REPUBLIC ACT NO.

10883 - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NEW shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered serial
ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES number; cralawlawlibrary

S. No. 2794 H. No. 4544 ; Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star (c) Dismantling refers to the tearing apart, piece-by-piece or
(August 01, 2016) part-by-part, of a motor vehicle; cralawlawlibrary

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10883, July 17, 2016 (d) Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine
number, chassis number, body tag number, plate number, and
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW any other identifying marks of a motor vehicle declared as
OF THE PHILIPPINES “total wreck" or is beyond economic repair by concerned car
insurance companies and/or law enforcement agencies after its
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of involvement in a vehicular accident or other incident and
the Philippines in Congress assembled: registers the same into another factory-made body or vehicle
unit, of the same classification, type, make or model;
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

cralawlawlibrary

(e) Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any

Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as
power other than muscular power using the public
the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016”.
highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street
sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders,
Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or

(a) Body building refers to a job undertaken on a motor vehicle
tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all
in order to replace its entire body with a new body;
kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. 
cralawlawlibrary

Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or

(b) Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the
intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor
altering, changing, erasing, replacing or scratching of the
vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle
original factory inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle
with no power rating;
engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle.
cralawlawlibrary

(f) Overhauling refers to the cleaning or repairing of the whole

Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number
engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine and
on its engine, engine block or chassis which is different from
its parts from the body of the motor vehicle;
that which is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for
cralawlawlibrary

motor vehicle imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle

(g) Repainting refers to changing the color of a motor vehicle day but not more than thirty (30) years, when the carnapping
by means of painting. There is painting whenever the new color is committed without violence against or intimidation of
of a motor vehicle is different from its color registered in the persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not
Land Transportation Office (LTO); cralawlawlibrary less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than
forty (40) years, when the carnapping is committed by means
(h) Remodeling refers to the introduction of some changes in of violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon
the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle; cralawlawlibrary things; and the penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed
when the owner, driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor
(i) Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from a vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping.
carnapped vehicle used in assembling another vehicle; cralawlawlibrary

Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of

(j) Total wreck refers to the state or status of a motor vehicle carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or
after a vehicular accident or other incident, so that it is syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any
rendered in operational and beyond economic repair due to the person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner,
extent of damage in its body, chassis and engine; and driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed
or raped in the course of the carnapping shall be denied bail
(k) Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates refers to the use when the evidence of guilt is strong.
or transfer of a vehicle plate issued by the LTO to a certain
vehicle to another vehicle. It is presumed illegally transferred Sec. 4. Concealment of Carnapping. – Any person who conceals
when the motor vehicle plate does not correspond with that as carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six (6)
appearing in the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle years up to twelve (12) years and a fine equal to theamount of
to which it was issued. the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine,
or any other part involved in the violation: Provided, That if the
Sec. 3. Carnapping; Penalties. – Carnapping is the taking, person violating any provision of this Act is a juridical person,
with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to the penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its president,
another without the latter’s consent, or by means of secretary, and/or members of the board of directors or any of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using its officers and employees who may have directly participated
force upon things. in the violation.

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless Any public official or employee who directly commits the
of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by unlawful acts defined in this Act or is guilty of gross negligence
imprisonment for not less than twenty (20) years and one (1) of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any of
the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty the registered motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis.
prescribed in the preceding paragraph, be dismissed from the Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be permanently chassis not registered with the LTO shall be considered as a
disqualified from holding public office. carnapped vehicle, an untaxed importation or coming from
illegal source and shall be confiscated in favor of the
Sec. 5. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. – Any person government.
seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle, whether
that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired Sec. 7. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle
from a registered owner, shall, within one (1) week after the Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis. – The LTO shall keep a
completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition permanent registry of motor vehicle, motor vehicle engines,
thereof from the registered owner, apply to the Philippine engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles, specifying
National Police (PNP) for the clearance of the motor vehicle for therein their type, make, serial numbers and stating therein
registration with the LTO. The PNP shall, upon receipt of the the names and addresses of their present and previous owners.
application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts Copies of the registry and of all entries made there on shall be
are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor furnished the PNP and all LTO regional, provincial and city
vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts branch offices; Provided, That all LTO regional, provincial and
is not in the list, the PNP shall forthwith issue a certificate of city offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance registrations of motor vehicles to the main office and to the
from the PNP and after verification of the registration of the PNP: Provided, further, That the original copy of the certificate
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the of registration shall be given to the registered owner, the
permanent registry of motor vehicle engine, engine block and second copy shall be retained with the LTO and the third copy
chassis, the LTO shall register the motor vehicle in accordance shall be submitted to the PNP. Moreover, it shall be unlawful for
with existing laws, rules and regulations within twenty (20) any person or employee who willfully encodes in the registry of
working days. motor vehicles a non-existing vehicle or without history, new
identity of already existing vehicle or double/ multiple
Sec. 6. Registration of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engine, registration (“KAMBAL”) of vehicle.
Engine Block and Chassis. – Within one (1) year upon approval
of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor Sec. 8. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance of a Motor
vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall register Vehicle, Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine,
before the LTO the motor vehicle engine, engine block and Engine Block or Chassis. – Every sale, transfer, conveyance of
chassis in the name of the possessor or in the name of the real a motor vehicle, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle
owner who shall be readily available to answer any claim over engine, engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be
registered with the LTO within twenty (20) working days upon the names and addresses of the persons to whom they are
purchase/acquisition of a motor vehicle and substitution or sold, and shall render accurately a monthly report of his/her
replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.
A motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis
not registered with the LTO shall be presumed as a carnapped SEC.11. Duty of Manufacturers of Engine Blocks, Chassis or
vehicle, an untaxed imported vehicle, or a vehicle proceeding Body to Cause the Numbering of Engine Blocks, Chassis or
from illegal sources unless proven otherwise and shall be Body Manufactured. – Any person engaged in the manufacture
confiscated in favor of the government. of engine blocks, chassis or body shall cause the numbering of
every engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a
Sec. 9. Duty of Collector of Customs to Report. – Within seven convenient and conspicuous part thereof which the LTO may
(7) days after the arrival of an imported vehicle, motor vehicle direct for the purpose of uniformity and identification of the
engine, engine block, chassis or body, the Collector of Customs factory and shall submit to the LTO a monthly report of the
of a principal port of entry where the imported vehicle or parts manufacture and sale of engine blocks, chassis or body.
enumerated above are unloaded shall report the shipment to
the LTO, specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if any, Sec. 12. Clearance and Permit Required for Assembly or
of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, Rebuilding of Motor Vehicles. – Any person who shall undertake
chassis or body, and stating the names and addresses of the to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a
owner or consignee thereof. If the motor vehicle, motor vehicle motor vehicle shall first secure a certificate of clearance from
engine, engine block, chassis or body does not bear any serial the PNP: Provided, That no such permit shall be issued unless
number, the Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the the applicant shall present a statement under oath containing
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or the type, make and serial numbers of the engine, chassis and
body until it is numbered by the LTO: Provided, That a PNP body, if any, and the complete list of the spare parts of the
clearance shall be required prior to engraving the engine or motor vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt together with the
chassis number. names and addresses of the sources thereof.

Sec. 10. Duty of Importers, Distributors and Sellers of Motor In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor
Vehicles to Keep Record of Stocks. – Any person engaged in boats, motor bancas, water crafts and other light water
the importation, distribution, and buying and selling of motor vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the PNP,
vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or body which office shall in turn furnish the LTO pertinent data
shall keep a permanent record of one’s stocks, stating therein concerning the motor vehicle engines including their type,
their type, make and serial numbers, and the names and make and serial numbers.
addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and
Sec. 13. Clearance Required for Shipment of Motor Vehicles, one vehicle to another without securing the proper authority
Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks, Chassis or Body. – The from the LTO.
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a report to the
PNP within seven (7) days upon boarding all motor vehicles Sec. 17. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts. – It shall be
being boarded the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessel or ship for unlawful for any person, office or entity to buy and/or sell any
interisland and international shipment. The PPA shall not allow second hand spare parts taken from a carnapped vehicle.
the loading of motor vehicles in all interisland and international
shipping vessels without a motor vehicle clearance from the Sec. 18. Foreign Nationals. – Foreign nationals convicted under
PNP, except cargo trucks and other trucks carrying goods. Land the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)- service of sentence without further proceedings by the Bureau
accredited public utility vehicles (PUV) and other motor of Immigration.
vehicles carrying foodstuff and dry goods.
Sec. 19. Reward. – Any person who voluntarily gives
Sec. 14. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor information leading to the recovery of carnapped vehicles and
Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis. – It shall be for the apprehension of the persons charged with carnapping
unlawful for any person to deface or otherwise tamper with the shall be given monetary reward as the PNP may determine. 
original or registered serial number of motor vehicle engines, The PNP shall include in their annual budget the amount
engine blocks and chassis. necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.  Any
information given by informers shall be treated as confidential
Sec. 15. Identity Transfer. – It shall be unlawful for any matter.
person, office or entity to cause and/or allow the sale,
registration, and/or transfer into another name, the chassis Sec. 20. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The PNP
number, engine number and plate number of a motor vehicle together with the Department of Transportation and
declared as “total wreck” or beyond economic repair by Communications, LTO, Philippine Coast Guard, Maritime
concerned insurance company, and/or law enforcement Industry Authority, Bureau of Customs and relevant motorists
agencies, due to its involvement in a vehicular accident or for and automotive sectors shall, within sixty (60) days from the
some other causes. The LTO shall cancel the registration of effectivity of this Act, after unanimous approval, promulgate
total wreck vehicle as reported by the PNP and/or as declared the necessary implementing rules and regulations to effectively
by the Insurance Commission. carry out the provisions of this Act, including the setting up of a
coordinated online access and the effective clearance system
Sec. 16. Transfer of Vehicle Plate. – It shall be unlawful for any mentioned in Section 12 of this Act to expedite motor vehicle
person, office or entity to transfer or use a vehicle plate from data and details verification.
Sec. 21. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act is
declared invalid, the remainder of this Act or any provision not
affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

Sec. 22. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise

known as the “Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972”, is hereby REPUBLIC ACT No. 6539
repealed. All laws, executive orders, rules and regulations or
parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING
hereby amended or repealed accordingly.
Section 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Anti-
Sec. 23. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) Carnapping Act of 1972."
days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier. Section 2. Definition of terms. The terms "carnapping", "motor vehicle",
"defacing or tampering with", "repainting", "body-building", "remodeling",
"dismantling", and "overhauling", as used in this Act, shall be
understood, respectively, to mean

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

belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.

"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than

muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road rollers,
trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers,
graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public
highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors,
trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural
purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or
intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be
classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating. lawphi1™
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing, scratching, claim over the registered motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis.
altering or changing of the original factory-inscribed serial number on the Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not
motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle. registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall be considered
Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its as untaxed importation or coming from an illegal source or carnapped,
motor engine, engine block or chassis which is different from that which and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government.
is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicles
imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are required
have a defaced or tampered with serial number. to register their cars with the local police without paying any charges.

"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of Section 4. Permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
painting. There is repainting whenever the new color of a motor vehicle and chassis. The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a
is different from its color as registered in the Land Transportation permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis
Commission. of all motor vehicles, specifying therein their type, make and serial
numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of their present
"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made
replace its entire body with a new body. thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary and all Land
Transportation Commission regional, provincial and city branch
"Remodeling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form offices: Provided, That all Land Transportation Commission regional,
of the body of the motor vehicle.lawphi1™
provincial and city branch offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of
all registration of motor vehicles to the main office and to the Philippine
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part, of a Constabulary.
motor vehicle.
Section 5. Registration of sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or
"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. Every
vehicle by separating the motor engine and its parts from the body of the sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or replacement of a motor
motor vehicle. vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be
registered with the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles
assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor vehicle
Section 3. Registration of motor vehicle engine, engine block and
engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the Land
chassis. Within one year after the approval of this Act, every owner or
Transportation Commission shall not be issued certificates of registration
possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock down
and shall be considered as untaxed imported motor vehicles or motor
condition shall register with the Land Transportation Commission the
vehicles carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in his name or in the
name of the real owner who shall be readily available to answer any
Section 6. Original Registration of motor vehicles. Any person seeking distribution, and buying and selling of motor vehicles, motor vehicle
the original registration of a motor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is engines, engine blocks, chassis or body, shall keep a permanent record
newly assembled or rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner, shall of his stocks, stating therein their type, make and serial numbers, and
within one week after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired
the acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply to the Philippine and the names and addresses of the persons to whom they were sold,
Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for registration with the and shall render an accurate monthly report of his transactions in motor
Land Transportation Commission. The Philippine Constabulary shall, vehicles to the Land Transportation Commission.
upon receipt of the application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered
parts are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle Section 9. Duty of manufacturers of engine blocks, chassis or body to
parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in that list, cause numbering of engine blocks, chassis or body manufactured. Any
the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body
clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the shall cause the numbering of every engine block, chassis or body
Philippine Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the manufactured in a convenient and conspicuous part thereof which the
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the permanent Land Transportation Commission may direct for the purpose of
registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis, the Land uniformity and identification of the factory and shall submit to the Land
Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in Transportation Commission a monthly report of the manufacture and
accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations. sale of engine blocks, chassis or body.

Section 7. Duty of Collector of Customs to report arrival of imported Section 10. Clearance and permit required for assembly or rebuilding of
motor vehicle, etc. The Collector of Customs of a principal port of entry motor vehicles. Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild
where an imported motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first secure
chassis or body is unloaded, shall, within seven days after the arrival of a certificate of clearance from the Philippine
the imported motor vehicle or any of its parts enumerated herein, make Constabulary: Provided, That no such permit shall be issued unless the
a report of the shipment to the Land Transportation Commission, applicant shall present a statement under oath containing the type, make
specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if any, of the motor and serial numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if any, and the
vehicle engine, engine block and chassis or body, and stating the names complete list of the spare parts of the motor vehicle to be assembled or
and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof. If the motor vehicle rebuilt together with the names and addresses of the sources thereof.
engine, engine block, chassis or body does not bear any serial number,
the Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the motor vehicle engine, In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats,
engine block, chassis or body until it is numbered by the Land motor bancas and other light water vessels, the applicant shall secure a
Transportation Commission. permit from the Philippine Coast Guard, which office shall in turn furnish
the Land Transportation Commission the pertinent data concerning the
Section 8. Duty of importers, distributors and sellers of motor vehicles motor vehicle engines including their type, make and serial numbers.
to keep record of stocks. Any person engaged in the importation,
Section 11. Clearance required for shipment of motor vehicles, motor Section 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty
vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or body. Any person who owns of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act,
or operates inter-island shipping or any water transportation with shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished
launches, boats, vessels or ships shall within seven days submit a report by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months
to the Philippine Constabulary on all motor vehicle, motor vehicle and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the
engines, engine blocks, chassis or bodies transported by it for the motor carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body to be persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less
loaded on board the launch, boat vessel or ship. than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence
Section 12. Defacing or tampering with serial numbers of motor vehicle against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the
engines, engine blocks and chassis. It shall be unlawful for any person penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the
to deface or otherwise tamper with the original or registered serial owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed
number of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis. in the commission of the carnapping.

Section 13. Penal Provisions. Any person who violates any provisions of Section 15. Aliens. Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act
this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than two years shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further
nor more than six years and a fine equal in amount to the acquisition proceedings by the Deportation Board.
cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine or any other part involved
in the violation: Provided, That if the person violating any provision of Section 16. Reward. Any person who voluntarily gives information
this Act is a juridical person, the penalty herein provided shall be leading to the recovery of carnapped vehicles and for the conviction of
imposed on its president or secretary and/or members of the board of the persons charged with carnapping shall be given as reward so much
directors or any of its officers and employees who may have directly reward money as the Philippine Constabulary may fix. The Philippine
participated in the violation. Constabulary is authorized to include in its annual budget the amount
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. Any information
Any government official or employee who directly commits the unlawful given by informers shall be treated as confidential matter.
acts defined in this Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or
connives with or permits the commission of any of the said unlawful act Section 17. Separability clause. If any provisions of this Act is declared
shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, invalid, the provisions thereof not affected by such declaration shall
be dismissed from the service with prejudice to his reinstatement and remain in force and effect.
with disqualification from voting or being voted for in any election and
from appointment to any public office. Section 18. Repealing clause. All laws, executive orders, rules and
regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
Section 19. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

NOTES:
*motor vehicle - vehicle propelled by power. (Ex. Motorcycle)
*if thing is not recognized as motor vehicle = theft G.R. No. 127500               June 8, 2000
*carnapping - taking without consent (penalized)
*where there is intimidation or force - penalty is upgraded
*killing or rape in the course of the commission (Penalty: Sec 3. RA 10883, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
Sec 14. RA 6539) vs.
*carnapping with killing or rape - It is considered as a special complex NOEL SANTOS y CRISPINO and FELICIANO FUNCION alias JON-
crime that is why it is not distinguished. JON, accused, NOEL SANTOS y CRISPINO, accused-appellant.
*Is it important to determine homicide/murder? No. It has still the same
penalty. GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
*How do you establish that the thing taken is a motor vehicle? By
describing the motor vehicle, its engine, etc. Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
*If the thing taken is not a motor vehicle what will happen to the Pasay City, Branch 117,  convicting accused-appellant of violation of
1 

killing? Crime of homicide or murder should be distinguished. Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, also known as the Anti-Carnapping
Act, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, on
the basis of an Information the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 18th day of June, 1995, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, and
by means of violence employed against RUEL VALENTINO
MORALES, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take and drive away from the latter a Toyota Tamaraw, bearing
Plate No. UAM 540, Engine No. 2-C 2928663 and Chassis No. CF50-
0012454 valued at P387,000.00 and belonging to TEODULO
NATIVIDAD y DELA CRUZ, to the damage and prejudice of said
owner in the amount of P387,000.00; that as a result of the violence
employed on the person of RUEL VALENTINO MORALES, the latter
sustained injuries which caused his death. 2
The above Information, which named as accused Noel Santos and This account was corroborated by Ernesto Gonzales, one of two
one John Doe, was amended on July 31, 1995 to cancel the traffic aides then stationed at the traffic outpost in Dolores,
designation of John Doe and substitute in its place the name of Magalang, Pampanga, and who assisted PO3 Galang in the
Feliciano Funcion, alias Jon-jon. Up to the time of the rendition of
3 
inspection of the FX and the apprehension of accused-appellant.
the assailed decision, however, accused Funcion remained at
large. PO3 Galang took custody of accused-appellant, who all through out the
incident remained seated in the front passenger seat of the FX. He
The prosecution presented ten witnesses during trial, consisting of called a funeral parlor to collect the corpse, brought the FX and
the apprehending and investigating officers of the Pasay City and accused-appellant to the Magalang police station, and immediately
Magalang, Pampanga police stations, the medico-legal officer, and executed an affidavit of arrest against accused-appellant.
5 

the family and friends of the victim. Also submitted in evidence

were the articles recovered at the scene of the crime, including the The next day, accused-appellant was brought by one SPO2 Nuqui of the
murder weapon and personal belongings of both the victim and Magalang police station to the Pasay City police station and indorsed to
accused-appellant. the officer on duty, SPO2 Renato Guzman. It was SPO2 Guzman who
interviewed accused-appellant, who in turn denied responsibility for the
PO3 Alfredo Galang was manning the traffic at the intersection in death of Morales and pointed all the blame at accused-at-large Jon-jon
Dolores, Magalang, Pampanga at around 2:30 in the morning of Funcion.
June 19, 1995 when he noticed an "overspeeding" Toyota Tamaraw
FX. He signaled for the vehicle to pull over to the side of the road, Also delivered to the Pasay City police were an autopsy report of the
approached the vehicle then asked the driver for his license. The body of the victim, a gray Toyota Tamaraw FX with Plate No. UAM 540,
driver, who turned out to be accused-at-large Jon-jon Funcion, and the items recovered therein. SPO1 Manuel Abenoja, the evidence
handed him an expired driver's license without plastic cover issued custodian of the Pasay City police station, identified in open court the
in the name of the victim, Ruel Morales. Observing that the driver
4 
articles recovered from inside the FX, namely: a deformed and blood-
and his companion, herein accused-appellant, were acting stained kitchen knife, a stone measuring about 3 to 4 inches across, a
suspiciously, PO3 Galang asked them to turn on the lights inside Certificate of Registration pertaining to the Toyota Tamaraw FX issued
the vehicle, to which accused-appellant complied. He then in the name of Teodulo C. Natividad, a pair of checkered short pants, a
borrowed the key to the rear door of the FX from the driver. While wrist watch, a brown scapular necklace, two leather wallets, a PCIBank
PO3 Galang was opening the rear door, the driver fled unpursued card in the name of Ruel Valentine Morales, a Makati Public Safety
towards a nearby sugarcane field. The rear portion of the FX, as Office badge, three pictures of Ruel Morales, a pair of denim long pants,
PO3 Galang found out shortly thereafter, contained the dead body a leather belt, three pairs of shoes, and assorted identification papers in
of victim Ruel Morales wrapped in the seat cover and curtains of the name of Ruel Morales. 6

the vehicle.
Dr. Ma. Lourdes Natividad, rural health physician of Magalang, appellant, even bragged that he was the nephew of a city mayor. He
Pampanga, conducted the post-mortem examination of the body of the then saw Morales opening the passenger doors to let the two persons in,
victim. Based on her findings, the cause of death was hemorrhage as a then Morales drove away with the two on board. Leo Soriba, who was
result of the victim's fractured skull. Dr. Natividad testified to the with Arnie Bordeos at the time, corroborated this account.
presence of the following injuries on the victim's body: fracture of the
frontonasal bone (between the victim's eyes ); multiple lacerations,
7 
Teodulo Natividad testified that he was the owner of the Toyota
incisions and hematoma on the face and arms, abrasions on the face Tamaraw FX where the victim's body was found. He stated that on June
and lower extremities, and ligature extending horizontally from right to 18, 1995 he lent the FX to the victim, Ruel Morales, who was a good
left and covering almost two-thirds of the neck. In her testimony, the
8 
friend of his and who often borrowed the FX from him. The vehicle was
doctor stated that the fracture between the victim's eyes and the recovered and restored to him by the Pasay City police. It had a dent on
contusions were likely caused by a blunt instrument, while the lacerated the roof and the seat covers and curtains were missing, but it was in
and incised wounds were inflicted by a sharp instrument. The ligature otherwise good condition. 10

across the neck could have been caused by strangling with a rope.9

Antonio Morales, Jr. presented receipts covering the expenses incurred

Three of the victim's friends who last saw him alive were also presented by his family for the wake and burial of his brother. The total costs
as prosecution witnesses. Elizalde Claridad declared that at around reflected in the receipts amounted to P56,319.30. He also stated that his
11:00 in the evening of June 18, 1995, he was drinking with his friends brother worked as an entertainer in Japan, earning US$1,000.00 a
at the corner of Lim and M. Reyes Streets in Makati City when Ruel month.  He was, however, unable to submit documentary evidence to
11 

Morales drove by in a Toyota Tamaraw FX. Morales called to him and support this.
asked that he accompany him in looking for his (Morales's) brother,
Hoppy. Morales was wearing a T-shirt, shorts, slippers and a lady's In contrast to the ten witnesses presented by the prosecution,
Rolex wrist watch with gemstones. They drove around Barangay defense presented as its sole witness accused-appellant himself. In
Bangkal in Makati then proceeded to Padi's Point, a restaurant-bar at his version of the story, accused-appellant was at the Malvar Sports
Pasay Road, also in Makati; unable to locate the brother, Morales Complex in Bangkal, Makati City on June 18, 1995 at around 10:00 in
dropped him off at the corner of Lim and M. Reyes Streets and drove the evening. He was playing darts with accused-at-large Jon-jon Funcion
back to Pasay Road. The next time he saw Morales was the next day, and two other friends, when Jon-jon told them that he was in need of
when they fetched his body in the morgue in Pampanga. money as he needed to go to Tarlac to see his girlfriend. Because no
one among them could lend him money, Jon-jon asked accused-
Meanwhile, Arnie Bordeos testified that on the night of June 18, 1995, appellant to accompany him to the house of one Councilor Ferdie
between 10:00 to 11:00, he saw Ruel Morales in a Toyota Tamaraw FX Eusebio from whom he intended to borrow money. Upon reaching
along M. Reyes and General Luna Streets in Makati conversing with two Eusebio's house, however, Jon-jon decided against it because it was
persons by the side of the road. Earlier to this conversation, these two already late at night and it seemed as if the occupants of the house were
persons approached him and his friends and talked to them in a drunken already asleep. They returned to the Malvar Sports Complex where one
and rude manner. One of them, whom he identified as herein accused-
of their friends, Jeffrey Abigabel, suggested they try borrowing money arm on the right shoulder of accused-appellant, and the latter noticed
from his friend, Joel. Jon-jon left with Funcion to go to Joel, but they from the open car door that someone was lying inside the FX. He asked
returned shortly after. Jeffrey then said he was going home, and as Jon-jon what happened and he reportedly replied, "Don't ask anymore,
Jeffrey was walking away from them a Toyota Tamaraw FX stopped you might be the next one."  Then he felt something poke him sharply
13 

beside him. Accused-appellant saw Jeffrey converse with the driver of on the neck, and Jon-jon said in an angry voice, "Just follow what I
the FX, then Jeffrey went on his way and the FX went towards Mabolo instructed (sic), if not, I will kill you."  Jon-jon then told him to remove
14 

Street. Accused-appellant then said that Jon-jon asked him who the the seat covers of the FX and as he did so, Jon-jon went behind him
driver of the FX was, but he answered that he did not know. Then Jon- leveling the knife on accused-appellant's neck with one hand while
jon left towards the direction of Mabolo Street, saying "didiskarte raw holding to the waistband of accused-appellant' pants with the other.  15 

siya ng pera." 
12
Jon-jon made him cover the dead body, with the seat covers; then Jon-
jon tied both of accused-appellant's hands behind his back, took his
At this point, accused-appellant decided to go home. While walking wallet and made him sit on the front passenger seat of the FX. He then
along Macabolos Street he met the FX, being driven by Jon-jon, which placed a seat belt around him, locked the door at his side, started the
stopped beside him. The person on the front passenger seat opened his engine and drove to Buendia Avenue and north to Pampanga. All the
window, and he observed that the person was "gay". Jon-jon asked him while Jon-jon reportedly threatened to kill him if he attempted to escape
where he was going, and when he said he was on his way home, he and or to alert anyone, such as the toll booth personnel, of what was
the "gay" passenger invited him to ride with them and that they will drop happening.  Throughout his testimony, which ran the course of four
16 

him off at his house. He identified the passenger as "Sharon", or the hearings, accused-appellant insisted that he had no opportunity to
victim Ruel Morales in the instant case. Accused-appellant accepted the escape and that he was overcome by fear of accused-at-large Jon-jon
offer and boarded the FX. Funcion.

However, instead of dropping him off at his house in Malibay, Pasay When they were accosted at the intersection in Dolores, Magalang,
City, Jon-jon drove to PICC, where they parked in a dark area where the Pampanga, accused-appellant testified to the following chain of events:
trees screened off the light of the electric lamps. Jon-jon then asked Jon-jon pulled over to the side of the road, unfastened the seat belt
accused-appellant to step out of the FX, saying that he and "Sharon" around accused-appellant, untied accused-appellant's hands, threw
had matters to discuss. He consented, walking about 8 meters away something at the back of the vehicle, turned on the light, told accused-
from the vehicle. Because it was dark, he could not see the interior of appellant to remove his (accused-appellant's) sweatshirt, wore the
the FX but he observed that it was "umuuga", or rocking lightly, for about sweatshirt to cover the blood stains on his arms, turned off the light,
10 to 15 minutes. He came to the conclusion that the two were having threatened him some more, took money from accused-appellant's wallet,
sex. then alighted.  All of this presumably transpired during the interim that it
17 

took for PO3 Galang, who was at a distance of about 30 meters away,  18 

Then Jon-jon called him and alighted from the middle right-side door of to approach the FX.
the FX. When accused-appellant approached, Jon-jon placed his right
At some point in his testimony, accused-appellant said that while the Thus, the trial court made a finding of implied conspiracy and meted out
policeman and Jon-jon were talking, he called to one of the traffic aides a judgment of conviction. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision
and said that there was a dead body at the back of the car.  This, 19 
is quoted as follows:
however, was not in the testimony of Ernesto Gonzales, one of the traffic
aides present at the time. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused
Noel Santos y Crispino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
After Jon-jon Funcion fled and the police officer found the dead body at Republic Act No. 6539, as amended (Anti-Carnapping Act). There being
the back of the FX, they approached accused-appellant who remained no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court sentences him to
seated at the front passenger seat and led him to the nearby police the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of Ruel
outpost. He was then brought to a police station where he was placed Valentino Morales in the amount of P50,000.00; the amount of
under investigation. P56,319.30 as damages, and to pay the costs.

The trial court viewed with disbelief the version of accused-appellant. In SO ORDERED.  21

its decision rendered on October 25, 1996, it declared:

On appeal, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
The Court believes that Jon-jon alone could not inflict all the wounds on
Morales alias Sharon which caused his death. So that the claim of 1. The trial court gravely erred in finding that Noel Santos is guilty of
Santos that he had no participation in the killing of Morales is not violating Republic Act No. 6539, as amended (the "Anti-Carnapping
credible. Santos himself testified that his friend Jon-jon was in need of Act"), considering that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Noel
money as he was to go to his girlfriend in Tarlac. When they were not Santos beyond reasonable doubt.
able to borrow money from Councilor Eusebio, Morales came along and
invited them to PICC. Morales alias Sharon being a gay wanted to use 1a. The trial court gravely erred in finding that there was conspiracy
Jon-jon and Santos who were teenagers. While there is no direct between Funcion and Noel Santos, and that their actions showed unity
evidence in the killing of Morales, the presumption is that the person of purpose and a concerted effort to bring about the death of victim
found in the unexplained possession of the stolen effects is the author of Morales.
the aggression and death of the victim and the robbery committed on
him. (People vs. Prado, G.R. No. 95260, March 8, 1996) At the time they
1b. The trial court gravely erred in finding that Noel Santos participated
were committing the crime, their action impliedly showed a unity of
in the forcible taking of the Tamaraw FX and the killing of victim Morales.
purpose between them and a concerted effort to bring about the death of
Morales. (People vs. Ferrer, et. al., G.R. Nos. 114931-33, November 16,
1995) 20 1c. The trial court erred in finding that Funcion alone could not inflict all
the wounds victim Morales sustained.
2. The trial court gravely erred in finding that the prosecution was able to committed by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or force
sufficiently establish the presence of Noel Santos in the vehicle when upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall; be
the crime was committed by Funcion. imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
2a. The trial court gravely erred in finding Noel Santos guilty based on a carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
presumption that the person found in the unexplained possession of the
stolen effects is the author of the aggression and death of the victim and On the last clause, three amendments have been made to the
of the robbery committed on him, considering that Noel Santos was able original Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the change of
to fully explain his presence in said vehicle where the body of the victim the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, (2) the
Morales was found.  22
inclusion of rape, and (3) the change of the phrase "in the
commission of the carnapping" to "in the course of the
Every criminal conviction requires of the prosecution to prove two things: commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."  This 24 

the fact of the crime, i.e., the presence of all the elements of the crime third amendment makes clear the intention of the law to make the
for which the accused stands charged, and the fact that the accused is offense a special complex crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs
the perpetrator of the crime. In the instant case we find the prosecution 1 to 4 of the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against or
unable to discharge on both aspects, leaving us with no option but to intimidation of persons.  Thus, under the last clause of Section 14 of the
25 

acquit on reasonable doubt. Anti-Carnapping Act, the prosecution not only has to prove the essential
requisites of carnapping and of the homicide or murder of Ruel
"Carnapping", as defined by Republic Act No. 6539, or the Anti- Morales  but more importantly, it must show that the original criminal
26 

Carnapping Act, as amended, is the taking, with intent to gain, of a design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was perpetrated
motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force thereof." Needless to say, where the elements of carnapping are not
upon things.  By the amendment in Section 20 of Republic Act No.
23  proved, the provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act would cease to be
7659, Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act now reads: applicable and the homicide or murder (if proven) would be punishable
under the Revised Penal Code.
Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person found guilty of
carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, In the herein case, we find the charge of carnapping unsubstantiated for
irrespective of the value of the motor vehicle taken, be punished by failure of the prosecution to prove an unlawful taking. The application of
imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not the presumption that a person found in possession of the personal
more that seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is effects belonging to a person robbed or killed is considered the author of
committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon the aggression, the death of the person, as well as the robbery
things, and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four committed, has been invariably limited to cases where such possession
months and not more than thirty years, what the carnapping is is either unexplained or that the proffered explanation is rendered
implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.  The
27 
rebuttal of such presumption, invariably employed in cases of robbery appellant was in the Toyota Tamaraw FX containing the victim's body
and theft under the Revised Penal Code, validly applies to a case of and a blood-stained knife; second, the FX was caught "overspeeding" at
carnapping, for indeed the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery 2:30 in the morning at a provincial intersection, and the occupants were
and carnapping is the same, and had it not been for the enactment of acting suspiciously; third, earlier accused-appellant was seen with
the Anti-Carnapping Act, the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle would accused-at-large in Pasay City, appearing drunk and behaving rudely;
certainly fall within the purview of either theft or robbery. 
28
and fourth, he was seen with accused-at-large boarding an FX being
driven by the victim, the same FX where the victim's body was
However incriminating the circumstances of accused-appellant were — subsequently found.
having been apprehended in an "overspeeding" Toyota Tamaraw FX,
which later turned out to be owned by the victim's friend, and where the For circumstantial evidence to convict, the Rules of Court require
victim's body and a blood-stained knife were found — he did in fact set that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from
up a defense of duress on which, as the records plainly show, he had which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
been subjected to exhaustive cross-examination by the prosecution. combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
During cross-examination, accused-appellant adhered to his version of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.  On the latter, decided cases
29 

the story, insisting that his presence in the FX was for no reason other expound that the circumstancial evidence presented and proved must
than as a captive of accused-at-large.  While we are not prepared to say
1awphi1 constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
that the explanation of accused-appellant is seamless, the point we want conclusion pointing to accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
to make at this juncture is that once an explanation is offered for the guilty person. 
30

possession of the stolen effects, the presumption arising from

unexplained possession may not anymore be invoked and the burden The circumstances abovementioned do not lead to an inference
shifts once more to the prosecution to produce evidence that would exclusively consistent with the guilt of accused-appellant. Quite to the
render the defense of accused improbable. On this burden we find the contrary, we observe that while the arresting officer was preoccupied
prosecution in the instant case unable to discharge. with opening the rear door of the FX, at which time accused-at-large
took the opportunity to flee, accused-appellant remained seated on the
The carnapping not being duly proved, the killing of Ruel Morales may front passenger seat, a behavior quite uncommon for a guilty man faced
not be treated as an incident of carnapping. Nonetheless, even under with the inevitability of arrest. Although no one corroborated accused-
the provisions of homicide and murder under the Revised Penal Code, appellant's allegation that he volunteered the information that there was
we find that the guilt of accused-appellant was not established beyond a dead body at the back of the car, his demeanor all throughout the
reasonable doubt. search of the FX and during his arrest was, to say the least, not
inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. He did not resist arrest,
The trial court itself admits that there is no direct evidence indicating the and during his testimony he did not waver in insisting that it was
guilt of accused-appellant for the killing of Ruel Morales. Following are accused-at-large alone who was responsible for the crime.
the circumstantial evidence relied upon for his conviction: first, accused-
Thus, even if we accept as credible all the testimonies of the prosecution WHEREFORE, the decision in Criminal Case No. 95-7258 of Branch
witnesses, it does not rule out the probability of accused-appellant's 117 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City is hereby REVERSED.
story — that it was accused-at-large who killed Morales then threatened Accused-appellant Noel Santos y Crispino is ACQUITTED on the
him at knife-point — having taken place, for there were no eyewitnesses ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
to the killing itself, and all the prosecution was able to show were the doubt. His immediate release from detention is hereby ordered,
events before and after the killing of Morales. unless other lawful and valid grounds for his further detention
exist. No costs.
A situation as this calls for the application of the equipoise rule, which
requires that where the inculpatory circumstances are capable of two
inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence
and the other compatible with a finding of guilt, the court must acquit the
accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty
and therefore is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. 
31

Our ruling to acquit does not hold a corollary upholding of the credibility Digest:
of the testimony of accused-appellant. The basis of the acquittal is
reasonable doubt, which simply means that the evidence of the Facts:
prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of accused-appellant
beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, That on or about the 18th day of June, 1995, in Pasay City, Metro
however, is a burden particular to the prosecution and does not apply to Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
exculpatory facts as may be raised by the defense; the accused is not the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
required to establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, and by means of
reasonable doubt, nor is he required to establish the truth of such violence employed against RUEL VALENTINO MORALES, did then and
matters by a preponderance of the evidence, or even to a reasonable there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and drive away from the
probability.  An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even
32 
latter a Toyota Tamaraw, bearing Plate No. UAM 540, Engine No. 2-C
though the accused's innocence may be doubted,  for a criminal
33 
2928663 and Chassis No. CF50-0012454 valued at P387,000.00 and
conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and belonging to TEODULO NATIVIDAD y DELA CRUZ, to the damage and
not on the weakness of the defense.  34
prejudice of said owner in the amount of P387,000.00; that as a result of
the violence employed on the person of RUEL VALENTINO MORALES,
Having resolved against the individual culpability of accused-appellant in the latter sustained injuries which caused his death.
2

this manner, the theory of implied conspiracy of the trial court must
likewise fail. The above Information, which named as accused Noel Santos and one
John Doe, was amended on July 31, 1995 to cancel the designation of
John Doe and substitute in its place the name of Feliciano Presumption: a person in possession of a motor vehicle that is not his is a
Funcion, alias Jon-jon. Up to the time of the rendition of the assailed
3  perpetrator unless an explanation is given by the accused. If you have an
decision, however, accused Funcion remained at large. explanation the burden of proof lies to the prosecution to rebut.

Prosecution: 10 witness However, the trial court itself admits that there is no direct evidence
1. Police officer - flag down the fx due to over-speeding. He asked for the indicating the guilt of accused-appellant for the killing of Ruel Morales.
license, the driver presented an expired one. The police then asked for the Following are the circumstantial evidence relied upon for his conviction: first,
key for the rear - end of the car. When the police was about to open the rear accused-appellant was in the Toyota Tamaraw FX containing the victim's
- end, Jon - Jon fled. The dead body was recovered. body and a blood-stained knife; second, the FX was caught "overspeeding"
at 2:30 in the morning at a provincial intersection, and the occupants were
2. Traffic aid: when the car was flag down he came over the Fx. acting suspiciously; third, earlier accused-appellant was seen with accused-
at-large in Pasay City, appearing drunk and behaving rudely; and fourth, he
Essential witness : friend of victim Ruel Morales Elizalde Claridad: Ruel was was seen with accused-at-large boarding an FX being driven by the victim,
driving the FX and asked him to accompany him to his brother, Hoppy. He the same FX where the victim's body was subsequently found.
was dropped by Ruel in Makati. Arnie Bordeos; saw a ruel conversing with For circumstantial evidence to convict, the Rules of Court require that: (1)
the two accused. there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is
Defense: Santos: they were playing darts, Jon-jon asked to accompany him such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 
to borrow money but was unable to do so. Jon-jon saw the FX and followed
it. When Noel decided to go home, he saw Jon-jon driving the FX. Noel
described Ruel as a gay person. He was also asked to board the FX which
was supposed to drive him to his but ended in PICC. He walked 8 m away
and thought that they were having sex.

Accused guilty of conspiracy. Basis is presumption as perpetrator.

Issue: WoN accuse is guilty of carnapping w/ homicide.

Ruling: No. He is acquitted.

On the last clause, three amendments have been made to the original
Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the change of the penalty from
life imprisonment 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."
 On June 9, 1992, the 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor, General Santos
City, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos
City an information charging accused Akmad Sirad, Orlie Sultan
and Salik Amino with carnapping with homicide, as follows:

"That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of February 4, 1992, at Sitio

Cabuay, Barangay Sinawal, General Santos City, Philippines, within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together and helping one another
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of violence and
with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner thereof,
did then and there take, steal and drive away a Kawasaki
motorcycle with Engine No. 459530 and Serial No. KB-832480
belonging to Aniceto Dela and valued at P48,000.00, Philippine
Currency, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the said
G.R. No. 130594             July 5, 2000 sum; that on the occasion of said carnapping and for the purpose
of enabling them to take, steal and drive away the motorcycle
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, mentioned above, herein accused, in pursuance of their
vs. conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
AKMAD SIRAD, ORLIE SULTAN y MASDAL and SALIK AMINO y and with evident premeditation and taking advantage of their
LUGEOMAN, accused. superior number and strength and with intent to kill, treacherously
ORLIE SULTAN y MASDAL and SALIK AMINO y attack, assault and use personal violence upon one George
LUGEOMAN, accused-appellants Lozano, who was then driving the above-mentioned motorcycle
when it was carnapped, inflicting upon said George Lozano fatal
PARDO, J.: wounds and injuries which cause his instant death.

What is before us on appeal is the decision of the Regional Trial Court "Contrary to law." 2

(RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 22, finding accused-appellants

guilty of carnapping with homicide and sentencing each of them to the Upon arraignment on June 26, 1992, accused entered a plea of not
3 

penalty of reclusion perpetua and to jointly and severally indemnify the guilty, and trial ensued. After due trial, on June 27, 1997 the trial court
heirs of the victim, P50,000.00 for death, P100,000.00 as moral rendered a decision, finding all the accused-appellants guilty of
damages and 100,000.00 as compensatory damages. 1 carnapping with homicide, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, based on the evidence adduced, the court finds the when he saw his cousin George Lozano pass by riding his red Kawasaki
accused Akmad Sirad, Orlie Sultan and Salik Amino guilty beyond motorcycle with the bread box attached at its side. At around 12:00 noon
reasonable doubt of the crime of carnapping with homicide. In the he again saw the red motorcycle pass by, but this time it was not George
absence of either mitigating or aggravating circumstance, they are each who was riding the motorcycle but three men and the bread box was no
sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA and to jointly and severally longer attached to the motorcycle. Rita Pino, a co-worker of Martillano
indemnify the heirs of the victim represented by Nenita Lozano Lozano at the cotton farm also saw the red Kawasaki motorcycle pass
P50,000.00 for the death of the victim George Lozano, to pay moral by the cotton farm at around noon of February 4, 1992, driven by
damages in the amount of P100,000.00 compensatory damages of accused-appellant Akmad Sirad with the other accused-appellants Orlie
P100,000.00, plus costs. Sultan and Salik Amino riding at the back.

"SO ORDERED. At around 1:00 in the afternoon, Martillano Lozano reported to Nenita
Lozano, wife of the victim George Lozano, that he saw the motorcycle of
"Given this 27th day of June, 1997 at the city of General Santos, George Lozano ridden by another person and that the bread box was no
Philippines. longer attached to the motorcycle. Around 5:00 in the afternoon Nenita
Lozano was worried because George Lozano who usually arrived at that
"(s/t) ABEDNEGO O. ADRE time had not arrived. She then went to the wake of Bernardino Lozano
"Judge"4 where she could ask the people there about her husband's whereabouts.
A search party was organized and they looked for George Lozano by
tracing the usual routes he would take in delivering bread.
On July 22, 1997, accused Orlie Sultan and Salik Amino filed their notice
of appeal. Accused Akmad Sirad did not appeal.
5 

Martillano Lozano went to the house of Sinawal Barangay Captain Boy

Olarte and they looked for George Lozano. Later, the group of Nenita
The facts of the case are as follows:
and Captain Olarte joined in looking for George Lozano. At around 10:00
in the evening the group of Martillano Lozano found the body of George
George Lozano, the victim in this case, made a living by delivering bread Lozano at the ranch of Bernardino Lozano, approximately three meters
around General Santos City using a red Kawasaki motorcycle owned by away from the road going to Barangay Sinawal. The body of George
his employer Aniceto Dela. In the morning of February 4, 1992, he left Lozano was lying on its side with lacerations on the stomach and the
his house early at around 5:00 a.m. to get bread from the bakery of intestines spilled out. His face and body bore contusions and the
Aniceto Dela. He returned to his house two hours later and after taking motorcycle he was driving was missing.
his breakfast, left again at past 7:00 A.M. proceeding towards Barangay
Sinawal.
The PNP Theft and Robbery section investigated the death and
disappearance of the motorcycle of George Lozano. Police Officer
At about 9:00 a.m. Martillano Lozano was picking cotton at a cotton farm Leozaldy Domantay a member of the theft and robbery team contacted
in Sitio Cabuay (Cabuway), Barangay Sinawal, General Santos City
one of his informants to look for leads as to the whereabouts of the able to identify the accused. She was unwavering in her declaration.
motorcycle. On February 7,1992, an informant provided information that According to the accused-appellants, there were inconsistencies
a motorcycle was hidden in Purok Islam, General Santos City and that it between the signed statement of Rita Pino that "she was invited to go to
would soon be transferred to Cotabato. the police station to identify the suspects" and her statements in open
7 

court that "she came to the police station out of her own volition" which
8 

An operation was organized and Police Officer Domantay and other placed a doubt on her credibility. This is not the first time that the Court
police operatives posted themselves along the roadside in Barangay will hold that discrepancies between the statements of an affiant in his
Klinan, at around 9:00 in the morning of February 8,1992. At around affidavit and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily
1:30 in the afternoon, a motorcycle with two men on board approached discredit him since ex-parte affidavits are generally incomplete. Affidavits
the police roadblock. The motorcycle sped up when its driver Akmad are generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations. 9

Sirad recognized police officer Domantay. The police officers gave

chase on board their motorcycles and were able to overtake and The other witness Martillano Lozano, also testified that on February 4,
apprehend Akmad Sirad and his companion Orlie Sultan. When Akmad 1992, while he was at the cotton farm, he saw the motorcycle of George
Sirad was asked to explain why they have the motorcycle of the Lozano at around 9:00 in the morning driven by George with the bread
deceased George Lozano, accused told Domantay that he was box attached to the motorcycle. However, at around 12:00 noon, he
instructed by Salik Amino to deliver the vehicle to Sultan Kudarat. again saw the motorcycle but this time it was ridden by three men and
the bread box was gone. Again, the testimony of Martillano is direct and
The police then took the accused Akmad Sirad and Orlie Sultan into definite as to who he saw riding the motorcycle of George Lozano at
custody. Soon Salik Amino was also arrested. They were all brought to 12:00 noon of February 4, 1992.
the police station with the motorcycle. Prosecution witnesses Rita Pino
and Martillano Lozano identified the accused as the persons they saw There may be inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses but the
riding the motorcycle of George Lozano on February 4, 1992 while it was inconsistencies are minor and not on the identification of the accused-
passing by the cotton farm. appellants. Appellants argue that it would be impossible for the
witnesses Rita and Martillano to see who was riding the motorcycle at
In this appeal, accused-appellants imputes to the trial court error in that time because they were at a far distance from the road. A perusal of
holding that circumstantial evidence sufficed to sustain a judgment of the transcript of stenographic notes would reveal that Rita Pino was ten
conviction against the appellants, and that the confessions of the meters away from the road. Considering that the road was not a paved
accused-appellants were taken in violation of their rights during custodial road, the motorcycle although moving at a considerably fast speed
investigation. would have to slow down because of the bumps and the ruggedness of
the road. It is not unlikely therefore that Rita could see the faces and the
The witness for the prosecution Rita Pino testified that she saw the clothing of the ones riding the motorcycle. In her testimony she even
motorcycle of George Lozano ridden by three men when it passed by described the garments worn by accused-appellants, and she was
the cotton farm in barangay Cabuway, General Santos City. She was
6  definite in her statements. There is no evidence of ill motive on the part
of Rita to testify against accused-appellants. The only conclusion is that at 3:00 in the afternoon. But as to the whereabouts of Orlie Sultan from
she was telling the facts as she witnessed or saw them. 6:30 a.m. and prior to 3:30 p.m., he could not account for it. The
distance between Barangay Sinawal and the Stanfilco irrigation canal is
As to the witness Martillano Lozano, he was also unwavering in his just 5 kilometers. So it is highly probable that Orlie would have been with
statement before the court during direct and cross-examinations. He Akmad and Salik at the time of the crime and he was able to get back to
categorically declared that he saw the accused-appellants riding the work before 3:30 p.m.
motorcycle of George Lozano at noon of February 4, 1992. His being a
relative of the victim does not necessarily make his testimony tainted Alibis are generally considered with suspicion and are always received
with bad faith. We have held that "where the defense fails to prove that with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable,
witnesses are moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they but also because they can be easily fabricated. "Ergo, for alibi to serve
are not so moved and their testimonies are therefore entitled to full as a basis for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and
weight and credit".10
convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the
perpetration of the crime and (b) that it would be physically impossible
We thus advert to the all too-familiar doctrine that findings of the trial for him to have been at the scene of the crime." Salik Amino's alibi is
11 

court, especially in assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, are not that he was at his house on February 4, 1992, but he was unable to
to be disturbed on appeal, absent facts and circumstances that the trial present witnesses to corroborate his testimony. This is due to the lapse
court might have overlooked. of time since his arrest and the trial and presentation of evidence on his
part, at which time, all his possible corroborating witnesses had
Accused-appellants argued that the trial court failed to consider the transferred residence.
evidence they presented, based on the general view that alibi and denial
are the weakest forms of defense. Accused-appellants contend that the We, however, can not sustain credence to this allegation.
trial court altogether brushed aside their documentary and testimonial
evidence without assessing their probative value. The issue is what is the quantum of circumstantial evidence that will be
sufficient to convict the accused-appellants. This Court had on many
Admittedly, accused-appellants' defense is based on alibi and denial. occasions ruled that circumstantial evidence would suffice when, " (1)
there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
On the part of Orlie Sultan, his alibi is that on the day and time of the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
crime, he was at work at the irrigation canal of Stanfilco under the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
supervision of Fernando Aparente. He signed under a different name, doubt."12

Rolando Dizon, but his foreman knew that his real name was Orlie
Sultan. Fernando Aparente the foreman testified that Rolando Dizon The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused
"aka" Orlie Sultan was present as he was no. 9 in the accomplishment cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of
report or attendance which he checked at the end of the day, which was evidence. It is more like weaving a tapestry of events that will culminate
in a clear picture that will reveal a convincing scenario pointing towards The above circumstances established by the prosecution successfully
the accused as the author of the crime. overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and established
the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case at bar, the circumstances are as follows:
In a last ditch effort to exculpate themselves from the crime charged,
1....Martillano Lozano and Rita Pino saw the familiar red motorcycle accused-appellants raise the issue of the illegality of their identification
of George Lozano passed by the cotton farm at around 9:00 a.m. on by the prosecution's witnesses at a police line-up. According to accused-
February 4, 1992; appellants, the identification was in violation of their constitutional right to
counsel because there was no counsel present at the time. Further, they
2....At around 12:00 noon, Martillano and Rita Pino saw the alleged that their investigation shifted from investigatory to accusatory
motorcycle of George Lozano without the bread box pass by with for they were considered as primary suspects.
the three accused riding on it;
We disagree with accused-appellants. When they were apprehended,
3....At about 10:00 p.m. the dead body of George Lozano was found they were riding the motorcycle of the deceased George Lozano, and to
at the ranch of Bernardino Lozano about three (3) meters away make things worse, they fled when they were asked by the police to
from the cotton farm where Rita and Martillano was gathering left stop. Possession of a stolen property creates the presumption that the
over cotton; possessor stole it. Adding the fact that they fled when asked by the
police to stop, it is just normal and more likely that they would be
considered primary suspects.
4....The three accused riding the motorcycle were driving away
from the direction where the body of George Lozano was found;
Accused-appellants hold the view that their identification in the "police
line-up" was a violation of their constitutional rights and thereby
5....Orlie Sultan and Akmad Sirad were riding the motorcycle of the
inadmissible in evidence. We disagree. In People vs. Timon, we held 13 

victim, when they were apprehended by police officers on February

that "[I]n resolving the admissibility of and relying on out of court
8, 1992;
identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
circumstances test where they consider following factors, viz: (1) the
6....Akmad Sirad explained to the police officers that he was in witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
possession of the motorcycle because he was instructed by Salik witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
Amino to deliver it to Sultan Kudarat; and description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated
by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the
7....Rita Pino and Martillano Lozano identified accused-appellants crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the
and their co-accused Akmad Sirad. identification procedure."
Applying this totality of circumstances test to the case at bar, we rule In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, the trial court correctly
that there is no violation of the constitutional rights of accused- awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the
appellants. The witnesses positively identified the three accused inside victim. Anent moral damages, the victim's widow testified that the death
the jail. The three accused were in the company of other inmates. Thus, of her husband left her with six children to support, thus, she does not
they were in a group. The police officers did not in any way influence the know what to do. Moral damages which include physical suffering and
witnesses.  All they did was to ask the witnesses to identify the three
1awphil mental anguish, may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in
accused they saw riding the motorcycle. The identification took place on physical injuries and the victim's death as in this case. 16

February 10, 1992, only a few days after the incident.

The trial court failed to consider the fact that under Article 2206 of the
Furthermore, appellant's allegation of suggestiveness in the Civil Code, in addition to civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for the death of
identification is unsubstantiated. The identification of accused-appellants the victim, the accused-appellants are also jointly and severally liable for
was effected through a zealous investigation of the police. The accused- the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and such indemnity
appellants' allegation of irregularity, maltreatment and torture has not should be paid to the heirs of the latter. The widow Nenita Lozano
been proven, ergo, the investigators are presumed to have performed testified that her husband was employed as a deliveryman for bread and
their duties regularly and in good faith. was earning P300.00 a day before his death and that they had six
children and the deceased was 42 years old.
Also, in People vs. Lapura and People vs. Pacistol we ruled that "[T]he
14  15 

uncounselled identification made at the police station, however, did not The deceased's loss of earning capacity is computed as follows:
foreclose the admissibility of the independent in-court identification."
Gross annual income (GAI)
It is, however, necessary for the Court to correct the error of the trial Net earning Capacity = life expectancy x
less living expenses (50% of GAI)
court in convicting the accused of the crime of carnapping with homicide.
During the commission of the crime, which was on February 4, 1992, 2(80-42 (age at
there was no crime denominated as carnapping with homicide. The X = death) x P54,000.00
3
proper denomination for the crime is carnapping as defined and
penalized under of Republic Act No. 6539, Sections 2 and 14. Under 2 (38)
Republic Act No. 6539, Section 14, the penalty for carnapping in case X = x P54,000.00
3
the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in
the course of the commission of the carnapping shall be reclusion X = 25.33 x P54,000.00
perpetua to death. Considering that at the time of the commission of the
x = P1,367,999.99    
crime the death penalty was suspended, accused are hereby sentenced
to reclusion perpetua.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the decision NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos City, in Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Criminal Case No. 8265 and find accused-appellants Orlie Sultan Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
and Salik Amino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping
defined and penalized under R. A. No. 6539, Section 14, and Section 1. Penalties. The following penalties are hereby imposed:
sentence each of them to reclusion perpetua. We further sentence
accused-appellants to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of (a) The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period of a fine
the victim in the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P50,000.00 ranging from one thousand to six thousand pesos, and in case of
as moral damages, and P1,367,999.99 as loss of earning capacity. recidivism, the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period or a fine
With costs. ranging from five thousand to ten thousand pesos shall be imposed
upon:
SO ORDERED.
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding sub-
sections who in any manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any
illegal or unauthorized activities or games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1602 alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and game fixing,
numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang and
PRESCRIBING STIFFER PENALTIES ON ILLEGAL GAMBLING the like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine, poker and
its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajao, pangguingue and other card
WHEREAS, Philippine Gambling Laws such as Articles 195-199 of the games; paik que, high and low, mahjong, domino and other games using
Revised Penal Code (Forms of Gambling and Betting), R.A. 3063 (Horse plastic tiles and the likes; slot machines, roulette, pinball and other
racing Bookies), P.D. 449 (Cockfighting), P.D. 483 (Game Fixing), P.D. mechanical contraptions and devices; dog racing, boat racing, car racing
510 (Slot Machines) in relation to Opinion Nos. 33 and 97 of the Ministry and other forms of races, basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling,
of Justice, P.D. 1306 (Jai-Alai Bookies) and other City and Municipal pingpong and other forms of individual or team contests to include game
Ordinances or gambling all over the country prescribe penalties which fixing, point shaving and other machinations; banking or percentage
are inadequate to discourage or stamp out this pernicious activities; game, or any other game scheme, whether upon chance or skill,
wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative
WHEREAS, there is now a need to increase their penalties to make of value are at stake or made;
them more effective in combating this social menace which dissipate the
energy and resources of our people; 2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred
to in the preceding subparagraph to be carried on in inhabited or
uninhabited place or in any building, vessel or other means of
transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place where gambling is
carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited house detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and the like
gambling is frequently carried on therein, or the place is a public or which have the reputation of a gambling place or where gambling
government building or barangay hall, the malfactor shall be punished by activities are being held.
prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of six thousand
pesos. Section 2. Informer's reward. Any person who shall disclose information
that will lead to the arrest and final conviction of the malfactor shall be
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of rewarded twenty percent of the cash money or articles of value
six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer or conductor confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government.
of the above gambling schemes.
Section 3. Repealing Clause. Provisions of Art. 195-199 of the Revised
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period with temporary Penal Code, as amended, Republic Act No. 3063, Presidential Decrees
absolute disqualification or a fine of six thousand pesos shall be Numbered 483, 449, 510 and 1306, letters of instructions, laws,
imposed if the maintainer, conductor or banker of said gambling executive orders, rules and regulations, city and municipal ordinances
schemes is a government official, or where such government official is which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed.
the player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case of game
fixing, point shaving and machination. Section 4. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately upon
publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation.
(d) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine
ranging from four hundred to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord,
any person who shall, knowingly and without lawful purpose in any hour nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.
of any day, possess any lottery list, paper or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in
the games of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar games
of lotteries and numbers which have taken place or about to take place.

(e) The penalty of temporary absolute disqualifications shall be imposed

upon any barangay official who, with knowledge of the existence of a
gambling house or place in his jurisdiction fails to abate the same or take
action in connection therewith.

(f) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine

ranging from five hundred pesos to two thousand pesos shall be
imposed upon any security officer, security guard, watchman, private or
 include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on
freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

Hence, the State hereby condemns the existence of illegal gambling

activities such as illegal numbers games as this has become an
influential factor in an individual's disregard for the value of dignified
work, perseverance and thrift since instant monetary gains from it are
being equated to success, thereby becoming a widespread social
menace and a source of corruption.

Towards this end, the State shall therefore adopt more stringent
measures to stop and eradicate the existence of illegal numbers games
in any part of the country.

Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms

shall mean:

a) Illegal Numbers Game. - Any form illegal gambling activity which uses
REPUBLIC ACT No. 9287             April 2, 2004
numbers or combinations thereof as factors in giving out jackpots.
AN ACT INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL NUMBERS
b) Jueteng. - An illegal numbers game that involves the combination of
GAMES, AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL
thirty-seven (37) numbers against thirty-seven (37) numbers from
DECREE NO. 1602, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
number one (1) to thirty seven (37) or the combination of thirty-eight (38)
numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local lottery where bets are
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the placed and accepted per combination, and its variants.
Philippine Congress Assembled:
c) Masiao. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to promote derived from the results of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave
a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and portion or any result thereof based on any fictitious Jai Alai game
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through consisting of ten (10) players pitted against one another, and its variants.
policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment,
a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. It is
d) Last Two. - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination
likewise the policy of the State that the promotion of social justice shall
is derived from the last two (2) numbers of the first prize of the winning
Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the weekly draw of the k) Protector or Coddler. - Any person who lends or provides protection,
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and its variants. or receives benefits in any manner in the operation of any illegal
numbers game.
e) Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador" or variants thereof). - Any person who
places bets for himself/herself or in behalf of another person, or any Sec. 3. Punishable Acts. - Any person who participates in any illegal
person, other than the personnel or staff of any illegal numbers game numbers game shall suffer the following penalties:
operation.
a) The penalty of imprisonment from thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days,
f) Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game Operation. - Any person, if such person acts as a bettor;
who acts in the interest of the maintainer, manager or operator, such as,
but not limited to, an accountant, cashier, checker, guard, runner, table b) The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to
manager, usher, watcher, or any other personnel performing such eight (8) years, if such person acts as a personnel or staff of an illegal
similar functions in a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or any other numbers game operation;
place where an illegal numbers game is operated or conducted.
The same penalty shall likewise be imposed to any person who allows
g) Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador" or variants his vehicle, house, building or land to be used in the operation of the
thereof). - Any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of illegal numbers games.
his/her principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in
possession of gambling paraphernalia. c) The penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to
ten (10) years, if such person acts as a collector or agent;
h) Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor ("Encargado" or variants
thereof). - Any person who exercises control and supervision over the d) The penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to
collector or agent. twelve (12) years, if such person acts as a coordinator, controller or
supervisor;
i) Maintainer, Manager or Operator. - Any person who maintains,
manages or operates any illegal number game in a specific area from e) The penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day
whom the coordinator, controller or supervisor, and collector or agent to ten (10) fourteen (14) years, if such person acts as a maintainer,
take orders. manager or operator; and

j) Financiers or Capitalist. - Any person who finances the operations of f) The penalty of imprisonment from fourteen (14) years and one (1) day
any illegal numbers game. to sixteen (16) years, if such person acts as a financier or capitalist;
g) The penalty of imprisonment from sixteen (16) years and one (1) day person exercising moral authority or ascendancy over a minor, ward or
to twenty (20) years, if such person acts as protector or coddler. incapacitated person, and not otherwise falling under any of the
foregoing subsections, who induces or causes such minor, ward or
Sec. 4. Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia or Materials. - The incapacitated person to commit any of the offenses punishable in this
possession of any gambling paraphernalia and other materials used in Act. Upon conviction, the parent, guardian or person exercising moral
the illegal numbers game operation shall be deemed prima facie authority or ascendancy over the minor, ward or incapacitated person
evidence of any offense covered by this Act. shall be deprived of his/her authority over such person in addition to the
penalty imposed.
Sec. 5. Liability of Government Employees and/or Public Officials. -
a) If the collector, agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer, Sec. 7. Recidivism. - The penalty next higher in degree as provided for
manager, operator, financier or capitalist of any illegal numbers game is under Section 3 hereof shall be imposed upon a recidivist who commits
a government employee and/or public official, whether elected or any of the offenses punishable in this Act.
appointed shall suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three million pesos Sec. 8. Immunity from Prosecution. - Any person who serves as a
(P3,000,000.00) to Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) and perpetual witness for the government or provides evidence in a criminal case
absolute disqualification from public office. involving any violation of this Act, or who voluntarily or by virtue of a
subpoena testificandum or duces tecum, produces, identifies, or gives
In addition to the penalty provided in the immediately preceding section, testimony shall be immune from any criminal prosecution, subject to the
the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1732,
shall be imposed upon any local government official who, having otherwise known as Decree Providing Immunity from Criminal
knowledge of the existence of the operation of any illegal numbers game Prosecution to Government Witnesses and the pertinent provisions of
in his/her jurisdiction, fails to abate or to take action, or tolerates the the Rules of Court.
same in connection therewith.
Sec. 9. Prosecution, Judgment and Forfeiture of Property. - Any person
b) In the case of failure to apprehend perpetrators of any illegal numbers may be charged with or convicted of the offenses covered by this Act
game, any law enforcer shall suffer an administrative penalty of without prejudice to the prosecution of any act or acts penalized under
suspension or dismissal, as the case may be, to be imposed by the the Revised Penal Code or existing laws.
appropriate authority.
During the pendency of the case, no property or income used or derived
Sec. 6. Liability of Parents/Guardians. - The penalty of imprisonment therefrom which may be confiscated and forfeited shall be disposed,
from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year or fine ranging from alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodia legis and no
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Four hundred thousand bond shall be admitted for the release of the same.
pesos (P400,000.00) shall be imposed upon any parent, guardian or
The trial prosecutors shall avail of provisional remedies provided for Sec. 12. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60) days
under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. from the effectivity of this Act, the DILG, DOJ, NAPOLCOM, and other
concerned government agencies shall jointly promulgate the
Upon conviction, all proceeds, gambling paraphernalia and other implementing rules and regulations, as may be necessary to ensure the
instruments of the crime including any real or personal property used in efficient and effective implementation of the provisions of this Act.
any illegal numbers game operation shall be confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the State. All assets and properties of the accused either owned Sec. 13. Separability Clause. - If for any reason any section or provision
or held by him/her in his/her name or in the name of another person of this Act, or any portion thereof, or the application of such section,
found to be manifestly out of proportion to his/her lawful income shall provision or portion thereof to any person, group or circumstance is
be prima facie presumed to be proceeds of the offense and shall declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of this Act
likewise be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State. shall not be affected by such declaration and shall remain in force and
effect.
Sec. 10. Witness Protection. - Any person who provides material
information, whether testimonial or documentary, necessary for the Sec. 14. Amendatory Clause. - The pertinent provisions of Presidential
investigation or prosecution of individuals committing any of the offenses Decree No. 1602, in so far as they are inconsistent herewith, are hereby
under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 herein shall be placed under the Witness expressly amended or modified accordingly.
Protection Program pursuant to Republic Act. No. 6981.
Sec. 15. Repealing Clause. - The provisions of other laws, decrees,
Sec. 11. Informer's Reward. - Any person who, having knowledge or executive orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are
information of any offense committed under this Act and who shall hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
disclose the same which may lead to the arrest and final conviction of
the offender, may be rewarded a certain percentage of the cash money Sec. 16. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
or articles of value confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government, publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
which shall be determined through a policy guideline promulgated by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in coordination with the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM).

The DILG, the NAPOLCOM and the DOJ shall provide for a system of
rewards and incentives for law enforcement officers and for local
government official for the effective implementation of this Act.
 MARTIN VILLAMOR Y TAYSON, AND VICTOR BONAOBRA
Y GIANAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose.1 A mere tip from an unnamed informant does not
vest police officers with the authority to barge into private
homes without first securing a valid warrant of arrest or search
warrant. While there are instances where arrests and searches
may be made without a warrant, the Court finds that the
G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017 - MARTIN VILLAMOR Y constitutionally-protected right against unreasonable searches
TAYSON, AND VICTOR BONAOBRA Y GIANAN, Petitioners, v. and seizures was violated in the case at bar.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeks to set aside the June 13, 2011 Decision 2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30457 which affirmed the
October 25, 2006 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 43 of Virac, Catanduanes in Criminal Case Nos. 3463
and 3464, convicting both petitioners for Violation of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1602 as amended by Republic Act
FIRST DIVISION (RA) No. 9287, otherwise known as "An Act Increasing the
Penalties for Illegal Numbers Games Amending Certain
G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017 Provisions of PD 1602 and for Other Purposes." Petitioner
Martin T. Villamor (Villamor) was convicted as a collector of
bets in the illegal numbers game of "lotteng" under Section
3(c) of RA 9287, while petitioner Victor G. Bonaobra
(Bonaobra) was convicted as a coordinator, controller, or CONTRARY TO LAW.
supervisor under Section 3(d) of the said law. The RTC
sentenced Villamor to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from Another Information5 was filed in the same court charging
eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum to nine (9) years Bonaobra with violation of the same law, committed as follows:
as maximum, while Bonaobra was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years and one (1) day as That on or about the 17th day of June 2005
minimum to eleven (11) years as maximum.
in the morning, in barangay Francia,
municipality of Virac, province of
Factual Antecedents
Catanduanes, Philippines, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
Villamor was charged with violation of Section 3(c) of RA 9287
for collecting and soliciting bets for an illegal numbers game
said accused with intent [to] gain thru
locally known as "lotteng" and possessing a list of various illegal means did then and there,
numbers, a calculator, a cellphone, and cash. The charge [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously
stemmed from the following Information:4 maintain and operate illegal numbers game
locally known as "lotteng" while in
That on or about the 17th day of June 2005 possession of gambling paraphernalias, such
in the morning, in barangay Francia, as [a] calculator, cellphone, list of
municipality of Virac, province of various numbers and cash in the amount of
Catanduanes, Philippines, within the P1,500.00 representing collection of bets.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
said accused with intent [to] gain thru CONTRARY TO LAW.
illegal means did then and there,
[willfully], unlawfully and feloniously Petitioners filed their respective Motions for Reinvestigation,
which were both granted by the RTC. Subsequently, the Office
engage, collect [and] solicit x x x bets for
of the Provincial Prosecutor issued separate Resolutions both
illegal numbers game locally known as
dated September 13, 2005 amending the Informations in both
"Lotteng" by having in his possession [a] cases.
calculator, cellphone, [list] of various
numbers and money and lotteng
paraphernalias.
In the Amended Information, the phrase "acting as a collector" said accused acting as manager and
was included to charge Villamor as a collector in an illegal operator with intent [to] gain thru illegal
numbers game. The Amended Information6 provides: means did then and there, [willfully],
unlawfully and feloniously maintain and
That on or about the 17th day of June 2005 operate illegal numbers game locally known
in the morning, in barangay Francia, as "lotteng" while in possession of gambling
municipality of Virac, province of paraphernalia, such as [a] calculator,
Catanduanes, Philippines, within the cellphone, lists of various numbers and cash
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the in the amount of P1,500.00 representing
said accused acting as a collector with collection of bets.
intent [to] gain thru illegal means[,] did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and CONTRARY TO LAW.
feloniously engage, collect and solicit bets
for illegal numbers game locally known as When separately arraigned, Villamor, on October 4, 2005 and
"Lotteng" by having in his possession [a] Bonaobra, on November 29, 2005, both pleaded not guilty to
calculator, cellphone, [list] of various the respective charges filed against them. After the pre-trial
numbers and money and lotteng conference, a joint trial on the merits followed.
paraphernalias.
Version of the Prosecution
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: Domingo
On the other hand, Bonaobra was charged as a manager or Tejerero (Tejerero), Provincial Director, Police Superintendent
operator in the Amended Information,7 the incriminatory Francisco Peñaflor (PD Peñaflor), SPO4 Severino Malasa, Jr.,
paragraph of which states: and PO1 David Adrian Saraspi (PO1 Saraspi). Culled from the
records were the following facts:
That on or about the 17th day of June 2005
in the morning, in barangay Francia, On June 17, 2005, at around 9:00a.m., PD Peñaflor received a
call from an informant regarding an ongoing illegal numbers
municipality of Virac, province of
game at Barangay Francia, Virac, Catanduanes, specifically at
Catanduanes, Philippines, within the the residence of Bonaobra. A team composed of PD Peñaflor,
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
Saraspi, PO1 Rolando Ami, a driver, and a civilian asset Florencio inside their house. Villamor gave Bonaobra P2,000.00
proceeded to Bonaobra's residence to confirm the report. which the latter placed on top of the table. Bonaobra then went
outside the house to answer his cellphone. When Bonaobra was
Upon arrival at the target area, the team parked their service at the door, a man later identified as PD Peñaflor kicked the
vehicle outside the compound fenced by bamboo slats installed fence of Bonaobra's house, grabbed Bonaobra's right arm, and
two inches apart which allowed them to see the goings on said, "Caught in the act ka!" Florencio went outside and asked
inside. According to the police officers, they saw petitioners in PD Peñaflor if he had a search warrant. Two more men entered
the act of counting bets, described by the Bicol term "revisar," the house and took the money from the table. Petitioners were
which means collating and examining numbers placed in then made to board the service vehicle and brought in for
"papelitos," which are slips of paper containing bet numbers, investigation at the police headquarters.
and counting money bets.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
When they entered the gate of the compound, they introduced
themselves as police officers and confiscated the items found On October 25, 2006, the RTC of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch
on the table consisting of cash amounting to P1,500.00 in 43 rendered its Judgment finding petitioners guilty beyond
different denominations, the "papelitos," a calculator, a cellular reasonable doubt of committing illegal numbers game locally
phone, and a pen. Petitioners were then brought to Camp known as ''lotteng," a variant of the game Last
Francisco Camacho where they were investigated for illegal Two,8 respectively as a collector or agent under Section 3(c),
gambling. Subsequently, a case was filed against the and as a coordinator, controller, or supervisor under Section
petitioners before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. 3(d), of RA 9287.

Version of the Defense The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the arresting
officers and held that petitioners were caught in flagrante
The defense presented six witnesses, namely Villamor, delicto committing an illegal numbers game locally known as
Bonaobra, Demetrio Bonaobra, the brother of Bonaobra, "lotteng," a variant of Last Two. The RTC held that petitioners
Florencio Bonaobra (Florencio), the father of Bonaobra, Juan were seen by the arresting officers in the act of counting bets
Vargas, and Jonah Bonaobra (Jonah), the wife of Bonaobra. before the arrest was made inside Bonaobra's compound. The
Their testimonies are summarized below. petitioners were also caught holding "papelitos," which
contained the three rows of two-number combinations. Since
On June 17, 2005, at around 8:30a.m., Villamor went to the winning combination in "lotteng" is taken from the first two
Bonaobra's house to pay a debt he owed to the latter's wife, numbers of the winning combinations in the daily draw of the
Jonah. At that time, Bonaobra was having coffee with his father lotto in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, the RTC held that
the number combinations shown in the "papelitos" were meant On June 13, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision. The CA
to correspond to the lotto results. brushed aside Bonaobra's argument that his right to due
process was violated when he was convicted of a crime
The RTC further held that Villamor's participation in the illegal different from that with which he was charged. The CA held
numbers game was that of a collector since he brought bet that the classification of a maintainer, manager, or operator
money to Bonaobra while the latter was that of a coordinator, includes a coordinator, controller or supervisor. 10 The CA
controller, or supervisor after it was shown that he received the ratiocinated that to hold a maintainer guilty of the lesser
money from Villamor. offense of acting as a coordinator will not be violative of his
right to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusation
The dispositive part of the Judgment of the RTC reads: since the graver offense of acting as a maintainer necessarily
includes being a coordinator.
WHEREFORE, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, this Court hereby SENTENCES With respect to Villamor, the CA gave more weight and
credence to the testimonies of the arresting officers who were
Martin Villamor to suffer a penalty of
presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their
imprisonment from eight (8) years and one official functions. The CA held that Villamor's denials cannot
(1) day as minimum to nine (9) years as prevail over the positive assertions of the police officers who
maximum, and Victor Bonaobra to suffer a caught him in the act of revising and counting bets.
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day as
minimum to e1even (11) years as maximum. The CA disposed the case as follows:
Likewise, the money amounting to P1,500.00
and the other personal properties used as IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision
gambling paraphernalia, like the calculator, appealed from is affirmed.
ballpen and cellular phone are confiscated
in favor of the state. SO ORDERED.11
SO ORDERED9 Hence, this Petition.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals Issue

The main issue in this case is whether the petitioners' any proceeding.13 "Evidence obtained and confiscated on the
conviction for violation of RA 9287 as collector or agent under occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted
Section 3(c) for Villamor, and as coordinator, controller, or and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the
supervisor under Section 3(d) for Bonaobra, should be upheld. poisonous tree."14

Our Ruling In this case, the apprehending officers claim that petitioners
were caught in flagrante delicto, or caught in the act of
We find the Petition meritorious. committing an offense. PD Peñaflor and his team of police
officers claim that petitioners were committing the offense of
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire "case wide open illegal numbers game when they were arrested without a
for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though warrant.
unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial
court's decision [based on] x x x grounds other than those that We are not persuaded.
the parties raised as errors."12
Under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a lawful
The Court finds that the right of the petitioners against arrest may be effected even without a warrant of arrest in the
unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the following instances:
arresting officers when they barged into Bonaobra's compound
without a valid warrant of arrest or a search warrant. While Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
there are exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant for a valid lawful. - A peace officer or a private
search and seizure, none applies in the case at bar. person may, without a warrant, arrest a
Consequently, the evidence obtained by the police officers is person:
inadmissible against the petitioners, the same having been
obtained in violation of the said right.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires a judicial
warrant based on the existence of probable cause before a
committing, or is attempting to commit an
search and an arrest may be effected by law enforcement offense;
agents. Without the said warrant, a search or seizure becomes
unreasonable within the context of the Constitution and any (b) When an offense has in fact just been
evidence obtained on the occasion of such unreasonable search committed, and he has probable cause to
and seizure shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in believe based on personal knowledge of facts
 or circumstances that the person to be PD Peñaflor, they were positioned some 15 to 20 meters away
arrested has committed it; and from petitioners. PO1 Saraspi's testimony during cross
examination reveals the following:
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal ATTY. SAMONTE:
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while While you were outside the compound of Bonaobra, what
being transferred from one confinement to Q was your distance to accused Martin Villamor and
another. Victor Bonaobra?

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and A More or less fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters.
(b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
Is it not that the compound of Bonaobra is surrounded
nearest police station or jail and shall be Q
with fence?
proceeded against in accordance with Section
7 of Rule 112. A Yes, sir.

In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule

113, two elements must concur, namely "(a) the person to be Q Bamboo fence, right?
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit A Yes, sir, without a gate.
a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer."15
Q Are you sure it's without a gate?
After a judicious review of the records of the case, the Court
finds that there was no valid warrantless arrest on petitioners. A Probably it was open.
It was not properly established petitioners had just committed,
or were actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime
and that said act or acts were done in the presence of the Q Can you determine the height of the fence?
arresting officers. Based on the testimonies of PO1 Saraspi and
A Between 5'7" to 5'9".
Q What were they holding?
Q More than your height? A 'Papelitos'.
A Yes, sir.
Q What else?
Can you tell us whether you can see what the person is While they were holding 'papelitos' the monies were
Q A
doing inside the compound while you are outside? just on the table.
The fence is made up [sic] of bamboo and there were
gaps as far as the fence is concerned that is why when
A At the distance of 15 to 10 meters can you determine
we alighted from the Frontier we saw what was inside Q
the contents of the 'papelitos'?
the compound.
A No, sir.

Q And the space of each bamboo, can you determine [sic]?

So you are not sure whether those are gambling
A One and half to two inches apart. Q
paraphelnalia?
A No, sir.
When you were already outside the compound what were
Q
the accused doing?
Because you do not know the contents of that and you
A They were sitting and they were revising. Q are not sure whether those are gambling paraphernalia
you went inside, is that right?
Q Were they seated with [sic] a table? After we introduced ourselves that we are [sic] police
A
officers we entered the compound.
They were sitting and Victor Bonaobra was without a
A
shirt.
 Meaning to say you were outside the compound and distance and I saw the calculator, the money bets.
Q
saying you are policemen?
A We entered first and we introduced ourselves. So what you saw within a distance of 15 to 10 meters
Q
are calculators, money and cellphone?
Which is first, going inside or introducing A Yes, sir.
Q
yourselves?
While entering we were also introducing ourselves
A Q Do you consider money gambling paraphernalia?
simultaneously.
A Yes, sir.

Q When you reached inside, what did you determine?

So every time you see money you will consider that a
We determined that there were lotteng paraphernalia on Q
A gambling paraphernalia?
the table.
A In other situations.

That is the only time that you determined that those

Q
were gambling paraphernalia? How about calculator, do you consider calculator
Q
gambling paraphernalia?
No, even on the [sic] outside we identified it
A
already. A Yes, sir.

A while ago you said at a distance of 15 to 10 meters When you go to a department store there are
Q you can determine whether they were in possession of Q calculators, do you consider those calculators
the illegal gambling paraphernalia? gambling paraphernalia?
A What I am trying to say is that I cannot identify If you are going to consolidate all these items in a
A
those that are written on the 'papelitos' at the table all of these are gambling paraphernalia.
 entered the compound, since he was not armed with a warrant,
that he supposedly saw the gambling paraphernalia. PD
So when you consolidate these items and papers and Peñaflor's testimony in this regard is as follows:
calculators, if you see those items at Century
Q
Trading, will you consider those as gambling Can you tell the Honorable Court, Mr. Witness, the
paraphernalia?16 distance of the house of Victor Bonaobra to that place
Q
where you parked your vehicle when you arrived in the
Considering that 15 to 20 meters is a significant distance vicinity?
between the police officers and the petitioners, the Court finds
it doubtful that the police officers were able to determine that a When I parked my vehicle in front of the compound
criminal activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect an because that is a street, the distance from the street
in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest and a search incidental A to that place where there is an on-going 'revisar' of
to a warrantless arrest thereafter. The police officers even 'lotteng', more or less 15 to 20 meters, I believe,
admitted that the compound was surrounded by a bamboo from the gate.
fence 5'7" to 5'9" in height, which made it harder to see what
was happening inside the compound. It appears that the police
officers acted based solely on the information received from PD So, you did not immediately go inside the compound of
Peñaflor's informant and not on personal knowledge that a Q
Victor Bonaobra?
crime had just been committed, was actually being committed,
or was about to be committed in their presence. The Court Yes, sir. I verified first if there is really [sic]
finds it doubtful that the police officers witnessed any overt act A
persons in the compound.
before entering the private home of Bonaobra immediately
preceding the arrest. PO1 Saraspi even admitted that from his
position outside the compound, he could not read the contents So, at that distance of 15 to 20 meters, you were able
of the so-called "papelitos;" yet, upon seeing the calculator,
Q to verify what they were doing on the particular time,
phone, papers and money on the table, he readily concluded
the same to be gambling paraphernalias.
Mr. Witness?
A No, sir.17
On the part of PD Peñaflor, he likewise admitted that from his
position outside the compound, he could not determine the
During his direct examination, Bonaobra testified that he was
activities of the persons inside. It was only after he had illegally
only answering his cellphone when PD Peñaflor barged into his
compound and arrested him. The relevant portions of his Who was with PD Peñaflor on [sic] that particular
testimony reveals the following: Q
time, if any, Mr. Witness?

ATTY SAMONTE: A Two (2) persons in civilian clothes.

At around 9:00 a.m. of June 17, 2005, what were you x x x x

Q
doing if you still remember?
I stood up and I went out and made [sic] three steps After PD Peñaflor kicked the door of your fence, what
from the door to answer the cellphone and later on I Q
A happened next, Mr. Witness?
was surprised when the police whom I could not
identify, kicked the door. A He held my hand and he seized my cellphone.

Mr. Witness, which door [are you] referring to [that] x x x x

Q
was kicked by the police?
A A The gate outside of our fence. After PD Peñaflor seized your cellphone, what else did
Q
he do?

x x x x A He said, "caught in the act."

You said a while ago that the policeman kicked the Which comes first, Mr. Witness, the utterance made by
Q door of your fence x x x who was that policeman, if PD Peñaflor that you were caught in the act or the
Q
you know him? utterance made by your father whether they had a
warrant?
A Provincial Director Peñaflor.
A When my father asked them whether they have a warrant.
 And what was the answer of PD Peñaflor when your ATTY. SAMONTE:
Q
father asked that question?
Your Honor, please, [may] I respectfully offer the
A He said, "caught in the act." testimony of Jona[h] Bonaobra to show that she is the
wife of Victor Bonaobra; that at around 8:30 a.m. of
June 17, 2005 she was inside their residence at
Q And what was the reply of your father? Bonaobra's compound, Francia, Virac, Catanduances and
on that particular time and date, Martin Villamor
My father said that what you are doing is wrong, that
A arrived to pay his debt and she personally witnessed
is prohibited.
the unlawful act committed by the policemen who
entered their dwelling on that particular time and
date and such other matters relative thereto, Your
And what did PD Peñaflor answered [sic] to your
Q Honor.
father?
He shouted at my father, "Di na kailangan yan"(That is
A COURT:
not needed).18
Any comment from the prosecution?
From the circumstances above, it is highly suspect that PD
Peñaflor had witnessed any overt act indicating that the
petitioners were actually committing a crime. While PD Peñaflor
PROS. TAÑON:
claims that he caught the petitioners in the act of collecting
bets and counting bet money, this observation was highly We will admit that she is the wife of Victor Bonaobra;
improbable given the distance of the police from the petitioners that on June 17, 2005 at 8:30 in the morning she was
and the fact that the compound was surrounded by a bamboo inside the residence of Bonaobra's compound; that
fence. accused Martin Villamor arrived to pay his debt. We
are to contest on that she personally witnessed the
For his part, Villamor claimed that he was at the Bonaobra unlawful act.
compound to repay his loan to Jonah. The prosecution, through
Prosecutor Tañon, even admitted this fact during Jonah's direct
examination. The following exchange between the prosecution
and the defense was quite revealing:
ATTY. SAMONTE:
 To clarify that, the prosecution is admitting the fact The Court is aware that any question regarding the legality of a
warrantless arrest must be raised before arraignment. Failure
that Martin arrived to pay the loan on that particular
to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to question the
day? legality of the arrest especially when the accused actively
participated during trial as in this case. However, we have
clarified that such waiver is only confined to the defects of the
PROS. TAÑON: arrest and not on the inadmissibility of the evidence seized
during an illegal arrest. In People v. Racho,20 the Court held
Yes, Your Honor.
that:

COURT: Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of

the 'fruit of the poisonous tree', hence,
Okay, so that we can proceed to the other the confiscated item is inadmissible in
matter.19 (Emphasis supplied) evidence consonant with Article III, Section
3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, 'any evidence
From the exchange above, it is clear that the prosecution obtained in violation of this or the
admitted that Villamor went to Bonaobra's house to pay his preceding section shall be inadmissible for
loan to Jonah. Thus, at the exact moment of the arrest, neither any purpose in any proceeding'.
Bonaobra, who was answering his cellphone, nor Villamor, who
was paying his loan, was performing any overt act constitutive Without the confiscated shabu, appellant's
of a crime. conviction cannot be sustained based on the
remaining evidence. Thus, an acquittal is
Verily, the warrantless arrest conducted by PD Peñaflor and his warranted, despite the waiver of appellant
team was unlawful as the same does not satisfy the of his right to question the illegality of
requirements of an in flagrante delicto arrest. Consequently,
his arrest by entering a plea and his active
the search and seizure of the effects found inside the house of
participation in the trial of the case. As
Bonaobra are likewise illegal since there could be no valid
search incident to an illegal warrantless arrest. Thus, evidence earlier mentioned, the legality of an arrest
seized from Bonaobra's house is inadmissible for being a fruit affects only the jurisdiction of the court
of the poisonous tree. over the person of the accused. A waiver of
an illegal, warrantless arrest does not
 carry with it a waiver of the Bonaobra y Gianan are ACQUITTED and are ordered to be
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are
illegal warrantless arrest. (Emphasis confined for any other lawful cause.
supplied)
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections
In this case, the prosecution failed to clearly establish the acts is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to
that constitute the offense of illegal gambling as a collector or this Court the action taken hereon within five days from
an agent under Section 3(c), and as a coordinator, controller, receipt.
or supervisor under Section 3(d), of RA 9287. Under the said
law, a collector or agent is "any person who collects, solicits or SO ORDERED.
produces bets in behalf of his/her principal for any illegal
numbers game who is usually in possession of gambling
paraphernalia."21 On the other hand, a coordinator, controller,
or supervisor is defined as, "any person who exercises control
and supervision over the collector or agent." 22 The prosecution
merely relied on the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia Republic of the Philippines
found and confiscated inside the house of Bonaobra and not on Congress of the Philippines
the specific overt acts that constitute the offense.
Metro Manila
All told, the evidence purportedly seized from the Bonaobra
compound is inadmissible in evidence since it was obtained in Twelfth Congress
violation of Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Since the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia is the First Regular Session
very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court acquits
petitioners.
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the
WHEREFORE, the June 13, 2011 Decision of the Court of twenty third day of July, two thousand one.
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30457 which affirmed the Judgment
of the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 in [REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160]
Criminal Case Nos. 3463 and 3464 is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Petitioners Martin Villamor y Tayson and Victor
 AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF MONEY (1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities,
LAUNDERING, PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress (2) insurance companies and all other institutions
assembled. supervised or regulated by the Insurance
Commission; and
SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known
as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001.” (3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen,
investment houses and other similar entities
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby managing securities or rendering services as
declared the policy of the State to protect and investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii)
preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank mutual funds, closed-end investment companies,
accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall common trust funds, pre-need companies and
not be used as a money laundering site for the other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange
proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with corporations, money changers, money payment,
its foreign policy, the State shall extend remittance, and transfer companies and other
cooperation in transnational investigations and similar entities, and (iv) other entities
prosecutions of persons involved in money administering or otherwise dealing in currency,
laundering activities wherever committed. commodities or financial derivatives based
thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and
SEC. 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act, the other similar monetary instruments or property
following terms are hereby defined as follows: supervised or regulated by Securities and
Exchange Commission.
(a) “Covered institution” refers to:
(b) “Covered transaction” is a single, series, or (2) drafts, checks and notes;
combination of transactions involving a total
amount in excess of Four million Philippine pesos (3) securities or negotiable instruments, bonds,
(Php4,000,000.00) or an equivalent amount in commercial papers, deposit certificates, trust
foreign currency based on the prevailing exchange certificates, custodial receipts or deposit
rate within five (5) consecutive banking days substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction
except those between a covered institution and a tickets and confirmations of sale or investments
person who, at the time of the transaction was a and money market instruments; and
properly identified client and the amount is
commensurate with the business or financial (4) other similar instruments where title thereto
capacity of the client; or those with an underlying passes to another by endorsement, assignment or
legal or trade obligation, purpose, origin or delivery.
economic justification.
(d) “Offender” refers to any person who commits a
It likewise refers to a single, series or combination money laundering offense.
or pattern of unusually large and complex
transactions in excess of Four million Philippine (e) “Person” refers to any natural or juridical
pesos (Php4,000,000.00) especially cash deposits person.
and investments having no credible purpose or
(f) “Proceeds” refers to an amount derived or
origin, underlying trade obligation or contract.
realized from an unlawful activity.
(c) “Monetary instrument” refers to:
(g) “Supervising Authority” refers to the
(1) coins or currency of legal tender of the appropriate supervisory or regulatory agency,
Philippines, or of any other country; department or office supervising or regulating the
covered institutions enumerated in Section 3(a).
(h) “Transaction” refers to any act establishing any (5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295,
right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Revised Penal
or legal relationship between the parties thereto. It Code, as amended;
also includes any movement of funds by any means
with a covered institution. (6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal
gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602;
(i) “Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission
or series or combination thereof involving or (7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal
having relation to the following: Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No.
532;
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act
No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal (8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised
Code, as amended; Penal Code, as amended;

(2) Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Article Two of (9) Swindling under Article 315 of the Revised
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise Penal Code, as amended;
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972;
(10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and
(3) Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I of 1937;
Republic Act No. 3019, as amended; otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; (11) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792,
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act
(4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as of 2000;
amended;
(12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic
Act No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as
defined under the Revised Penal Code, as (b) Any person knowing that any monetary
amended, including those perpetrated by terrorists instrument or property involves the proceeds of
against non-combatant persons and similar any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform
targets; any act as a result of which he facilitates the
offense of money laundering referred to in
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations paragraph (a) above.
under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as
the Securities Regulation Code of 2000; (c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act to
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money
are punishable under the penal laws of other Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
countries.
SEC. 5. Jurisdiction of Money Laundering Cases. —
  The regional trial courts shall have jurisdiction to
try all cases on money laundering. Those
SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money committed by public officers and private persons
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an who are in conspiracy with such public officers
unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making shall be under the jurisdiction of the
them appear to have originated from legitimate Sandiganbayan.
sources. It is committed by the following:
SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering.
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or (a) Any person may be charged with and convicted
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, of both the offense of money laundering and the
transacts or attempts to transact said monetary unlawful activity as herein defined.
instrument or property.
(b) Any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity be, in whole or in part, wherever located,
shall be given precedence over the prosecution of representing, involving, or related to, directly or
any offense or violation under this Act without indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the
prejudice to the freezing and other remedies proceeds of an unlawful activity;
provided.
(3) to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all
SEC. 7. Creation of Anti-Money Laundering Council other remedial proceedings through the Office of
(AMLC). — The Anti-Money Laundering Council is the Solicitor General;
hereby created and shall be composed of the
Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as (4) to cause the filing of complaints with the
chairman, the Commissioner of the Insurance Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the
Commission and the Chairman of the Securities prosecution of money laundering offenses;
and Exchange Commission as members. The AMLC
shall act unanimously in the discharge of its (5) to initiate investigations of covered
functions as defined hereunder: transactions, money laundering activities and
other violations of this Act;
(1) to require and receive covered transaction
reports from covered institutions; (6) to freeze any monetary instrument or property
alleged to be proceeds of any unlawful activity;
(2) to issue orders addressed to the appropriate
Supervising Authority or the covered institution to (7) to implement such measures as may be
determine the true identity of the owner of any necessary and justified under this Act to
monetary instrument or property subject of a counteract money laundering;
covered transaction report or request for
assistance from a foreign State, or believed by the (8) to receive and take action in respect of, any
Council, on the basis of substantial evidence, to request from foreign states for assistance in their
own anti-money laundering operations provided in at least thirty-five (35) years of age and of good
this Act; moral character, unquestionable integrity and
known probity. All members of the Secretariat
(9) to develop educational programs on the must have served for at least five (5) years either
pernicious effects of money laundering, the in the Insurance Commission, the Securities and
methods and techniques used in money laundering, Exchange Commission or the Bangko Sentral ng
the viable means of preventing money laundering Pilipinas (BSP) and shall hold full-time permanent
and the effective ways of prosecuting and positions within the BSP.
punishing offenders; and
SEC. 9. Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer
(10) to enlist the assistance of any branch, Identification Requirements and Record Keeping.
department, bureau, office, agency or — (a) Customer Identification. — Covered
instrumentality of the government, including institutions shall establish and record the true
government-owned and -controlled corporations, in identity of its clients based on official documents.
undertaking any and all anti-money laundering They shall maintain a system of verifying the true
operations, which may include the use of its identity of their clients and, in case of corporate
personnel, facilities and resources for the more clients, require a system of verifying their legal
resolute prevention, detection and investigation of existence and organizational structure, as well as
money laundering offenses and prosecution of the authority and identification of all persons
offenders. purporting to act on their behalf.

SEC. 8. Creation of a Secretariat. — The AMLC is The provisions of existing laws to the contrary
hereby authorized to establish a secretariat to be notwithstanding, anonymous accounts, accounts
headed by an Executive Director who shall be under fictitious names, and all other similar
appointed by the Council for a term of five (5) accounts shall be absolutely prohibited. Peso and
years. He must be a member of the Philippine Bar, foreign currency non-checking numbered accounts
shall be allowed. The BSP may conduct annual No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and
testing solely limited to the determination of the other similar laws, but are prohibited from
existence and true identity of the owners of such communicating, directly or indirectly, in any
accounts. manner or by any means, to any person the fact
that a covered transaction report was made, the
(b) Record Keeping. — All records of all contents thereof, or any other information in
transactions of covered institutions shall be relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the
maintained and safely stored for five (5) years from concerned officer, employee, representative,
the dates of transactions. With respect to closed agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the
accounts, the records on customer identification, covered institution, shall be criminally liable.
account files and business correspondence, shall However, no administrative, criminal or civil
be preserved and safely stored for at least five (5) proceedings, shall lie against any person for having
years from the dates when they were closed. made a covered transaction report in the regular
performance of his duties and in good faith,
(c) Reporting of Covered Transactions. — Covered whether or not such reporting results in any
institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered criminal prosecution under this Act or any other
transactions within five (5) working days from Philippine law.
occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising
Authority concerned prescribes a longer period not When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,
exceeding ten (10) working days. covered institutions and their officers, employees,
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or
When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC, associates are prohibited from communicating,
covered institutions and their officers, employees, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or means, to any person, entity, the media, the fact
associates shall not be deemed to have violated that a covered transaction report was made, the
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act contents thereof, or any other information in
relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be day period shall be tolled pending the court’s
published or aired in any manner or form by the decision to extend the period.
mass media, electronic mail, or other similar
devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned No court shall issue a temporary restraining order
officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor, or writ of injunction against any freeze order
consultant or associate of the covered institution, issued by the AMLC except the Court of Appeals or
or media shall be held criminally liable. the Supreme Court.

SEC. 10. Authority to Freeze. — Upon SEC. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. —
determination that probable cause exists that any Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No.
deposit or similar account is in any way related to 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as
an unlawful activity, the AMLC may issue a freeze amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws,
order, which shall be effective immediately, on the the AMLC may inquire into or examine any
account for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) particular deposit or investment with any banking
days. Notice to the depositor that his account has institution or non-bank financial institution upon
been frozen shall be issued simultaneously with order of any competent court in cases of violation
the issuance of the freeze order. The depositor of this Act when it has been established that there
shall have seventy-two (72) hours upon receipt of is probable cause that the deposits or investments
the notice to explain why the freeze order should involved are in any way related to a money
be lifted. The AMLC has seventy-two (72) hours to laundering offense: Provided, That this provision
dispose of the depositor’s explanation. If it fails to shall not apply to deposits and investments made
act within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of prior to the effectivity of this Act.
the depositor’s explanation, the freeze order shall
automatically be dissolved. The fifteen (15)-day SEC. 12. Forfeiture Provisions.
freeze order of the AMLC may be extended upon
order of the court, provided that the fifteen (15)-
(a) Civil Forfeiture. — When there is a covered (c) Payment in Lieu of Forfeiture. — Where the
transaction report made, and the court has, in a court has issued an order of forfeiture of the
petition filed for the purpose ordered seizure of any monetary instrument or property subject of a
monetary instrument or property, in whole or in money laundering offense defined under Section 4,
part, directly or indirectly, related to said report, and said order cannot be enforced because any
the Revised Rules of Court on civil forfeiture shall particular monetary instrument or property cannot,
apply. with due diligence, be located, or it has been
substantially altered, destroyed, diminished in
(b) Claim on Forfeiture Assets. — Where the court value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act
has issued an order of forfeiture of the monetary or omission, directly or indirectly, attributable to
instrument or property in a criminal prosecution for the offender, or it has been concealed, removed,
any money laundering offense defined under converted or otherwise transferred to prevent the
Section 4 of this Act, the offender or any other same from being found or to avoid forfeiture
person claiming an interest therein may apply, by thereof, or it is located outside the Philippines or
verified petition, for a declaration that the same has been placed or brought outside the jurisdiction
legitimately belongs to him and for segregation or of the court, or it has been commingled with other
exclusion of the monetary instrument or property monetary instruments or property belonging to
corresponding thereto. The verified petition shall either the offender himself or a third person or
be filed with the court which rendered the entity, thereby rendering the same difficult to
judgment of conviction and order of forfeiture, identify or be segregated for purposes of forfeiture,
within fifteen (15) days from the date of the order the court may, instead of enforcing the order of
of forfeiture, in default of which the said order forfeiture of the monetary instrument or property
shall become final and executory. This provision or part thereof or interest therein, accordingly
shall apply in both civil and criminal forfeiture. order the convicted offender to pay an amount
equal to the value of said monetary instrument or
property. This provision shall apply in both civil an order unless the application is accompanied by
and criminal forfeiture. an authenticated copy of the order of a court in the
requesting State ordering the forfeiture of said
SEC. 13. Mutual Assistance among States. monetary instrument or property of a person who
has been convicted of a money laundering offense
(a) Request for Assistance from a Foreign State. — in the requesting State, and a certification or an
Where a foreign State makes a request for affidavit of a competent officer of the requesting
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a State stating that the conviction and the order of
money laundering offense, the AMLC may execute forfeiture are final and that no further appeal lies in
the request or refuse to execute the same and respect of either.
inform the foreign State of any valid reason for not
executing the request or for delaying the execution (c) Obtaining Assistance from Foreign States. —
thereof. The principles of mutuality and reciprocity The AMLC may make a request to any foreign State
shall, for this purpose, be at all times recognized. for assistance in (1) tracking down, freezing,
restraining and seizing assets alleged to be
(b) Powers of the AMLC to Act on a Request for proceeds of any unlawful activity; (2) obtaining
Assistance from a Foreign State. — The AMLC may information that it needs relating to any covered
execute a request for assistance from a foreign transaction, money laundering offense or any other
State by: (1) tracking down, freezing, restraining matter directly or indirectly related thereto; (3) to
and seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any the extent allowed by the law of the foreign State,
unlawful activity under the procedures laid down in applying with the proper court therein for an order
this Act; (2) giving information needed by the to enter any premises belonging to or in the
foreign State within the procedures laid down in possession or control of, any or all of the persons
this Act; and (3) applying for an order of forfeiture named in said request, and/or search any or all
of any monetary instrument or property in the such persons named therein and/or remove any
court: Provided, That the court shall not issue such document, material or object named in said
request: Provided, That the documents (e) Requirements for Requests for Mutual
accompanying the request in support of the Assistance from Foreign States. — A request for
application have been duly authenticated in mutual assistance from a foreign State must (1)
accordance with the applicable law or regulation confirm that an investigation or prosecution is
of the foreign State; and (4) applying for an order of being conducted in respect of a money launderer
forfeiture of any monetary instrument or property named therein or that he has been convicted of
in the proper court in the foreign State: Provided, any money laundering offense; (2) state the
That the request is accompanied by an grounds on which any person is being investigated
authenticated copy of the order of the regional trial or prosecuted for money laundering or the details
court ordering the forfeiture of said monetary of his conviction; (3) give sufficient particulars as
instrument or property of a convicted offender and to the identity of said person; (4) give particulars
an affidavit of the clerk of court stating that the sufficient to identify any covered institution
conviction and the order of forfeiture are final and believed to have any information, document,
that no further appeal lies in respect of either. material or object which may be of assistance to
the investigation or prosecution; (5) ask from the
(d) Limitations on Request for Mutual Assistance. covered institution concerned any information,
— The AMLC may refuse to comply with any document, material or object which may be of
request for assistance where the action sought by assistance to the investigation or prosecution; (6)
the request contravenes any provision of the specify the manner in which and to whom said
Constitution or the execution of a request is likely information, document, material or object obtained
to prejudice the national interest of the Philippines pursuant to said request, is to be produced; (7)
unless there is a treaty between the Philippines give all the particulars necessary for the issuance
and the requesting State relating to the provision by the court in the requested State of the writs,
of assistance in relation to money laundering orders or processes needed by the requesting
offenses. State; and (8) contain such other information as
may assist in the execution of the request.
(f) Authentication of Documents. — For purposes of (14) years and a fine of not less than Three million
this Section, a document is authenticated if the Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00) but not more
same is signed or certified by a judge, magistrate than twice the value of the monetary instrument or
or equivalent officer in or of, the requesting State, property involved in the offense, shall be imposed
and authenticated by the oath or affirmation of a upon a person convicted under Section 4(a) of this
witness or sealed with an official or public seal of Act.
a minister, secretary of State, or officer in or of,
the government of the requesting State, or of the The penalty of imprisonment from four (4) to seven
person administering the government or a (7) years and a fine of not less than One million five
department of the requesting territory, hundred thousand Philippine pesos
protectorate or colony. The certificate of (Php1,500,000.00) but not more than Three million
authentication may also be made by a secretary of Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00), shall be
the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, imposed upon a person convicted under Section
vice consul, consular agent or any officer in the 4(b) of this Act.
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign State in which the record is kept, and The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months to
authenticated by the seal of his office. four (4) years or a fine of not less than One
hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(g) Extradition. — The Philippines shall negotiate (Php100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred
for the inclusion of money laundering offenses as thousand Philippine pesos (Php500,000.00), or
herein defined among extraditable offenses in all both, shall be imposed on a person convicted
future treaties. under Section 4(c) of this Act.

SEC. 14. Penal Provisions. — (a) Penalties for the (b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. The
Crime of Money Laundering. The penalty of penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months to one
imprisonment ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (1) year or a fine of not less than One hundred
thousand Philippine pesos (Php100,000.00) but not offender is an alien, he shall, in addition to the
more than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos penalties herein prescribed, be deported without
(Php500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on a further proceedings after serving the penalties
person convicted under Section 9(b) of this Act. herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official
or employee, he shall, in addition to the penalties
(c) Malicious Reporting. Any person who, with prescribed herein, suffer perpetual or temporary
malice, or in bad faith, report or files a completely absolute disqualification from office, as the case
unwarranted or false information relative to money may be.
laundering transaction against any person shall be
subject to a penalty of six (6) months to four (4) Any public official or employee who is called upon
years imprisonment and a fine of not less than One to testify and refuses to do the same or purposely
hundred thousand Philippine pesos fails to testify shall suffer the same penalties
(Php100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred prescribed herein.
thousand Philippine pesos (Php500,000.00), at the
discretion of the court: Provided, That the offender (d) Breach of Confidentiality. The punishment of
is not entitled to avail the benefits of the Probation imprisonment ranging from three (3) to eight (8)
Law. years and a fine of not less than Five hundred
thousand Philippine pesos (Php500,000.00) but not
If the offender is a corporation, association, more than One million Philippine pesos
partnership or any juridical person, the penalty (Php1,000,000.00), shall be imposed on a person
shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, as convicted for a violation under Section 9(c).
the case may be, who participated in the
commission of the crime or who shall have SEC. 15. System of Incentives and Rewards. — A
knowingly permitted or failed to prevent its system of special incentives and rewards is hereby
commission. If the offender is a juridical person, established to be given to the appropriate
the court may suspend or revoke its license. If the government agency and its personnel that led and
initiated an investigation, prosecution and submitted to the Congressional Oversight
conviction of persons involved in the offense Committee for approval.
penalized in Section 4 of this Act.
Covered institutions shall formulate their
SEC. 16. Prohibitions Against Political Harassment. respective money laundering prevention programs
— This Act shall not be used for political in accordance with this Act including, but not
persecution or harassment or as an instrument to limited to, information dissemination on money
hamper competition in trade and commerce. laundering activities and its prevention, detection
and reporting, and the training of responsible
No case for money laundering may be filed against officers and personnel of covered institutions.
and no assets shall be frozen, attached or forfeited
to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral SEC. 19. Congressional Oversight Committee. —
office during an election period. There is hereby created a Congressional Oversight
Committee composed of seven (7) members from
SEC. 17. Restitution. — Restitution for any the Senate and seven (7) members from the House
aggrieved party shall be governed by the of Representatives. The members from the Senate
provisions of the New Civil Code. shall be appointed by the Senate President based
on the proportional representation of the parties or
SEC. 18. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — coalitions therein with at least two (2) Senators
Within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this representing the minority. The members from the
Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Insurance House of Representatives shall be appointed by
Commission and the Securities and Exchange the Speaker also based on proportional
Commission shall promulgate the rules and representation of the parties or coalitions therein
regulations to implement effectively the provisions with at least two (2) members representing the
of this Act. Said rules and regulations shall be minority.
The Oversight Committee shall have the power to No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, as
promulgate its own rules, to oversee the amended and other similar laws, as are
implementation of this Act, and to review or revise inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed,
the implementing rules issued by the Anti-Money amended or modified accordingly.
Laundering Council within thirty (30) days from the
promulgation of the said rules. SEC. 23. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect
fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in
SEC. 20. Appropriations Clause. — The AMLC shall the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national
be provided with an initial appropriation of Twenty- newspapers of general circulation.
five million Philippine pesos (Php25,000,000.00) to
be drawn from the national government.
Appropriations for the succeeding years shall be
included in the General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 21. Separability Clause. — If any provision or

section of this Act or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the
other provisions or sections of this Act, and the
application of such provision or section to other
persons or circumstances, shall not be affected
thereby.

SEC. 22. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees,

executive orders, rules and regulations or parts
thereof, including the relevant provisions of
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act