FponziFUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

1
I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

1. Distinguish mala in se from mala prohibita.

Mala In Se Mala Prohibita
Acts that are inherently immoral even if they Acts that are not inherently immoral, but become punishable because
are not specifically prohibited by law. they are forbidden by law.
Criminal intent must be established in Criminal intent is immaterial. The sole issue is to determine whether
conjunction with the elements of the crime. the law has been violated.
Good faith or lack of criminal intent can be Good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a defense, and mitigating
a defense in mala in these cases, and circumstances cannot be appreciated unless the special law adopts
mitigating circumstances can also be the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
considered. Code.
(Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.148560, November 19, 2001; Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006)

2. Distinguish Ex Post Facto Law from a Bill of Attainder?

Ex Post Facto Law Bill of Attainder
a. Makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, A legislative act which
criminal, and punishes such action; inflicts punishment
b. Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed; without trial.
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when it was committed; Its essence is the
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law substitution of a
required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant; legislative for a judicial
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or determination of guilt.
deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; or
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty
(Salvador vs. Mapa, G.R. No. 135080, November 28, 2007; People vs. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December 27, 1972)

3. AAA is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank. AAA was charged with grave oral
defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory words against a fellow ADB worker. AAA moved for
the dismissal of the charges arguing that AAA was immune from suits. Is the contention of AAA,
correct?
No. Officers and staff of the Bank including experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall
enjoy immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except
when the Bank waives the immunity. Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity
agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of
official duty. (Linga v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000)

4. What is the rule on territoriality principle and its exceptions.

The penal laws of the country shall only be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone. The exceptions are:
a. offenses committed while on a Philippine ship or airship;
b. forging or counterfeiting of any coin or currency or note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
c. when the offender is liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
d. commission of public officers or employees of an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
e. crimes against national security and the law of the nations. (Article 2, RPC)

II. REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK ONE

5. In an Information dated August 2, 1999, AAA was charged and convicted with the crime of
malversation through negligence. The appropriate penalty to be imposed upon AAA is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. During AAA’s appeal with the Supreme
Court, Republic Act No. 10951, which increased the thresholds of the amounts malversed, and
amended the penalties of fines it corresponds to, became effective. Can the Supreme Court apply
the penalties imposed under Republic Act No. 10951 to the case of AAA?
Yes. R.A. No. 10951 should be applied in a retroactive manner insofar as it favors petitioner by reducing
the penalty that shall be. With the amendment introduced under R.A. No. 10951, the imposable penalty
corresponding to the amount petitioner malversed is the lighter sentence of prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods. (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 241383, June 08, 2020)

6. What are the elements of an Impossible Crime?

a. the act performed would have been an offense against persons or property;
b. the act was done with evil intent;
c. accomplishment is inherently impossible or means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual; and
d. act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. (People v. Callao, G.R. No.
228945, March 14, 2018)

7. What is “Mistake of Fact” and its elements?

In the context of criminal law, a "mistake of fact" is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have
justified the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution. A proper invocation of this defense
 2
requires (a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of fact; and (c) that it negate
the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes
with respect to an element of the offense.

8. Differentiate between Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae, and Praeter Intentionem.

Error in Personae Aberratio Ictus Praeter Intentionem
Mistake in identity Mistake in blow Greater injury results
The offender committed the act, but The offender intended to inflict harm The offender inflicted harm on the
there is a mistake in ascertaining to one person but the injury was victim but the resulting injury was
the identity of the victim. inflicted on another. greater than what was intended.
Two persons are involved: The Three persons are involved: The Two persons are involved: The
offender and the victim. offender, the intended victim, and the offender and the victim.
actual victim.

9. Distinguish the three stages of execution.

Attempted Frustrated Consummated
Offender commences the execution of the felony Offender performs all the acts of Offender performs all
by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution of the felony but does not the acts of execution
execution by reason of some cause or accident produce it by reason of causes and produces the
other than his own spontaneous distance. independent of the will of the offender. felony.

10. Give crimes that don’t have a frustrated stage.

a. Rape - The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge. Hence, no matter how slight the penetration,
the felony is consummated;
b. Direct/Indirect Bribery - The mere acceptance by the public officer of the gifts offered already
consummates the crime;
c. Corruption of Public Officers - The mere acceptance of the offer consummates the crime. The offense
requires the concurrence of the will of both parties. When the offer is rejected, however, the offense is
merely attempted;
d. Adultery - The essence of the crime is sexual congress;
e. Physical Injury - It cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or serious unless
and until consummated; and
f. Theft - The unlawful taking immediately consummates the offense and the disposition of the thing is not
an element thereof. (People v. Zapata and Bondoc, G.R. No. L-3047, 16 May 1951; People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3,
1990; Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007).

11. What are the justifying circumstances and their elements?

Elements
Self-Defense a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it; and
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Defense of relatives a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it; and
c. In case of provocation, the one making the defense had no part therein.
Avoidance of greater evil a. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
b. Evil or injury must not have been produced by the one invoking the justifying
circumstances.
c. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
d. No other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Fulfillment of duty or a. Offender acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
lawful exercise of right office; and
b. The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
Obedience to Superior a. Order must have been issued by a superior;
order b. The order is for some lawful Purpose; and
c. The means used to carry it out must be lawful.
Note: Even if the order is illegal, if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware
of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be a mistake of
fact committed in good faith.

12. AAA and his wife were on board their motorcycle on their way home. Suddenly, BBB and CCC, with
a knife and a gun respectively, blocked their way. They chased AAA and his wife to DDD’s house,
AAA’s father. There was a confrontation and DDD found himself cornered by BBB. AAA came to his
father’s aid and BBB tried to stab AAA who got a bolo to defend himself. AAA subsequently cut off
BBB’s right hand, but this did not stop BBB from trying to stab AAA with his other hand. AAA then
stabbed BBB in the lower part of his stomach which caused BBB’s death. AAA contends that he
merely acted in self-defense and defense of a relative. Is AAA’s argument tenable?
Yes. The elements of defense of relative are present in this case. There was unlawful aggression when
BBB attacked and pursued DDD, and turned and attempted to stab AAA. In these circumstances, AAA had
the right to repel the unlawful aggression in order to protect himself and his father. Also, there was no
provocation on the part of AAA since the attack originated from BBB and CCC when AAA and his wife were
peacefully traversing their way home. The second requisite requires rational necessity, not indispensable
 3
need. It must be assumed that one who is assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think,
calculate, and make comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of reason.

The test is whether the accused's subjective belief as to the imminence and seriousness of the danger was
reasonable or not, and the reasonableness of the accused's belief must be viewed from their standpoint at
the time they acted. AAA used reasonable means as the facts show that even after AAA hacked BBB’s
right hand, BBB’s unlawful aggression did not cease when he regained possession of the knife. At that
point, BBB’s determination to kill AAA and DDD was more imminent and more dangerously real. (Leo Abuyo
v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 250495, July 06, 2022, J. Lopez)

13. What are the Exempting Circumstances?

Elements
Accused is insane or imbecile Did not act during a lucid interval
Accused is a Minor; or acted Without a. Accused is: 15 years old and below; or
Discernment b. Between 15-18 years old, and acted without discernment.
Accident a. Accused performed lawful act;
b. With Due Care;
c. Causes injury to another by Accident; and
d. Without fault/intention.
Irresistible force a. There is compulsion by means of physical force;
b. From a third person; and
c. Said force is irresistible.
Uncontrollable Fear a. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
b. Fear must be real and imminent; and
c. Fear of an injury is greater or equal to that committed.
Insuperable or lawful a. An act is required by law to be done;
cause b. Accused fails to perform such act; and
c. Due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

14. Appreciate Kleptomania as a Mitigating and Exempting Circumstance.

Mitigating Exempting
If the mental disease or mental defect only If the unlawful act of the accused is due to his mental disease or a mental
diminishes the exercise the will power of defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the accused has been
the accused and does not deprive him of deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable him to
the consciousness, it is only a mitigating prevent himself from doing the act, the irresistible impulse, even to take
circumstance. another’s property, should be considered by the term “insanity.”
(Reyes, 2017)

15. May an accused invoke “accident” as a defense if the autopsy report found that the victim died from
asphyxiation by strangulation or suffocation with bruises and abrasions all over the body?
No. The exempting circumstance of "accident" is anchored on the complete absence of intent or negligence
on the part of the accused. The intent to kill is presumed since the victim died due to asphyxia by suffocation
and suffered multiple injuries and abrasions on different parts of her body. The autopsy report loudly speaks
against the accused’s alleged lack of intent. (People of the Philippines vs. Milo Leocadio Y Labrador, G.R. No. 227396,
February 22, 2023, J. Lopez)

16. The accused in a crime of carnapping was found by the testifying doctor to be diagnosed with
psychosis due to alcohol and methamphetamine use. Should he be absolved on the ground of
insanity?
No. Insanity as a condition of the mind is not susceptible to the usual means of proof as "no man can know
what is going on in the mind of another; the state or condition of a person's mind can only be measured
and judged by their behavior. The following requisites must be present: first, that the insanity constitutes a
complete deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and second, the insanity existed at the time
of, or immediately preceding, the commission of the crime. His impairment was not so complete as to
deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts. ( Oligario Villegas v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 216453, July 6, 2022, J. Lopez)

17. What are the Mitigating circumstances?

Elements
Not wholly A majority, but not all, elements of justifying and exempting circumstances are present; Incomplete
excusable by Self-Defense, Defense of Relatives and Strangers Incomplete Accident.
Justification or
Exemption
Conditional The offender is between 15-17 years old.
minority
No intention to There is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act
commit so and its consequences.
grave a wrong
Sufficient a. Provocation must be sufficient;
provocation b. It must originate from the offended party;
or threat c. It must be personal and directed to the accused; and
d. It must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.
 4
Elements
Immediate a. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
vindication descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
of a grave same degree;
offense b. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense;
c. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense; and
b. The vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense was committed.
Passion or a. The accused acted upon an impulse;
obfuscation b. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produces passion or obfuscation in him;
c. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and
b. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.
Voluntary Voluntary surrender:
surrender or a. Offender had not been actually arrested;
Plea of Guilt b. Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent;
c. Surrender was voluntary.
Plea of guilt:
a. Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
b. Confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the
case; and
b. c. Confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Physical a. Deaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering from some physical defect which thus restricts his
defects means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings; and
b. b. Physical defect must have a relation to the commission of the crime
Illness Illness of the offender: (a) must diminish the exercise of his will-power; and (b) should not deprive the
offender of consciousness of his acts.

18. Distinguish between Ordinary Mitigating and Privileged Mitigating Circumstance.

Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating
Susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance. Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances.
If not offset by an aggravating circumstance, it produces only Produces the effect of imposing upon the
the effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees
in its minimum period, in case of divisible penalty. than that provided by law for the crime.
(Reyes, Revised Penal Code, p. 251)

19. Distinguish the different qualifications of aggravating circumstances.

Generic Applies to all crimes. It has the effect of increasing the punishment for the crime to the maximum
period of the prescribed penalty and can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Specific Applies only to a particular crime as expressly provided by law or jurisprudence but does not change
the character of the offense. It has the effect of increasing the penalty like a generic aggravating
circumstance and can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Qualifying Changes the nature or designation of the crime and must be provided in the definition of the offense.
It warrants the increase of the imposable penalty even to the next higher degrees as provided by
law and cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Inherent Necessarily accompanies the commission of the offense. It is an element of the crime and is no
longer considered in the determination of penalty.
Special Rises under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense and cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Special Includes those mentioned in Republic Act No. 7659 which amended crimes under the RPC and
Qualifying special penal laws to impose death penalty under certain circumstances. A special qualifying
aggravating circumstance is different from a mere "qualifying aggravating circumstance" that
warrants the increase of the imposable penalty even to the next higher degrees provided by law but
not necessarily death penalty.

Note: With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, the following shall be imposed in lieu of the
death penalty: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law
violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. In both cases, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment shall be imposed without eligibility for parole.
(People v. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708, January 23, 2024, J. Lopez)

20. What are the aggravating circumstances and its elements?

Elements
Taking advantage of a. Offender is a public officer;
public office b. Such officer used the Influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives him; and
c. The same was used as a means by which he realizes his purpose.
In contempt of or a. Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions;
with insult to public b. Public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed;
authorities c. Offender knows him to be a public authority; and
d. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
With insult or lack a. Insult or disregard was made on account of: (i) Rank – designation or title used to fix the relative position
of regard due to the of the offended party in reference to others. There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender
offended party by and the offended party, (ii) Age - May refer to old age or tender age of the victim, (iii) Sex - Refers to the
reason of Rank, age, female sex;
or sex b. Such insult or disregard was deliberately intended
Dwelling a. Act was committed in the dwelling, which may pertain to a building or structure, which is exclusively used
for rest and comfort; and
b. Offended party must not give provocation.
 5
Elements
Abuse of a. Offended party had trusted the offender;
confidence b. Offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party; and
c. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
Obvious a. Offended party trusted the offender;
ungratefulness b. Offender abused such trust; and
c. Act was committed with obvious ungratefulness
Palace, public a. In the palace of the Chief Executive, or
authorities, b. In his presence, or
religious worship c. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or
d. In a place dedicated to religious worship.
Nighttime, a. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band facilitated the commission of the crime;
uninhabited b. Was especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
place, by a band impunity;
Calamity The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
Aid of Armed men a. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly; and
or means to ensure b. Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.
impunity
Recidivism a. Offender is on trial for an offense;
b. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
c. That both the 1st and 2nd offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; and
d. Offender is convicted of the new offense.
Reiteracion or a. Accused is on trial for an offense;
Habituality b. He peviously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches: (i) an equal or greater
penalty, or (ii) for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and
c. That he is convicted of the new offense
Price, reward, or a. There must be two or more principals: (i) One who gives or offers price or promise, and (ii) One who
promise accepts it.
b. Price, reward, or promise must be for the purpose of Inducing another to perform the deed.
The price, reward, or promise need not consist of or refer to material things or be actually delivered, it is
sufficient that the offer made by the principal by inducement was accepted by the principal by direct
participation before the commission of the offense.
Inundation, fire, Crime committed by means of: (a) Inundation; (b) Fire; (c) Poison; (d) Explosion; (e) Stranding of a vessel;
poison, explosion, (f) Intentional damage to a vessel; (g) Derailment of a locomotive; and (h) Any Other artifice involving great
etc. waste and ruin.
Evident a. Time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
premeditation b. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
c. A sufficient Lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Craft, fraud, or a. Craft: Intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused;
disguise b. Fraud: Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner that would enable
the offender to carry out his design; or
c. Disguise: Any device to conceal identity
Abuse of superior a. Notorious inequality of forces between victim and aggressor.
strength b. Offender purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
or means to persons attacked.
weaken defense
Treachery/ Alevosia a. Offender consciously adopts particular means, methods, or forms tending directly and especially to
ensure the execution of the crime; and
b. The employment of such means gave the offended party no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
Ignominy The means employed or the circumstances brought must tend to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating or to put the offended party to shame.
Unlawful entry Entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
Breaking walls, a. Breaking the wall, roof, floor, door, or window is a means to the commission of the crime; and
floor, roof b. Breaking was used as a means to effect entrance and not merely for escape.
With the aid of Commission of the crime is committed with the aid of children under 15 years of age.
persons Under 15
By Motor vehicles, a. That any of the following was used: (i) Motorized vehicles; or, (ii) Other efficient means of transportation
airships, or other similar to automobiles or airplanes; and
similar means b. The same was used as a means of committing the crime, such as by using the same to: (i) go to the
place of the crime; (ii) carry away the effects thereof; and (iii) facilitate their escape
Cruelty a. Injury caused was deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
b. Other wrong was unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

21. What are the requisites of treachery and what are the circumstances absorbed by treachery?
Requisites Circumstance
a. The employment of means, method, or manner of execution a. Abuse of superior strength;
would ensure the safety of the malefactor from the b. Nighttime;
defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, no opportunity is c. Craft;
given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate, and d. Aid of armed men;
b. The means, method, or manner of execution was e. Cuadrilla (band); and
deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. f. Employing means to weaken the defense
(People v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 224900, March 15, 2017)

22. How may evident premeditation be established?

The prosecution must establish that a sufficient amount of time had lapsed between the malefactor's
determination and execution. The Court will not appreciate evident premeditation absent showing that there
was enough time that had lapsed between the conception and execution of the crime to allow the accused
to reflect upon the consequences of their acts. (People of the Philippines v. John Francis Sualong, G.R. No. 250852,
October 10, 2022, J. Lopez)
 6
23. Should the court appreciate abuse of superior strength even if the number of offenders was the
same as the number of victims?
Yes. Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there
is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a
weapon that is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. (Oliveros V. People Of The
Philippines, G.R. No. 242552, March 03, 2021, Landmark Case)

24. How should treachery be appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide?
Yes. Treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide for
the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime, the presence of which merits the imposition of the higher
penalty. Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially
punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing
the penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide. (People of the
Philippines v. Jericco Navarro, G.R. No. 252276, November 11, 2021, J. Lopez)

25. Police officers AAA and BBB confronted CCC, DDD, EEE, and their companions for their rowdy
behavior as they were on their way out of a bar. A verbal altercation ensued. EEE stealthily hit AAA
with a beer bottle in the head, causing him to fall to the ground. Before he could even stand up,
however, CCC and DDD also got poised to attack him, prompting him to shoot them first with his
service firearm. Did abuse of superior strength qualify the offense of AAA to murder?
No. Abuse of superior strength did not qualify the offense because there was no showing that AAA
purposely sought or took advantage of his service firearm as it arose from an unexpected altercation. When
the quarrel between the victim and his assailants arose unexpectedly, the qualifying circumstance of abuse
of superior strength could not be appreciated as the same requires some degree of prior deliberation or
meditation. (Cambe v. People, G.R. No. 254269, October 13, 2021, Landmark Case)

26. Distinguish between entrapment and instigation.

Entrapment Instigation
Law enforcement officials merely employ ways and Law enforcement officials lure the accused into
means to trap or capture a lawbreaker. committing a crime that he had no intention to commit in
order to prosecute him.
The criminal intent or design to commit the offense Presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense
charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law originated from the inducer; the accused had no intention
enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension to commit the crime and would not have committed it if not
of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. for the initiatives of the inducer.
(People of the Philippines v. Jerrie Rodriguez, G.R. No. 252353, July 06, 2022, J. Lopez)

27. What are some absolutory causes?

a. Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage considered legal grounds for the detention of any
unless the overt act committed already constitutes person;
a crime other than that intended; h. Battered woman syndrome;
b. Attempted/frustrated light felonies except those i. Status offenses in Sections 57 and 58, R.A. 9344;
against persons or property; j. The provisions of this Article (On trespass to
c. Accessories in light felonies; dwelling) shall not be applicable to any person
d. Certain relatives who are accessories subject to who shall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose
the requisites provided therein: upon those who of preventing some serious harm to himself, the
are such with respect to their spouses, occupants of the dwelling, or a third person, nor
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
affinity within the same degrees; service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who
e. Death and physical injuries inflicted under shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public
exceptional circumstances: any legally married houses, while the same are open;
person; k. In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
f. Certain relatives in theft, estafa, and malicious lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the
mischief: committed or caused mutually by the offender with the offended party shall extinguish
following persons: (a) spouses, ascendants, and the criminal action or remit the penalty already
descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same imposed upon him. The provisions of this
line; (b) the widowed spouse with respect to the paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-
property which belonged to the deceased spouse principals, accomplices, and accessories after the
before the same shall have passed into the fact of the above–mentioned crimes;
possession of another; and (c) brothers and l. Mistake of fact;
sisters and brothers–in–law and sisters–in–law, if m. Repeal of a penal law, either absolute or
living together; modification of the penalty when favorable to the
g. The commission of a crime, or violent insanity of offender; or
any other ailment requiring the compulsory n. Instigation by reason of public policy. (Article 6 (3),
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be 7, 16, 20, 24, 247, 280, 332, & 344; Section 26, R.A.
9262)

28. What are the punishable conspiracies under the Revised Penal Code?
a. Conspiracy to commit rebellion,
b. Conspiracy to commit coup d'etat,
c. Conspiracy to commit treason,
d. Conspiracy to commit sedition
(Art. 136, 115, 14, Revised Penal Code)
 7
29. What are the alternative circumstances and the rules for applying them?
Considered as Exempting Considered as Mitigating Considered as
Aggravating
Relationship 1. When the accessory is related to principal, 1. In crimes against property: 1. In Crimes against
except when the relatives profited or a. Robbery persons:
a. Spouse assisted to profit from the effects of the b. Usurpation General Rule:
b. Ascendant crime; c. Fraudulent Insolvency Relatives of Higher
c. Descendant 2. When a legally married person who, having d. Arson degree; or same
surprised his spouse in the act of level
d. Siblings: committing sexual intercourse with 2. When the crime is less
Legitimate, another, shall inflict upon them physical serious or slight physical Exception: Always
Natural, and injuries; injuries, and the offended Aggravating in the
Adopted 3. No criminal liability for theft, swindling party is a relative of a lower following:
(estafa), or malicious mischief when degree than the offender. a. Serious
e. Relative by caused by the following persons: Physical
affinity in the a. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, 3. In trespass to dwelling - Injuries
same degree as or relatives by affinity in the same line. where a son-in-law, believing b. Homicide or
the offender. b. The widowed spouse with respect to the his wife to be in her father's Murder
property which belonged to the house, attempted to force an c. Rape
deceased spouse before the same shall entry therein.
have passed into the possession of 2. In crimes against
another; and chastity, always
c. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law aggravating.
and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Intoxication a. Act was done due to a. If intoxication is
alcoholic intake of the habitual; or
offender, he suffers from b. If it is intentional
Diminished self-control. to
b. Offender is not a habitual embolden offenders
drinker. to
c. Offender did not take the commit a crime
alcoholic drink with the
intention to reinforce his
resolve to commit crime.
Degree of Low Degree of Education High degree of
Education Education. May be
Degree of instruction must appreciated as
have some reasonable aggravating when
connection to the offense. the offender availed
Exceptions: himself or took
a. Crimes against Property advantage of it in
b. Crimes against Chastity committing the
c. Treason crime.
d. Rape
e. Murder or homicide;

30. Who are liable as principal, accomplice, or accessory?

Principal a. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
b. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
c. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would
not have been accomplished.
Accomplice Those persons who, not being considered principals in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts. (Article 18, RPC)
Accessory Those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime.
b. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery.
c. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty
of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
(Article 17, 18, & 19, RPC)

31. Carlo and his three companions raped AAA successively. There was proof that while one was
having carnal knowledge with AAA the others were holding AAA’s hands. Carlo was sentenced by
the lower courts while the three companions remained at large. Should Carlos be held liable for the
other counts of rape attributed to his co-conspirators although they were unidentified or at large?
Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated,
showing that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the perpetrators had the same purpose and
were united in its execution. The records show that Carlo and his three companions successively raped
AAA and that while one of them had carnal knowledge of the victim, the others held her arms and kept her
from struggling. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of each perpetrator pointed to a joint
purpose and criminal design. (People of the Philippines v. Carlo Zapico, GR No. 255389, September 14, 2021, J. Lopez)
 8
32. When is there implied conspiracy?
Implied conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons are shown by their acts to have aimed toward the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent, are in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiments. (Cambe v. People, G.R. No. 254269, October 13, 2021, Landmark Case)

33. Must there be proof of the agreement to commit the crime to be considered as a conspirator?
No. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. Proof of the actual agreement to commit the crime need not be direct
because conspiracy may be implied or inferred from their acts. To be a conspirator, one need not have to
participate in every detail of the execution; neither did he have to know the exact part performed by his co-
conspirator in the execution of the criminal acts. (People of the Philippines v. Ronald Rodibiso, G.R. No. 244843, October
07, 2020, J. Lopez)

34. Distinguish wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy.

Wheel Conspiracy Chain Conspiracy
Occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing Occurs when there is successive communication
individually with two or more other persons or groups (the and cooperation in much the same way as with
spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub rather than legitimate business operations between
with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and
purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the retailer, and then retailer and consumer. This
instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of involves individuals linked together in a vertical
the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies chain to achieve a criminal objective.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. People [En Banc], G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016)

35. Distinguish Recidivism, Habituality, Quasi-recidivism, and Habitual Delinquency.

Recidivism Habituality Quasi-Recidivism Habitual Delinquency
A recidivist is one who, at the The offender has been Before beginning to If within a period of ten years from
time of his trial for one crime, previously punished for an serve his sentence, or the date of his release or last
shall have been previously offense to which the law while serving the conviction of the crimes of serious
convicted by final judgment attaches an equal or greater same after having or less serious physical injuries,
of another crime embraced penalty or for two or more been convicted by robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification,
in the same title of this Code. crimes to which it attaches a final judgment, he is found guilty of any if said
lighter penalty. commits a felony. crimes a third time or oftener
It is enough that a final It is necessary that the There is final There is final judgment or the
judgment has been rendered offender shall have served judgment in the first offender has been released for the
in the first offense. out his sentence for the first offense but the first offense.
offense. sentence has not yet
been served out.
Previous and subsequent Previous and subsequent Any offense. Only the crimes of serious or less
offenses are included in the offenses must not be serious physical injuries, robo,
same title. embraced in the same title. hurto, estafa or falsification are
involved.
An aggravating Not always an aggravating Special aggravating Extraordinary aggravating
circumstance. circumstance. circumstance. circumstance.

36. Distinguish between complex and compound crime.

Complex Crime Compound Crime
Results when the offender commits an offense which is a necessary means Results when the offender commits only
for committing another offense. (Art. 48, RPC) Only one information shall a single felonious act from which two or
be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be more grave or less grave felonies are
imposed. produced.
(People v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, 1967; People v Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500)

37. Distinguish Complex Crime, Special Complex Crime, Continuous/Continued Crime and Continuing
Crime.
Complex Crime Special Complex Crime Continuous/Continued Crime Continuing Crime
(Delito Continuado)
When a single act A special complex crime is A continued crime is a single crime There are crimes which are
constitutes two or more one that is defined and consisting of a series of acts but all called transitory or continuing
grave or less grave given a specific penalty arising from one criminal offenses because some acts
felonies, or when an under the Code. resolution. It is a continuous, material and essential to the
offense is a necessary In a special complex crime, unlawful act or series of acts set on crime occur in one province
means for committing two or more crimes are foot by a single impulse and and some in another, in which
the other, the penalty committed but the law operated by an unintermittent case, the rule is settled that the
for the most serious expressly treats them as a force, however long a time it may court of either province where
crime shall be imposed, single indivisible and occupy. Although there are a series any of the essential ingredients
the same to be applied unique offense as the acts of acts, there is only one crime of the crime took place has —
in its maximum period. are a product of a single committed. Hence, only one jurisdiction to try the case.
criminal impulse. penalty shall be imposed.
(Art. 48, RPC, People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 842-843 (2016), citing People v. Laog, 674 Phil. 444, 465 (2011))

38. How can you determine if the crimes committed should be charged as a complex crime or as separate
crimes when one crime is merely on the attempted stage?
If the crime committed at the attempted stage is necessary to achieve the criminal purpose, then it is a complex
crime under Article 48. However, if the crime committed at the attempted stage was merely incidental to the
 9
criminal purpose (e.g. attempting to kill the witness after the robbery was committed), then the two crimes must
be charged separately.

39. Is a ponzi scheme a continuing crime? If not, how many crimes were committed?
No. The ponzi scheme is not a continuing crime because there is no one criminal intent or general plan of
defrauding the creditors. In a ponzi scheme, there are as many crimes as there are numbers of investors since
each transaction is attended by a different criminal intent. (People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 234818, November 05, 2018)

40. What are the duration of Divisible Penalties?

41. Full Range Minimum Medium Maximum
Reclusion Temporal From 12 years and From 12 years and From 14 years, 8 From 17 years, 4
1 day to 20 years. 1 day to 14 years months and 1 day to months and 1 day to
and 8 months. 17 years and 4 20 years.
months.
Prision mayor, absolute From 6 years and 1 From 6 years and 1 From 8 years and 1 From 10 years and 1
disqualification and day to 12 years. day to 8 years. day to 10 years. day to 12 years.
special temporary
disqualification
Prision correccional, From 6 months From 6 months and From 2 years, 4 From 4 years, 2
suspension and and 1 day to 6 1 day to 2 years and months and 1 day to 4 months and 1 day to
destierro years. 4 months. years and 2 months. 6 years.
Arresto mayor From 1 month and 1 From 1 to 2 months. From 2 months and 1 From 4 months and 1
day to 6 months. day to 4 months. day to 6 months.
Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 days. From 11 to 20 days. From 21 to 30 days.

42. Under the Community Service Act, the defendant may serve his sentence through community
service, in lieu of service in jail, in what penalties is this applicable?
It is applicable to the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor. (Sec. 3, RA 11362)

43. What is Recognizance?

Recognizance is a mode of securing the release of any person in custody or detention for the commission
of an offense who is unable to post bail due to abject poverty. The court where the case of such person has
been filed shall allow the release of the accused on recognizance as provided herein, to the custody of a
qualified member of the barangay, city, or municipality where the accused resides. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 10389)

44. Who is disqualified from being released on recognizance?

a. The accused had made untruthful statements in his/her sworn affidavit prescribed under Section 5(a);
b. The accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, or has committed a crime aggravated
by the circumstance of reiteration;
c. The accused had been found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of bail or release on recognizance without valid justification;
d. The accused had previously committed a crime while on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;
e. The personal circumstances of the accused or the nature of the facts surrounding his/her case indicate
the probability of flight if released on recognizance;
f. There is a great risk that the accused may commit another crime during the pendency of the case;
g. The accused has a pending criminal case which has the same or higher penalty to the new crime
he/she is being accused of. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 10389)

45. What are the exceptions to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law?
a. those convicted of offenses punished with g. those who having been granted conditional
death penalty or life imprisonment; pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
b. those convicted of treason, conspiracy, or violated the terms thereof;
proposal to commit treason; h. those whose maximum term of imprisonment
c. those convicted of misprision of treason, does not exceed one year; nor
sedition, or espionage; i. those already sentenced by final judgment at
d. those convicted of piracy; the time of approval of this Act except as
e. those who are habitual delinquents; provided in section five hereof. (Sec. 2, Act No.
f. those who shall have escaped from 4103, as amended)
confinement or evaded sentence;

46. Max is charged with an offense punished by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is
imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he
entered a plea of guilty.
a. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied?
Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) should be applied because the minimum requirement
for the application of ISLAW is imprisonment for more than one (1) year. However, applying the Batistis
case, the Court may opt not to apply ISLAW by fixing the penalty at exactly 5 years of imprisonment
since this straight penalty is favorable to the accused. (Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571, December 16, 2009)

b. Assume that the crime charged was Frustrated Homicide with one mitigating circumstance.
Compute the penalty to be imposed on Max.
(i) Maximum Term: The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since the crime is at the frustrated
stage, the penalty shall be reduced to one degree lower, and that is prision mayor. Since one
 11
mitigating circumstance is present, prision mayor shall be applied in its minimum period. Applying
ISLAW, the maximum penalty shall be fixed within the proper imposable period, and that is,
minimum period of prision mayor.
(ii) Minimum Term: the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree, and that is prision correccional. Hence, the penalty to be imposed should be 6 months and
1 day of prision correccional as minimum penalty to 8 years of prision mayor as maxium penalty.

47. How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied?

For Offenses punished by RPC For Offenses punished by Special Laws
Step 1: Get the Maximum Term: The properly imposed penalty after the Proper penalty is between the minimum and
determination of attending circumstances pursuant to Art 64, RPC. maximum penalty/sentence fixed by law.
Step 2: Get the Minimum Term: One degree lower than that imposed by Offsetting is not applicable.
the RPC, the period of which is upon the discretion of the Court.
(Sec. 1, Act No. 4103, as amended)

48. What is the penalty for cybersex, Section 8 of RA No. 10175 taking into consideration the
Indeterminate Sentence Law?
RA No. 10175 provides the penalty of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) but not exceeding One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) or both. Absent any modifying
circumstance, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence must be within the medium period of the
prescribed penalty, or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. The minimum term of the
indeterminate sentence must be within the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed, or prision
correccional which ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. (People of the Philippines v. Jerrie
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 252353, July 06, 2022, J. Lopez)

49. Is Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable to recidivists?

Yes, while habitual delinquents are not entitled to an indeterminate sentence, a recidivist for the first time
may be given the benefits of the law. (People vs. Yu Lian, C.A., 40 O.G. 4205; People vs. Venus, 63 Phil. 435, 442)

50. What are the requisites of the three-fold rule?

a. The maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than three (3) times the length of
time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him;
b. But in no case to exceed forty (40) years;
c. This rule shall apply only when the convict is to serve four (4) or more sentences successively.
The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve continuous imprisonment for several
offenses. If the convict already served a sentence for one (1) offense, that imprisonment will not be
considered (RPC, Art. 70, Alejandro v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-3215, October 6, 1949).

51. Enumerate the instances of partial and total extinguishment of criminal liability.
Partial Extinction Total Extinction
a. By conditional pardon; a. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary
b. By commutation of the penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender
sentence; and occurs before final judgment.
c. For good conduct b. By service of the sentence;
allowances which the c. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
culprit may earn while he d. By absolute pardon;
is undergoing preventive e. By prescription of the crime;
imprisonment or serving f. By prescription of the penalty;
his sentence. (Art. 94, RPC) g. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.
(Art. 89, RPC)
h. As an effect of final discharge of probation.
(Sec 16, PD968, as amended by RA 10707).

52. Does an absolute pardon by the President also extinguish the accessory penalties attached to the
principal penalty?
Yes. An absolute pardon is unconditional, unrestricted in scope, complete and plenary in character. The
accessory penalties, such as the rights of suffrage and to hold public office, are extinguished in the absence
of a clear, unequivocal and concrete factual basis upon which to anchor or support the Presidential intent to
grant a limited pardon. (Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666; January 21, 2015)

53. AAA was 30 years old and was charged with homicide. Pending trial, he escaped. He jumped bail and
went abroad to a country where we have an extradition treaty and stayed there for 50 years. The trial
continued in absentia. He was convicted, but the penalty cannot be applied because he was out of the
country. He came back to the Philippines afterwards because he wanted to die in the Philippines.
a. Has the crime prescribed?
No. The crime has not prescribed because period of prescription was already interrupted by the
commencement of the prosecution against him. (Article 91, RPC)
b. Has the penalty prescribed?
No. The prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the RPC applies only to those who are convicted
by final judgment and are serving sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty, and that the period for
prescription of penalties begins only when the convict evades service of sentence by escaping during the
term of his sentence. Here, the accused never commenced serving his sentence and did not evade such
service, so the penalty has not prescribed. (Basilonia v. Villaruz, G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015)
 12
54. Differentiate the interruption of the term of prescription between crimes under the Revised Penal
Code and offenses committed under special laws.
For crimes under the Revised Penal Code, the term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent
from the Philippine Archipelago. However, for special laws, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 did not provide that
the absence of the accused from the Philippines prevents the running of the prescriptive period. Thus, the
only inference that can be gathered from the foregoing is that the legislature, in enacting Act No. 3326, did
not consider the absence of the accused from the Philippines as a hindrance to the running of the
prescriptive period. (Article 91, RPC; Romualdez v. Ombudsman, G.R. NOS. 165510-33, July 28, 2006)

55. Is it an absolute rule that probation will not be entertained if the defendant has already perfected an
appeal from the judgment of conviction?
No. If the trial court convicts the accused and imposes a penalty which is non-probationable, and the
appellate court renders judgment of conviction for a lesser crime where the penalty imposed is
probationable, the accused will be allowed to apply for probation. (Colinares v. People [En Banc], G.R. No. 182748,
December 13, 2011)

56. What is the legal effect of an application for probation on the judgment of conviction?
The judgment becomes final. Once an offender has filed an application for probation, such an act is already
considered a waiver of his right to appeal. As a result of the finality of the decision, there is no more period
of appeal (Sec. 4, PD 968, as amended by RA 10707).

57. X ran for public office while he was on probation. His candidacy was opposed by A, saying that he
was disqualified to run from office because his sentence included the accessory penalties of
suspension from public office and from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. Is A correct?
No. The accessory penalties of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling,
and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period imposed upon X were similarly
suspended upon the grant of probation. It appears then that during the period of probation, the probationer
is not even disqualified from running for a public office because the accessory penalty of suspension from
public office is put on hold for the duration of the probation. (Moreno v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006)

58. Who are disqualified for availing of Good Conduct Time Allowance which an accused may earn
while he is serving sentence?
a. Recidivists
b. Habitual Delinquents
c. Escapees
d. Persons charged with heinous crimes (Art. 29 RPC, as amended by RA 10592)

59. Is AAA, who is serving the sentence of reclusion perpetua after having been found guilty of murder,
entitled to the benefits of the GCTA?
No, AAA is not entitled. The last paragraph of Section 1 of the GCTA Law reads “That recidivists, habitual
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this
Act.” The crime of Murder is one that is mandatorily punishable by death, in accordance with the Death
Penalty Law. Being such, it falls within the definition of "heinous crimes" in the 2019 Revised IRR and is
therefore considered a heinous crime. (Miguel vs. Director of Bureau of Prisons, [UDK-15368. September 15, 2021. J.
Hernando)

60. Jerrie was found guilty of Article 266-B of the RPC specifically of simple rape and was sentenced
with a penalty of reclusion perpetua. Is the Court required to indicate in the decision that he is
ineligible for parole?
No. There is a need to qualify that the accused is not "eligible for parole" only in cases where the imposable
penalty should have been death were it not for the enactment of RA No. 9346 or the "Anti-Death Penalty
Law." Since Jerrie is guilty only of simple rape penalized with reclusion perpetua, Jerrie is ipso facto
ineligible for parole because he was sentenced to suffer an indivisible penalty. (People of the Philippines v. Jerrie
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 252353, July 06, 2022, J. Lopez)

III. REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK TWO

61. All crimes against National Security can only be committed in times of war. What are the
exceptions?
a. Espionage
b. Inciting to war or Giving motives for reprisal;
c. Violation of Neutrality; and
d. Mutiny and Piracy (Art.117, 118, 119, & 122 RPC)

62. What constitutes “material support” under the Anti-Terrorism Act?

Material support shall refer to any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary
instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance,
safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal
substances, explosives, personnel (one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and
transportation. (Sec. 3(e), ATA 2020)
 13
63. What are the crimes under the RPC where proposal, conspiracy, or inciting are punishable?
Crimes where proposal to commit Crimes where conspiracy is Crimes where inciting is
is punishable punishable punishable
1. Treason 1. Treason 1. Rebellion
2. Rebellion 2. Rebellion 2. Insurrection
3. Insurrection 3. Insurrection 3. Sedition
4. Coup d’etat 4. Coup d’etat
5. Sedition

64. Is threat to commit terrorism punishable?

Yes, any person who shall threaten to commit any of the acts mentioned in Section 4 of R.A. 11479 or the
Anti-Terrorism Act shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years. (RA 11479, Sec. 5)

65. What are the requisites to be liable for providing support to terrorists under Sec. 12 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act?
a. Provides material support to any terrorist individual or terrorist organization, association or group of
persons committing any of the acts punishable under Section 4;
b. Knowing that such individual or organization, association, or group of persons is committing or planning
to commit such acts (Sec. 12, ATA 2020)
66. When can one be held liable for financing of terrorism?
When a person directly or indirectly, willfully and without lawful excuse, possesses, provides, collects or
uses property or funds or makes available property, funds or financial service or other related services, by
any means, with the unlawful and willful intention that they should be used or with the knowledge that they
are to be used, in full or in part: (a) to carry out or facilitate the commission of any terrorist act; (b) by a
terrorist organization, association or group; or (c) by an individual terrorist, he or she shall be guilty of the
crime of financing of terrorism. Any person who organizes or directs others to commit financing of terrorism
is likewise guilty of an offense. Note: It is not necessary that the funds were actually used. (Sec. 4, RA 10168)

67. How can an individual commit an act punishable under the Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity be exonerated?
The fact that a crime defined and penalized under this Act has been committed by a person pursuant to an
order of a government or a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal
responsibility unless all of the following elements occur:
a. The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the government or the superior in question;
b. The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
c. The order was not manifestly unlawful.
For the purposes of this section, orders to commit genocide or other crimes against humanity are manifestly
unlawful. (Sec. 12, RA 9851)

68. Is direct assault the proper offense to be charged when a person being apprehended by a police
officer resists or uses force that is not dangerous, grave, or severe?
No. If the use of physical force against agents of persons in authority is not serious, the offense is not direct
assault, but resistance or disobedience. This is because the gravity of the disobedience to an order of a
person in authority or his agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives
prompting it and the real importance of the transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed. Its
elements are: (a) that a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or
gives a lawful order to the offender; and (b) that the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or
his agent. (Mallari v. People, G.R. No. 224679, February 12, 2020, Rochard Balsamo y Dominguez vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 260109, April 12, 2023, J. Lopez)

69. Is payment a defense in the crime of Malversation?

No. The payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of, or compromise on the amounts or funds malversed
or misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, does not extinguish the accused's criminal liability
or relieve the accused from the penalty prescribed by the law. (Valenzuela v. People, 855 SCRA 331, 2018)

70. Is malice or criminal intent an element of Technical Malversation?

No. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a
criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order,
and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law and not the character or effect thereof,
that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. (Ysidoro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192330,
November 14, 2012)

71. Can an accused charged in an information with Malversation through dolo can be convicted of
Malversation through culpa?
Yes. The dolo or the culpa present in the crime of Malversation is only a modality in the perpetration of the
felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved
and conviction thereof is proper. A possible exception would be when the mode of commission alleged in
the particulars of the indictment is so far removed from the ultimate categorization of the crime that it may
be said due process was denied by deluding the accused into an erroneous comprehension of the charge
against him. (Tubola v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154042, April 11, 2011)
 14
72. Distinguish between Evasion of Service of Sentence, Delivery of Prisoners from Jails, and Infidelity
in the Custody of Prisoners.
Evasion of Service of Sentence Delivery of Prisoners Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners
from Jails
Offender is a convict by final judgment The offender is the Offender is a public officer or a person acting as
and is serving his sentence which person who removed a custodian who had in his custody or charge, a
consists of deprivation of liberty. from jail or penal prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by
establishment the person final judgment.
confined therein or
helped in their escape.
Offender evades the service of his Offender removes such a.
Convicted prisoner escapes custody
sentence by escaping during the term prisons from jail or through the consent of the public officer
of his sentence. assists in the removal of (Art. 223);
the said prisoner from jail b. Prisoner escapes through the negligence
or penal institution. of the public officer charged with the
conveyance or custody of the escaping
prisoner (Art. 224); and
c. Prisoner or person under arrest escapes
through the consent or negligence of a
person not a public officer,
The crime is qualified when The crime is qualified if it There are no qualifying circumstances
a. When the act of escape is done is committed with the use
by means of unlawful entry; of violence, intimidation,
b. When the act of escaping is done or by means of bribery.
by breaking any wall, roof, floor,
door, or window;
c. When the escape is done by
means of using disguise, deceit,
violence, or intimidation; or
d. When the act of escape is done
with the help of an inmate or an
employee of the penal institution.

73. Distinguish direct assault, indirect assault, and disobedience to persons in authority.
Direct Assault Indirect Assault Disobedience to a person in
authority and his agent
a. employing force or intimidation for the Committed by making use of force Committed by resisting or
attainment of any of the purposes or intimidation. seriously disobeying.
enumerated in defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition
b. attacking, employing force, or seriously
intimidating or resisting
Committed against any person in authority Committed against any person Committed against any person
or any of his agents, while engaged in the coming to the aid of the authorities in authority, or the agents of
performance of official duties. or their agents on the occasion of such person while engaged in
the commission of any of the crimes the performance of official
defined in the next preceding article. duties.

74. Can breach of procurement laws make the offender ipso facto liable for Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019?
No. For there to be a violation under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 based on a breach of applicable
procurement laws, one cannot solely rely on the mere fact that a violation of procurement laws has been
committed. It must be shown that (1) the violation of procurement laws caused undue injury to any party or
gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference; and (2) the accused acted with
evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence. (Martel et al v. People, G.R. No. 224720-23,
February 02, 2021, Landmark Case).

75. Famor, who was then the Vice Governor of the Zamboanga Sibugay LGU appointed Peña as the
Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Zamboanga. Upon the recommendation of Peña, he
appointed Chiong as the Board Secretary IV under the Office of the Provincial Board Secretary
(OPBS). They were charged with violating Sec. 3(e), RA 3019 before the Sandiganbayan and were
later found guilty. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Peña and Famor acted in evident bad faith in
recommending and appointing Chiong, respectively, which gave Chiong unwarranted benefit and
advantage, despite not possessing the prescribed qualifications for the position. Chiong and Famor
contend that Chiong's status as a public officer negates the second mode by which a public official
violates Section 3(e)—by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or
preference. Is the contention correct?
No. The term "party" is a technical word having a precise meaning in legal parlance as distinguished from
"person" which, in general usage, refers to a human being. Thus, a private person simply pertains to one
who is not a public officer. While a private party is more comprehensive in scope to mean either a private
person or a public officer acting in a private capacity to protect his personal interest. Although Chiong was
a public officer at that time, he was acting in his personal capacity and advancing his own interest when he
applied for the position of Board Secretary IV. Chiong is considered a private party within the meaning of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019. (People v. Peña and Chiong, G.R. No. 248710, March 29, 2023, Landmark Case)
 15
76. Is mere disadvantage or inconvenience to the government equates to the violation of Section 3(g)
of Republic Act No. 3019?
No. Mere disadvantage or inconvenience to the government is not sufficient to find probable cause for
violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019. The disadvantage must be glaring, reprehensible,
flagrant or shocking. Violations of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 require gross or manifest
disadvantage to the government or at least a showing that it was entered into with malice. (Teves v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 237558/G.R. No. 238133/G.R. No. 238138, April 26, 2023, Landmark Case)

77. What are the elements of death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances to be
considered as an absolutory and exempting cause?
a. that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person;
b. that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and
c. that he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. (People v. Sabalberino, G.R. No. 241088, June 3, 2019; Article 1,
Family Code)
Note: “Legally married” excludes common-law relationships and homosexual relationships as defined under
Article 1 of the Family Code.

78. Distinguish between Parricide, Unintentional Abortion, and Infanticide.

Parricide Unintentional Abortion Infanticide
1. A person is killed; 1. That there is a pregnant In the crime of infanticide, it
2. The deceased is killed by the accused; and woman; is necessary that the child
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, 2. That violence is used upon be born alive and be viable,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate such pregnant woman that is, capable of
other ascendant or other descendant, or the without intending an independent existence.
legitimate spouse of the accused. abortion; However, even if the child
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the 3. That the violence is who was expelled
offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a intentionally exerted; and prematurely and deliberately
spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the 4. That as a result of the was alive at birth, the
accused and the deceased would be the marriage violence the fetus dies, offense is abortion due to
certificate. The testimony of the accused of being either in the womb or after the fact that a fetus with an
married to the victim, in itself, may also be taken as having been expelled intrauterine life of 6 months
an admission against penal interest. therefrom. is not viable.
(People v. Jesus Paycana Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008)

79. R and A checked into a motel. Six hours later, smoke emerged from their room. R fled, shouting
“Sunog, sunog!” and uttering that A was still in the room. The motel personnel found A’s body with
multiple stab wounds and evidence of kerosene and combustible materials. He was convicted of
separate crimes of Murder and Destructive Arson. Is the conviction correct?
Yes. R burned A’s body which constituted an act of outraging or scoffing at her corpse, which is a qualifying
circumstance of murder. Moreover, the burning of a building for the purpose of concealing or destroying
evidence of another violation of law constitutes destructive arson. Here, the motel room is among the
structures enumerated in Article 320 of the RPC and R started the fire to conceal or destroy evidence of
the murder. (People of the Philippines v. Raymund Camarse, G.R. No. 258187, October 19, 2022. J. Lopez)

80. What is the crime committed by a person who has carnal knowledge with a mental retardate?
When the victim is a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12 years old, the rape
should be classified as statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC, as amended, and
not rape against a person deprived of reason under paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. (People v. XXX, G.R. No. 242684,
February 17, 2021)
Note: R.A. 11648 increases the age of Statutory Rape from 12 to 16.

81. Is “Qualified Statutory Rape” a correct designation of an offense where both the elements of
Statutory Rape, i.e., victim is below the statutory age or is suffering from mental retardation
comparable to the intellectual capacity of a child below the statutory age, and Qualified Rape, i.e.,
twin circumstances of minority and relationship, or the age of the victim being below 7 years old,
or the accused's knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of
rape are present?
No. The proper designation is qualified rape of a minor and not qualified statutory rape. It is a fundamental
rule in criminal law that aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated more than once since it will be
prejudicial to the accused. To be sure, once a circumstance is used to qualify the crime, the same could no
longer be considered anew as an aggravating circumstance. The special qualifying aggravating
circumstances of minority and relationship in the crime of qualified rape absorb the inherent circumstance
of the victim being under the statutory age in the crime of statutory rape. (People v. ABC260708, G.R. No. 260708,
January 23, 2024, Landmark Case)

82. Does “mere touching” of the penis on the labia majora consummates rape?
No. The Supreme Court clarified that “mere touch” of the penis on the labia majora legally contemplates
not mere surface touch or skin contact, but the slightest penetration of the vulval or pudendal cleft, however
minimum in degree. When jurisprudence refers to "mere touching," it is not sufficient that the penis grazed
over the pudendum or the fleshy surface of the labia majora. Instead, what jurisprudence considers as
consummated rape when it describes a penis touching the vagina is the penis penetrating the cleft of the
 16
labia majora, however minimum or slight. Similarly, mere grazing by the penis of the fleshy portion, not the
vulval cleft of the labia majora, will also constitute only attempted rape and not consummated rape, since
the same cannot be considered to have achieved the slightest level of penetration. (People of the Philippines v.
Efren Agao y Anonuevo, G.R. No. 248049. October 04, 2022)

83. Does the rule also apply to rape by sexual assault?

Yes. The threshold of genital contact may also be applied by analogy to acts of rape by sexual assault
under Article 266-A paragraph 2, of the RPC, such that “a finding that the accused has penetrated the vulval
cleft of the victim through the use of any instrument or object warrants a factual finding of consummated
rape by sexual assault.” (People of the Philippines v. Efren Agao y Anonuevo, G.R. No. 248049. October 04, 2022)

84. CCC, YYY, XXX, and ZZZ had carnal knowledge of AAA but only CCC was put on trial and they
remained at large. The trial court convicted convicted CCC of 4 counts of rape based on conspiracy.
CCC argued that the conviction was erroneous as he is not liable for the rape that YYY, XXX, and
ZZZ committed. Is CCC correct?
No. CCC’s conviction of 4 counts of rape is correct. It is a well-settled rule that where there is a conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of each perpetrator pointed
to a joint purpose and criminal design. (People of the Philippines v. Carlo Diega y Zapico, G.R. No. 255389, September 14,
2021, J. Lopez)

85. Can persons prosecuted under the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 interpose the defense that the recruit,
neophyte, or applicant consented to be subjected to hazing?
No. Section 12 of the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 states that any form of approval, consent, or agreement,
whether written or otherwise, or of an express waiver of the right to object to the initiation rite or proceeding
which consists of hazing, as defined in this Act, made by a recruit, neophyte, or applicant prior to an initiation
rite that involves inflicting physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury, shall be void and without any
binding effect on the parties. (Sec. 12., R.A. 11053)

86. Does the presence of the accused in the commission of violation under the Anti-Hazing law
constitute prima facie evidence of participation amounting to conspiracy?
Yes. Generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.
Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy can be
proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the
commission of the acts therein. (Fuertes vs. Senate, G.R. No. 208162, January 7, 2020)

87. Jericho, riding a motorcycle, shot Florante in his temple while driving his owner-type jeep.
Thereafter, Jerrico took Florante’s bag containing Php 100,000.00 and fled away. Did Jerrico commit
the crime of a special complex crime of robbery with homicide?
Yes. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide has the following elements: (1) the taking of
personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof,
homicide was committed. (People of the Philippines v. Jericco Navarro, G.R. No. 252276, November 11, 2021, J. Lopez)

88. Distinguish between Qualified Theft and Estafa.

Qualified Theft Estafa
a. There was a taking of personal property; a. That money, goods or other personal property is
b. The said property belongs to another; received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or
c. The taking was done without the consent of the for administration, or under any other obligation
owner; involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the
d. The taking was done with intent to gain; same:
e. The taking was accomplished without violence or b. that there be misappropriation or conversion of such
intimidation against person, or force upon things; money or property by the offender or denial on his part
and of such receipt;
f. the taking was done under any of the c. that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is
circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the to the prejudice of another; and
RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. d. that there is a demand made by the offended party on
the offender.
The thief takes the item without the owner's consent. The estafador receives the thing and converts it to their
own use or benefit.
There may be theft even if the accused has possession The conversion constitutes embezzlement or estafa if the
of the property. The misappropriation constitutes theft if accused has the juridical possession of the thing.
the accused was entrusted only with the material or
physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing.
(Arlene Romorosa v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191039, August 22, 2022, J. Lopez)

89. AAA hired BBB Homol as a clinic secretary tasked with collecting and remitting installment
payments from customers who purchased jewelry. Pursuant to that, BBB received a total of
P1,000.00 from CCC for the gold bracelet that she bought. However, BBB did not give the money to
AAA, and later on resigned from work. AAA reminded CCC of her unpaid installments for the
jewelry, but CCC replied that she had already paid BBB. Aggrieved, AAA filed a criminal complaint
against BBB. Can BBB be convicted of Qualified theft?
No. In qualified theft, the taking must be the result of a relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or
vigilance, between the accused and the offended party that has created a high degree of confidence
 17
between them. Thus, grave abuse of confidence by a thieving employee should be contextualized not only
by the relationship between the employer and employee but also by the purpose for which the employee
was given the employer's trust. At most, the abuse of confidence shall be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance since the gravity of exploitation of trust was not proven. AAA principally hired
BBB as a clinic secretary while her task as a collector is foreign to her usual duties. The circumstances do
not show that BBB’s job was instrumental in facilitating the taking of the money. (Arlene Romorosa v. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 191039, August 22, 2022, J. Lopez)

90. What is the multiple publication rule?

Stated more succinctly for purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction under Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, every time the same written matter is communicated such communication is considered a
distinct and separate publication of the libel. (Brillante v. CA, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004)

91. What are the offenses covered by R.A. No. 10175 and another law which constitutes double
jeopardy?
a. Online libel under both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal
Code.
b. Child pornography committed online under Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and Republic Act
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a violation of the same proscription.
(Disini v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)

92. Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement between the US and the Philippines, a US navy ship was
allowed diplomatic clearance to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines for the
purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty. AAA, in his capacity as
Commander of the US fleet, was criminally sued after the ship ran aground in the Tubbataha Reefs
causing environmental damage. Can AAA be held criminally liable for the environmental damage
caused?
No. The principle of state immunity extends to governmental acts such as in this case, where the official
was performing military duties. The VFA is an agreement which provides for the guidelines to govern such
visits of military personnel, and defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies. It is the VFA which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating
Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement. (Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014)

IV. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

93. What are the requisites to establish the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm?
a. The existence of the subject firearm; and
b. The fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or
permit to carry it outside his residence. (Salonga vs. People, G.R. No. 218466, January 23, 2017)

94. What is the rule on the use of loose firearms under Republic Act No. 10591?
a. The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of
the commission of a crime punishable under prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
the Revised Penal Code or other special imposed in addition to the penalty for the
laws, shall be considered as an aggravating crime punishable under the Revised Penal
circumstance; Code or other special laws of which he/she is
b. If the crime committed with the use of a loose found guilty.
firearm is penalized by the law with a d. If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of,
maximum penalty which is lower than that or incident to, or in connection with the crime
prescribed in the preceding section for illegal of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup
possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal d' etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu element of the crime of rebellion or
of the penalty for the crime charged; insurrection, or attempted coup d' etat.
c. If the crime committed with the use of a loose e. If the crime is committed by the person
firearm is penalized by the law with a without using the loose firearm, the violation
maximum penalty which is equal to that of this Act shall be considered as a distinct
imposed under the preceding section for and separate offense. (Sec. 29, R.A. no. 10591)

95. What constitutes child sexual exploitation under R.A. no. 11930?
1. Child sexual abuse with consideration whether monetary or nonmonetary consideration, favor, or
benefit in exchange for the opportunity to perform such abusive or exploitative act
2. Actual sexual intercourse with a child or children with or without consideration;
3. Employing fraud, machination, undue influence, intimidation, threat, or deception by any person to
commit sexual abuse of or sexual intercourse with a child or children; or
4. Any other similar or analogous acts related to child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation or to be responsible
for other conditions prejudicial to the development of the child. Sec 3 (d), R.A. no. 11930)

96. Can a mother be convicted under R.A. 9262?

Yes. The law criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children perpetrated by women's
intimate partners. However, the Court emphasized that the law does not single out the husband or father
 11
as the culprit. The statute used the gender-neutral word "person" as the offender which embraces any
person of either sex. The offender may also include other persons who conspired to commit the violence.
(Knutson v. Hon. Sarmiento-Flores; G.R. No. 239215, July 12, 2022, Landmark Case)

97. Would a single act of battery or physical harm committed by husband against his wife resulting to
the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is sufficient to avail of the benefit
of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Woman Syndrome?”
No. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman with marital relationship with
the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to
the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition.
In sum, there must be “at least two (2) battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner
and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her
batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No.
135981, January 15 2004)

98. Distinguish between Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child
Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM)
Definition
Online Sexual Abuse Refers to the use of ICT to abuse and/or exploit children sexually. This includes offline child
or Exploitation of abuse combined with an online component, and may involve the production, dissemination,
Children (OSAEC) and possession of CSAEM; online grooming; sexual extortion; image-based sexual abuse;
commercial sexual exploitation; online prostitution; and live-streaming of sexual abuse, with
or without victim consent. OSAEC may be used interchangeably with online child sexual
exploitation or abuse (OCSEA).
Child Sexual Abuse Refers to any representation of a child engaged in real or simulated sexual activities, or
or Exploitation depicting acts of sexual abuse or exploitation, whether offline or via ICT. This includes visual,
Material (CSAEM/ video, audio, written, or any combination of these, using electronic, mechanical, digital,
CSAM) optical, magnetic, or other means. It also includes materials focusing on a child's genitalia
or private body parts. CSAEM may be interchangeably referred to as CSAM.
(Sec 3 © & (t), R.A. no. 11930)

99. Distinguish between Grooming, Luring, and Pandering under OSAEC and CSAEMM Act
Definition
Grooming Predatory conduct of establishing a relationship of trust with a child or someone who is believed to be
a child for the purpose of perpetrating sexual abuse or exploitation or the production of any form of
CSAEM.
Luring The act of communicating, by means of a computer system, with a child for the purpose of facilitating
the commission of sexual activity or production of any form of CSAEM.
Pandering The act of offering, advertising, promoting, representing, or distributing through any means any child
sexual abuse or exploitation material, or any material that purports to contain any form of child sexual
abuse or exploitation material, regardless of its actual content.
(Sec 3 (i) (s) (u), R.A. no. 11930)

100. Does the VAWC Law contemplate lesbian relationships?

Yes. VAWC may likewise be committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship." The use of the gender-neutral word “person” who has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides
that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal
Code. (Sandra Jacinto v. Maria Fouts, G.R. No. 250627, December 7, 2022, Landmark Case)

101. What is the “objective test” to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation?
The "objective test" requires the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation to be
clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer
to purchase the drug, and the promise or payment of the consideration, payment using the buy-bust or
marked money, up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale
whether to the informant alone or the police officer. (Jasper Tan y Sia v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 232611,
April 26, 2021, J. Lopez)

102. Can a person be held liable for the attempted sale of dangerous drugs?
Yes. Under R.A. No. 9165, any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided by the law:
a. Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
b. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
c. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
d. Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
e. Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs. (Sec. 26, RA 9165)

103. Explain the chain of custody rule under RA 9165.

To obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the confiscated dangerous drug, the prosecution has
to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from
the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. In this regard, Section
 12
21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure that police officers must strictly follow to preserve the
integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence.
The provision requires that:
a. the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation;
b. that the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:
c. the accused or his/her representative or counsel,
d. an elected public official,
e. a representative from the media, and
f. a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ),
g. All of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same and
the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation
for examination. The three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the
conduct of the inventory of the seized items. (People vs. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019)
Note: Under R.A. No. 10640, only two witnesses are required, to wit: (a) an elected public official; and (b)
a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. (Sec.21, RA 9262)

104. Based on an information received about Leonides who was allegedly carrying shabu, an entrapment
operation ensued. However, the records show that the required insulating witnesses were absent
during the inventory and photograph of the seized item. There was no representative from the
media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Does the absence of insulating
witnesses violate the chain of custody rule?
Yes. In Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of
the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. The prosecution must
satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links:
a. the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof;
b. the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
c. the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and
d. the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court.
(Leonides Evangelista v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229183, February 17, 2021, J. Lopez)

105. Does failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21
of RA 9165 ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void?
No. It does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void. However, this is with the
caveat that the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. (People
vs. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019)

106. Can the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by law enforcers prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent?
No. While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, and it
cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is
disputable, and cannot be regarded as binding truth. (Leonides Evangelista v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229183,
February 17, 2021, J. Lopez)

107. What acts constitute gender-based street and public spaces sexual harassment and online sexual
harassment?
Gender-Based Street And Public Spaces Online Sexual Harassment
a. catcalling, wolf-whistling, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, a. unwanted sexual remarks and
homophobic, and sexist slurs; comments;
b. persistent uninvited comments or gestures on a person’s appearance, b. threats, uploading or sharing of one’s
c. relentless requests for personal details; photos without consent, video and
d. statement of sexual comments and suggestions; audio recordings, cyberstalking; and
e. public masturbation or flashing of private parts, c. online identity theft.
groping, or any advances, whether verbal or physical, that are unwanted and
have threatened one’s sense of personal space and physical safety, and
committed in public spaces such as alleys, roads, sidewalks, and parks.

108. What are the justifiable grounds for failure to comply with the three-witness rule?
a. The attendance of an elective official, media, or an NPS representative was impossible because the
place of arrest was a remote area;
b. The safety of these required witnesses during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was
threatened by immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person acting for and on his behalf;
c. The elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended;
d. The time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential
assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before
the offenders could escape; or
 13
e. Earnest efforts to secure the presence of these required witnesses within the period required under
Article 125 of RPC prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being
charged with arbitrary detention. (People vs. Lim [En Banc], G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018)

109. When is the reckoning point of the one-year prescriptive period for the crime of Cyber Libel?
The prescriptive period of Libel under Article 355 of the RPC and Cyber Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA
10175, in relation to Article 355 of the RPC, must be counted from the day on which the crime is discovered
by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. (Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524, October 11, 2023)

110. Summarize the applicable laws for the crimes of Acts of Lasciviousness, Rape by Carnal
Knowledge, and Sexual Assault depending on the age of the victim.
Crime Under 16 years of age or 16 of age or below 18. Or 18 18 years old and
Committed demented under special circumstances above
Committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse (R.A. 7610)
Acts of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article Lascivious conduct under Not applicable.
Lasciviousness 336 of the RPC in relation to Section Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
Sexual Assault Sexual Assault under Article 266- Lascivious Conduct under
A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
Sexual Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Sexual Abuse under Section
Intercourse RPC 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
Rape committed under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
Rape by carnal Rape under Article 266-A(1) in relation to Art. 266-B of the RPC Rape under Article
knowledge. 266-A(1) of the RPC
Sexual Assault. Sexual Assault under Article 266- Lascivious Conduct under Sexual Assault under
A(2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 Article 266-A(2) of the
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 RPC

(People v. Tulagan [En Banc], G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019)

111. AAA, who was then 15 years old, was chatting with his friends at a basketball court when San Juan,
who lived nearby, arrived and began scolding AAA. In his tirade, San Juan got mad and threatened
AAA with a stone. AAA walked away which caused San Juan to pull out his gun and point it at the
back of AAA. The lower court found San Juan guilty of grave threats under the Revised Penal Code
in relation to R.A No. 7610 and ruled that the act was a maltreatment that debased and caused fear
to a minor. Is the lower court correct in designating the nomenclature of the crime?
No. The complaint against San Juan alleged a threat amounting to a crime committed against a child, in
which the provisions of grave threats and child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 come into play. The
intention of the legislature in introducing Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 is to increase the penalties for acts
committed against children as enumerated under P.D. No. 603 and the RPC. (San Juan v. People, G.R. No.
236628, January 17, 2023, Landmark Case)

112. What are the guidelines in determining whether a child in conflict with the law acted with
discernment for the acts complained of?
a. Discernment is the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the
difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
b. The task of ascertaining discernment is undertaken preliminary by a social worker, and finally by the
court. The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the
moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful
act; and whether a child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior. The assessment of
a social worker is merely evidentiary and is not binding upon the court. Ultimately, the court finally
determines discernment, based on its own appreciation of all the facts and circumstances in each case.
c. In our jurisdiction, there is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment. The prosecution must
specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the alleged crime was committed with discernment.
For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment.
d. In determining discernment, courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each case.
Such circumstances include but are not limited to:
a. the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only
before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during trial,
b. the gruesome nature of the crime,
c. the minor's cunning and shrewdness,
d. the utterances of the minor,
e. his overt acts before, during, and after the commission of the crime,
f. the nature of the weapon used,
g. his attempt to silence a witness, and
h. his disposal of evidence or his hiding the corpus delicti. (CICL XXX v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
238798, March 14, 2023, Landmark Case)
 14
113. Draft a criminal complaint involving the issuance of dishonored checks due to insufficiency of
funds and failure to pay a loan obligation upon demand.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
Manila City ) SS.

COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

I, AAA, of legal age, and resident of (address) after having been sworn to in accordance with law depose that:

1. I am filing formal complaints/criminal charges against BBB (herein referred also as the respondent) a resident of (address).
2. The crime was committed in Manila City.
3. I first met the respondent in January 2023 when the respondent manifested his intention of obtaining a loan from me, payable in installments.
4. We have come to an agreement and executed a loan agreement in Manila to the effect that the respondent will obtain a loan from me amounting
to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00).
5. The manner of payment we agreed upon is that the respondent will pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) a month with monthly interest and
the rest will be paid in monthly installments through postdated checks.
6. The respondent issued six (6) checks totaling Four Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos (Php 490,000.00). Upon presentation, they were returned
and marked "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" (DAIF). They are specifically broken down as follows:

ALLIED BANK (Annex A) 03xxxxxx March 30, 2023 P75,000

ALLIED BANK (Annex B) 03xxxxxx APRIL 30, 2023 P75,000

ALLIED BANK (Annex C) 03xxxxxx MAY 30, 2023 P75,000

ALLIED BANK (Annex D) 03xxxxxx JUNE 30, 2023 P75,000

ALLIED BANK (Annex E) 03xxxxxx JULY 30, 2023 P75,000

ALLIED BANK (Annex F) 03xxxxxx AUGUST 30, 2023 P75,000

TOTAL: P450,000

7. Through a lawyer, I have sent the respondent a Demand letter dated October 31, 2023 and it was personally received by the respondent on
November 3, 2023.
8. Despite receipt of the Demand Letter by the respondent, the respondent still did not make good his checks blatantly violating BP 22.
9. I have also made other written and verbal demands personally but to no avail. The respondent just kept promising and delaying things.
10. Because of the foregoing, I have no choice but to proceed and file this case against the respondent.
11. This statement is based on our present personal profile and from the actual occurrence of the events, specifically true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and ability.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 5th day of May 2024, in Manila, Philippines.

AAA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of ________ 2024, _______, Philippines. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
affiants and that I am fully satisfied and convinced that they executed voluntarily and understood the contents thereof.

114. Prepare an Information for a violation of B.P. 22.

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 45
Manila City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345

-Versus-

For: Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22

BBB,
Accused,
X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INFORMATION

The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II accuses BBB of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, committed as follows:

That on or about August 30, 2023, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make
or draw and issue to AAA to apply on account or for value to Allied Bank Check No. 678901 post-dated August 30, 2023 payable to AAA in the amount
of P75,000.00, said accused well knowing that at the time of issue she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such
check in full upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from the date hereof, was subsequently dishonored
by the drawee bank for reason of "Drawn Against Insuficient Funds" and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to pay said AAA
the amount of the check or to make arrangement for full payment of the same within five (5) banking days after receiving said notice.

Contrary to law.

Manila City, May 6, 2024

CCC
Associate Prosecution Attoryney II
Approved:

DDD
City Prosecutor

BAILBOND RECOMMENDED: PHP 25,000.00

WITNESSES:

1. EEE – c/o AAA

2. And others.

CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that as shown by the records the undersigned, an authorized officer, that there is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against her and was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

CCC
Associate Prosecution Attorney II

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this May 6, 2024 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

SOAR HIGH, HERON!