Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES or accessory.

As to what Laws are Violated
Q. Define Criminal Law
Revised Penal Code Special Penal Laws
Criminal law is that branch or division As to Stages of Execution
of law which defines crimes, treats of their There are three stages: No such stages of
nature, and provides for their punishment attempted, frustrated, execution.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book One, consummated.
18th ed., 2012, p. 1). As to Persons Criminally Liable
Q. Distinguish crimes which are mala in se There are three Generally, only the
from crimes which are mala prohibita. persons criminally principal is liable.
liable: principal,
The following are the distinctions accomplice, and
between the two: accessory.

Mala in Se Mala Prohibita Q. What are the rules of construction in

As to Nature penal laws?
Wrong from its very Wrong because it is
nature prohibited by law Penal laws are strictly construed against
As to Use of Good Faith as a Defense the Government and liberally in favour of the
Good faith is a valid Good faith is NOT a accused. (US vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243)
defense; unless the defense. The rule that penal statutes should be strictly
crime is a result of construed against the State may be invoked
culpa. only where the law is ambiguous and there is
As to Use of Intent as an Element no doubt as to its interpretation. Where the
Intent is an element. Criminal Intent is law is clear and unambiguous, there is no
NOT required. Only room for the application of the rule. (People
intent to perpetrate vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)
the act prohibited by Q. What does In Dubio Pro Reo mean?
law will suffice.
As to Degree of Accomplishment of the Crime In dubio pro reo means "when in
The degree of The act gives rise to a doubt, for the accused." Intimately related to
accomplishment of crime only when it is the In dubio pro reo principle is the rule of
the crime is taken into consummated. lenity. The rule applies when the court Is faced
account in punishing with two possible interpretations of a penal
the offender. statute, one that Is prejudicial to the accused
As to Mitigating and Aggravating and another that is favorable to him. The rule
Circumstances calls for the adoption of an Interpretation
Mitigating and Mitigating and which is more lenient to the accused (Intestate
aggravating aggravating estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No.
circumstances are circumstances are 181409, February 11, 2010).
taken into account in generally NOT taken
Q. What are the three characteristics of
imposing the penalty. into account.
criminal law?
As to Degree of Participation
When there is more Degree of There are three characteristics of
than one offender, participation is criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2)
the degree of generally NOT taken territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The
participation of each into account. Al who general, territorial and prospective
in the commission of participated in the act characteristics of criminal law are principles
the crime is taken into are punished to the that define and demarcate the scope and
account. same extent. limitation of the operation of criminal law.
As to Persons Criminally liable Under these three principles, the operation or
Penalty is computed The penalty on the enforceability of criminal law is limited to
on the basis of offenders is the same, wrongful acts committed on or after its
whether there is a whether they are effectivity (prospectively) within the territory
principal offender, or merely accomplices or of the Philippines (territoriality) by person
merely an accomplice accessories. living and sojourning therein (generality).

Page 1 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
 Green Notes 2015
Q. Discuss the Principle of Generality in
criminal law.
Generality principle is akin to
territoriality principle in the sense that the
demarcating factor of both principles is the
territory of the Philippines. Under generality
principle, criminal law is enforceable to person
living or sojourning in the territory of the
Philippines. Under the territoriality principle,
criminal law is applicable only to criminal act
committed within the territory of the
Philippines. But the concept of generality is
different from territoriality. The applicability
of territoriality principle or generality principle
will depend on the issue raised by the accuse d
in questioning the jurisdiction of the court. If
the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court
because of the unique characteristic of his
person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military, hermit,
primitive, ambassador, legislator, President),
the applicable principle is generality. If the
accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court
due to the unique characteristic of the place
where the crime was committed (e.g. the place
of commission is foreign vessel, embassy or
high sea) etc, the applicable principle is
territoriality.
Q. What is the Principle of Territoriality in
relation to criminal law?
Under the principle of territoriality, the
Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes
committed inside its territory except as
provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application.
Q. Distinguish the English Rule from the
French Rule.
There are two fundamental rules in
International Law regarding crimes committed
aboard a foreign merchant vessel (not military
vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile
territorial water (not internal or archipelagic
water or high seas) of the Philippines to wit:
French rule -Crimes committed aboard a
foreign merchant vessel within the territorial
water of the Philippines are subject to the
jurisdiction of the flag state extra-territoriality
principle) unless their commission affects the
peace and security of our country.
English rule -Crimes committed aboard a
foreign merchant vessel within the territorial
water of the Philippines are subject to
jurisdiction of the Philippines (territoriality
principle) unless their commission does not
Page 2 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
affect its peace and security, or has no
pernicious effect therein. It is the English rule
that obtains in this jurisdiction.
NOTE: in the Philippines, the English Rule is
followed.
Q. Discuss the Principle of Extra
Territoriality in criminal law.
Under the principle of extra-
territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction
over crimes committed outside its territory for
those five instances mention in Article 2 such
as crime committed in vessel of Philippines
registry (ownership is not material), function-
related crime committed by public officer (such
as corruption or direct bribery), crimes against
national security (such as treason, espionage;
rebellion is not a crime against national
security), and crime against law of nation such
as piracy and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin,
G.R. No. 111709, August 30', 2001- "Piracy is
an exception to the rule on territoriality in
criminal law (Article 2). The same principle
applies even if accused were charged, not with
a violation of qualified piracy under the penal
code but under a special law, PD No. 532
which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. It
is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the
law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole world."
Q. What is the Rule on Prospectivity of
penal laws?
A penal law cannot make an act
punishable in a manner in which it is not
punishable when committed. As provided in
Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes
are punished under the laws in force at the
time of their commission.
Q. What is the exception to the rule that
penal laws shall be applied only
prospectively and not retroactively?
Whenever a new statute dealing with
crime establishes conditions more lenient or
favourable to the accused, it can be given a
retroactive effect.
But this exception has no application:
(1) Where the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or
existing causes of action. (Tavera vs.
Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471)
 Green Notes 2015
(2) Where the offender is a habitual
criminal under Rule 5, Article 62,
Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)
Q. Discuss the effects of repeal or
amendment of a penal law.
The following are the effects of
repeal/amendment of a penal law:
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty
lighter in the new law, the new
law shall be applied, except when
the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is
made not applicable to pending
action or existing causes of action.
(2) If the new law imposes a heavier
penalty, the law in force at the
time of commission of the offense
shall be applied.
(3) If the new law totally repeals the
existing law so that the act which
was penalized under the old law is
no longer punishable, the crime is
obliterated (Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code Book One, 18th ed.,
2012, p. 15).
Constitutional Limitations on the power of
Congress to enact penal laws
Equal Protection
Q. What are the requirements of a valid
classification as a guarantee of equal
protection in the promulgation of
criminal laws?
For classification to be reasonable, the
following requisites should be satisfied:
(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the
law;
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions
only; and
(4) It must apply equally to all members of the
same class. (People vs. Cayat, G.R. No. L-
45987 May 5, 1939)
Due Process
Q. What are the requirements of due
process in criminal cases?
Page 3 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Due process in criminal cases requires:
(a) Impartial and competent court in
accordance with procedure prescribed
by law.
(b) Proper observance of all the rights
accorded the accused under the
Constitution and the applicable
statutes.
Non-imposition of cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines
Q. What is the right of an accused against
the non-imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment and excessive
fines?
Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
The employment of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with
by law. (Section 19, Article III, 1987
Constitution)
Q. Is the imposition of the death penalty
unconstitutional in the Philippines?
No. Article III, Section 19(1) of the
Constitution provides that neither shall the
death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
the Congress provides for it. Thus, the
imposition of death penalty is not
unconstitutional as the Constitution left it to
the wisdom of Congress to impose it.
Q. How shall R.A. No. 9346 be imposed
to persons convicted of crimes
punishable by death penalty?
Sec. 2 of R.A. 9346 provides that the
penalty of (1) reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed if the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC; and
(2) life imprisonment when the law violated
does not use the nomenclature of the penalties
of the RPC.
 Green Notes 2015
Bill of Attainder
Q. What is a Bill of Attainder?
A bill of attainder is a legislative act
which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative for a
judicial determination of guilt (People vs.
Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32613-14). The 1987
Philippine Constitution prohibits it (Article III,
Section 22, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
Ex post facto law
Q. What is an Ex Post Facto Law? What
are its characteristics?
An ex post facto law is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
than it was, when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense;
(5) Assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
(6) 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. (In re: Kay Villegas
Kami, Inc., G.R. No. L-32485, October 22,
1970)
NOTE: Its characteristics are: (a) it must refer
to criminal matters; and (b) it must be
prejudicial to the accused.
FELONIES
Q. What is a felony? What are its
classifications?
Felonies are acts or omissions
punishable by the Revised Penal Code (Reyes,
p.33).
Page 4 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q. What are the elements of a felony?
The elements of felonies in general are:
(1) That there must be an act or omission;
(2) That the act or omission must be
punishable by the Revised Penal Code;
(3) That the act is performed or the
omission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
80762, March 19, 1990)
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Article 3 classifies felonies according to the
means or manner by which they are
committed:
(a) Intentional felonies those committed
with deliberate intent; and
(b) Culpable felonies those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
Q. Distinguish intentional felony from a
culpable felony
In intentional felonies, the act or
omission of the offender is malicious. In the
language of Article 3, the act is performed with
deliberate intent (with malice). The offender,
in performing the act or incurring the
omission, has the intention to cause an injury
to another. In culpable felonies, the act or
omission of the offender is not malicious. The
injury caused by the offender to another
person is unintentional, it being simply the
incident of another act performed without
malice. (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939)
Q. What are the requisites of dolo or
malice?
In order that an act or omission may be
considered as having been performed or
incurred with deliberate intent, the following
requisites must concur:
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing
an act or omitting to do an act;
2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while
doing the act or omitting to do the
act;

3. He must have INTENT while doing the
act or omitting to do the act.
CRIMINAL INTENT
To be held liable for intentional
felony, the offender must commit the act
prohibited by RPC with specific criminal intent
and general criminal intent. General criminal
intent (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element
of all crimes but malice is properly applied
only to deliberate acts done on purpose and
with design. Evil intent must unite with an
unlawful act for there to be a felony. A
deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a
presumption of malice by intent. On the other
hand, specific intent is a definite and actual
purpose to accomplish some particular thing.
In estafa, the specific intent is to defraud, in
homicide intent to kill, in theft intent to gain
(Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June
27, 2006). In the US vs. Ah Chong, the
accused was acquitted because of mistake of
fact principle even though the evidence
showed that he attacked the deceased with
intent to k/M (United States vs.. Apego, G.R.
No. 7929, November 8, 1912; Dissenting
opinion of J. Trent), which was established by
the statement of the accused If you enter the
room I will kill you." Article 249 (homicide)
should be read in relation to Article. The
accused was acquitted not because of the
absence of intent to kill (specific intent]) but by
reason of lack of general intent (dolo or
malice).
PRESUMED MALICE
The general criminal intent (malice) is
presumed from the criminal act and in the
absence of any general intent is relied upon as
a defense, such absence must be proved by the
accused (Ah Chong case, the accused was able
to rebut the presumption of general criminal
intent or malice). Generally, a specific intent is
not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of
fact must be proved by the State just as any
other essential element. This may be shown,
however, by the nature of the act, the
circumstances under which it was committed,
the means employed and the motive of the
accused (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No.
168217, June 27, 2006). There are other
specific intents that are presumed. If a person
died due to violence, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed. Intent to gain is
Page 5 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
presumed from taking property without
consent of owner.
MOTIVE
Motive to prove identity - In a
criminaI case, the prosecution must prove
the elements of crime and the identity of the
person who committed it. Proof of motive
will not establish the presence of the
elements of the crime but it will help the
prosecution in showing that the accused
committed the crime. The identity of the
culprit, which is an essential requisite to
cause the conviction of the accused, is
usually established through positive
identification of the witness. However if
there is doubt as to the identity of the
culprit, showing motive of the accused for
committing the crime will help establish his
direct Unit to the commission of the crime.
In People vs. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965,
June 18,1987, En Banc, it was held that
motive is essential to conviction in murder
cases only when there is doubt as to the
identity of the culprit, not when the accused
has been positively identified as the
assailant. Motive as an element - Although
motive is not an essential element of a
crime, and proving it is just a matter of
procedure pertaining to the identification of
the accused, there are some cases where it is
absolutely necessary to establish a particular
motive as a matter of substance because it
forms an essential element of the offense. In
cases of libel or slander or malicious
mischief, prosecution must prove malice on
the part of the accused as the true motive of
the conduct (People vs. Diva and Diva, G.R.
No. L-22946, April 29, 1968, En Banc).
Elements of Criminal Liability
Q. When is criminal liability incurred?
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that criminal liability shall be
incurred:
(a) By any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he
intended.
(b) By any person performing an act,
which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the

employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Q. Define proximate cause
Proximate cause is the primary or
moving cause of the death of the victim; it is
the cause, which in the natural and continuous
sequence unbroken with any efficient
intervening cause" produces death and without
which the fatal result could not have
happened. It is the cause, which is the nearest
in the order of responsible causation (Black's
Law Dictionary).
Intervening cause - The direct relation
between the intentional felony and death may
be broken by efficient intervening cause or an
active force which is either a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
offender. Lightning that kills the injured victim
or tetanus infecting the victim several days
after the infliction of injuries, or voluntary
immersing the wounds to aggravate the crime
committed by accused is an intervening cause.
Thus, the accused is liable for physical injuries
because of the intervening cause rule. On the
other hand, carelessness of the victim, or
involuntary removal of the drainage, lack of
proper treatment is not an intervening cause.
Hence, the accused is liable for the death
because of the proximate cause rule.
If the victim died due to tetanus of
which he was infected when the accused
inflicted injuries upon him, the crime
committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel,
G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the victim
died due to tetanus of which he was infected
after the accused inflicted injuries upon him,
the crime committed is physical injuries. The
accused is not liable for homicide because
tetanus is an efficient intervening cause. Thus,
the proximate cause of the death of the victim
is not the infliction of injuries. In Villacorta vs.
People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011,
there had been an interval of 22 days between
the date of the stabbing and the date when
victim was rushed to hospital, exhibiting
symptoms of severe tetanus infection. Since the
victim was infected of severe tetanus, he died
the next day. The incubation period of severe
tetanus is less than 14 days. Hence, he could
not have been infected at the time of the
stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days
before the victim was rushed to the hospital.
The infection of victim's stab wound by
Page 6 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause. The
accused was held liable for physical injuries.
Q. What is error in personae?
There is error in personae when a
crime intended to a person is committed to
another because the offender mistook the
latters identity as the former.
In case of error in personae, a person is
criminally responsible for committing an
intentional felony although the consequent
victim is different from that intended due to
mistake of identity.
In order to make a person criminally
liable in case of error in personae, the
following requisites must be present:
(1) Offender committed an intentional
felony;
(2) The consequent victim against whom
the felony was directed is different
from that intended due to mistake of
identity.
If the penalty for the intended crime is
different from that of the committed crime,
the court shall impose the penalty for the
intended crime or committed crime, whichever
is lesser.
Q. What is aberratio ictus?
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow
is committed when an offender attacks
another but because due to the mistake in the
execution of the attack, another person, whom
the offender has no intention to injure, suffers
said attack. Article 48 of the RPC applies in this
case.
In case of aberratio ictus, a person is
criminally responsible for committing an
Intentional felony although the consequent
victim is different from that intended due to
mistake of blow.
In order to make a person criminally
liable in case of aberratio ictus, the following
requisites must be present:
(1) Offender committed an intentional
felony;
 Green Notes 2015
(2) The consequent victim against whom
the felony was directed is different
from that intended due to mistake of
blow.
The crime committed against the
intended victim and victim injured due to
aberratio ictus shall be made a complex crime
(compound crime). The court shall impose the
penalty for the most serious crime in its
maximum period.
The circumstance of aberratio ictus:
(mistake in the blow) can neither exempt the
accused from criminal responsibility nor
mitigate his criminal liability. Under Article 4
of RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any
person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended (Matic vs. People, G.R. No.
180219, November 23, 2011).
Q. What is praeter intentionem and what
are its implications?
Praeter intentionem is committed
when an injury resulted from an act is greater
from the injury intended to be caused by the
offender. It is considered as a mitigating
circumstance under Art. 13 par. 3 of the RPC.
In case of praeter intentionem, a
person is criminally responsible for committing
an intentional felony although its wrongful
consequence is graver than that intended.
In order to make a person criminally
liable under Article 4 (1) in case of praeter
intentionem, the following requisites must be
present:
(1) Offender committed an intentional
felony;
(2) The wrongful act done, which is graver
than that intended, is the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the
felony committed by the
offender.Praeter intentionem may be
appreciated as mitigating circumstance
of lack of Intent to commit so grave a
wrong than that committed.
When death resulted, even if there was
no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of
personal violence the penal law looks
particularly to the material results following
Page 7 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the unlawful act and holds the aggressor
responsible for all the consequences thereof.
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused (Seguritan vs. People, G.R. No.
172896, April 19, 2010).
Mitigating circumstance
The mitigating circumstance that "the
offender had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed"
or praeter intentionem is obtaining
when there is a notable disparity
between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the
resulting crime committed. The
intention of the accused at the time of
the commission of the crime is
manifested from the weapon used, the
mode of attack employed and the
injury sustained by the victim (People
vs. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March
30, 2011). The mitigating circumstance
of praeter intentionem cannot be
appreciated if the acts employed by
accused were reasonably sufficient to
produce and did actually produce the
death of the victim (People vs. Sales,
G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
Evident premeditation
In case of aberratio ictus and error in
personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim,
who was actually killed, is not
contemplated in the premeditation of
the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R.
NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988; People
vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967; People vs.
Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28,
1988). However, praeter intentionem
and evident premeditation can be
independently appreciated, there is no
incompatibility between evident
premeditation and no intention to
commit so grave a wrong since the
latter is based on the state of mind of
the offender while the former manner
of committing the crime (Reyes;
People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
Treachery
If accused employed means to render
the victim defenseless, treachery shall
be appreciated even if the killing is doe

to error in personae (People vs. Del
Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April
30, 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs.
Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August
10,1926, En Banc) or with the
circumstance of praeter Intentionem
(People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511,
October 6, 1933).
Conspiracy
Conspirators, who conspired to kill a
particular parson, are equally liable for
the killing of another person due to
error in personae (People vs. Pinto, Jr.
and Buenaflor, G.R. No. No. 39519,
November 21, 1991). However, a
conspirator, who never even fired a
single shot and whose only
participation was to drive their
getaway vehicle and to lend his
firearm to his back rider so that the
latter could finish off the target victim
was not found accountable for the
injury sustained by the unintended
victim was just a star-crossed bystander
who was accidentally hit in the process
(aberratio ictus) (People vs. Herbias,
G.R. No. 112716-17, December
16,1996; People vs. Flora and Flora,
G.R. No. 125909, June 23,2000).
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Q. What are the elements of an
impossible crime?
The elements of an impossible crime are:
(1) That the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property.
(2) That the act was done with evil intent.
(3) That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual.
(4) That the act performed should not
constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Intod principle
Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103119, October 21, 1992 - Outside the house
of the victim, accused with intent to kill fired
Page 8 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
at the bedroom, where the victim is supposed
to be sleeping. No one was in the room when
the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by
the gun fire. The accused were convicted of
impossible crime. The accused shot at the place
where he thought his victim would be,
although in reality, the victim was not present
in said place. The accused failed to accomplish
their end due to its factual impossibility. In the
Philippines, the crime committed is impossible
crime if the offense sought to be committed is
factually or legally impossible. Killing a dead
person is an impossible crime because of legal
impossibility. Putting the hand inside an empty
pocket with the intention to steal a wallet is an
impossible crime because of factual
impossibility.
Raping a dead person - Prior to RA 8353, rape
was a crime against chastity. Thus, if a person
raped a dead person believing that she was
just sleeping, offender could not be held liable
for an impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino). In
impossible crime the act could have
constituted the crime against person or
property if its accomplishment was not
impossible. Rape is neither a crime against
person nor against property. However, RA
8353 reclassifies rape from crime against
chastity to a crime against persons. Hence, an
offender for raping a dead person without
knowing that she was already dead may now
be held liable for impossible crime.
Committing another crime - "A" discharged a
shotgun at "B" from a distance of 300 yards;
but because of the limited range of the
firepower of the shotgun, it would be
impossible for "A" to harm "B". "A" is liable of
discharged of firearm and not impossible
crime. Where the offender unlawfully entered
the house and took a watch that turned out to
be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling
and not impossible crime (Criminal Law
Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). If the
accused administered abortive drugs upon his
girlfriend whom he believed to be pregnant,
which turned out not to be true, but the
woman became ill for more than 30 days, the
accused will be liable for serious physical
injuries and not impossible crime of abortion
(Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Q. What are the stages of execution of a
material crime? Briefly discuss them.

CLASSIFICATION UNDER ART. 6:
(1) Consummated Felony When all the
elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; the
felony is produced.
(2) Frustrated Felony When the offender
performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
(3) Attempted Felony When the
offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES:
In attempted felony, the offender
performs directly an overt act, which consists
of one or more acts of execution, but not
enough to consequently produce the felony.
In frustrated felony, the offenders
perform all the acts of execution that would
produce the felony as a matter of
consequence.
To determine whether the felony is at
the attempted or frustrated stage, acts of
execution of execution of a felony must be
identified. Example: The acts of execution that
would produce homicide or murder are
infliction of mortal wounds upon the victim. If
the wounds inflicted upon the victim with
intent to kill are non-mortal, the crime
committed is attempted homicide; if wounds
are mortal, the crime committed is frustrated
homicide.
In attempted felony and frustrated
felony, the external acts performed by the
offender and the intended felony must have a
direct connection; but in an attempted felony,
the offender failed to perform all the acts of
execution; thus his external acts would "not
produce the felony as a consequence; on the
other hand in a frustrated felony, the offender
performed all the acts of execution; thus, his
Page 9 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
external acts "would produce" the felony as a
consequence.
FRUSTRATED AND CONSUMMATED:
In frustrated and consummated felony,
the accused performed all acts of execution
that would produce the felony as a
consequence. If the felony is not produced due
to external cause, the crime committed is
frustrated felony; if the felony is produced the
crime committed is consummated.
In frustrated felony, the offender
performed all the acts of execution but the
felony was not produced as a consequence
due to extraneous cause. However, there are
felonies, the commission of which has no
frustrated stage since the performance of all
the acts of execution immediately
consummates the felony.
In homicide or murder case, once the
offender inflicted mortal wound on the victim,
all the acts of execution are considered
performed. However, what consummates
homicide or murder is not the infliction of
mortal wounds but the death of the victim as a
consequence of the mortal wound inflicted.
Thus, if the mortally wounded victim did not
die due to medical intervention, homicide or
murder is only at the frustrated stage. On the
other hand, in rape once the offender sexuality
penetrate the labia of the vagina of the victim,
all the acts of execution are considered
performed. But since sexual penetration
consummates rape, there are no occasions
where the offender performed all the acts of
execution and yet the felony was not
produced as a consequence. In sum, there is no
such thing as frustrated rape since the
performance of all the acts of execution
immediately consummates rape.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
In attempted felony and frustrated
felony, the offender failed to accomplish his
criminal objective by reason of extraneous
causes; If the causes are not extraneous, the
accused will be absolved from criminal
liability.
Negative Act - In the attempted stage of the
execution of a felony, the offender must do a
"negative act" to be exempt from criminal
liability for attempted felony; since the

offender has not yet performed all the acts of
execution that would produce the felony as a
consequence, he must spontaneously desist
from further doing criminal acts that will
complete all the acts of execution. Example:
"A" with intent to kill shot "B"; "B" sustained
non-mortal wound. To be exempt from
criminal liability for attempted homicide or
murder, "A" must spontaneously desist from
further shooting "B" in order not to inflict
mortal injury upon him.
Positive Act - If the offender performs all the
acts of execution, which would produce the
felony as a consequence, offender is not
exempted from liability for frustrated felony
even if he voluntary desisted from further
doing criminal act. Spontaneous desistance is a
defense in attempted felony but not in
frustrated felony. In the frustrated stage of the
execution of a felony, the offender must do a
"positive act" to be exempt from criminal
liability; since the offender has performed all
the acts of execution that would produce the
felony as a consequence, he must do
something to prevent, or thwart the
production of the felony. Example: "A" with
intent to kill shot "B"; "B" sustained mortal
wound. To be exempt from criminal liability
for frustrated felony, it is not enough that "A"
would desist from further shooting "B". The
spontaneous desistance is not a valid defense
since "A" had already inflicted mortal wound
on "B" that would cause his death as a
consequence. Thus, "A" must save the life of
"B" by treating his wound. If "B" did not die
because "A"s medical treatment, the latter will
not be held liable for frustrated felony because
the homicide was not produced due to the will
of "A.
Not absolutory cause - If the felony is
consummated, offender cannot undo what
was done. Offender would not be absolved
from criminal liability even if he had done
something that will mitigate the effects of the
felonious act. Example: (1) Restitution of funds
malversed immediately and voluntarily made
before the case was instituted is not an
absolutory cause (Navarro vs. Meneses III,
CBO Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998,
En Banc). (2) "A" stole a chicken from the
house of "B" one evening. Realizing that what
he did was wrong, "A" returned the chicken to
the place under the house of "B". Since the
crime of theft was already consummated, the
return of the stolen property does not relieve
Page 10 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
"A" of criminal responsibility. "A" had already
performed all the acts of execution, which
produced the crime of theft before he returned
the chicken (Reyes). (3) The fact that the
accused abandoned the victim after six days of
captivity does not lessen his criminal
culpability much less exempt him from criminal
liability for the kidnapping and detention of
the victim (People vs. Baldogo, G.R. No.
128106-07, January 24,2003, En Banc).
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF
FRUSTRATED STAGE
RAPE
The essence of the crime is carnal
knowledge.
No matter what the offender may do
to accomplish a penetration, if there
was no penetration yet, it cannot be
said that the offender has performed
all the acts of execution.
We can only say that the offender in
rape has performed all the acts of
execution when he has effected a
penetration.
Once there is penetration, no matter
how slight it is, the offense is
consummated. For this reason, rape
admits only of the attempted and
consummated stages, no frustrated
stage. [People v. Orita]
ARSON
One cannot say that the offender, in
the crime of arson, has already
performed all the acts of execution
which could produce the destruction
of the premises through the use of fire,
unless a part of the premises has begun
to burn.
The crime of arson is therefore
consummated even if only a portion of
the wall or any part of the house is
burned. The consummation of the
crime of arson does not depend upon
the extent of the damage caused.
(People v. Hernandez)

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
The manner of committing the crime
requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
If there is a meeting of the minds, there
is consummated bribery or
consummated corruption.
If there is none, it is only attempted.
ADULTERY
This requires the sexual contact
between two participants.
If that link is present, the crime is
consummated;
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Under the Revised Penal Code, the
crime of physical injuries is penalized
on the basis of the gravity of the
injuries.
There is no simple crime of physical
injuries. There is the need to categorize
because there are specific articles that
apply whether the physical injuries are
serious, less serious or slight.
Thus, one could not punish the
attempted or frustrated stage because
one does not know what degree of
physical injury was committed unless it
is consummated.
THEFT
Once there is unlawful taking, theft is
consummated.
Either the thing was taken or not.
Disposition of the stolen goods is not
an element of theft under the RPC.
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require
any result do not have a frustrated stage.
Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution
of a Felony:
a. The manner of committing the crime;
Page 11 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
b. The elements of the crime; and
c. The nature of the crime itself.
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE
In People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No.
43530, August 3, 1935, En Banc - Accused
who was caught in the act of making an
opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store was held guilty of attempted trespassing
and not attempted robbery. The act of making
an opening on the wall of the store is an overt
act of trespassing since it reveals an evident
intention to enter by means of force said store
against the will of its owner. However, it is
not an overt act of robbery since the intention
of the accused once he succeeded in entering
the store is not determinate; it is subject to
different interpretations. His final objective
could be to rob, to cause physical injury to its
occupants, or to commit any other offense. In
sum, the crime the he intended to commit
inside the store is indeterminate, and thus, an
attempt to commit it is not punishable as
attempted felony.
In People vs. Crisostomo, et al., G.R.
No. L-19034, February 17 1923 - The accused
dragged the victim to a rice field. Fortunately,
she was saved from her captors. It was held
that the purpose of the accused in taking away
the offended party could be to injure or
affront her or to compel her through force to
marry one of the accused. Thus, the acts are
not constitutive of attempted coercion. Note:
The accused were found guilty of illegal
detention. Taking the victim reveals the
evident intention of the accused to deprive the
liberty of the latter, which is the mens rea in
illegaI detention.
In U.S. vs. Simeon, G.R. No. 1603,
April 15,1904 - Raising a bolo and hacking the
victim with it are acts of execution in homicide
or murder. Such acts together with other
circumstance may reveal intent to kill.
However, raising a bolo alone is susceptible to
different interpretation. The intention of the
offender may either to kill the victim or merely
to threaten him. Since doubt should be
interpreted in favor of the accused, such act
should be considered to have been made with
intent to threaten the victim. Thus, the crime
committed is merely threat and not attempted
homicide.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Q. When is there conspiracy? Enumerate
the requisites for the existence of
conspiracy.
Article 8 of the RPC provides that
conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. The requisites for its existence are:
(1) There are two or more persons
who come to an agreement.
Agreement presupposes meeting of
the minds of two or more persons.
(2) The agreement pertains to
commission of a felony.
(3) The execution of the felony was
decided upon.
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No.
181701, January 18,2012 -The "evidence of a
chain of circumstances," to wit: that appellant
went inside the house of Romines to ascertain
that the victim was there; that he fetched
Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave
the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime;
and that they both fled after the stabbing,
taken collectively, shows a community of
criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently,
there was conspiracy in the commission of the
crime.
MASTERMIND
To be held liable as conspirator, it
must also be shown that the accused
performed an overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy except in the case of the
mastermind of a crime (People vs. Vera, GR
No. 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans
the commission of a crime is liable as
conspirator and principal by inducement
(People vs. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March
4, 2004, En banc). Notwithstanding, the fact
that one was not at the crime scene, evidence
proved that he was the mastermind of the
criminal act or the principal by inducement.
What Is important is that inducement was the
determining cause of the commission of the
crime. The command or advice made by
principal by inducement was of such nature
Page 12 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
that, without it, the crime would not have
materialized (People vs. Janjarani, G.R. No.
188314, January 10,2011).
PRESENCE
The accused who was unarmed,
appeared in the company of his employer, and
another person. His employer shot and killed
the victim. Accused did nothing to prevent the
killing. Accused fled together with his
employer and other person. The fact that
accused appeared together with employer and
another and fled with them proves a certain
degree of participation and cooperation in the
execution of the crime. However, there is
doubt as to whether accused acted as a
a principal or just a mere accomplice. Such
doubt should be resolved in favor of the
milder form of criminal liabilitythat of a
mere accomplice (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No.
192251, February 16, 2011). If the accused is
armed at the time, he could be held liable as
principal on the basis of implied conspiracy.
The fact that the companion of the criminal
actor is armed may mean that the former is
supplying moral assistance to the latter. The
armed presence of conspiratorial companion
may prove a sense of security and
encouragement on the part of the material
executor or may serve as deterrence against
possible defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No.
133887, May 28,2002, En Banc).
SPECIAL LAW
B.P. Big. 22 does not expressly
proscribe the supplementary application of the
provisions RPC including the rule on
conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied
supplementary. Thus, a non-issuer of bum
check can be held liable for violation of BP
Big. 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 women on the basis of
conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852,
September 30, 2008).

MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
Q. Who is a recidivist?
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial
for one crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC. What is
controlling is the time of trial, not the time of
the crime. (Article 14, par. 9, RPC)
Q. What are the requirements for a
person to become a recidivist?
The requirements are:
(a) The offender is on trial for an offense;
(b) The offender was previously convicted
by final judgment for another crime;
(c) Both the first and second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the RPC;
and
(d) The offender is convicted of the new
offense.
Q. When does a judgment in a criminal
case become final?
Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Rules of
Court provides that a judgment in a criminal
case shall become final:
(a) After the lapse of the period for
perfecting an appeal15 days from
promulgation of the judgment or from
notice of the final order appealed
from;
(b) When the sentence has been partially
or totally satisfied or served;
(c) When the accused has waived in
writing his right to appeal; or
(d) When the accused applied for
probation.
Q. When is there reiteracion or
habituality?
There is reiteracion or habituality
when the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty. Its requisites are:
Page 13 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
(a) The accused is on trial for an
offense;
(b) He has previously served sentence
for another crime which the law
attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes
with lighter penalties; and
(c) The accused is convicted of the
new offense.
Q. Distinguish reiteracion from recidivism
or reincindencia
The following are the distinctions
between the two:
(a) In reiteracion, the offender must have
served out his sentence for the first
offense, while in recidivism, it is
enough that there be final judgment in
the first offense;
(b) In reiteracion, the previous and
subsequent offenses can be from
different titles of the RPC, while in
recidivism, the offenses must come
from the same title; and
(c) Reiteracion is not always an
aggravating circumstance while
recidivism is always to be taken into
consideration in fixing the penalty to
be imposed upon the accused.
Q. Who is a quasi-recidivist? What is
quasi-recidivism?
A quasi-recidivist, as provided by
Article 160 of the RPC, is a person who
commits a felony after having been convicted
by final judgment, before beginning to serve
such sentence, or while serving the same.
Quasi-recidivism is the special aggravating
circumstance which imposes the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
new felony.
Q. Who is a habitual delinquent?
It is a person who, within a period of
ten (10) years from the date of his last release
or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or
less serious physical injuries; (2) robbery; (3)
theft; (4) estafa; or (5) falsification, he is found
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener (Article 62, RPC).

Q. What are the requisites of habitual
delinquency?
The following are the requisites of
habitual delinquency:
(a) The offender has been convicted of
any of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa or falsification;
(b) That after that conviction or after
serving his sentence, he again
committed, and within 10 years from
his release or first conviction, he was
again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time; and
(c) That after his conviction of, or after
serving sentence for, the second
offense, he again committed, and
within 10 years from his last release or
conviction, he was again convicted of
any of said offenses, the third time or
oftener.
Q. Does habitual delinquency apply to
persons who are adjudged to have
acted only as accomplices or
accessories?
Yes. Any person who commits the
crimes enumerated in par. 5 of Article 62
whether acting as a principal, accomplice, or
accessory will be considered a habitual
delinquent if the requisites for habitual
delinquency are present (People vs. San Juan,
69 Phil. 347, 349 [1939]).
Q. Distinguish habitual delinquency from
recidivism.
HABITUAL RECIDIVISM
DELINQUENCY
As to Crime Committed
The crimes are It is sufficient that the
specified. accused on the date
of the trial shall have
been previously
convicted by final
judgment of another
crime embraced in the
same title of the RPC.
As to the period of time the crimes are
committed
The offender is found No period of time
guilty within ten years between the former
from his last release conviction and the
Page 14 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
or last conviction. last conviction.
As to the number of crimes committed
The accused must be The second offense is
found guilty the third for an offense found
time or oftener of the in the same title of
crime specified. the RPC.
As to their effect
An additional penalty If not offset by a
is also imposed. mitigating
circumstance, it serves
to increase the
penalty only to the
maximum.
CONTINUING CRIMES
Q. What is a continuing crime?
The term "continuing" here must be
understood in the sense similar to that of
"transitory" and is only intended as a factor in
determining the proper venue or jurisdiction
for that matter of the criminal action pursuant
to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court. This is so, because "a person charged
with a transitory offense may be tried in any
jurisdiction where the offense is part
committed. In transitory or continuing offense
in which some acts material and essential to
the crime and requisite to its consummation
occur in one province and some in another,
the court of either province has jurisdiction to
try the case, it being understood that the first
court taking cognizance of the case will
exclude the other." (Gamboa vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-41054, 1975)
Q. What is a continuous or continued
crime?
This is a single crime consisting of a
series of acts arising from a single criminal
resolution or intent not susceptible of division
(Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
41054, 1975). For Cuello Calon, when the
actor, there being unity of purpose and of
right violated, commits diverse acts, each of
which, although of a delictual character,
merely constitutes a partial execution of a
single particular delict, such concurrence or
delictual acts is called a "delito continuado". In
order that it may exist, there should be
"plurality of acts performed separately during a
period of time; unity of penal provision
infringed upon or violated and unity of
criminal intent and purpose, which means that
two or more violations of the same penal

provision are united in one and the same
intent leading to the perpetration of the same
criminal purpose or aim" (Santigao v
Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, 1993).
Single occassion - In People vs. Tumlos,
G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En
Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows
owned by six owners involved thirteen
(13) acts of taking. However, the acts
of taking took place at the same time
and in the same place; consequently,
accused performed but one act. The
intention was likewise one, namely, to
take for the purpose of appropriating
or selling the thirteen cows which he
found grazing in the same place. The
fact that eight of said cows pertained
to one owner and five to another does
not make him criminally liable for as
many crimes as there are owners, for
the reason that in such case neither the
intention nor the criminal act is
susceptible of division.
"X" was angered when he discovered a
tap from the main line of the public
water tank. On separate occasions, X"
threatened to VW and crack the skulls
of "A", "B", and "C", who suspected to
be responsible for the tapping of water
line. There is no continued crime since
the three crimes of grave threat were
not committed under a single criminal
Impulse. "X's" intent to threaten "A",
"B", and "C" with bodily harm arose
only when he chanced upon each of
his victims. Several threats can only be
considered as continued crime if the
offender threatened three individuals
at the same place and at the same time
(Paera vs. People, G.R. No. 181626,
May 30, 2011). General plan In
People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-1745,
May 23, 1950, it was held that
ransacking several houses located
within the vicinity of a sugar mill while
two of the bandits guarded the victims
with guns leveled at them is a
continued crime of robbery. Several
acts of robbery were made pursuant to
general plan to despoil all those in i
the said place, which is an indicative of
a single i criminal design.
Foreknowledge doctrine - In Gamboa
vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November
Page 15 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
28, 1975 - Accused cannot be held to
have entertained continuously the
same criminal intent in making the first
abstraction October 2, 2972 for the
subsequent abstractions on the
following days and months until
December 30,1972, for the simple
reason that he was not possessed of
any foreknowledge of any deposit by
any customer on any day or occasion
and which would pass on to his
possession and control. At most, his
intent to misappropriate may arise
only when he comes in possession of
the deposits on each business day but
not in future, since petitioner company
operates only on a day-to-day
transaction. As a result, there could be
as many acts of misappropriation as
there are times the private respondent
abstracted and/or diverted the deposits
to his own personal use and benefit
(People vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. 1-16943,
October 28,1961).
COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIMES
There are two kinds of complex crimes. The
first is known as compound crime, or when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies. The second is known as
complex crime proper, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other
(People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July
27, 2011).The underlying philosophy of
complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code,
which follows the pro reo principle, is
intended to favor the accused by imposing a
single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed. The rationale being, that the
accused who commits two crimes with single
criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
than when the crimes are committed by
different acts and several criminal resolutions
(People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050,
September 19, 2008).
COMPLEX CRIME AND COMPOSITE CRIME
A composite crime, also known as a
special complex crime, is composed of two or
more crimes that the law treats as a single
indivisible and unique offense for being the
product of a single criminal impulse. It is a
specific crime with a specific penalty provided
by law. The distinctions between a composite

crime, on the one hand, and a complex or
compound crime under Article 48 are as
follows:
(1) In a composite crime, the composition
of the offenses is fixed by law; In a
complex or compound crime, the
combination of the offenses is not
specified but generalized, that is, grave
and/or less grave, or one offense being
the necessary means to commit the
other;
(2) For a composite crime, the penalty for
the specified combination of crimes is
specific; for a complex or compound
crime, the penalty is that
corresponding to the most serious
offense, to be imposed in the
maximum period; and
(3) A light felony that accompanies a
composite crime is absorbed; a light
felony that accompanies the
commission of a complex or
compound crime may be the subject of
separate information (People vs.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11,
2012).
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q. What are justifying circumstances?
Justifying circumstances are those acts
of a person said to be in accordance with law,
so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from both
criminal and civil liability. There is no civil
liability except in par. 4, Art. 11 where the civil
liability is borne by the persons benefited by
the act.
Q. What are the justifying circumstances
under Article 11 of the RPC?
(1) Self-defense
(2) Defense of relatives
(3) Defense of strangers
(4) Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
(5) Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of
right of office
(6) Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose.
Page 16 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Self-Defense
Q. What are the requirements for self-
defense to be a justifying circumstance?
For self-defense to be a justifying
circumstance, the following elements must be
present: (URL)
(1) Unlawful aggression; (condition sine
qua non)
(2) Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression.
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
Includes not only the defense of the person or
body of the one assaulted but also that of his
rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by
law. It includes:
(a) The defense of honor. Hence, a slap
on the face is considered as unlawful
aggression since the face represents a
person and his dignity. (Rugas vs,
People)
(b) The defense of property rights can be
invoked if there is an attack upon the
property although it is not coupled
with an attack upon the person of
the owner of the premises. All the
elements for justification must
however be present. (People v.
Narvaez)
Q. Define unlawful aggression
Unlawful aggression is an equivalent to
an actual physical assault; OR threatened
assault of an immediate and imminent kind
which is offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause harm.
The aggression must constitute a
violation of the law. When the aggression
ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to
defend ones self.
EXCEPT: when the aggressor retreats to obtain
a more advantageous position to ensure the
success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression
is deemed to continue.

Must come from the person attacked
by the accused.
Unlawful aggression must also be a
continuing circumstance or must have been
existing at the time the defense is made. Once
the unlawful aggression is found to have
ceased, the one making the defense of a
stranger would likewise cease to have any
justification for killing, or even just wounding,
the former aggressor. [People vs. Dijan (2002)]
Ordinarily there is a difference
between the act of drawing one's gun and the
act of pointing one's gun at a target. The
former cannot be said to be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. For
unlawful aggression to be attendant there must
be a real danger to life or personal safety.
Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden
and unexpected attack, or imminent danger
thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. Here, the act of the
victim in drawing a gun from his waist cannot
be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act
did not put in real peril the life or personal
safety of appellant. The facts surrounding the
case must, however, be differentiated from
current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression.
Accused was justified in defending himself
considering that victim was a trained police
officer and inebriated. Even if the victim did
not point his firearm at accused, there would
still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim (Nacnac vs. People, G.R.
No. 191913, March 21, 2012).
Imminent unlawful aggression means
an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening; it must not consist in a mere
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely
imaginary, but must be offensive and
positively strong (like aiming a revolver at
another with intent to shoot or opening a
knife and making a motion as if to attack).
Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a
mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
pressing his right hand to his hip where a
revolver was bolstered, accompanied by an
angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a
pot (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084,
January 18, 2012).
In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No.
177743, January 25, 2012 - Indeed, had victim
really attacked accused, the latter would have
sustained some injury from the aggression, it
Page 17 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
remains, however, that no injury of any kind
or gravity was found on the person of accused
when he presented himself to the hospital. In
contrast, the physician who examined the
cadaver of victim testified that he had been hit
on the head more than once. The plea of self-
defense was thus belied, for the weapons use d
by accused and the location and number of
wounds he inflicted on victim revealed his
intent to kill, not merely an effort to prevent
or repel an attack from victim. We consider to
be significant that the gravity of the wounds
manifested the determined effort of the
accused to kill his victim, not just to defend
himself.
BURDEN OF PROOF
When the accused's defense is self-
defense he thereby admits being the author of
the death of the victim, that it becomes
incumbent upon him to prove the justifying
circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.
Burden of evidence shifts to the accused.
(People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084,
January 18, 2012).
EQUIVALENCE - Under doctrine of rationale
equivalence, plea of self-defense would
prosper If there Is a rational equivalence
between the means of attack by the unlawful
aggressor and the means of defense by the
accused that would characterize the defense as
reasonable. The doctrine of rational
equivalence presupposes the consideration not
only of the nature and quality of the weapons
used by the defender and the assailantbut of
the totality of circumstances surrounding the
defense vis-a- vis, the unlawful aggression.
Clearly, this "continuous attack" by accused
despite the fact that aggressor already was
neutralized by the blow constitutes force
beyond what is reasonably required to repel
the aggression and is therefore unjustified
(Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No. 181071, March
15, 2010).
The plea of self-defense would fail for
lack of rational equivalence between the
means of attack and the means of defense that
would characterize the defense as reasonable.
The fact that victim suffered several wounds
belies the claim that accused was simply
warding off the victim's attack (People vs.
Bracia, G.R. No. 174477, October 2, 2009,
Justice Brion; People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No.
153287, June 30, 2008, Justice Brion)

Defense of Relatives
Elements:
(1) Unlawful aggression
(a) Unlawful aggression may not exist
as a matter of fact; it can be made
to depend upon the honest belief
of the one making the defense.
(b) Reason: The law acknowledges
the possibility that a relative, by
virtue of blood, will instinctively
come to the aid of their relatives.
(2) Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel it
(3) In case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, the one making
the defense had no part therein.
Q. Who are the relatives that can be
defended?
The relatives that can be defended are:
a. The spouse;
b. Ascendants;
c. Descendants;
d. Brothers and sisters, whether natural or
adopted;
e. Relatives by affinity in the same degree
as brothers and sisters; and
f. Relatives by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree (Article 11, par. 2,
RPC).
Defense of Strangers
Q. What are the requirements for
defense of a stranger to be a
justifying circumstance?
For defense of a stranger to be a
justifying circumstance, the following elements
must be present:
(1) Unlawful aggression;
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
(3) The person defending was not induced
by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive.
Page 18 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Stranger any person not included in
the enumeration of relatives under
[par. 2 of Art. 11]
If the person being defended is a
second cousin, it will be defense of
stranger.
Avoidance of a Greater Evil
Q. What are the requirements for
avoidance of a greater evil or injury
to be a justifying circumstance?
For avoidance of a greater evil or
injury to be a justifying circumstance, the
following elements must be present:
a. The evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
b. The evil or injury sought to be avoided
must not have been produced by the
one invoking the justifying
circumstances;
c. The injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it
d. There is no other practical & less
harmful means of preventing it.
General rule: No civil liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime
Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in
proportion to the benefit which they have
received.
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right
or Office
Q. What are the requirements for
fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise
of right or office to be a justifying
circumstance?
For fulfilment of duty or lawful
exercise of right or office to be a justifying
circumstance, the following elements must be
present:
a. The accused acted in performance of
duty or lawful exercise of a right or
office;

b. That 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.
If the first condition is present, but the second
is not because the offender acted with culpa,
the offender will be entitled to a privileged
mitigating circumstance. The penalty would be
reduced by one or two degrees.
Q. What is the Doctrine of Self-Help?
The doctrine as provided in Article 429 of the
New Civil Code, states that the owner or
lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use
such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property.
In People vs. Apolinar, CA, 3 O.G.
270, It was held that the defense of property
is not of such importance as right to life, and
defense of property can be invoked as a
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled
with an attack on the person of one entrusted
with said property.
However, in People vs. Narvaez, 6.R.
Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, the SC found
the presence of unlawful aggression despite the
fact that the invasion of his property right was
not coupled by an attack against the accused.
The accused has the right to resist pursuant
Article 429 of the Civil Code, which provides:
"The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has
the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
or usurpation of his property." However, since
the means employed to resist the invader
(killing) is not reasonable, the accused is
merely given the benefit of incomplete self-
defense. Justice Florenz Regalado stated that
the rule in Apolinar case may be deemed to
have been superseded by Narvaez case.
Q. Can a subordinate raise the defense of
good faith if he is not aware of the
illegality of the order and that he
Page 19 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
exercised due diligence in the
performance of his duties?
Yes. In the case of People vs. Beronilla,
96 Phil. 566, the Supreme Court held that in
case of a soldier who acted upon the orders of
superior officers, which he, as a military
subordinate, could not question, and obeyed
the orders in good faith, without being aware
of its illegality, without any fault or negligence
on his part, he is not liable because he had no
criminal intent and he was not negligent.
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (RA 9262)
Q. What is the Battered Woman
Syndrome under RA 9262? Can it be
used as a justifying circumstance?
Battered Woman Syndrome is a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse. (R.A. 9262, Section 3, Par.
4, subpar. c)
Battered Woman Syndrome as a
Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by
the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code. (R.A. 9262, Section 26)
In the determination of the state of
mind of the woman who was suffering from
battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists
[SECTION 26, RA 9262]
The battered woman syndrome is
characterized by a CYCLE OF VIOLENCE,
which is made up of three phases [People v.
Genosa]:
First Phase: Tension Building Phase
Where minor battering occurs, it could
be a verbal or slight physical abuse or
another form of hostile behavior.
The woman tries to pacify the batterer
through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior, or by simply staying out of
the way.
 Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

e. Impulse of uncontrollable fear

But this proves to be unsuccessful as it
only gives the batterer the notion that
he has the right to abuse her.
Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident
Characterized by brutality,
destructiveness, and sometimes death.
f. Insuperable or lawful cause (Article 12,
RPC)
Exempting circumstances those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.

The battered woman has no control;
only the batterer can stop the violence.
The battered woman realizes that she
cannot reason with him and resistance
would only worsen her condition.
Third Phase: Tranquil Period
The reason for the exemption lies on
the complete absence of intelligence, freedom
of action, or intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused.
One who acts without intelligence,
freedom of action or intent does not act with
malice.

Characterized by guilt on the part of One who acts without intelligence,

the batterer and forgiveness on the freedom of action or fault does not act with
part of the woman. negligence.

The batterer may show a tender and Q. Distinguish justifying circumstances

nurturing behavior towards his partner from exempting circumstances.
and the woman also tries to convince The distinctions are the following:
herself that the battery will never
happen again and that her partner will Justifying Exempting
change for the better. Circumstance Circumstance

Four Characteristics of the Syndrome: It affects the act not It affects the actor not
the actor. the act.
1. The woman believes that the violence
was her fault; The act is considered The act complained
to have been done of is actually
2. She has an inability to place the within the bounds of wrongful, but the
responsibility for the violence law; hence, legitimate actor is not liable.
elsewhere; and lawful in the eyes
of the law.
3. She fears for her life and/or her
childrens life Since the act is Since the act
considered lawful, complained of is
4. She has an irrational belief that the there is no crime. actually wrong there
abuser is omnipresent and omniscient. is a crime but since
the actor acted
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES without voluntariness,
there is no dolo nor
Q. What are the exempting circumstances culpa.
under the Revised Penal Code?
The following are the exempting No crime There is a crime
circumstances under the RPC: No criminal liability No criminal liability
No civil liability There is civil liability
a. Imbecility/Insanity (except Art. 11, par. 4 (except Art. 12, par. 4
b. Minority where there is civil and 7, where there is
c. Accident liability) no civil liability)
d. Compulsion of irresistible force

Page 20 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Insanity or Imbecility
Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age,
has a mental development comparable to that
of a child between 2 and 7 years of age.
Exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
Insane - There is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act but capable
of having lucid intervals.
During a lucid interval, the insane acts
with intelligence and thus, is not
exempt from criminal liability.
Insanity is a defense in the nature of
confession and avoidance and must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence of insanity must refer to:
a. The time preceding the act under
prosecution or
b. at the very moment of its execution.
Insanity subsequent to commission of
crime is not exempting
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility. It is
necessary that there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, the accused
be deprived of reason, that there is no
responsibility for his own acts; that he
acts without the least discernment; that
there be complete absence of the
power to discern, or that there be a
complete deprivation of the freedom
of the will. [People vs. Formigones]
Acts penalized by law are always
presumed to be voluntary, and it is improper
to conclude that a person acted unconsciously
in order to relieve him of liability, unless his
liability is proved (People vs. Pambid, GR No.
124453, March 15, 2000). Insanity is the
exception. The presumption, under Article 800
of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane.
Anyone who pleads the exempting
circumstance of insanity bears the burden of
proving it with clear and convincing evidence.
It is in the nature of confession and avoidance.
An accused invoking insanity admits to have
committed the crime but claims that he or she
is not guilty because of insanity (People vs.
Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010).
Page 21 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Insanity as an exempting circumstance
must relate to the time immediately preceding
or coetaneous with the commission of the
offense with which accused is charged (People
vs. Tibon, supra).
COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION TEST
The case of Formigones established two
distinguishable tests to determine the insane
condition of the accused:
(a) The test of cognition - whether there
was a "complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the criminal
act" After satisfying his lust, accused
threatened the victim. This implies that
accused knew what he was doing, that
it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a
secret. It also indicated that the crime
was committed during one of his lucid
intervals. Accused is not exempt from
liability for failure to pass the cognition
test (People vs. Alipio, G.R. No.
185285, October 5,2009) and
evidence tended to show that accused
was not deprived of reason at all and
can still distinguish right from wrong
when, after satisfying his lust, he
threatened victim. This single episode
irresistibly implies, for one, that
accused knew what he was doing, that
it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a
secret. And for another, it indicated
that the crime was committed during
one of lucid intervals of accused
(People vs. Alipio, supra).
(b) The test of volition whether there
was a "total deprivation of freedom of
the will." In the Bonoan case,
schizophrenic accused, who acted
under irresistible homlcidak impulse to
toll (volition test), was acquitted due
to insanity. This is not anymore a good
rule. Even If the mental condition of
the accused had passed the volition
test, the plea of Insanity will noit
prosper unless it also passed the
cognition test. The controlling test is
cognition (People vs. Opuran, G.R.
Nos. 147674-75, March 17,2004).
In recent Supreme Court cases, the plea of
insanity of person, who is suffering from
schizophrenia, was rejected because of failure
to pass the cognition test, in sum, a

schizophrenic accused must be deprived
completely of intelligence to be exempt front
criminal liability (See: People vs. Medina, G.R .
No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People vs.
Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993).lf a
person (such as sex maniac, homicidal maniac
or kleptomaniac) had merely passed the
volition test but not the cognition test, he will
only be given the benefit of mitigating
circumstance of illness. Diminution of freedom
of the will is enough to mitigate the liability of
the offender suffering from illness (See: People
vs. Rafanan, Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. No.
54135, November 21,1991).
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF
2006 (R.A. 9344); ALSO REFER TO CHILD
AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (P.D. 603, AS
AMENDED)
Q. What is the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare System?
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System"
refers to a system dealing with children at risk
and children in conflict with the law, which
provides child-appropriate proceedings,
including programs and services for
prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-
integration and aftercare to ensure their
normal growth and development. [Title V:
Juvenile Justice and Welfare System of RA
9344]
Sec. 4 (e), RA 9344."Child in conflict with the
law" a child who is alleged as, accused of, or
adjudged as, having committed an offense
under Philippine laws.
Sec. 6, RA 9344. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of
age or under at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected
to an intervention program pursuant to
Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but
below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise
be exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which
case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with
this Act.
Page 22 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
The exemption from criminal liability
herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.
Determination of Age [Sec. 7, RA 9344]
Presumption: Minority of child in conflict with
the law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a child
in conflict with the law until s/he is proven to
be 18 years old or older.
The age of a child may be determined from:
The childs birth certificate,
Baptismal certificate, or
Any other pertinent documents.
In the absence of these documents, age may be
based on:
Information from the child
himself/herself,
Testimonies of other persons,
The physical appearance of the child,
and
Other relevant evidence.
In case of doubt as to the childs age, it shall be
resolved in his/her favor.
Exemption from criminal liability
15 yrs old or below at the time of
commission of offense: ABSOLUTELY
EXEMPT from criminal liability but
subject to intervention program.
Over 15 yrs old but below 18: EXEMPT
from criminal liability & subject to
intervention program
If acted w/ discernment subject to
diversion program.
Discernment mental capacity to understand
the difference between right and wrong as
determined by the childs appearance ,
attitude, comportment and behavior not only
before and during the commission of the
offense but also after and during the trial. It is
manifested through:
Manner of committing a crime Thus, when
the minor committed the crime during
nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot
to another town to avoid discovery, he
manifested discernment. (People vs. Jacinto,
G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).

Conduct of the offender The accused shot
the victim with his sling shot and shouted
Putang ina mo.
Note: The exemption from criminal liability
shall not include exemption from civil liability.
Automatic Suspension of Sentence Once the
child who is under eighteen (18) years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense is
found guilty of the offense charged, the court
shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing
the judgment of conviction, the court shall
place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of
application: Provided, however, That
suspension of sentence shall still be applied
even if the juvenile is already eighteen years
(18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after
considering the various circumstances of the
child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the
Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law. (Sec. 38)
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law
Upon the recommendation of the
social worker who has custody of the child,
the court shall dismiss the case against the child
whose sentence has been suspended and
against whom disposition measures have been
issued, and shall order the final discharge of
the child if it finds that the objective of the
disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict
with the law shall not affect the civil liability
resulting from the commission of the offense,
which shall be enforced in accordance with
law. (Sec. 39)
Under Article 68(2) of RPC, when the
offender is a minor over 15 and under 18
years, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed on the
accused but always in the proper period. The
rationale of the law in extending such leniency
and compassion is that because of his age, the
accused is presumed to have acted with less
discernment. This is regardless of the fact that
Page 23 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
his minority was not proved during the trial
and that his birth certificate was belatedly
presented for our consideration, since to rule
accordingly will not adversely affect the rights
of the state, the victim and his heirs (People vs.
Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7,2013).
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE - While Section
38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of
sentence can still be applied even if the child in
conflict with the law is already 18 years of age
or more at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits
the said suspension of sentence until the child
reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the
child in conflict with the law, who reached 21
years, cannot avail of privilege of suspension
of sentence. However, the child in conflict
with the law may, after conviction and upon
order of the court, be made to serve his
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp and
other training facilities (People vs. Mantalaba,
G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011).
P.D. No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC
provide that the benefit of suspended sentence
would not apply to a child In conflict with the
law If, among others, he/she has been
convicted of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life Imprisonment. In
construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the Court
is guided by the basic principle of statutory
construction that when the law does not
distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since
R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish between a
minor who has been convicted of a capital
offense and another who has been convicted
off a lesser offense, the Court should also not
distinguish and should apply the automatic
suspension of sentence to a child in conflict
with the law who has been found guilty of a
heinous crime Moreover, the legislative
intent:, to apply to heinous crimes the
automatic suspension of sentence of a child in
conflict with the law can be gleaned from the
Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1402
(Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 2005) (People vs. Sarcia, G.R. No.
169641, September 10,2009).
CREDIT OF THE PREVENTIVE
IMPRISONMENT OF CHILD - Under Article
29 of RPC, a convicted recidivist is not entitled

to a full or 4/5 credit of his preventive
imprisonment. However, if the convict is a
child, the applicable rule for crediting the
period of commitment and detention is not
Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344.
Under the said provision, the full time spent in
actual commitment and detention of juvenile
delinquent shall be credited in the services of
his sentence.
Accident
Something that happens outside the
sway of our will and, although coming about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by
mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Basis: Lack of negligence and intent.
Irresistible Force
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force;
2. That the physical force must be
irresistible;
3. That the physical force must come
from a third person.
Note: Before a force can be considered to be
an irresistible one, it must produce such an
effect on the individual that, in spite of all
resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument
and, as such, incapable of committing the
crime. (Aquino, Revised Penal Code)
To be exempt from criminal liability, a person
invoking irresistible force must show that the
force exerted was such that it reduced him to a
mere instrument who acted not only without
will but against his will. [People v. Lising
(1998)]
Basis: Complete absence of freedom.
A person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force, like one
who acts under the impulse of an
Page 24 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury,
is exempt from criminal liability because he
does not act with freedom. Actus me invite
factus non est meus actus. An act done by me
against my will is not my act. The force
contemplated must be so formidable as to
reduce the actor to a mere instrument who
acts not only without will but against his will.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm
if the act be done. A threat of future injury is
not enough. The compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity for the
accused for escape or self- defense in equal
combat (People vs. Oequina, G.R. No.
177570, January 19,2011)
Uncontrollable Fear
Elements:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is
of an evil greater than or at least equal
to, that which he is forced to commit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.
A threat of future injury is not enough. The
compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat.
Insuperable or Lawful Causes
Insuperable means insurmountable. A
cause which has lawfully, morally or physically
prevented a person to do what the law
commands.
Elements:
1. That an act is required by law to be
done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act
was due to some lawful or insuperable
cause
Basis: Lack of intent.
People v. Bandian (1936):A woman cannot be
held liable for infanticide when she left her
newborn child in the bushes without being
aware that she had given birth at all. Severe
 Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
dizziness and extreme debility made it
physically impossible for Bandian to take home
the child plus the assertion that she didnt
know that she had given birth.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q. What are the mitigating circumstances
under the Revised Penal Code?
The following are the mitigating
circumstances under the RPC:
1. Incomplete justifying circumstances;
2. When the offender is over fifteen (15)
but under eighteen (18) years of age
who acted with discernment or when
offender is over seventy (70) years
old;
3. No intention to commit so grave a
wrong
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
5. Immediate vindication of a grave
offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Plea to a lower offense
10. Physical defect
11. Illness
12. Analogous Circumstances
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
In order that voluntary surrender is
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the
following requisites must concur:
a. the accused has not been actually
arrested;
b. the accused surrenders himself to a
person in authority or the latter's
agent; and
c. surrender is voluntary (People vs. Del
Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18,
2012).
VINDICATION
The surrender made after 14 days from
the date of killing cannot be
considered voluntary since his act did
not emanate from a natural impulse to
admit the killing or to save the police
officers the effort and expense that
would be incurred in his search and
incarceration. (People vs. Agacer, G.R.
No. 177751, December 14,2011).
Page 25 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Surrender is not voluntary where the
accused went to Barangay Chairman
after the killings to seek protection
against the retaliation of the victims'
relatives, not to admit his participation
in the killing of the victims ( People vs.
Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January
18, 2012).
Appellant had asked his uncle to go to
the police to signify his intention to
surrender. A day after the stabbing
incident, SPO1 Camba came to his
house to bring him back to the Bolinao
Police Station for investigation. That
the appellant surrendered only a day
after the stabbing incident does not
diminish nor affect the voluntariness of
his surrender. For voluntary surrender
to mitigate an offense, it is not
required that the accused surrender at
the first opportunity. Here, the
appellant went voluntarily went with
SPO1 Camba to the police station
within a day after the killing to own
up to the killing. Thus, the police did
not devote time and effort to the
investigation of the killing and to the
search and capture of the assailant
(People vs. Casta, G.R. No. 172871,
September 16,2008, Justice Brion).
The appellants are not entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. The evidence shows that the
appellants were arrested when the
police officers manning the checkpoint
stopped the passenger jeepney driven
by appellant Rona and arrested the
appellants. The fact that the appellants
did not resist but went peacefully with
the peace officers does not mean that
they surrendered voluntarily (People
vs. Castlllano, G.R. No. 139412, April
2, 2003).
The mitigating circumstance of having
acted in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense was, likewise, properly
appreciated. The appellant was
humiliated, mauled and almost
stabbed by the deceased. Although the
unlawful aggression had ceased when
the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was
nonetheless a grave offense for which

the appellant may be given the benefit
of a mitigating circumstance. But the
mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation cannot be considered
apart from the circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense. These
two circumstances arose from one and
the same incident, i.e., the attack on
the appellant by Anthony, so that they
should be considered as only one
mitigating circumstance (People vs.
Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 4,
2004).
In vindication of grave offense,
criminal exemption of accessories,
alternative circumstance of relationship
and defense of stranger, the concept of
relationship is the same. It refers to (1)
spouse, (2) ascendants, (3)
descendants, or (4) legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters or (5) of
his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees. However, in defense of
relative, there is an additional concept
of relationship. It includes relatives by
consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree. Thus, an uncle is a relative
within the concept of defense of
stranger (Reyes). However,
relationship of uncle and niece is not
an alternative circumstance (People vs.
Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February
23, 2004).
PASSION
The following essential requirements
must be present:
(1) There was an act that was both
unlawful and sufficient to produce
such condition (passion or
obfuscation) of the mind; and
(2) That such act was not far removed
from the commission of the crime
by a considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator might
have recovered his normal
equanimity (People vs. Comiiio,
G.R. No. 186538, November 25,
2009).
Four days after the victims attempted
on the virtue of his wife, accused rifled
them. The period of four days was
Page 26 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
sufficient enough a time within which
accused could have regained his
composure and self-control. Hence,
passion should not be appreciated
(People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551,
July 27,2011).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating Circumstances are those
circumstances which raise the penalty for a
crime in its maximum period provided by law
applicable to that crime or change the nature
of the crime.
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has
expressly required that qualifying and
aggravating circumstances be specifically
alleged in the information. Due to such
requirement being pro reo, the Court has
authorized its retroactive application in favor
of even those charged with felonies committed
prior to December 1, 2000, which is the date
of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied the
requirement (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No.
172321, February 9, 2011).
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION
The mere use of service firearm is not
enough to constitute taking advantage of
public position. Fact that accused made use of
firearms which they were authorized to carry
or possess by reason of their positions, could
not supply the required connection between
the office and the crime. The crime in
question, for example, could have been
committed by the defendants in the same or
like manner and with the same case if they had
been private individuals and fired with
unlicensed weapons (People vs. Mandolado,
G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983; People vs.
Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999, En
Banc; People vs. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899,
April 27, 2000; People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos.
140407-08 and 141908-09, January 15, 2002,
En Banc; and People vs. Failorina, G.R. No.
137347, March 4, 2004, En Banc).
TREACHERY
Minor children, who by reason of their
tender years, cannot be expected to put up a
defense. When an adult person illegally attacks
a child, treachery exists. The abuse of superior
strength is already absorbed by treachery and

need not be considered as a separate
aggravating; circumstance. (People vs.
Failorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004)
Treachery may still be appreciated
even when the victim was forewarned of
danger to his person. What was decisive was
that the execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victim to defend himself or
to retaliate (People vs Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No.
186119, October 27, 2009).
Treachery is not a qualifying
circumstance but a generic aggravating
circumstance to robbery with homicide
although said crime is classified as a crime
against property and a single and indivisible?
crime (People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 188601,
June 29,2010).
As the killing, in this case, is
perpetrated with both treachery and by means
of explosives, the latter shall be considered as
a qualifying circumstance since it is the
principal mode of attack. Reason dictates that
this- attendant circumstance should qualify the
offense while treachery will be considered
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance
(People vs. Barde G.R. No. 183094,
September- 22, 2012)
IGNOMINY
After killing the victim, the accused
severed his sexual organ. Should ignominy be
appreciated? No. For ignominy to be
appreciated, it is required that the offense be
committed in a manner that tends to make its
effect more humiliating, thus adding to the
victim's moral suffering. Where the victim was
already dead when his body or a part thereof
was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken
against the accused (People vs. Cachola, G.R.
Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004)
EMPLOYMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN
DEFENSE
If the employment of means to
weaken the defense of the victim renders the
victim defenseless, treachery absorbs
circumstance of employing means to weaken
defense (People vs. Tunhawan, G.R. NO. I-
81470, October 27,1988).
Page 27 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
DISGUISE
If the accused covers his face with a
handkerchief when he treacherously killed the
victim, the crime committed is murder
qualified by treachery and aggravated by
disguise (People vs. Firing, G.R. No. 45053,
October 19, 1936).
NIGHTTIME
Thus, treachery absorbs nighttime
where had it not been at night the offender,
with his cohorts, would not have been able to
approach the deceased without the latter's
becoming aware of his presence and guessing
his intention; If they were able to catch victim
completely unawares, it was due to the
darkness of the night which covered them
(People vs. Gumarang, GR N. 46413, October
6, 1939).
As a general rule, nighttime is
aggravating because the darkness of the night
facilitated the commission of the crime or
insured impunity. Thus, nighttime cannot
aggravate the crime if it is committed in a
lighted place although at the wee hours of the
night (People vs. Clarifto, G.R. NO. 134634,
July 31, 2001).
The darkness of the night and "not
nighttime per se" is important in appreciating it
as modifying circumstance (People vs.
Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004).
But if the offender purposely selected
the wee hour of the night when neighbors and
occupants of the house including the victim
were sleeping to facilitate the commission of
the crime or to afford impunity, nighttime is
appreciable even if the place of commission is
lighted. (People vs. Demate, G.R. No. 132310,
January 20, 2004, En Banc).
(See People vs. Ventura and Ventura,
G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per
Curiam)
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
The fact that there were two persons
who attacked the victim does not per se
establish that the crime was committed with
abuse of superior strength, there being no
proof of the relative strength of the aggressors
and the victim. The evidence must establish

that the assailants purposely sought the
advantage, or that they had the deliberate
intent to use this advantage (People vs.
Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010).
Abuse of superior strength is an
aggravating circumstance if the accused
purposely uses excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available
to the person attacked, or if there is notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and
aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of
superior strength (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R.
No. 169084, January 18, 2012; People vs.
Bracia, G.R. No. 174477, October 2, 2009,
Justice Brion).
The victim need not be completely
defenseless in order for the said aggravating
circumstance to be appreciated (People vs.
Paling, G.R. No. 185390 March 16, 2011)
lf the victim is completely defenseless,
treachery should be appreciated. When the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength
concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed
in the latter (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No.
182551, July 27, 2011).
An attack made by a man with a
deadly weapon upon an unarmed and
defenseless woman constitutes abuse of that
superiority which his sex and the weapon used
in the act afforded him, and from which the
woman was unable to defend herself (People
vs. Dionesio, G.R. No. 133445, February
27,2003)
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
For evident premeditation to be
appreciated, the prosecution must show the
following:
(1) the time the accused determined to
commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that
the accused clung to this
determination; and
(3) a sufficient lapse of time between
the resolve to kill and its execution
that would have allowed the killer
to reflect on the consequences of
his act (People vs. Villasan, G.R.
Page 28 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
No. 176527, October 9, 2009,
Justice Brion).
Evident premeditation is not presumed
from mere lapse of time. The prosecution is
burdened to prove that the malefactors had
decided to commit a crime and performed an
"act manifestly indicating that the offender had
clung" to a previous determination to kill. It
must be shown that there was a period
sufficient to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection, a time adequate to
allow the conscience to overcome the
resolution of the will, as well as outward acts
showing the intent to kill. The premeditation
to kill should be plain and notorious. In the
absence of clear and positive evidence proving
this aggravating circumstance, mere
presumptions and inferences thereon, no
matter how logical and probable, would not
be enough (People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R.
No. 111098-99, April 3, 2003,).
Accused incensed at seeing the victim
molesting his younger sister went to a
notorious toughie in the area, and with two
cohorts, proceeded to the house of the victim
to confront him but failed to see the victim.
Thus, they positioned themselves in the alley
near the house and waited for victim. When
the victim arrived, they killed him. Should
evident premeditation be appreciated? No.
The prosecution failed to prove that the four
intended to kill victim and if they did intend to
kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how
the malefactors intended to consummate the
crime; Except for the fact that the offender and
his three companions waited in an alley for
Dario to return to his house, the prosecution
failed to prove any overt acts on the part of
the offender and his cohorts showing that that
theyhad clung to any plan to kill the victim
(People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R. No. 111098-
99, April 3, 2003,) Comment: It is possible
that the criminal resolution of the accused is
merely to confront or take revenge short of
killing.
Accused told witness that they were
"going to kill the doctor". After less than thirty
minutes, the accused killed the victim, who is a
doctor. Evident premeditation should not be
appreciated. The span of time (less than thirty
minutes), from the time the accused showed
their determination to kill the victim up to the
time they shot the victim, could not have
afforded them full opportunity for meditation

and reflection on the consequences of the
crime they committed (People vs. Patelan,
G.R. No. 182918, June 6, 2011).
Unlike evident premeditation, there is
no requirement for conspiracy to exist that
there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to
afford full opportunity for meditation and
reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the
very moment the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the subject felony
(People vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July
6,2011).
DISREGARD OF SEX:
Robbery with homicide is essentially a
felony against property. The aggravating
circumstance of disregard of the victim's age is
applied only to crimes against persons and
honor. Moreover, the bare fact that the victim
is a woman does not per se constitute
disregard of sex. For this circumstance to be
properly considered, the prosecution must
adduce evidence that in the commission of the
crime, the accused had particularly intended to
insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the
victim, in this case, the appellant killed the
victim because the latter started to shout.
There was no intent to insult nor commit
disrespect to the victim on account of the
latter's sex (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119,
April 13, 2004).
The circumstances of disregard of sex,
age or rank should be taken singly or together.
But the circumstance of dwelling should be
considered independently from the
circumstance of disregard of age, sex and rank
since these circumstances signify different
concepts. In the latter, the disrespect shown by
offender pertains to the person of the
offended due to her rank, age and sex. In the
former, the disrespect pertains to the dwelling
of the offended party due to the sanctity of
privacy which the law accords it. (People vs.
Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29,1981, En
Banc)
Disregard of rank and dwelling were
appreciated independently. In robbery with
violence and intimidation against persons,
dwelling is aggravating because in this class of
robbery, the crime may be committed without
the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house(People vs. Evangelio,
G.R. No. . 181902, August 31,2011).
Page 29 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
AID OF ARMED MEN
Aid of armed men or persons affording
immunity requires:
(1) That the armed men are
accomplices who take part
minor capacity, directly or
indirectly (People vs. Lozano,
G.R. Nos. 137370-71,
September 29, 2003, En Banc)
and
(2) That the accused availed
himself of their aid or relied
upon them when the crime
was committed. Thus, this
circumstance should not be
appreciated were armed men
acted in concert to ensure the
commission of the crime
(People vs. Carino, G.R. No.
131117, June 15, 2004). In
conspiracy, all conspirators are
liable as principals. They are
not accomplices.
CRUELTY
The test in appreciating cruelty as an
aggravating circumstance is whether the
accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission and
inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or
outraged or scoffed at his/her person or
corpse. The victim in this case was already
weak and almost dying when appellant Bonito
inserted the cassava trunk inside her private
organ. What appellant Bonito did to her was
totally unnecessary for the criminal act
intended and it undoubtedly inhumanly
increased her suffering (People vs. Bernabe,
G.R. No. 185726. October 16, 2009).
The crime is not aggravated by cruelty
simply because the victim sustained ten stab
wounds, three of which were fatal. For cruelty
to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance there must be proof that, in
inflicting several stab wounds on the victim,
the perpetrator intended to exacerbate the
pain and suffering of the victim. The number
of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof
of cruelty (Simangan vs. People, G.R. No.
157984. July 8, 2004).

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Q. What are alternative circumstances?
Alternative circumstances are those
which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission.
Under Article 15 of the RPC, the
alternative circumstances are:
1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. The degree of instruction and
education of the offender.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
Q. Define absolutory cause. Give
examples of absolutory causes.
Absolutory causes are those where the
act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment, there is no
penalty imposed.
Examples of absolutory causes are:
a. Spontaneous desistance (Article 6);
b. Accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability by reason of
relationship (Article 20);
c. Attempted and frustrated light felonies
(Article 7);
d. Slight and less serious physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Article 247);
e. Persons exempt from criminal liability
for theft, swindling and malicious
mischief by reason of relationship
(Article 332);
f. Marriage by the offender to the
offended party in cases of seduction,
abduction, acts of lasciviousness
applicable to co-principals, accomplices
and accessories after the fact. In case of
rape, the absolutory cause only apples
to the offender who married the
offended party (Article 344); and
g. Instigation.
Q. Distinguish instigation from
entrapment
In instigation the instigator practically
induces the would-be offender into the
Page 30 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
commission of the offense and becomes a co-
principal; while in entrapment, ways and
means are resorted for the purpose of trapping
and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution
of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar to
prosecution and conviction of the law breaker
but in the case of instigation, the accused must
be acquitted.
Criminal participator - Criminal
participator is the offender who participated in
committing a crime by indispensable or
dispensable act. He performed an act, which is
not constitutive of felony but intended to give
moral or material aid to the chief actor.
With conspiracy - If there is conspiracy,
the criminal participator or cooperator is a
principal by direct participation. The act of the
chief actor is considered the act of the criminal
participator.
Instigation means luring the accused
into a crime that he, otherwise, had no
intention to commit, in order to prosecute
him. It differs from entrapment which is the
employment of ways and means In order to
trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the
criminal intent to commit an offense originates
from the inducer and not from the accused
who had no intention to commit and would
not have committed it were it not for the
prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the
criminal intent or design originates from the
accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate
the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses
and schemes.45 Instigation results in the
acquittal of the accused, while entrapment
may lead to prosecution and conviction
(People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 180919, January
9, 2013).
A police officer's act of soliciting drugs
from appellant during the buy-bust operation,
or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is
not prohibited by law and does not invalidate
the buy-bust operation (People vs. Espiritu,
supra).
Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor is
the person who actually committed the crime.
He is the one who committed or omitted the
act, which causes the criminal result. HeIt is
immaterial whether appellant acted as a
principal or as an accomplice because the

conspiracy and his participation therein have
been established. In conspiracy, the act of one
Is the act of all and the conspirators shall be
held equally liable for the crime (People vs.
Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5,2010).
Without conspiracy - If there is no
conspiracy, criminal participator may be held
liable as principal by indispensable
cooperation, accomplice or accessory
depending upon the nature and time of
participation. A criminal participator may
participate in the commission of the crime by
previous, simultaneous and/or subsequent acts.
Previous or simultaneous acts To
hold a person liable as an accomplice, two
elements must concur: (1) community of
design, which means that the accomplice
knows of, and concurs with, the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation;
and (2) the performance by the accomplice of
previous or simultaneous acts that are not
indispensable to the commission of the crime
(Maliao vs. People, G.R. No..278G5S, M* 52,
2009}. If there Is community of design, but his
previous (U.S. vs. Ibanez, G.R. No. 6003,
August 07, 1011') or simultaneous (People vs.
Degoma, G.R. No. 89404-05, May 22, 1992)
participation is indispensable to the
commission of the crime, he Is liable as
principal by indispensable cooperation.
Subsequent acts - The criminal
participator by subsequent acts is liable as an
accessory. An accessory does not participate in
the criminal design, nor cooperate in the
commission of the felony, but, with
knowledge of the commission of the crime, he
subsequently takes part by any of the three
modes under Article 19.The liability of
accessory and principal should also be
considered as quasi-collective. It is quasi-
collective in the sense that the principal and
the accessory are liable for the felony
committed but the penalty for the latter is two
degrees lower than that for the former
PENALTIES
Penalty - is the suffering that is inflicted by the
State for the transgression of a law.
Page 31 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:
1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF
SUFFERING, without affecting the
integrity of the human personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE to the
offense different crimes must be
punished with different penalties.
3. Must be PERSONAL no one should
be punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be LEGAL it is the consequence
of a judgment according to law.
5. Must be CERTAIN no one may
escape its effects.
6. Must be EQUAL for all.
7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.
PURPOSES
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
(1) RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the
penalty is commensurate with the gravity
of the offense. It permits society to exact
proportionate revenge, and the offender
to atone for his wrongs.
(2) CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as
shown by the rules which regulate the
execution of the penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty.
(3) SOCIAL DEFENSE shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual
delinquents.
CLASSIFICATIONS
MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
(a) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES those expressly
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
(b) ACCESSORY PENALTIES those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalties.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES those imposed in
lieu of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment in
case of inability to pay the fine.
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE
IMPRISONMENT
If the law was amended to change the
penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion
perpetua, the amendatory law, being more

lenient to the accused than the previous law,
should be accorded retroactive application.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua is a lighter
penalty than life imprisonment. (People vs.
Pang, G.R. No. 176229, October 19,2011)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
RA 9165 provides that illegal
possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu
is penalized with imprisonment of 12 years and
1 day to 20 years. The court sentenced the
accused to suffer a straight penalty of
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day. Is the
penalty imposed by the court correct? No. The
indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that if it
is a case of a special law, the accused shall be
sentenced "to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same." (Asiatico vs. People,
G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011)
THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION
RULE
Simultaneous service - When the culprit
has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could
serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine,
prision correctional and perpetual absolute
disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil
interdiction. In sum, while lingering in prison,
convict could pay fine, return the property
confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or
to act function as a public officer. In Rodriguez
vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-35386,
September 28,1972,En Banc - Penalties which
could be served simultaneously with other
penalties, are perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification, perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, public censure, suspension
from public office and other accessory
penalties. There are only two modes of serving
two or more (multiple) penalties:
simultaneously or successively. Successive
service - When the culprit has to serve two or
more penalties, he shall serve them successively
if the nature of the penalties will not permit
simultaneous service. Convict must serve
multiple penalties successively: (1) where the
penalties to be served are destierro and
imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to
be served are imprisonment. However, the
Page 32 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
successive service of sentences is subject to the
three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule.
Three-fold rule - The maximum period of the
imprisonment that convict must suffer in
serving multiple penalties must not exceed
threefold the length of time corresponding to
the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him. "A" was sentenced to suffer penalty of 7
years of prision mayor for serious physical
injuries, 6 years of prision correccional for
qualified less serious physical injuries, 5 years
of prision correccional for robbery and 5 years
of prison correccional for theft. The total
duration of the penalties imposed on him is 23
years. The most severe penalty imposed on
him is 7 years of prision mayor. Thus,
threefold the length of time corresponding to
the most severe of the penalties is 21 years. "A"
will be imprisoned for 21 years because of the
three-fold rule.
Forty-year limitation rule - The maximum
period of the imprisonment that convict must
suffer in serving multiple penalties must not
exceed forty years. "A" was sentenced to suffer
three penalties of 15 years of reclusion
temporal for three counts of homicide and the
penalty of 10 years of prision mayor for
serious physical injuries. The total duration of
the penalties imposed on him is 55 years. The
most severe penalty imposed on him, is 15
years of reclusion temporal. Thus, threefold
the length of time corresponding tothe most
severe of the penalties is 45 years. "A" will be
imprisoned for 40 years because of the forty
year limitation rule.
Article 70 provides that "the maximum
i duration of the convict's sentence shall not be
more than threefofd the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty
to which he may be liable shall be inflicted
after the sum total of those imposed equals the
said maximum period. Such maximum period
shall in no case exceed forty years." Applying
said rule, despite the four penalties of reclusion
perpetua for four counts of qualified theft,
accused-appellant shall suffer imprisonment for
a period not exceeding 40 years (People vs.
Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011).

REVISED PENAL CODE
Reference: Lexoterica
2014 Cases
Topic: Cyberlibel; only the author of the
libelous statement or article penalized.
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v.
The Secretary of Justice, et al,
G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014.
Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since
Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the
Penal Code, already punishes it. In effect,
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, merely
affirms that online defamation constitutes
similar means for committing libel. But the
Supreme Courts acquiescence goes only
insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the
author of the libelous statement or article.
Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies,
unheard of when the penal code provisions on
libel were enacted. The culture associated with
internet media is distinct from that of print.
The internet is characterized as encouraging a
freewheeling, anything goes writing style. In a
sense, they are a world apart in terms of
quickness of the readers reaction to
defamatory statements posted in cyberspace,
facilitated by one-click reply options offered
by the networking site as well as by the speed
with which such reactions are disseminated
down the line to other internet users.
Topic: Conspiracy; direct proof.
Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v.
People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014
While direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy as it may be inferred from the
collective acts of the accused before, during
and after the commission of the crime which
point to a joint purpose, design, concerted
action, and community of interests, records
are, however, bereft of any showing as to how
the particular acts of petitioners figured into
the common design of taking out the subject
volume and inserting the falsified documents
therein. It would be a stretch to conclude that
Page 33 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the act of Castro of inviting Atibula to
Atienzas party, without any other proof of
Castros participation, was instrumental or, at
the very least, reasonably connected to
Atienza and his own alleged participation in
the above-stated crimes.
Topic: Complex crime of carnapping with
homicide; when present; proof required.
People of the Philippines v.
Joel Aquino y Cendana,
G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014.
To prove the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide, there must be
proof not only of the essential elements of
carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing
was perpetrated in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof. The appellate court correctly
observed that the killing of Jesus cannot
qualify the carnapping into a special complex
crime because the carnapping was merely an
afterthought when the victims death was
already accomplished. Thus, appellant is guilty
only of simple carnapping.
Topic: Homicide; guilt beyond reasonable
doubt; non-identification and non-
presentation of the weapon.
Ricardo Medina, Jr. y Oriel v.
People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014.
The non-identification and non-presentation of
the weapon actually used in the killing did not
diminish the merit of the conviction primarily
because other competent evidence and the
testimonies of witnesses had directly and
positively identified and incriminated Ricardo
as the assailant of Lino. Hence, the
establishment beyond reasonable doubt of
Ricardos guilt for the homicide did not require
the production of the weapon used in the
killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its
findings on the culpability of Ricardo the trial
court clearly looked at, considered and
appreciated the entirety of the record and the
evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used
was not indispensable considering that the

finding of guilt was based on other evidence
proving his commission of the crime.
Topic: Homicide; guilt beyond reasonable
doubt; non-identification and non-
presentation of the weapon.
Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v.
People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014.
The petitioners intent to kill was clearly
established by the nature and number of
wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to
prove intent to kill in crimes against persons
may consist, among other things, of the means
used by the malefactors; the conduct of the
malefactors before, at the time of, or
immediately after the killing of the victim; and
the nature, location and number of wounds
sustained by the victim.
Topic: Libel; elements.
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v.
The Secretary of Justice, et al,
G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014.
The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of
a discreditable act or condition concerning
another; (b) publication of the charge; (c)
identity of the person defamed; and (d)
existence of malice. There is actual malice or
malice in fact when the offender makes the
defamatory statement with the knowledge
that it is false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not. The reckless
disregard standard used here requires a high
degree of awareness of probable falsity. There
must be sufficient evidence to permit the
conclusion that the accused in fact entertained
serious doubts as to the truth of the statement
he published. Gross or even extreme
negligence is not sufficient to establish actual
malice.
Topic: Personal property; concept of.
World Wide Web Corporation, et al. v.
People of the Philippines, et al./Planet Internet
Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company
,G.R. Nos. 161106/161266, January 13, 2014.
Page 34 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
In Laurel v. Abrogar, the Supreme Court (SC)
reviewed the existing laws and jurisprudence
on the generally accepted concept of personal
property in civil law as anything susceptible
of appropriation. It includes ownership of
telephone services, which are protected by the
penal provisions on theft. SC therein upheld
the Amended Information charging the
petitioner with the crime of theft against PLDT
inasmuch as the allegation was that the former
was engaged in international simple resale
(ISR) or the unauthorized routing and
completing of international long distance calls
using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave
frequency and connecting these calls directly to
the local or domestic exchange facilities of the
country where destined. SC reasoned that
since PLDT encodes, augments, enhances,
decodes and transmits telephone calls using its
complex communications infrastructure and
facilities, the use of these communications
facilities without its consent constitutes theft,
which is the unlawful taking of telephone
services and business. SC then concluded that
the business of providing telecommunications
and telephone services is personal property
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
and that the act of engaging in ISR is an act of
subtraction penalized under said article.
Furthermore, toll bypass operations could not
have been accomplished without the
installation of telecommunications equipment
to the PLDT telephone lines.
Topic: Political offense doctrine; concept.
Saturnino C. Ocampo v.
Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al,
G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014.
Under the political offense doctrine, common
crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
offense, are divested of their character as
common offenses and assume the political
complexion of the main crime of which they
are mere ingredients, and, consequently,
cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense, or complexed with the same,
to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.
Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by
being absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus,
when a killing is committed in furtherance of
rebellion, the killing is not homicide or

murder. Rather, the killing assumes the
political complexion of rebellion as its mere
ingredient and must be prosecuted and
punished as rebellion alone.
Topic: Qualifying circumstance; treachery;
when present.
People of the Philippines v.
Joel Aquino y Cendana
G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by the aggressor on an
unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real
chance to defend himself. Even when the
victim was forewarned of the danger to his
person, treachery may still be appreciated since
what is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or to retaliate. Records disclose
that Jesus was stabbed by the group on the
lateral part of his body while he was under the
impression that they were simply leaving the
place where they had a shabu session. Judicial
notice can be taken that when the tricycle
driver is seated on the motorcycle, his head is
usually higher or at the level of the roof of the
side car which leaves his torso exposed to the
passengers who are seated in the side car.
Hence, there was no way for Jesus to even be
forewarned of the intended stabbing of his
body both from the people seated in the side
car and those seated behind him. Thus, the
trial courts finding of treachery was affirmed.
Topic: Qualified rape; elements.
People of the Philippines v.
Rolando Bautista Iroy,
G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010
To convict appellant for the offense, the
prosecution must allege and prove the
ordinary elements of (1) sexual congress, (2)
with a woman, (3) by force and without
consent; and in order to warrant the
imposition of the death penalty, the additional
elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen
years of age at the time of the rape, and (5)
the offender is a parent (whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. In this
case, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Page 35 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
prosecution was able to prove the existence of
all above elements beyond the shadow of a
doubt. Accordingly, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua was properly meted out.
Topic: Rape; impregnation not an element of
rape.
People of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi,
G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.
It is not absurd nor contrary to human
experience that AAA gave birth ten (10)
months after the alleged sexual assault as there
may be cases of long gestations. In any event,
SC dismissed appellants contention as
immaterial to the case at bar because
jurisprudence reveals that impregnation is not
an element of rape. It is well-entrenched in
case law that the rape victims pregnancy and
resultant childbirth are irrelevant in
determining whether or not she was raped.
Pregnancy is not an essential element of the
crime of rape. Whether the child which the
rape victim bore was fathered by the accused,
or by some unknown individual, is of no
moment. What is important and decisive is
that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim against the latters will or without her
consent, and such fact was testified to by the
victim in a truthful manner.
Topic: Rape; one count for each separate act
of sexual assault.
People of the Philippines v.
Manolito Lucena y Velasquez,
G.R. No. 190632, February 26, 2014
The appellant, citing People v. Aaron, insists
that he cannot be convicted of three (3) counts
of rape despite the three (3) penetrations
because he was motivated by a single criminal
intent. However, it appears from the facts that
the appellant thrice succeeded in inserting his
penis into the private part of AAA. The three
(3) penetrations occurred one after the other
at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein the
appellant would rest after satiating his lust
upon his victim and, after he has regained his
strength, he would again rape AAA. Hence, it
can be clearly inferredfrom the foregoing that
when the appellant decided to commit those

separate and distinct acts of sexual assault
upon AAA, he was not motivated by a single
impulse, but rather by several criminal intent.
Hence, his conviction for three (3) counts of
rape is indubitable. The three insertions into
AAA were in satiation of successive but distinct
criminal carnality. Therefore, the appellants
conviction for three counts of rape is proper.
Topic: Rape; sweetheart theory.
People of the Philippines v.
Mervin Gahi
G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014
For the sweetheart theory to be believed when
invoked by the accused, convincing evidence
to prove the existence of the supposed
relationship must be presented by the
proponent of the theory. For the
[sweetheart] theory to prosper, the existence
of the supposed relationship must be proven
by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to
adduce such evidence renders his claim to be
self-serving and of no probative value. For the
satisfaction of the Court, there should be a
corroboration by their common friends or, if
none, a substantiation by tokens of such a
relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures
and the like. In the present case, although it is
a person other than the accused who is
claiming to be the victims sweetheart and the
father of her child, such an assertion must
nonetheless be believably demonstrated by the
evidence. The defense failed to discharge the
burden of proving that AAA and Jackie Gucela
had any kind of romantic or sexual
relationship which resulted in AAAs
pregnancy.
Topic: Rape; three guiding principles in rape
prosecutions.
People of the Philippines v.
Aurelio Jastiva
G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014.
he three guiding principles in rape prosecutions
are as follows: (1) an accusation of rape is easy
to make, and difficult to prove, but it is even
more difficult to disprove; (2) bearing in mind
the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony
of the complainant must be scrutinized with
Page 36 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
utmost care and caution; and (3) the evidence
of the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merits; and cannot draw strength from
the weakness of the defense. So, when a
woman says that she has been raped, she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that the
crime of rape was committed. In a long line of
cases, the Supreme Court has held that if the
testimony of the rape victim is accurate and
credible, a conviction for rape may issue upon
the sole basis of the victims testimony. This is
because no decent and sensible woman will
publicly admit to being raped and, thus, run
the risk of public contempt unless she is, in
fact, a rape victim.
Topic: Rape; two modes of committing rape.
People of the Philippines v.
BernabePareja y Cruz
G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014.
The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or
the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the
concept of rape with the recognition of sexual
violence on sex-related orifices other than a
womans organ is included in the crime of
rape; and the crimes expansion to cover
gender-free rape. The transformation mainly
consisted of the reclassification of rape as a
crime against persons and the introduction of
rape by sexual assault as differentiated from
the traditional rape through carnal
knowledge or rape through sexual
intercourse. Thus, under the new provision,
rape can be committed in two ways: 1. Article
266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through
sexual intercourse, also known as organ rape
or penile rape. The central element in rape
through sexual intercourse is carnal
knowledge, which must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. 2. Article 266-A paragraph
2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called
instrument or object rape, or gender-free
rape. It must be attended by any of the
circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a)
to (d) of paragraph.

====
REVISED PENAL CODE
2010 - 2013 Cases
Topic: Self-defense.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Vergara & Inocencio,
G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013
Anent accused-appellant Vergaras claim of
self-defense, the following essential elements
had to be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel
such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the art of the person resorting
to self-defense. However, the most important
of all the elements is unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression
must be proved first in order for self-defense
to be successfully pleaded, whether complete
or incomplete.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical
assault, or at least a threat to inflict real
imminent injury, upon a person. In case of
threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent dangernot merely
threatening and intimidating action. It is
present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to ones life. In the
present case, the element of unlawful
aggression is absent. By the testimonies of all
the witnesses, the victims actuations did not
constitute unlawful aggression to warrant the
use of forces employed by accuse-appellant
Vergara. The records reveal that the victim had
been walking home albeit drunk when he
passed by accused-appellants. However, there
is no indication of any untoward action from
him to warrant the treatment that he had by
accused-appellant Vergaras hands.
Topic: Death extinguishing criminal liability
People of the Philippines Vs.
Anastacio B. Amistoso,
G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013
Page 37 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Amistoso was charged before the RTC of
Masbate City, Branch 48, with the rape of his
daughter, AAA, alleged to be 12 years old at
the time of the incident. The Information
specifically charged Amistoso with statutory
rape under Article 266-A, par. (1)(d) of the
RPC, as amended.
The CA in its decision dated August 25, 2011,
affirmed Amistosos conviction of qualified
rape.
Insisting upon his innocence, Amistoso
appealed to this Court. In its Decision dated
January 9, 2013, the Court affirmed with
modification the judgment of conviction
against Amistoso, expressly making him liable
for interest on the amounts of damages
awarded.
However, in a letter dated February 7, 2013,
Ramoncito Roque, Officer-in-Charge, Inmate
Documents and Processing Division of the
Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court that
Amistoso had died on December 11, 2102 at
the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), Muntinlupa
City. Roque attached to his letter a photocopy
of the Death Report by Marylou V. Arbatin,
MD, Medical Officer III, NBP, stating that
Amistoso, 62 yrs old, died at about 5pm, on
December 11, 2012 of Cardio Respiratory
Arrest. Roques letter was received by the
Court on February 12, 2013.
Yet on February 22, 2013, the Public
Attorneys Office (PAO), which represented
Amistoso and which was apparently unaware
of its clients demise, still filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Courts Decision dated
January 9, 2013.
Article 89 of the RPC provides:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally
extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final
judgment. xxx xxx xxx

In People vs. Bayotas, the Court laid down the
rules in case the accused dies prior to final
judgment:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal
of his conviction extinguishes criminal
liability as well as the civil liability
based solely thereon. As opined by
Justice Regalado, in this regard, the
death of the accused prior to final
judgment terminates his criminal
liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely
on the offense committed, i.e., civil
liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Civil Code enumerates these other
sources of obligation from which the
civil liability may arise as a result of the
same act or omission:
a. Law
b. Contracts
c. Quasi-contracts
d. Xxx
e. Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as
explained in Number 2 above, an
action for recovery therefor may be
pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure as amended. This
separate civil action may be enforced
either against the executor/
administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of
obligation upon which the same is
based is explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party
need not fear a forfeiture of his right
to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and
prior to its extinction, the private-
offended party instituted together
therewith the civil action. In such case,
the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during
the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article
Page 38 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
1155 of the Civil Code that should
thereby avoid any apprehension on a
possible privation of right by
prescription.
Given the foregoing, it is clear that the death
of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as
well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the
criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as
there is no longer a defendant to stand as the
accused, the civil action instituted therein for
recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal
case. Undeniably, Amistosos death on
December 11, 2012 preceded the promulgation
by the Court of its Decision on January 9,
2013. When Amistoso died, his appeal before
the Court was still pending and unresolved.
The Court ruled upon Amistosos appeal only
because it was not immediately informed of
his death. Amistosos death on December 11,
20102 renders the Courts Decision dated
January 9, 2013, even though affirming
Amistosos conviction, irrelevant and
ineffectual. Moreover, said Decision has not
yet become final, and the Court still has the
jurisdiction to set it aside.
Topic: Malversation.
Major Joel Cantos Vs.
People of the Philippines.
G.R. No. 184908, July 3, 2013
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or
property; Presumption of malversation. - Any
public officer who, by reason of the duties of
his office, is accountable for public funds or
property, shall appropriate the same or shall
take or misappropriate or shall consent,
through abandonment or negligence, shall
permit any other person to take such public
funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property, shall
suffer:
Xxxx
5. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in
its medium and maximum periods, if
the amount involved is more than
twelve thousand pesos but is less than
twenty-two thousand pesos. If the
amount exceeds the latter, the penalty
shall be reclusion temporal in its

maximum period to reclusion
perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall
also suffer the penalty of perpetual special
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount
of the funds malversed or equal to the total
value of the property embezzled. The failure
of a public officer to have duly forthcoming
any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, shall be prima facie
evidence that he has put such missing funds or
property to personal use. (As amended by RA
1060).
Thus, the elements of malversation of public
funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code are: 1. that the offender is a public
officer; 2. that he had the custody or control
of funds or property by reason of the duties of
his office; 3. that those funds or property were
public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and 4. that he appropriated,
took, misappropriated or consented or,
through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
The Sandiganbayan did not commit a
reversible error in its decision convicting
petitioner of malversation of public funds The
Supreme Court (SC) noted that all the above-
mentioned elements are here present.
Petitioner was a public officer occupying the
position of commanding Officer of the
22nd FSU of the AFP Finance Center, PSG. By
reason of his position, he was tasked to
supervise the disbursement of the Special Duty
Allowances and other Maintenance Operating
Funds of the PSG personnel, which are
indubitably public funds for which he was
accountable. Petitioner in fact admitted in his
testimony that he had complete control and
custody of these funds. As to the element of
misappropriation, indeed petitioner failed to
rebut the legal presumption that he had
misappropriated the fees to his personal use. In
convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites
the presumption in Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, which states that the
failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any
duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence
that he has put such missing fund or property
to personal uses. The presumption is, of
course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if petitioner is
able to present adequate evidence that can
Page 39 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or
property to personal use, then that
presumption would be at an end and the
prima facie case is effectively negated. In this
case, however, petitioner failed to overcome
this prima facie evidence of guilt. He failed to
explain the missing funds in his account and to
restitute the amount upon demand. His claim
that the money was taken by robbery or theft
is self-serving and has not been supported by
evidence. In fact, petitioner even tried to
unscrew the safety vault to make it appear that
the money was forcibly taken. Moreover,
petitioners explanation that there is a
possibility that the money was taken by
another is belied by the fact that there was no
sign that the steel cabinet was forcibly opened.
The SC also took note of the fact that it was
only petitioner who had the keys to the steel
cabinet. Thus, the explanation set forth by
petitioner is unsatisfactory and does not
overcome the presumption that he has put the
missing funds to personal use.
Malversation is committed either intentionally
or by nengligence. The dolo or culpa present
in the offense 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. All that is
necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that
the accountable officer had received public
funds, that he did not have them in his
possession when demand thereof was made,
and that he could not satisfactorily explain his
failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal
misappropriation by the accused is hardly
necessary as long as the accused cannot exlain
satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts.
Topic: Murder.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Dearo, et. al.,
G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013
We also find that the qualifying circumstance
of treachery was properly appreciated by the
RTC and the CA. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof that tend directly and
especially to ensure its execution, without risk
to himself arising from the defense that the
offended party might make. We have ruled
that treachery is present when an assailant

takes advantage of a situation in which the
victim is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or
has just awakened.
It has been established by the prosecution, and
even confirmed by the defense, that the
victims were sleeping when they were shot. To
be precise, it was Emeterio who was asleep
when he was shot, considering that the
women were able to cry for help before the
rapid firing that silenced them. In any case, it
was clear that the women were in no position
to defend themselves, having been rudely
awakened by the shooting of their companion.
The fact that they shouted for help also
showed their loss of hope in the face of what
was coming rapid gunfire from long firearms.
Evident premeditation further aggravates the
crime of murder committed by appellants.
"The essence of evident premeditation is that
the execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent,
during the space of time sufficient to arrive at
a calm judgment." Evidence shows that Luague
had a grudge against Porferia, and that their
last confrontation occurred a day before the
shooting. The involvement of appellants
Dearo and Toledo was shown by the
testimony of Jose Santiago that the two were
with Luague three days before the shooting.
Appellant Dearo then vowed to kill Emeterio.
These uncontroverted pieces of evidence
clearly showed the instances when appellants
resolved to commit the felony. The space of
time from the resolution to the actual
execution allowed them to contemplate on
the matter, or maybe even reconsider. That
they did not reconsider is shown by the case
before us now.
Thus, it has been established that appellants
killed Emeterio, Porferia and Analiza.
Appreciating treachery as a qualifying
circumstance, the crime is properly
denominated as murder. Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code(RPC) punishes murder
with reclusion perpetua to death. With the
further appreciation of evident premeditation
as generic aggravating circumstance, (xxx
source text unreadable xxx) However, since
the imposition of the death penalty has been
prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, the
penalty that shall be imposed on appellants is
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole.
Page 40 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Topic: Rape
People of the Philippines Vs.
Jojie Suansing,
G.R. No. 189822, September 2, 2013
Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from
mental retardation is rape since she is
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act.
Under these circumstances, all that needs to be
proved for a successful prosecution are the
facts of sexual congress between the rapist and
his victim, and the latters mental retardation.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as
amended by RA 8353 states that:
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How
Committed. - Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or
intimidation;
b) When the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be
present.
For the charge of rape to prosper, the
prosecution must prove that (1) the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2)
through force or intimidation, or when she
was deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or when she was under 12 years
of age or was demented. From these requisites,
it can thus be deduced that rape is committed
the moment the offender has sexual
intercourse with a person suffering from
mental retardation. Carnal knowledge of a
woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A
mental condition of retardation deprives the
complainant of that natural instinct to resist a
bestial assault on her chastity and
womanhood. For this reason, sexual
intercourse with one who is intellectually weak
to the extent that she is incapable of giving
consent to the carnal act already constitutes

rape, without requiring proof that the accused
used force and intimidation in committing the
act. Only the facts of sexual congress between
the accused and the victim and the latters
mental retardation need to be proved.
Knowledge of the offender of the mental
disability of the victim during the rape qualifies
and makes it punishable by death.
Paragraph 10, Article 266-B of the RPC, as
amended, provides:
Article 266-B. Penalty. xxx
The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxxx
10) When the offender knew of the
mental disability, emotional disorder
and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime.
Thus, knowledge of the offender of the mental
disability of the victim during the commission
of the crime of rape qualifies and makes it
punishable by death.
Topic: Rape.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Marciano Cial,
G.R. No. 191362, October 9, 2013
We find however that both the trial court and
the CA erred in convicting appellant of the
crime of qualified rape. According to both
courts, the twin qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship attended the
commission of the crime. We rule otherwise.
In its Formal Offer of Evidence, the
prosecution mentioned AAAs Certificate of
Live Birth. Also attached to the Folder of
Exhibits marked as Exhibit B is AAAs
Certificate of Live Birth showing that AAA
was born on October 31, 1991. However,
upon closer scrutiny, we note that the said
Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or
offered during the trial of the case. During the
March 28, 2006 hearing, the prosecution
manifested before the RTC that it will be
presenting AAAs Certificate of Live Birth at
Page 41 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the next setting. In its Order19 dated June 27,
2006, the trial court reset the hearing of the
case to allow the prosecution to present
evidence with respect to AAAs Certificate of
Live Birth. However, up until the prosecution
rested its case, nobody was presented to testify
on AAAs Certificate of Live Birth. Records
show that the prosecution presented only
AAA and Dr. Imperial as its witnesses. Dr.
Imperial never testified on AAAs age. On
the other hand, AAA even testified on the
witness stand that she does not know her age.
Clearly, the prosecution failed to prove the
minority of AAA.
The same is true with respect to the other
qualifying circumstance of relationship. The
prosecution likewise miserably failed to
establish AAAs relationship with the
appellant. Although the Information alleged
that appellant is the common-law husband of
AAAs mother, AAA referred to appellant
as her step-father.
Even the RTC interchangeably referred to
appellant as the common-law husband of
AAAs mother as well as the step-father of
AAA. Moreover, the RTC failed to cite any
basis for its reference to appellant as such. In
fact, the RTC Decision is bereft of any
discussion as to how it reached its conclusion
that appellant is the common-law husband of
AAAs mother or that AAA is his step-
daughter.
The CA committed the same error.
Notwithstanding appellants claim that he is
married to AAAs mother, it went on to
declare, without any explanation or
justification, that appellant is the common-law
husband of AAAs mother.
The terms common-law husband and step-
father have different legal connotations. For
appellant to be a step-father to AAA, he
must be legally married to AAAs mother.
Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt just
like the crime itself. In this case, the
prosecution utterly failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances
of minority and relationship. As such,
appellant should only be convicted of the
crime of simple rape, the penalty for which
is reclusion perpetua.
 Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Topic: Qualified rape. convincingly established. Dukilman hinges his

argument on the fact that he was not one of
People of the Philippines Vs. those arrested during the rescue operation
Marvin Cayanan, based on the testimony of Inspector Ouano.
G.R. No. 200080, September 18, 2013 On the other hand, Ronas and Evad base their
argument on the fact that they had no
participation whatsoever in the negotiation for
A review of the CA decision shows that it did
the ransom money. The Supreme Court held
not commit any reversible error in affirming
otherwise. Although Dukilman was not one of
Cayanans conviction. Record shows that
those apprehended at the cottage during the
Cayanan forced AAA to have sex with him on
rescue operation, the testimony of Police
February 1, 2001 and threatened her and her
Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that
family with physical harm. The testimony of
he was one of the four people apprehended
Adriano, meanwhile, corroborated AAAs
when the police intercepted the Tamaraw FX
testimony that Cayanan forcibly took her by
at the Nichols Tollgate. Likewise, the
the school campus gate on February 26, 2001
testimony of Police Inspector Ouano
and thereafter raped her. The defense failed to
sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad
show any reason why the prosecutions
were two of those who were arrested during
evidence should not be given weight or credit.
the rescue operation. It has been held that to
Moreover, the claim that they were
be a conspirator, one need not participate in
sweethearts does not justify the commission of
every detail of the execution; he need not
the crimes. For the Court to even consider
even take part in every act or need not even
giving credence to the sweetheart defense, it
know the exact part to be performed by the
must be proven by compelling evidence. The
others in the execution of the conspiracy.
defense cannot just present testimonial
Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the
evidence in support of the theory.
act of all the conspirators. Further, proof of
Independent proof is required such as
the conspiracy need not rest on direct
tokens, mementos, and photographs. And
evidence, as the same may be inferred from
while Cayanan produced two love letters
the collective conduct of the parties before,
allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly
during or after the commission of the crime
sustained the finding of the RTC that these
indicating a common understanding among
letters were unauthenticated and therefore,
them with respect to the commission of the
bereft of any probative value.
offense. The testimonies, when taken together,
reveal the common purpose of the accused-
The Court, however, finds that Cayanan
appellants and how they were all united in its
should be convicted only of Qualified Rape in
execution from beginning to end. There were
Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001. Forcible
testimonies proving that (1) before the
abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if
incident, two of the accused-appellants kept
the real objective of the accused is to rape the
coming back to the victims house; (2) during
victim. In this case, circumstances show that
the kidnapping, accused-appellants changed
the victims abduction was with the purpose of
shifts in guarding the victim; and (3) the
raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged her
accused appellants were those present when
into the tricycle, he took her to several places
the ransom money was recovered and when
until they reached his sisters house where he
the rescue operation was conducted. Seeing
raped her inside the bedroom. Under these
that conspiracy among Gambao, Karim,
circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible
Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen,
abduction.
Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established
beyond reasonable doubt based on the
Topic: Kidnapping for ransom.
proffered evidence of the prosecution, the act
of one is the act of all the conspirators.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Halil Gambao, Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements
G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013 required, in accordance with Article 18 of the
Revised Penal Code, in order that a person
Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas and Evad may be considered an accomplice, namely, (1)
argue in their respective briefs that conspiracy, that there be community of design; that is
insofar as they were concerned, was not knowing the criminal design of the principal by

Page 42 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015

direct participation, he concurs with the latter
in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the
execution by previous or simultaneous act,
with the intention of supplying material or
moral aid in the execution of the crime in an
efficacious way; and (3) that there be a
relation between the acts done by the
principal and those attributed to the person
charged as accomplice.
The defenses raised by Perpenian are not
sufficient to exonerate her criminal
liability. Assuming arguendo that she just came
to the resort thinking it was a swimming party,
it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge
of the criminal design of the principals when
she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A
rational person would have suspected
something was wrong and would have
reported such incident to the police.
Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and
to add to that, she even spent the night at the
cottage. It has been held before that being
present and giving moral support when a
crime is being committed will make a person
responsible as an accomplice in the crime
committed. It should be noted that the
accused-appellants presence and company
were not indispensable and essential to the
perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom;
hence, she is only liable as an
accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by
the ruling in People v. Clemente, et al., where
it was stressed that in case of doubt, the
participation of the offender will be
considered as that of an accomplice rather
than that of a principal.
Topic: Estafa / Swindling.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Gilbert Reyes Wagas,
G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013
Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, provides:
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person
who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following
false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud:
Page 43 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
xxxx
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation
when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of
notice from the bank and/or the payee
or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
In order to constitute estafa under this
statutory provision, the act of postdating or
issuing a check in payment of an obligation
must be the efficient cause of the defraudation.
This means that the offender must be able to
obtain money or property from the offended
party by reason of the issuance of the check,
whether dated or postdated. In other words,
the Prosecution must show that the person to
whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property were
it not for the issuance of the check by the
offender.
The essential elements of the crime charged are
that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the check is issued; (b) lack or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(c) damage to the payee thereof. It is the
criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a
check that is punishable, not the non-payment
of a debt. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists
by law upon proof that the drawer of the
check failed to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor.
It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty
of estafa as charged, must have used the check
in order to defraud the complainant. What the
law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the
mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas
could not be held guilty of estafa simply
because he had issued the check used to
defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still
clearly show that it had been Wagas as the
drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means
of the check.

Thirdly, Ligaray admitted that it was Caada
who received the rice from him and who
delivered the check to him. Considering that
the records are bereft of any showing that
Caada was then acting on behalf of Wagas,
the RTC had no factual and legal bases to
conclude and find that Caada had been
acting for Wagas. This lack of factual and legal
bases for the RTC to infer so obtained despite
Wagas being Caadas brother-in-law.
Nevertheless, an accused, though acquitted of
estafa, may still be held civilly liable where the
preponderance of the established facts so
warrants. Wagas as the admitted drawer of the
check was legally liable to pay the amount of
it to Ligaray, a holder in due
course. Consequently, we pronounce and hold
him fully liable to pay the amount of the
dishonored check, plus legal interest of 6% per
annum from the finality of this decision.
Topic: Estafa.
Fernando M. Espino Vs.
People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013
The crime charged was estafa under Article
315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Its elements are as follows: (1) that money,
goods, or other personal properties are
received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2)
that there is a misappropriation or conversion
of such money or property by the offender or
a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to
the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the
offender. However, the crime the accused was
convicted of was estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are
as follows: (1) that there is a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means is made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (3) that the offended party relies on the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he is induced to part with his
money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
Page 44 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Are the elements of estafa under paragraph
2(a) present in the above-quoted Information?
Arguably so, because the accused represented
to the injured party that he would be
delivering the commission to Mr. Banaag; and
because of this representation, KN Inc. turned
over checks payable to Mr. Banaag to the
accused. In turn, the accused rediscounted the
checks for money, to the detriment of both
Mr. Banaag and KN Inc. However, this set of
facts seems to miss the precision required of a
criminal conviction. Estafa under paragraph
2(a) is swindling by means of false pretense,
and the words of the law bear this out:
Article 315.
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following
false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other
similar deceits. x x x.
In this case, there was no use of a fictitious
name, or a false pretense of power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, or
business. At the most, the situation could be
likened to an imaginary transaction, although
the accused was already trusted with the
authority to deliver commissions to Mr.
Banaag. The pretense was in representing to
the injured party that there was a deliverable
commission to Mr. Banaag, when in fact there
was none.
Instead of unduly stretching this point, the
Court deems it wiser to give the offense its
true, formal name that of estafa through
abuse of confidence under paragraph 1(b).
Paragraph 1(b) provides liability for estafa
committed by misappropriating or converting
to the prejudice of another money, goods, or
any other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though that obligation
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
or by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property. This at least, is very
 Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

clearly shown by the factual allegations of the

Informations. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that
the accused may still be charged with the crime
Topic: Bigamy. of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent
declaration of the nullity of the second
James Walter Capili Vs. marriage, so long as the first marriage was still
People of the Philippines, subsisting when the second marriage was
G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013 celebrated.

In Jarillo v. People, the Court affirmed the

In essence, the issue is whether or not the
accuseds conviction for bigamy ruling that the
subsequent declaration of nullity of the second
crime of bigamy is consummated on the
marriage is a ground for dismissal of the
celebration of the subsequent marriage
criminal case for bigamy.
without the previous one having been
We rule in the negative.
judicially declared null and void, viz.:
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines
The subsequent judicial declaration of the
and penalizes the crime of bigamy as follows:
nullity of the first marriage was immaterial
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the
Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of
crime had already been consummated.
prision mayor shall be imposed upon
Moreover, petitioners assertion would only
any person who shall contract a
delay the prosecution of bigamy cases
second or subsequent marriage before
considering that an accused could simply file a
the former marriage has been legally
petition to declare his previous marriage void
dissolved, or before the absent spouse
and invoke the pendency of that action as a
has been declared presumptively dead
prejudicial question in the criminal case. We
by means of a judgment rendered in
cannot allow that.
the proper proceedings.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
The elements of the crime of bigamy,
petitioners marriage to [private complainant]
therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally
had no bearing upon the determination of
married; (2) the marriage has not been legally
petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
case for bigamy, because all that is required for
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed
the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he
marriage be subsisting at the time the second
contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
marriage is contracted.
and (4) that the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one
validity.
which is void or voidable, shall be deemed
valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
In the present case, it appears that all the
proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner
elements of the crime of bigamy were present
eventually obtained a declaration that his first
when the Information was filed on June 28,
marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both
2004.
the first and the second marriage were
subsisting before the first marriage was
It is undisputed that a second marriage
annulled.
between petitioner and private respondent
was contracted on December 8, 1999 during
In like manner, the Court recently upheld the
the subsistence of a valid first marriage
ruling in the aforementioned case and ruled
between petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili
that what makes a person criminally liable for
contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably,
bigamy is when he contracts a second or
the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
bigamous nature of the second marriage
a valid first marriage. It further held that the
between petitioner and private respondent.
parties to the marriage should not be
Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of the
permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
second marriage for being bigamous in nature
for the same must be submitted to the
does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for
judgment of competent courts and only when
the crime of bigamy.

Page 45 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015

the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it
be held as void, and so long as there is no such
declaration the presumption is that the
marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a
second marriage before the judicial declaration
of the first marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy.
Finally, it is a settled rule that the criminal
culpability attaches to the offender upon the
commission of the offense, and from that
instant, liability appends to him until
extinguished as provided by law. It is clear
then that the crime of bigamy was committed
by petitioner from the time he contracted the
second marriage with private respondent.
Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of
nullity of petitioners second marriage does
not impede the filing of a criminal charge for
bigamy against him.
Topic: Arson; objective of arson; distinguished
from homicide/murder.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Ferdinand T. Baluntong,
G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010
In cases where both burning and death occur,
in order to determine what crime/crimes
was/were perpetrated whether arson,
murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de
rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the
burning of the building or edifice, but death
results by reason or on the occasion of arson,
the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other
hand, the main objective is to kill a particular
person who may be in a building or edifice,
when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is
murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is,
likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact
the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing,
then there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed homicide/murder and arson.
Topic: Batas Pambansa Bilang 22; elements.
Eumelia R. Mitra vs.
People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S.
Tarcelo
Page 46 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010
To reiterate the elements of a violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, violation thereof
exists where: (1) a person makes or draws and
issues a check to apply on account or for
value; (2) the person who makes or draws and
issues the check knows at the time of issue that
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the full payment of
the check upon its presentment; and (3) the
check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonored for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment.
Topic: Bigamy; defense of nullity of prior
marriage
Cenon R. Teves v.
People of the Philippines and Danilo R.
Bongalon
G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011
The Supreme Court debunked petitioners
contention that he cannot be charged with
bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of
his first marriage. The FamilyCode has settled
once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence
on the matter. A declaration of the absolute
nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required
either as a cause of action or a ground for
defense.
Where the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes
of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis
acceptable in law for said projected marriage
to be free from legal infirmity is a final
judgment declaring the previous marriage
void. The Supreme Court noted that in
petitioners case the complaint was filed before
the first marriage was declared a nullity. It was
only the filing of the Information that was
overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his
first marriage. Following petitioners argument,
even assuming that a complaint has been
instituted, such as in this case, the offender can
still escape liability provided that a decision
nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the
filing of the Information in court.Such cannot
be allowed. To do so would make the crime

of bigamy dependent upon the ability or
inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor
to immediately act on complaints and
eventually file Informations in court.
Topic: Composite crime; defined
Composite crime and compound crime
differentiated
People v.Villaflores,
G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012
The felony of rape with homicide is a
composite crime. A composite crime, also
known as a special complex crime, is
composed of two or more crimes that the law
treats as a single indivisible and unique offense
for being the product of a single criminal
impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific
penalty provided by law and differs from a
compound or complex crime under Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code, which states that
[w]hen a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
There are distinctions between a composite
crime, on the one hand, and a complex or
compound crime under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, on the other hand. In a
composite crime, the composition of the
offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or
compound crime, the combination of the
offenses is not specified but generalized, that is,
grave and/or less grave, or one offense being
the necessary means to commit the other. For
a composite crime, the penalty for the
specified combination of crimes is specific; for
a complex or compound crime, the penalty is
that corresponding to the most serious offense,
to be imposed in the maximum period. A light
felony that accompanies a composite crime is
absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the
commission of a complex or compound crime
may be the subject of a separate information.
Topic: Criminal Liability; effect of death of
accused pending appeal
People vs. Jaime Ayochok y Tauli,
Page 47 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
G.R. No. 175784, August 25, 2010.
Ayochoks death on January 15, 2010, during
the pendency of his appeal, extinguished not
only his criminal liability for the crime of
murder committed against SPO1 Claudio N.
Caligtan, but also his civil liability arising solely
from or based on his crime. Under Article
89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal
liability is totally extinguished by the death of
the convict, as to the personal penalties; and
as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment. Thus,
the death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
and the civil liability based solely thereon.
Topic: Criminal liability; effect of death
pending appeal
People of the Philippines v.
Saturnino Dela Cruz, et al.,
G.R. No. 190610, April 25, 2012.
On 29 July 2009, a Notice of Appeal was filed
by Brillantes through counsel before the
Supreme Court. While this case is pending
appeal, the Prisons and Security Division
Officer-in-Charge informed the Court that
accused-appellant Brillantes died while
committed at the Bureau of Corrections on 3
January 2012 as evidenced by a copy of death
report signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospitals
Medical. Hence, the issue here is the effect of
death pending appeal of the conviction of
accused-appellant Brillantes with regard to his
criminal and pecuniary liabilities.
The Revised Penal Code is instructive on the
matter. It provides in Article 89(1) that
criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefor is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final
judgment. It is plain that both the personal
penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary
penalty of fine of Brillantes were extinguished
upon his death pending appeal of his
conviction by the lower courts. There is no
civil liability involved in violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
No private offended party is involved as there

is in fact no reference to civil liability in the
decision of the trial court. The appeal of
Brillantes culminating in the extinguishment of
his criminal liability, however, does not have
any effect on his co- accused De la Cruz who
did not file a notice of appeal.
Topic: Continued crimes; foreknowledge to
prove single intent
Santiago Paera v.
People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011
Petitioners theory, fusing his liability to one
count of Grave Threats because he only had a
single mental resolution, a single impulse, and
single intent to threaten the Darongs assumes
a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of
Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicentes presence
near the water tank in the morning of 8 April
1999. The records, however, belie this
assumption. Moreover, petitioner went to the
water tank not to execute his single intent to
threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but
to investigate a suspected water tap. Not
having known in advance of the Darongs
presence near the water tank at the time in
question, petitioner could not have formed
any intent to threaten any of them until
shortly before he inadvertently came across
each of them. Petitioners theory holds water
only if the facts are altered that is, he
threatened Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente at
the same place and at the same time.
Topic: Novation; extinguishment of criminal
liability.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs.
Rogelio Reynaldo and Jose C. Adrandea
G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010
It is best to emphasize that novation is not
one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal
liability. In a catena of cases, it was ruled that
criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a
compromise or novation of contract. In Firaza
v. People and Recuerdo v. People, the
Supreme Court ruled that in the crime of
estafa, reimbursement or belated payment to
Page 48 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
the offended party of the money swindled by
the accused does not extinguish the criminal
liability of the latter. Also, as held in People v.
Moreno and in People v. Ladera, criminal
liability for estafa is not affected by
compromise or novation of contract, for it is a
public offense which must be prosecuted and
punished by the Government on its own
motion even though complete reparation
should have been made of the damage
suffered by the offended party. Similarly in
the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company v. Tonda, the Supreme Court ruled
that in estafa, reimbursement of or
compromise as to the amount misappropriated
after the commission of the crime affects only
the civil liability of the offender, and not his
criminal liability.
Topic: Criminal Liability; self-defense; doctrine
of rational equivalence.
Ladislao Espinosa vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010
The doctrine of rational equivalence
presupposes the consideration not only of the
nature and quality of the weapons used by the
defender and the assailantbut of the totality
of circumstances surrounding the defense vis--
vis the unlawful aggression. A perusal of the
facts shows that after petitioner was successful
in taking down private complainant Merto
the former continued to hack the latter, who
was, by then, already neutralized by the blow.
This fact was clearly established by the
testimony of Rodolfo Muya, who recounted
having seen the petitioner continuously
hacking the private complainant with the bolo
scabbard, even as the latter lay almost
motionless upon the muddy ground. Clearly,
this continuous hacking by the petitioner
constitutes force beyond what is reasonably
required to repel the private complainants
attackand is therefore unjustified.

Topic: Frustrated and attempted homicide
distinguished
Giovani Serrano y Cervantes vs.
People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010
Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a
felony is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator. There is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. In Palaganas v. People, the
Supreme Court made the following distinctions
between frustrated and attempted felony as
follows: (a) In frustrated felony, the offender
has performed all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony as a consequence;
whereas in attempted felony, the offender
merely commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts and does not perform all
the acts of execution; (b) In frustrated felony,
the reason for the non-accomplishment of the
crime is some cause independent of the will of
the perpetrator; on the other hand, in
attempted felony, the reason for the non-
fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident
other than the offenders own spontaneous
desistance.
Topic: Proximate cause; definition.
Rodolfo Belbis Jr. y Competente and Alberto
Brucales v. People of thePhilippines,
G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012
The Supreme Court rejected the argument of
petitioners that the Court of Appeals failed to
consider in its entirety the testimony of the
doctor who performed the autopsy. What
really needs to be proven in a case when the
victim dies is the proximate cause of his death.
Proximate cause has been defined as that
cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and
Page 49 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
without which the result would not have
occurred.
The autopsy report indicated that the cause of
the victims death is multiple organ failure.
According to Dr. Wilson Moll Lee, the doctor
who conducted the autopsy, it can be surmised
that multiple organ failure was secondary to a
long standing infection secondary to a stab
wound which the victim allegedlysustained.
Thus, it can be concluded that without the stab
wounds, the victim could not have been
afflicted with an infection which later on
caused multiple organ failure that caused his
death. The offender is criminally liable for the
death of the victim if his delictual act caused,
accelerated or contributed to the death of the
victim.
Topic: Perjury; elements.
EribertoMasangkay vs.
People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 164443, June 18, 2010.
For perjury to exist, (1) there must be a sworn
statement that is required by law; (2) it must
be made under oath before a competent
officer; (3) the statement contains a deliberate
assertion of falsehood; and (4) the false
declaration is with regard to a material matter.
The first three elements were proven in the
instant case. However, the prosecution failed
to establish the element of deliberate
falsehood. A conviction for perjury cannot be
obtained by the prosecution by merely
showing the inconsistent or contradictory
statements of the accused, even if both
statements are sworn. The prosecution must
additionally prove which of the two
statements is false and must show the
statement to be false by evidence other than
the contradictory statement.
Topic: Qualified rape; elements
People of the Philippines v.
DaniloPaculba,
G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659 provides that rape is committed by

having carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances: (a) by
using force or intimidation; (b) when the
woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and (c) when the woman is
under twelve years of age or is demented. The
crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua. Under Paragraph 7(1) of Article 335,
the death penalty shall also be imposed if
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common- law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
Topic: Qualified theft; elements
Clay & Feather International, Inc., et al v.
Alexander T. Lichaytoo and Clifford T.
Lichaytoo,
G.R. No. 193105, May 30, 2011
To constitute the crime of theft, defined and
penalized under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code, the following elements must be
established that: (1) there be taking of personal
property; (2) said property belongs to
another; (3) the taking be done with intent to
gain; (4) the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) the taking be
accomplished without use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code under the following
circumstances: (1) if the theft is committed by a
domestic servant; (2) if the theft is committed
with grave abuse of confidence; (3) if the
property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail
matter, or (c) large cattle; (4) if the property
stolen consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation; (5) if the property is
fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or (6) if
property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
Page 50 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Topic: Swindling; elements.
Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas
vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010
Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code
states that the penalty of aresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine of
not less than the value of the damage caused
and not more than three times such value shall
be imposed upon any person who, knowing
that a real property is encumbered, shall
dispose of the same, although such
encumbrance be not recorded. For petitioners
to be convicted of the crime of swindling
under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code, the prosecution had the burden to
prove the confluence of the following essential
elements of the crime: (1) that the thing
disposed of be real property; (2) that the
offender knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not; (3) that there must be express
representation by the offender that the real
property is free from encumbrance; and (4)
that the act of disposing of the real property
be made to the damage of another.
Topic: Serious illegal detention; elements.
People of the Philippines vs.
EgapMadsali, SajironLajim and MaronLajim
G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010
The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal
detentionunder Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another
or in any other manner deprives the latter of
his liberty; (3) the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission
of the offense, any of the following
circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping
or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b)
it is committed by simulating public authority;
or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person
kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a
public officer. In the case at bar, the accused
who were private individuals, forcibly took
and dragged the victim, a minor, to the forest

and held her captive against her will. The
crime of serious illegal detention consists not
only of placing a person in an enclosure, but
also of detaining him or depriving him in any
manner of his liberty. For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is
restrained from going home. Its essence is the
actual deprivation of the victims liberty,
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of
the accused to effect such deprivation. In this
case, although the victim was not actually
confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly
restrained and deprived of her liberty, because
she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a
piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to
physically drag her to the forest away from her
home.
Topic: Technical malversation; mala prohibita.
Arnold James M. Ysidoro v.
People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012.
Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith
when he diverted the food intended for those
suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries
of reconstruction projects affecting the homes
of victims of calamities since, first, the idea of
using the Supplemental Feeding Program
(SFP) goods for the Core Shelter Assistance
Program (CSAP) beneficiaries came, not
from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and,
second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed
to those beneficiaries. Having no criminal
intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted
of the crime of technical malversation. But
criminal intent is not an element of technical
malversation. The law punishes the act of
diverting public property earmarked by law or
ordinance for a particular public purpose to
another public purpose. 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. Hence, malice or criminal intent
is completely irrelevant.
Page 51 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
=======
SPECIAL LAW
Topic: Accused; effects of escape of accused.
People of the Philippines v.
Asia Musa y Pinasilo, AraMonongan y Papao,
FaisahAbasy Mama, and Mike Solalo y Mlok
G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012
A review of the evidence on record shows that
the chain of custody rule was sufficiently
observed by the apprehending officers. Thru
the testimonies of the PO1 Memoracion and
PO1 Arago, the prosecution was able to prove
that the shabu seized from accused Musa was
the very same shabu presented in evidence as
part of the corpus delicti. Hence, the fact that
the PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago did not
make an inventory of the seized items or that
they did not take photographs of them is not
fatal considering that the prosecution was able
to establish with moral certainty that the
identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the
shabu was not jeopardized from the time of its
seizure until the time it was presented in court.
Topic: Alibi; physical impossibility must be
proved
People of the Philippines v.
Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz
G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013.
For Jaymarts alibi to prosper, he must prove
that not only was he somewhere else when
Emmanuel was killed, but also that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at
the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility
refers to the distance between the place where
the appellant was when the rime transpired
and the place where it was committed, as well
as the facility of access between the two
places. Where there is the least chance for the
accused to be present at the crime scene, the
defense of alibi must fail. Although Jaymart
claimed that he was in Divisoria from 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on October 10, 2005,
Jaymart himself admitted that it would only
take a five-minute tricycle ride to get from
Divisoria to Parola, where Emmanuel was
shot.

Topic: BP 33
Arnel U. Ty, et al vs.
National Bureau of Investigation Supervising
Agent Marvin E. De Jemil,et al
G.R. No. 182147, December 15, 2010
A single underfilling constitutes an offense
under BP 33, as amended by PD 1865, which
clearly criminalizes these offenses. B.P. Blg. 33,
as amended, criminalizes illegal trading,
adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and
overpricing of petroleum products. Under this
general description of what constitutes criminal
acts involving petroleum products, the DOE
Circular No. 2000-06-010 merely lists the
various modes by which the said criminal acts
may be perpetrated, namely: no price display
board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or
incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized
LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG
cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing
color, no embossed identifying markings on
cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering
LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of
LPG cylinders. These specific acts and omissions
are obviously within the contemplation of the
law, which seeks to curb the pernicious
practices of some petroleum merchants. The
Court made it clear that a violation, like
underfilling, on a per cylinder basis falls within
the phrase of any act as mandated under Sec. 4
of BP 33, as amended. Ineluctably, the
underfilling of one LPG cylinder constitutes a
clear violation of BP 33, as amended. The
finding of underfilling by LPG Inspector Navio
of the LPGIA, as aptly noted by Manila
Assistant City Prosecutor Catalo who
conducted the preliminary investigation, was
indeed not controverted by petitioners.
Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal possession
of drugs.
People of the Philippines vs.
Mario Miguel y Bernabe, et al.,
G.R. No. 180505, June 29, 2010
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
Page 52 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
and consciously possessed the said drug.
Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes
primafacie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendisufficient to convict an accused in
the absence of a satisfactory explanation of
such possession. Thus, the burden of evidence
is shifted to the accused to explain the absence
of knowledge or animus possidendi.
Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust
operations; distinction between entrapment
and instigation
People of the Philippines v.
Noel Bartolome y Bajo,
G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013
A buy -bust operation has been recognized in
this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of
entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from
instigation, in that the accused who is
otherwise not predisposed to commit the
crime is enticed or lured or talked into
committing the crime. While entrapment is
legal, instigation is not. One form of
entrapment is the buy-bust operation. In
entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary
to render a buy-bust operation legitimate,
especially when the buy-bust team is
accompanied to the target area by the
informant.
Topic: Instigation distinguished from
entrapment.
People of the Philippines v.
Simpresueta M. Seraspe,
January 2013
Instigation means luring the accused into a
crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to
commit, in order to prosecute him. It differs
from entrapment which is the employment of
ways and means in order to trap or capture a
criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent to
commit an offense originates from the inducer
and not from the accused who had no
intention to commit and would not have
committed it were it not for the prodding of
the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent
or design originates from the accused and the
law enforcers merely facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by using ruses

and schemes. Instigation results in the acquittal
of the accused, while entrapment may lead to
prosecution and conviction. Here, the
evidence clearly established that the police
operatives employed entrapment, not
instigation, to capture appellant and her
cohorts in the act of selling shabu. It must be
recalled that it was only upon receipt of a
report of the drug trafficking activities of
Espiritu from the confidential informant that a
buy-bust team was formed and negotiations
for the sale of shabu were made. Also,
appellant testified that she agreed to the
transaction of her own free will when she saw
the same as an opportunity to earn money.
Notably too, appellant was able to quickly
produce a sample. This confirms that she had a
ready supply of the illegal drugs. Clearly, she
was never forced, coerced or induced through
incessant entreaties to source the prohibited
drug for Carla and PO3 Cario and this she
even categorically admitted during her
testimony.
Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody
rule; links to be established.
Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 188653. January 29, 2014.
The links that must be established in the chain
of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.
Topic: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act), Murder; penalty for minors;
Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal vs.
People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010
Under Section 7 of RA 9344, also
known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
Page 53 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
of 2006, the age of a child may be determined
from the childs birth certificate, baptismal
certificate or any other pertinent documents.
In the absence of these documents, age may be
based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons,
the physical appearance of the child and other
relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the
age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her
favor. Thus, pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the
RPC, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law is imposed. Based on Article
61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the
penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to
death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the
range of the penalty of imprisonment
imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in
any of its periods, as the minimum period, to
reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the
maximum period. Accordingly, his proper
indeterminate penalty is from six years and
one day of prision mayor, as the minimum
period, to 14 years, eight months, and one day
of reclusion temporal, as the maximum period.
Topic: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act), Suspension of sentence; minority
People of the Philippines vs.
Allen UdtojanMantalaba,
G.R. No. 186227, July 20,2011.
The appellant was 17 years old when the buy-
bust operation took place or when the said
offense was committed, but was no longer a
minor at the time of the promulgation of the
RTCs Decision. It must be noted that RA 9344
took effect on May 20, 2006, while the RTC
promulgated its decision on this case on
September 14, 2005, when said appellant was
no longer a minor. In People v. Sarcia (G.R.
No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA
20), it was held that while Section 38 of RA
9344 provides that suspension of sentence can
still be applied even if the child in conflict with
the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits
the said suspension of sentence until the child
reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the
appellant, who is now beyond the age of 21
years can no longer avail of the provisions of

Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his
suspension of sentence, because this has
already become moot and academic.
Topic: RA 9262; violence against women and
children; crime of violence against women;
elements; crime of violence against women
need not be a consequence of an existing or
present dating relationship.
Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, AngelesCity,
January 2013
Petitioner here insists that the act
which resulted in physical injuries to private
respondent is not covered by RA 9262 because
its proximate cause was not their dating
relationship. Instead, he claims that the offense
committed was only slight physical injuries
under the Revised Penal Code which falls
under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court. The Supreme Court (SC) did not give
credence to this argument. In Ang v. Court of
Appeals, the SC enumerated the elements of
the crime of violence against women through
harassment, to wit: (1) The offender has or had
a sexual or dating relationship with the
offended woman; (2) The offender, by himself
or through another, commits an act or series of
acts of harassment against the woman; and (3)
The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her.
Notably, while it is required that the offender
has or had a sexual or dating relationship with
the offended woman for RA 9262 to be
applicable, it is not indispensable that the act
of violence be a consequence of such
relationship. Nowhere in the law can such
limitation be inferred. Hence, applying the rule
on statutory construction that when the law
does not distinguish, neither should the courts,
then, clearly, the punishable acts refer to all
acts of violence against women with whom
the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship. As correctly ruled by the Regional
Trial Court, it is immaterial whether the
relationship had ceased for as long as there is
sufficient evidence showing the past or present
existence of such relationship between the
offender and the victim when the physical
harm was committed. Consequently, the SC
Page 54 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
did not depart from the parallelism in Ang and
give credence to petitioners assertion that the
act of violence should be due to the sexual or
dating relationship.
Topic: Rape; statutory rape distinguished from
child abuse
People of the Philippines v.
Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran,
G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in
relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual
abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender
should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but
for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of
the Revised Penal Code and penalized with
reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the
victim is 12 years or older, the offender should
be charged with either sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act
because his right against double jeopardy will
be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected
twice to criminal liability for a single criminal
act.
Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a
violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under
Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the Revised
Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
complexed with an offense penalized by a
special law.
Topic: Act of lasciviousness against a minor
under the Revised Penal Code and R.A. 7610
People of the Philippines v.
IrenoBonaagua y Berce,
G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011
Acts of lasciviousness as defined in Article 336
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) has the
following elements:
(1) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;

(2) that it is done under any of the
following circumstances: a) by using
force or intimidation; or b) when the
offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or c) when
the offended party is under 12 years of
age; and;
(3) that the offended party is another
person of either sex.
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an
accused can be convicted of child abuse
through lascivious conduct committed against
a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites
for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the RPC must be met in addition to the
requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of
R.A. 7610.
To establish sexual abuse under Section 5,
Article III of R.A. 7610, the following elements
must be present: (1) the accused commits the
act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
(2) the said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; (3) the child, whether male or
female, is below 18 years of age.
Corollarily, Section 2(h) of the rules and
regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines
lascivious conduct as [t]he intentional
touching, either directly or through clothing,
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any
object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of
any person, whether of the same or opposite
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire
of any person, bestiality, masturbation,
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person.
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of
the Court of Appeals (CA) that the accused
was guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness
under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. Undeniably,
all the aforestated elements are present in
Criminal Case No. 03-0255. The accused
committed the crime of lascivious acts by
touching the breasts and licking the vagina of
AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as
established by her birth certificate. As correctly
Page 55 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
found by the CA, the accused is guilty of the
crime of acts of lasciviousness under Section
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
Topic: Differentiate trafficking and kidnapping
Human trafficking is the illegal trade of people
for sexual exploitation or forced labor. Victims
of human trafficking can be men, women or
child who are recruited, transported, or
otherwise taken by force because they are
vulnerable - they may be seeking a better life,
lack employment opportunities, come from an
unstable home, or have a history of sexual
abuse.
Kidnapping refers to transporting someone to
another location without their consent, or in
the case of child abduction, without parental
consent. Kidnapping victims may be held in
confinement without legal authority in
furtherance of another crime, or in many cases
in connection with a child custody dispute
between parents or family members.
Topic: RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act; Section 3(e); elements.
Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9,
2010
To be found guilty under Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA
3019), the following elements must concur: (1)
the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was
done in the discharge of the public officers
official, administrative or judicial functions; (3)
the act was done through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence; and (4) the public officer caused
any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference. Among
these elements, the first element is a given
while the third element is in part dependent
on the second element; the injury the
petitioner suffered would be undue if the
second element is present. The second and
critical element provides the different modes
for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,
that is, through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
 Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Topic: RA 3019 orAnti-Graft and Corrupt Topic: RA 3019 or Anti Graft Law; Section
Practices Act; Section 3(e); elements. 3(e); when private individuals included.

Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines, Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano v.

G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9, People of the Philippines,
2010 G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 While Section 3(e) does not contain a
may be committed in three ways, i.e., through reference to private individuals, private
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross individuals, under Section 4 (b) of the same
inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these law, may nonetheless be prosecuted under
three in connection with the prohibited acts Section 3(e) thereof if he knowingly induces or
mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is causes any public official to commit any of the
enough to convict. The term partiality under offenses defined in Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
the third element is synonymous with bias Clearly, the law punishes not only public
which excites a disposition to see and report officers who commit prohibited acts
matters as they are wished for rather than as enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those who
they while bad faith does not simply induce or cause the public official to commit
connote bad judgment or negligence; it those offenses. This is supported by Sec. 9,
imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral which includes private persons as liable for
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a violations under Sections. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of RA
breach of sworn duty through some motive or 3019.
intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud. Gross negligence has been so defined
as negligence characterized by the want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally
with a conscious indifference to consequences
in so far as other persons may be affected. It is
the omission of that care which even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to
take on their own property.

Topic: RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act; undue injury

Efren L. Alvarez vs. People of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011

The term undue injury in the context of

Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act punishing the act of causing
undue injury to any party, has a meaning
akin to that civil law concept of actual
damage. Actual damage, in the context of
these definitions, is akin to that in civil law.
Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that
except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by a party
as he has duly proved.

Page 56 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015

CRIMINAL LAW
BAR EXAM PRE-WEEK HANDOUT
Prepared by Justice Mario V. Lopez
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS RULE
The overbreadth and vagueness
doctrines do not justify a facial review of the
validity of penal statutes. A facial challenge
against a criminal statute is allowed only as
applied to a particular defendant which
considers extant facts affecting real litigants or
on the basis of its actual operation to the
parties. Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of
criminal statutes would result in a mass
acquittal of parties whose cases may not have
even reached the courts. Such invalidation
would constitute a departure from the usual
requirement of "actual case and controversy"
and permit decisions to be made in a sterile
abstract context having no factual
concreteness. (See Romualdez v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 167011, December 11, 2008; and
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network
vs. Anti-terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010)
When a penal statute encroaches upon
the freedom of speech, a facial challenge
grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine
is acceptable. The inapplicability of the
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal
statutes are appropriate only insofar as these
doctrines are used to mount facial challenges
to penal statutes not involving free speech.
(Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R.
No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
There is no double jeopardy in the following:
(1) Estafa through falsification of a
public document under the RPC and violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section
3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: Section 3. Corrupt
practices of public officers.In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful: x xx It is clear then that one may
be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in
addition to a felony under the Revised Penal
Code for the same delictual act, that is, either
concurrently or subsequent to being charged
Page 57 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August
18, 2006 )
(2) Falsification of a public document
under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e)
of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements
shows that there is neither identity nor
exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No
double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a
variance between the elements of the offenses
charged. The constitutional right against
double jeopardy protects from a second
prosecution for the same offense, not for a
different one. The differences between the
elements needed to establish the commission
of the two charges imply that the evidence
required to prove the guilt or the innocence
of the accused would likewise differ in each
case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408
January 31, 2005)
(3) Direct bribery under the RPC and
violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. There is
neither identity nor necessary inclusion
between the two offenses. While they have
common elements, not all the essential
elements of one offense are included among
or form part of those enumerated in the
other. (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos.
142369-70 April 13, 2007)
Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law
Libel by means of writing or similar
means is already punishable under the RPC.
Cybercrime Law merely establishes the
computer system as another means of
publication, hence, online libel is not a new
crime.
Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely
expands the scope of the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to
1 For falsification of a public document to be established, the
following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a
public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes
advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a
document by committing any of the modes of falsification. On
the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following
elements must be present: (1) that the accused are public
officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
(2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during
the performance of their official duties or in relation to their
public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party,
whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury
is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.

include identical activities in cyberspace.
ACPAs definition of child pornography in fact
already covers the use of electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any
other means. Thus, charging the offender
under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA
would likewise be tantamount to a violation
of the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy. (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray
of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18,
2014)
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES
In crimes against property wherein the
penalty is based on the value of the property,
the court cannot modify the range of
penalties based on the current inflation
rate.xxx The primordial duty of the Court is
merely to apply the law in such a way that it
shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial
legislation and that in the course of such
application or construction, it should not
make or supervise legislation, or under the
guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend,
distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give
the law a construction which is repugnant to
its terms. The Court should apply the law in a
manner that would give effect to their letter
and spirit, especially when the law is clear as
to its intent and purpose. xxx The remedy
here is to apply Article 5 of the RPC. The
court will impose the penalty, although
excessive, and recommend executive clemency
thru the Department of Justice. (Corpuz v.
People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014)
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
When the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in
se, even if they are punished by a special law.
Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly
established with the other elements of the
crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On
the other hand, in crimes that are mala
prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently
immoral but become punishable only because
the law says they are forbidden. Here,
tampering, increasing or decreasing the
number of votes received by a candidate in
any election or refusal, after proper
verification and hearing, to credit the correct
votes or deduct such tampered votes is
inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala
in se requiring criminal intent of the accused.
(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171,
March 14, 2006)
Page 58 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Criminal intent is not an element of
technical malversation. The law punishes the
act of diverting public property earmarked by
law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. It is mala
prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
192330, November 14, 2012)
ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE
When death resulted, even if there
was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide,
not just physical injuries, since with respect to
crimes of personal violence, the penal law
looks particularly to the material results
following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences
thereof (See Article 4 of the RPC). Here,
petitioner committed an unlawful act by
punching the victim who was much older than
him. Even if he did not intend to cause the
death of the victim, he must be held guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for killing him
because he is the cause of the cause of the evil
caused. (Seguritan v. People, G.R. No.
172896, April 19, 2010)
CONSPIRACY
Responsibility of a conspirator is not
confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but extends
to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
growing out of the purpose intended. (People
v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)
All the conspirators are liable as co-
principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because the act
of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who
among the appellants delivered the fatal blow
is therefore no longer indispensable since in
conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the
criminal act of another.(People v. Agacer, G.R.
No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for
failing to inflict mortal wounds, both
appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable
for attempted murder since they were shown
to have acted in conspiracy with each other
although Ventura did not directly participate
in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants'
original objective may have only been the
killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was
correctly held liable for murder with appellant

Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to
death who just shouted for help after seeing
his husband in mortal danger. (People v.
Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010)
Accused-appellant who took no part
in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in
the common criminal plan, is not liable for
carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that co-
conspirators are liable only for acts done in
pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts
done outside their contemplation or which
are not the necessary and logical consequence
of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit,
G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4,
2003)
There was no evidence to prove that
all the appellants assisted Robito in killing
Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which
are not the necessary and logical consequence
of the intended crime do not affect the other
accused. Co-conspirators are criminally liable
only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy
on how and what are the necessary and
logical consequences of the intended crime.
(People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30,
April 2, 2003)
SELF-DEFENSE
Accused-appellants' flight from the
neighborhood where the crimes were
committed, their concealing of the weapons
used in the commission of the crimes, their
non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and
their failure to surrender themselves to the
police authorities fully warranted the RTCs
rejection of their claim of self-defense and
defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al.,
G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012)
The primordial element of self-defense
is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an
actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In
case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No.
195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future
injury is not enough. The compulsion must be
of such a character as to leave no opportunity
for the accused for escape or self-defense in
Page 59 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No.
177570, January 19, 2011)
The elements of unlawful aggression
are: (a) there must be a physical or material
attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must
be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the
attack or assault must be unlawful. (People v.
Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013)
Retaliation is not the same as self-
defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was
begun by the injured party already ceased
when the accused attacked him; while in self-
defense the aggression still existed when the
aggressor was injured by the accused. (People
v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23,
2013)
DWELLING
In robbery with violence and
intimidation against persons, dwelling is
aggravating because in this class of robbery,
the crime may be committed without the
necessity of tresspassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house. (People v. Evangelio,
G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011)In robbery
with force upon things, dwelling is inherent.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Evident premeditation may be
considered as present, even if a person other
than the intended victim was killed (or
wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that
the conspirators were determined to kill not
only the intended victim but also anyone who
may help him put a violent resistance. Here,
Raymundo Roque provided such violent
resistance against the conspirators, giving the
latter no choice but to eliminate him from
their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores,
G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing
People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583)
When it is not shown how and when
the plan to kill was hatched or how much
time had elapsed before it was carried out,
evident premeditation cannot be considered.
It must appear not only that the accused
decided to commit the crime prior to the
moment of its execution but also that this
decision was the result of meditation,

calculation, reflection or persistent
attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731,
July 18, 2013)
TREACHERY
The idea of treachery does not apply
when the killing is not premeditated or when
the accused did not deliberately choose the
means he employed for committing the crime.
(People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2,
2011)
The situation of the victim when
found shows without doubt that he was killed
while tied and blindfolded; hence, the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery was present in the commission of
the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No.
178771, June 8, 2011)
Treachery may be properly
considered, even when the victim of the
attack was not the one whom the defendant
intended to kill, if it appears from the
evidence that neither of the two persons
could in any manner put up defense against
the attack or become aware of it. (People v.
Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011)
Treachery applies to robbery with
homicide as a generic aggravating
circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme
Court of Spain interpreting and construing the
penal code, which are accorded respect and
persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have
consistently applied treachery as a generic
aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide. It does not lose its classification as a
crime against property or as a special complex
crime because treachery is applied to the
constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
constituent crime of "robbery". (People v.
Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)
Treachery is not present when the
killing is not premeditated, or where the
sudden attack is not preconceived and
deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a
sudden infuriation on the part of the accused
as a result of a provocative act of the victim,
or when the killing is done at the spur of the
moment. (People v. Caaveras, G.R. No.
193839, December 27, 2013)
ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE
Page 60 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Appellants and their co-accused
opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his
group. As a result, two security escorts died
while five (5) of them were wounded and
injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds
in different parts of their bodies. Each act by
each gunman pulling the trigger of their
respective firearms, aiming each particular
moment at different persons constitute distinct
and individual acts which cannot give rise to a
complex crime. Obviously, appellants and
their co-accused performed not only a single
act but several individual and distinct acts in
the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code would not apply
for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not
include single impulse. (People v. Nelmida,
G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)
Distinctions between a composite
crime and a complex or compound crime
under Article 48:
In a composite crime, the composition
of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex
or compound crime, the combination of the
offenses is not specified but generalized, that
is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense
being the necessary means to commit the
other.
The penalty for a composite crime is
specific; for a complex or compound crime,
the penalty is that corresponding to the most
serious offense, to be imposed in the
maximum period.
A light felony that accompanies a
composite crime is absorbed; a light felony
that accompanies the commission of a
complex or compound crime may be the
subject of a separate information. (People v.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012)
If the falsification of a private
document is committed as a means to commit
estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
falsification. If the estafa can be committed
without the necessity of falsifying a document,
the proper crime to be charged is
estafa.(Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857,
September 15, 2006
DELITO CONTINUADO

Delitocontinuado exists when there is
a plurality of acts performed during a period
of time; unity of penal provision violated; and
unity of criminal intent or purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the
same penal provisions are united in one and
same instant or resolution leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or
aim.
The informations should be
consolidated into a single information for they
charge what is known as delitocontinuado or
"continued crime" and sometimes referred to
as "continuous crime." The informations
charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act that of her approving the
application for legalization of aliens not
qualified under the law to enjoy such
privilege. The informations reproduced
verbatim the allegation of the original
information, except that instead of the word
"aliens" in the original information each
amended information states the name of the
individual whose stay was legalized.
Moreover, the informations aver that the
offenses were committed on the same period
of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
The strong probability even exists that the
approval of the application or the legalization
of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a
single stroke of the pen, as when the approval
was embodied in the same document.
(Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266,
December 2, 1993)
When there is delito continuado, the
crime cannot be splitted into two or more
crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
Penalty for the crime proved, not
charged, determines the applicable
prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused
has been found to have committed a lesser
offense includible within the graver offense
charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser
offense if it has already prescribed. To hold
otherwise would be to sanction a
circumvention of the law on prescription by
the simple expedient of accussing the
defendant of the graver offense.(Damasco v.
Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988,
Page 61 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-45674, May 13, 1983)
FALSIFICATION
One is guilty of falsification in the
accomplishment of his information and
personal data sheet if he withholds material
facts which would have affected the approval
of his appointment and/or promotion to a
government position. In other words, leaving
a question blank in the PDS/SALN is
falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos.
174730-37, February 9, 2011)
Conclusion of law is a determination
by a judge or ruling authority regarding the
law that applies in a particular case. It is a
proposition not arrived at by any process of
natural reasoning from a fact or combination
of facts stated but by the application of the
artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On
the other hand, a narration of facts is merely
an account or description of the particulars of
an event. It is a recital of things accomplished,
of deeds, occurrence or happening.
Disclosure or identification of relatives
"within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a
narration of facts. Statements concerning
relationship is descriptive and may be proved
as to its truth or falsity.
A certification that one was "eligible
or qualified is a conclusion of law although
it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is
an expression of belief or mistake of
judgment.
MALVERSATION
Malversation may be committed
either through a positive act of
misappropriation or passively through
negligence. Even when the Information
charges willful malversation, conviction for
malversation through negligence may still be
adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the
mode of commission of the offense. The dolo
or the culpa present in the offense is only a
modality in the perpetration of the felony.
(Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31,
2011)
The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a

public corporation or a government agency or
instrumentality with juridical personality,
which does not fall within the constitutional
prohibition in Article XII, Section 16,
notwithstanding the amendments to its
charter. Not all corporations, which are not
government owned or controlled, are ipso
facto to be considered private corporations as
there exists another distinct class of
corporations or chartered institutions which
are otherwise known as public
corporations. These corporations are treated
by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the
government which are not subject to the tests
of ownership or control and economic
viability but to different criteria relating to
their public purposes/interests or
constitutional policies and objectives and their
administrative relationship to the government
or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy
Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on
Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011)
In technical malversation, public fund
or property is considered appropriated if it
had been earmarked by law or ordinance for
a specific expenditure. Here, there is no
technical malversation after the general
fund of the municipality, intended by internal
arrangement for use in paying a particular
road, was applied instead to the payrolls of
different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69,
November 19, 2013)
RAPE
Medical evidence is dispensable and
merely corroborative in proving the crime of
rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259,
March 16, 2011)The presence of hymenal
lacerations is not a required element in the
crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No.
189821, March 23, 2011)
It is well-settled that being sweethearts
does not negate the commission of rape
because such fact does not give appellant
license to have sexual intercourse against her
will, and will not exonerate him from the
criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco,
G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011)
Court has consistently considered
carnal knowledge of a female mental
retardate with the mental age below 12 years
Page 62 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
of age as rape of a woman deprived of
reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932,
October 19, 2011)
The degree of resistance that the
victim may put up against the rapist need not
be tenacious. Article 266-D of the RPC
provided presumptions that: Any physical
overt act manifesting resistance against the act
of rape in any degree from the offended
party, or where the offended party is so
situated as to render her/him incapable of
giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts
punished under Article 266-A. (People v.
Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012)
The accused cannot be convicted of
rape through sexual assault, although proven
during trial, if what was charged in the
information is rape through carnal knowledge.
This violated the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. It is
proper to convict the accused of acts of
lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in
rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051,
October 2, 2013)
Sexual assault is committed by
inserting the penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object into the genital or anal orifice of
another person. It is also called "instrument or
object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the
narrower "homosexual rape."(People v.
Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11,
2013)
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
In rape with homicide, it is immaterial
that the person killed is someone other than
the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog,
G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)
The phrase by reason of the rape
obviously conveys the notion that the killing is
due to the rape, the offense the offender
originally designed to commit. The victim of
the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In
contrast, the legislative intent on the import
of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer
to a killing that occurs immediately before or
after, or during the commission itself of the
attempted or consummated rape, where the
victim of the homicide may be a person other
than the rape victim herself for as long as the

killing is linked to the rape became evident.
(People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April
11, 2012)
KIDNAPPING
In the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, it matters not that no
ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient
that a demand for it was made. (People v.
Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10,
2013)
The essence of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled
with indubitable proof of the intent of the
accused to effect the same. (Con-ui, et. al.,
G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013)
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
No matter how many rapes had been
committed in the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is
only one kidnapping with rape.(People v.
Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27,
2011)[N.B. The primary purpose is
kidnapping.]
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
Where the person kidnapped is killed
in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or
was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be
complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No.
7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534,
April 4, 2011)
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Homicide is committed by reason or
on the occasion of robbery if its commission
was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape
of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession
by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent
discovery of the commission of the robbery;
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the
commission of the crime. As long as there is a
nexus between the robbery and the homicide,
the latter crime may be committed in a place
other than the situs of the robbery. (People v.
Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012)
Page 63 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
In robbery with homicide, the original
criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery. One
who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can
no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has
materialized. (People v. Diu, et. al. G.R. No.
201449, April 3, 2013)
Whenever homicide has been
committed by reason of or on the occasion of
the robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held
guilty as principals of robbery with homicide
although they did not take part in the
homicide, unless it appears that they sought to
prevent the killing. (People v. Sugan, G.R. No.
192789, March 23, 2011)
There is no crime of robbery with
homicide committed by a band. If robbery
with homicide is committed by a band, the
indictable offense would still be denominated
as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1)
of the RPC. The element of band would be
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating
circumstance. (Id.)
CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
In proving the special complex crime
of carnapping with homicide, there must be
proof not only of the essential elements of
carnapping, but also that it was the original
criminal design of the culprit and the killing
was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof.(People v. Nocum, et. al.,
G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013)
BIGAMY
The crime of bigamy was already
consummated the moment the accused
contracted a second marriage without the
previous one having been judicially declared
null and void,.xxx[T]he subsequent judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage
would not change the fact that the accused
contracted the second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage. (Montaez v.
Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22,
2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No.
183805, July 3, 2013)

LIBEL
Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if
the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of
his official duties and functions and the truth
of the allegations is shown, the accused will be
entitled to an acquittal even though he does
not prove that the imputation was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
(Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February
14, 2011)
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A.
No. 9344)
Automatic suspension of sentence
should apply to a child in conflict with the
law regardless of the crime committed.
(People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March
16, 2011)Suspension of sentence can still be
applied even if the child in conflict with the
law is already eighteen (18) years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches
the maximum age of 21. (People v.
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011)
Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death shall be reclusion
perpetua to death. This means that the
penalty can now be graduated as it has
adopted the technical nomenclature of
penalties provided for in the Revised Penal
Code. (see RA 6425; Jose v. People, G.R. No.
162052, January 13, 2005)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Prescribed penalty refers to the initial
penalty as a general prescription for the
felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the
penalty as modified after considering the
attending and modifying circumstances;
Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed
penalty chosen by the court from the
imposable penalty.
Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to
6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is
Page 64 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
not applicable when the penalty prescribed is
not more than 1 year. In this case, straight
penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed.
PROBATION
Accused who appeals may still apply
for probation.(Colinares v. People, G.R. No.
182748, December 13, 2011)Probation Law is
not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v.
People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)
The Probation Law specifically
provides that the grant of probation suspends
the execution of the sentence. During the
period of probation, the probationer does not
serve the penalty imposed upon him including
the accessory penalties like disqualification to
run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)
ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
(RA 3019)
Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that
it shall be unlawful for a public officer to
directly or indirectly request or receive any
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection
with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law. The term
transaction is limited only to contracts or
transactions involving monetary consideration
where the public officer has the authority to
intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a
transaction under the law. (People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December
11, 2013)
The good faith of heads of offices in
signing a document will only be appreciated if
they, with trust and confidence, have relied
on their subordinatesin whom the duty is
primarily lodged.The defense will not apply
when the accused is being held for gross and
inexcusable negligence in performing the
duties primarily vested in him by law.
(Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August
14, 2013)
The Court has already interpreted
"undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual
damage" must not only be capable of proof; it

must be actually proved with a reasonable
degree of certainty. A finding of "undue
injury" cannot be based on flimsy and non-
substantial evidence or upon speculation,
conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and
169000, November 27, 2013)
Where a private person has been
charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g)
of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom
he was alleged to have conspired, has died
prior to the filing of the information, the
private person may be indicted alone. (People
v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014)
Private persons may be charged with
violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they
conspired with public officer. This is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracvticesAct which is
"to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike which may constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto. (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013)
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610)
Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in
child abuse cases. A child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual
intercourse with another person. It is mala
prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No.
198732, June 10, 2013)
Intent to degrade the dignity of a
child is required in child abuse. Not every
instance of the laying of hands on a child
constitutes the crime of child abuse, except
when it is intended to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being. (Bongalon v. People,
G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013)
It was not the intention of the framers
of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the
applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses
committed to children. Despite the passage of
R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good
law. Thus, sexual assault committed against a
minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized
under RA 7610 which prescribed a higher
penalty.(People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323,
March 16, 2011)
Page 65 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
The DOJ erred in charging the accused
with Rape in relation to Child Abuse under
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The
accused may be charged only for one and not
both crimes. If the victim is 12 years or older,
the offender should be charged with either
sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under
Article 266-A of the RPC.(Balois, et. al. v.
Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. Nos. 182130 and
182132, June 19, 2013)
RA 7610 applies not only to a child
subjected to prostitution but also to a child
subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is
deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse"
when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any
adult.(Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389,
December 11, 2013)
COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS &
AMMUNITION (RA 10591)
The use of a loose firearm, when
inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the maximum penalty for the crime
committed is lower, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearm shall be imposed.
If the maximum penalty for the crime
committed is equal to that imposed for illegal
possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed in addition to the penalty for the
crime punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws of which he/she is
found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in
furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion of
insurrection, or attempted coup d etat, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of
the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d etat.
If the crime is committed by the
person without using the loose firearm, the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a
distinct and separate offense.
An imitation firearm used in the
commission of a crime shall be considered a

real firearm and the person who committed
the crime shall be punished in accordance with
this Act.
[N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was
published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly,
the old law which is more favorable to the
accused should be applied to any violations
committed prior to its effectivity.]
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT (RA 9165)
"Transport" means the movement of
the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from
one place to another. Here, the accused
were arrested inside a car which was not in
transit. The car was parked and stationary.
The prosecution failed to show that any
distance was travelled. The conclusion that the
accused transported the drugs merely because
they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and
is mere speculation. (San Juan v. People, G.R.
No. 177191, May 30, 2011)
Transportation of Drugs is
committed when the accused was
apprehended while boarding his flight with
drugs in his possession. While it may be
argued that appellant was yet to board the
aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal
drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied
that his presence at the airport at that
particular instance was for the purpose of
transporting or moving the dangerous drugs
from one place to another. (People v. Laba,
G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013)
Drug Selling is consummated upon
the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer
and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked
money. (People v. Hong Yen and Chua, G.R.
No. 181826, January 9, 2013)
It is vital that the seized contraband is
immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar
or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are
disposed at the end of criminal proceedings,
Page 66 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
obviating switching, "planting" or
contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People,
G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014)When
there is a search warrant, marking and
inventory shall be at the place where the
search was conducted. In a buy-bust
operation, the marking and inventory may be
done immediately or at the nearest police
station.
Non-compliance with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where
the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited
justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized had been
preserved. (Id.)
[N.B. Non-compliance with the chain
of custody rule affects the credibility of the
evidence and will not invalidate arrest or
render inadmissible the items seized.]
It is settled that Section 86 of Republic
Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations
on account of the law enforcer's failure to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA.
(People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11,
2012)
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN &
THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)
"Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual
act which may or may not result in the
bearing of a common child. On the other
hand, "Dating relationship" exists even
without a sexual intercourse taking place
between those involved.
While it is required that the offender
has or had a sexual or dating relationship with
the offended woman, it is not indispensable
that the act of violence be a consequence of
such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether
the relationship had ceased for as long as
there is sufficient evidence showing the past or
present existence of such relationship between
the offender and the victim when the physical
harm was committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R.
No. 193960, January 7, 2013)
The law punishes "any act or series of
acts" that constitutes violence against women.
 Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

This means that a single act of harassment, circumstances of the case.

which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to protect
women and children. Punishing only violence
that is repeatedly committed would license
isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 182835, April 20, 2010)
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160,
as amended)
Money Laundering Offense
Money laundering is committed by
any person who performs any of the
punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,2
knowing that any monetary instrument or
property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also
committed by any covered person who,
knowing that a covered or suspicious
transaction is required under this Act to be
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering
Council fails to do so.
Prosecution of Money Laundering
Any person may be charged with and
convicted of both the offense of money
laundering and the unlawful activity. The
prosecution of any offense or violation under
this Act shall proceed independently of any
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.
[N.B. Terrorism is one of the predicate crimes]
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property
The AMLC may file an ex parte
petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If
there is probable cause that any monetary
instrument or property is in any way related
to an unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals
may issue a freeze order which shall be
effective immediately, and which shall not
exceed six (6) months depending upon the
If there is no case filed against a
person whose account has been frozen within
the period determined by the court, the freeze
order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A
person whose account has been frozen may
file a motion to lift the freeze order and the
court must resolve this motion before the
expiration of the freeze order. No court shall
issue a temporary restraining order or a writ
of injunction against any freeze order, except
the Supreme Court.
Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits
The AMLC may also inquire into or
examine any particular deposit or investment,
including related accounts, with any banking
institution or non-bank financial institution
upon order of any competent court based on
an ex parte application when it has been
established that there is probable cause that
the deposits or investments are related to an
unlawful activity.
Application to inquire into or examine
any deposit or investment filed with the Court
of Appeals shall be acted upon within twenty-
four (24) hours from filing.
--GOD BLESS--
Rather, as servants of God we commend
ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in
troubles, hardships and distresses; in hard
work, sleepless nights through glory and
dishonor, bad report and good reportyet we
live on; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor,
yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet
possessing everything. -- 2 Corinthians 6:4-10

2 (a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;

(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses
or uses said monetary instrument or property;
(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location,
disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect
to said monetary instrument or property;
(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering
offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the
money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or
(c) above; and
(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.

Page 67 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015