are the Characteristics of Criminal law? Explain each.

2018 CRIMINAL LAW |1

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

7.Distinguish Error in Personae from Aberratio Ictus and Praeter Intentionem.

ERROR IN PERSONAE ABERRATIO ICTUS PRAETER INTENTIONEM

8. When may a crime be committed without criminal intent?

A crime may be committed without criminal intent in the following instances:

FRUSTRATED FELONY ATTEMPTED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|3

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

13. What are the kinds of Complex Crime?

Compound Crime Complex Crime Proper Special Complex Crime

a. Is the contention of BBB correct?

There are two views regarding this matter:

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|5

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

d. What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo?

15. What is the Doctrine of Common Elements? Give an example.

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|7

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

20. Distinguish justifying circumstances and exempting circumstances in criminal law.

a. What is the criminal liability of AAA, if any? Explain.

b. What is the criminal liability of XXX, if any? Explain.

ACTUAL OR MATERIAL UNLAWFUL IMMINENT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

a. May the justifying circumstance of self-defense be appreciated in favor of XXX?

b. Was the killing of AAA aggravated by treachery and evident premeditation

c. May the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender be appreciated in favor of

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|9

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

27. Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances.

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

ORDINARY SPECIAL QUALIFYING INHERENT

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|11

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

a. Whether or not there was conspiracy.

31. Are additional counts of rape or homicides considered as aggravating circumstance

32. Discuss the alternative circumstances under Article 15 of the RPC.

Alternative circumstances are relationship, intoxication, and lack of instruction.

In alternative circumstance of relationship, it refers to: 1) spouse; 2) ascendants; 3) descendants; 4)

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|13

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

34. What is conspiracy and give its legal effects.

Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|15

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

42. Distinguish an Accomplice from an Accessory.

NOTE: Art. 20 states that the penalties prescribed

43. Distinguish an Accomplice from a Conspirator.

2018 CRIMINAL LAW|17

>>>> BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION