Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant
vessel passing through the territorial sea of another state has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein. However, a coastal state such as the Philippines can exercise
1 | Page
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not contemplated
in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R. NO. L-38930, June 28,
1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967). However, praeter intentionem and evident
premeditation can be independently appreciated. there is no incompatibility between
evident premeditation and no intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is
based on the state of mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the
crime (Reyes; People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
6 | Page
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
The elements of Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense are as follows: (1) the
woman is subjected to cumulative abuse by the victim, with whom she has marital,
sexual or dating relationship; and (2) the cumulative abuse or battery is the act of
inflicting physical harm resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress.
Since the abuse must be cumulative, there must be at least two episodes involving the
infliction of physical harm. If the first episode is infliction of physical harm and the
second episode is verbal abuse, the accused cannot avail Battered Woman Syndrome
as a defense.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
17. Voluntary confession - A plea of guilty made after the prosecution had
begun presenting its evidence cannot be considered voluntary since it was made only
after the accused realized that the evidence already presented by the prosecution is
enough to cause his conviction (People vs. Montinola, G.R. No. 131856-57, July 9, 2001).
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the
provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied
supplementarily. Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for violation of
BP Blg. 22 on the basis of conspiracy. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066,
February 17, 2005). The principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No. 9262. Thus,
a person (such as mother-in-law), who has no marital, sexual or dating relationship
with the victim, can be held liable for violence against woman on the basis of
conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
If there is conspiracy, the act of the public officer in violating RA No. 3019 is
imputable to the private individual although there are not similarly situated in relation
to the object of the crime. Moreover, Section 9 provides penalty for public officer or
private person for crime under Section 3. Hence, a private individual can be
prosecuted for violation of RA No. 3019 (Go vs. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007). Even if the public officer, with whom the private
individual allegedly conspired, died, the latter can still be prosecuted for violation of
RA No. 3019. Death extinguishes the criminal liability but not the crime. Hence, if
11 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
24. Fencing In fencing, the property, which the accused possesses with intent
to gain, must be derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Ong vs. People, GR No.
190475, April 10, 2013). The concept of carnapping is the same as that of theft or
robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001). Thus, carnapping can
be considered as within the contemplation of the word theft or robbery in PD No.
1612 (Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012). If the property is derived
from the proceeds of malversation or estafa, fencing is not committed. But the accused
can be held liable as an accessory if he profited or assisted other to profit from this
misappropriated property.
Actual knowledge that the property is stolen is not required. Fencing is
committed is the accused should have known that the property is stolen taken into
consideration the attending circumstances such as (1) the price of the property is so
cheap; (2) expensive jewelry is being offered for sale at midnight in a street; (3) accused
knew that the car he bought was not properly documented (Dimat vs. People, supra);
or (4) new tires are being peddled in the streets by an unknown seller (Ong vs. People,
supra). Furthermore, mere possession of stolen property shall be prima facie evidence
of fencing (Section 6 of PD No. 1612).
25. Obstruction of justice Obstruction of justice can only be committed by a
person other than the one being investigated or tried in a criminal proceeding.
Although this is not expressly required in PD No. 1829 to make one liable for
12 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
If the offender is a child, the applicable rule for crediting the period of
commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344, which
provides that the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of juvenile
delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.
27. Immediate release If the period of preventive imprisonment is equal to
the imposable maximum imprisonment of the offense charged, the detention prisoner
shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the case, except
for the following: 1) recidivist; 2) habitual delinquent; 3) escapee; and 4) person charged
with heinous crimes. Such period shall include good conduct time allowance (Article 29
of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592).
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Breaking the window of a house and taking property inside without entering
constitutes theft. Breaking the window is not a circumstance that will qualify the
taking into robbery by using force upon thins since this crime requires that the
16 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Using picklock to open a locked cabinet and taking property therein is not
robbery by using force upon thing. To constitute robbery by using force upon thing,
the picklock must be used to open the building and not merely a lockedfurniture (US
vs. Macamay, G.R. No. 11952, September 25, 1917). Entrusted key is not a false key in
robbery by using force upon thing.
In Sebastian case, when the elements of both robbery by means of violence and
intimidation and robbery by using force upon thing are present, the accused shall be
held liable of the former since the controlling qualification is the violence and
intimidation. However, the penalty for robbery in inhabited house if the robber is
armed is graver than simple robbery. Hence, by hurting the victim, the offender shall
be penalized with a lighter penalty. Since Sebastian principle defies logic and reason,
People vs. Napolis, G.R. No. L-28865, February 28, 1972 abandoned it. Under the
present rule, when the elements of both robbery by means of violence and intimidation
and robbery by using force upon thing are present, the crime is a complex one under
Article 48 of said Code. Hence, the penalty for robbery in inhabited house shall be
imposed in its maximum period (People vs. Disney, G.R. No. L-41336, February 18,
1983; Fransdilla vs. People, GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015). If the entry into the
dwelling is without force upon thing, and the property was taken by means of violence
or intimidation, the crime committed is robbery by means of violence or intimidation
with aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling (People vs. Tejero, G.R. No.
128892 June 21, 1999; People vs. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011).
When the elements of both robbery with homicide and robbery by using force upon
thing (unlawful entry) are present, the former shall absorb the latter. In sum, robbery
by using force upon thing shall be integrated into the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide (People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta,
G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016). But aggravating circumstances of disregard of
dwelling and unlawful entry shall be both appreciated (People vs. Lamosa, G.R. No.
74291-93, May 23, 1989).
30. Compound crime - The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the floor
of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of victims constituted a compound
crime of multiple murders (People vs. Mores, GR No. 189846, June 26, 2013).
Wherethe use of grenade render the victim defenseless, use of explosives shall be
considered as a qualifying circumstance because this is the principal mode of attack.
Thus, treachery will be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance (People
vs. Comadre, et al., G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004). The single act of running over the
victims with a van constitutes compound crime of multiple murders (People vs.
Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012).
Single act of pressing the trigger of Thompson or armalite is treated as several
acts as many as there are bullets fired from gun. Because of special mechanism of
Thompson, the single act of pressing its trigger will cause the continuous firing of
bullets. Thus, accused is liable as many homicides as there are victims (People vs.
Desierto, (C.A.) 45 O.G. 4542; People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August, 27, 1999;
People vs. Tabaco, G.R. Nos. 100382-100385 March 19, 1997; People v. Vargas, Jr.,
17 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
If the crime is punishable bythe Revised Penal Code or a special law, the
institution of judicial proceeding(e.g. filing of complaint or information in court) or
executive proceeding (e.g. filing of complaint for preliminary investigation) interrupts
the running of prescription such as the filing of complaint: (1) for violation of BP Blg.
22 in the prosecutors office - People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13,
2012;Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008; (2)
for violation of Revised Securities Act in Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC
vs. Interport Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008; or (3) violation
of RA No. 3019 in the Ombudsman - Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24
and 174764-65, September 11, 2013.
The PCGG has no power to investigate cronies of Marcos for violation of RA No.
3019 not involving ill-gotten wealth. Such investigation for being voidab initiowould not
interrupt the running of prescription (People vs. Romualdez and Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 166510, April 29, 2009).
25 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
26 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
44. Rape - If the relationship between the accused and the victim of rape is
uncle and niece, the Information must alleged that the offender is a relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree because there are niece-uncle
relationships which are beyond the third civil degree.
However, a sister-brother
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
36 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
The place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in the
internet is not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is printed and first
published. To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be prevented by the
amendment to Article 360, and that was the indiscriminate laying of the venue in
libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas, to harass an accused. At any rate,
Article 360 still allow offended party to file the civil or criminal complaint for internet
libel in their respective places of residence (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149,
G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010).
54. Incriminating an innocent person - As a general rule, planting of
evidence to incriminate an innocent person constitutes the crime of incriminating an
innocent person under Article 363 of RPC. However, if the incriminatory evidence
37 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, notice of dishonor is not required where
the drawer has no right to expect that the bank will honor the check. Since bank
account of accused was already closed even before the issuance of the subject check,
he had no right to expect the drawee bank to honor his check. Hence, he is not
entitled to be given a notice of dishonor (Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 166810, June 26,
2008, ).The crime involved in Lopez vs. People is estafa through issuance of bouncing
check. However, it is submitted the Lopez principle can be applied to violation of BP
22.
Payment of check before the filing of information is a defense. The spirit of B.P.
Big 22, which is to protect the stability of the banking system, would not be served by
penalizing people who have corrected their mistakes and restituted damages even
before charges have been filed against them. In sum, by making payment of the check
before the filing of the information, the purpose of the law has already been attained.
Payment of check after the filing of informationis not a defense. Since there is no
showing of intention to mitigate the bad effects of his issuance of the unfunded check,
then there is no equitable reason to preclude the prosecution of accused. In such a
38 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Suspension of payment order issued by SEC before the check was presented for
payment is a defense in BP Blg. 22. Considering that there was a lawful Order from
the SEC, the contract is deemed suspended. Thus, the accused has no obligation to
fund the check and the complainant has no right to present it for payment (Gidwani
vs. People, GR No. 195064, January 15, 2014).Suspension of payment order issued by
SEC after three months from receipt of notice of dishonor is not a defense in BP Blg.
22. The accused has the obligation to make good of the check after he received the
letter prior to the issuance of suspension order (Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No. 133608,
August 26, 2008).
56. RA No. 7610 - The Family Code prohibits the infliction of corporal
punishment by teacher. A schoolteacher in employing unnecessary violence on her
minor student, who even fainted, is liable for child abuse under RA No. 7610 (Rosaldes
vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014). Accused saw the victim and his
companions hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused struck minor-victim at the
back with his hand and slapped his face. Since the accused committed the act at the
spur of the moment, they are perpetrated without intent to debase his "intrinsic worth
and dignity" as a human being, or to humiliate or embarrass him. Without such
intent, the crime committed is not child abuse under RA 7610 but merely slight
physical injuries (Bongalon vs. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013).
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that
the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority.
However, mere possession of dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation (Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011).
Poseur-buyer showed shabu for sale to poseur buyer. The sale was aborted
when the police officers immediately placed accused under arrest. The crime
committed is attempted sale (People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012).
Lack of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust
operation. Such coordination is not an indispensable requirement in buy-bust
operations (People vs. Mendosa, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012)
Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on
inventory and photograph will not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in
41 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Under Section 3 (a) of RA No. 3019, a public officer, who persuades, induces or
influences another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, shall be
punished for corruption. However, the deliberation in the Senate regarding the bill on
anti-graft shows that the mode of committing the crime under Section 3 (a) is
persuading, inducing or influencing a public officer by another public officer to
commit an offense or to violate rules and regulations by means of consideration,
reward, payment or remuneration (Baviera vs. Zoleta, G.R. No. 169098, Oct. 12, 2006).
42 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
46 | P a g e
Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in
writing materials or book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.