Loan Zon Criminal Law 2017 PW

e s
l
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
b Criminal Law
POINTERS IN CRIMINAL LAW
r
2017 BAR EXAMINATIONS
a
PROF. VICTORIA V. LOANZON
B
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
e s
b l
Question: AQ, together with OQ had an encounter with B. The latter hacked AQ and
OQ. AQ found out that OQ was dead. B claimed that he tried to get away with the AQ
o
and OQ but the latter chased him and engaged him into a fight. Seeing AQ was about to
R
stab him, B grabbed a bolo and used it to strike at AQ, injuring his left hand. AQ’s knife
fell and when he bent to pick it up, B again hacked at him with his bolo. What crimes
n r
did B commit?
a B a
Answer: Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The offender is said to have performed all the
h acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the
s
victim without medical intervention or attendance. (People v. Badriago)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
l e
o b
Question: Aminola and Maitimbang were accused of the crime of robbery with
homicide for robbing one Nestor Gabuya of his personal properties and for killing the
R
latter with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The eyewitness Jesus Oliva identified the
two accused to have perpetrated the same. The RTC convicted Maitimbang of the crime
n r
charged. Is the conviction for a special complex crime proper?
a B a
Answer. Yes. Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof of a direct relation, an
C h
intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or
s
subsequent to the former or whether both crimes are committed at the same time. (People v.
e
Aminola)
COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
b l
o
Question: One evening, Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias, both members of the
CAFGU, requested Saturnina that supper be prepared for them. While Segundina and
R
Rosemarie were preparing in the kitchen, Elarcosa and Orias fired their guns at Jose and
n
Jorge Cruz. Segundina ran towards his son while Rosemarie hid in the shrubs.
a
Rosemarie heard her mother crying loudly and after a series of gunshots, silence
ensued. The following morning, Rosemarie returned to their house where she found the
h
dead bodies of her parents and her brother. The amount of P40,000 and a certificate of
B
C s
registration of large cattle were also gone. Elarcosa and Orias were thereafter charged
e
with robbery with multiple homicide. RTC convicted the accused of the offense as
l
charged. The CA, however, changed the conviction to multiple murder, ratiocinating
b
that robbery was not proved and that the killing was qualified by treachery. How many
crimes were committed? What are those crimes if any?
R o
Answer: Only Robbery with Homicide. In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are
actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the
n
conscience of the offender x x x when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes. (People v. Elarcosa)
ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES
a
h
MINORITY AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
C
Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Taguig police organized a buy-bust operation upon a
tip from an informant that Musa et. al. were selling drugs. Monongan, a minor,
o
1|P a g e

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
R
e s
l
b accepted the marked money while Musa gave a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer.
The RTC found all of the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the RPC, it imposed the
maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC also found that the offense was
committed by an organized/syndicated crime group and imposed a fine of P10 million.
a r
However, the RTC lowered the penalty of Monongan who was only 17, a minor at the
time of the commission of the offense, to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
B
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA affirmed the
e s
decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life imprisonment. Is the
imposition of penalty against accused Manongan correct?
b l
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can be appreciated in fixing
the penalty that should be imposed in the prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs
o
Act. (People v. Musa)
R
MINORITY AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
n r
Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the Comprehensive
a a
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Taguig police organized a buy-bust operation upon a
B
tip from an informant that Musa et. al. were selling drugs. Monongan, a minor,
h
accepted the marked money while Musa gave a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer.
s
The RTC found all of the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the RPC, it imposed the
e
maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC also found that the offense was
l
committed by an organized/syndicated crime group and imposed a fine of P10 million.
b
However, the RTC lowered the penalty of Monongan who was only 17, a minor at the
time of the commission of the offense, to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
R o
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA affirmed the
decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life imprisonment. Is the
a n
imposition of penalty against accused Manongan correct?
a
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can be appreciated in fixingr
h B
the penalty that should be imposed in the prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs
C s
Act. (People v. Musa)
e
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
b l
Question: Reynaldo Capalad was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of the R.A.
9165. At the trial, the prosecution presented PO3 Fernando Moran, PO1 Jeffred Pacis,
o
and PO1 Victor Manansala as witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, presented the
accused and his son, Reymel Capalad. After the trial, he was convicted by the RTC of
R
both charges. On appeal, he questioned the legality of his arrest. He disputed the
n
prosecution witnesses’ claim that an entrapment operation took place. He also argued
a
that the testimony of his son, Reymel, should have been given more weight. The CA,
B
however, still affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The accused contends before the
h
Court among others that the principle that a child is the best witness should have been
C s
applied to his case giving emphasis on his son's testimony corroborating his version of
e
events. Should the SC give credence to his allegations?
Answer. No. Findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve the
b l
credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of
o
facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
(People v. Capalad)
CONSPIRACY
R
a n
Question: Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while
Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor positioned himself at
h
the back of Damiana and Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but
Tomas fired three more gunshots at the former when she was already down on the
C
ground. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of the offense of
Murder and appreciated the attendance of treachery and conspiracy. Is the conviction
appreciating conspiracy correct?
o
2|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Answer: No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial
evidence consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after
the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. (People v. Tomas)
CONSPIRACY
a r
B
Question Petitioners Yongco and Lañojan, as security guards in the premises of the City
Engineer’s Office (CEO), and Tangian as garbage truck driver of the City Government
s
of Iligan were charged for allegedly stealing one unit transmission of Tamaraw and l-
e
beam of Nissan with a total value of P40, 000.00. RTC held petitioners liable for
l
qualified theft with the attending circumstance of conspiracy.
o b
Tangian claimed that he should not be considered as a conspirator since he merely
innocently obeyed Lañojan’s instructions on the assumption that the latter was his
superior. Yongco, in his defense, argued that Tangian and his two other helpers asked
Rfor his assistance which he extended in good faith, in view of Lañojan’s statement
n r
earlier that day that the office garage has to be cleared. Lañojan, on the other hand,
a a
insisted that he cannot be considered as a conspirator since he was not present at the
B
time of taking, and that the mere giving of a thumbs-up sign to Tangian when the latter
h
delivered the materials to the junk shop does not amount to conspiracy. Is there
s
conspiracy?
l e
Answer: It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy—conspirators may act
separately or together in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The
b
character and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its
o
separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole—acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be,
in fact, wholly innocent acts. (Yongco v. People).
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
R
a n
Question: The victim, Marlon, stood up and greeted the accused, who happened to be
his brother-in-law, "good evening." He stated that the accused kept quiet and suddenly
a r
h B
raised the right hand of Marlon and stabbed him by the armpit with a knife that he was
carrying. Marlon shouted because of the pain, which caused the people in the
C
neighborhood to come out.
e s
l
After his arrest, David Maningding pleaded not guilty of the murder charged against
b
him. The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found that treachery attended the
stabbing of the victim, being sudden and unexpected. Is the altercation that ensued
o
leading to the stabbing justified as self-defense?
R
Answer: No. Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
n
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,
a
unexpected or imminent danger–– not merely threatening and
B
h
TREACHERY
C
Question: Two criminal informations were filed against Roel Ruel Sally for the murder
of Edwin Lucas and Jose Bersero. According to the prosecution witness Roger Lara, he
e s
saw the accused hit the victims with a piece of pipe while sleeping. The RTC found
Sally guilty of murder. In his appeal to the CA, Sally questioned the finding that
b l
o
treachery attended the killings, qualifying the crime to murder, instead of homicide. He
pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that an iron pipe was used in the killing
R
of the victims as the weapon was not retrieved or presented in evidence, nor was the
n
medico-legal officer certain if an iron pipe would cause the injuries suffered by the
a
victims. However, the CA upheld the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition. Is the
conviction to murder and not homicide correct?
C h
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on
unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and
without the the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. The kind of weapon used is
immaterial. (People v. Sally)
o
3|P a g e

R
e s
l
b intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to
one’s life. (People v. Maningding)
PROVOCATION AS A DEFENSE
r
Question: Brothers Nahom and Nemrod went to the house of Serafin to kill him but he
a
was not there. Upon being informed of this, Serafin went to Nahom’s house. Nemrod
B
advised Serafin to go home, but he refused to leave. Instead, Serafin attempted to hack
Nemrod and tried to enter the gate of Nahom’s house. Thereafter, Nahom struck
s
Serafin on the head with a bolo. Meanwhile, Nemrod went to his brother’s house to
e
look for a bolo. After being hit, Serafin ran away. Nemrod, however, pursued him, and
l
hit him several times on the back and arm. He eventually died from the wounds he
b
sustained. The two brothers were charged with homicide. Nemrod voluntarily
surrendered to the authorities. The trial court ruled that they were guilty beyond
R o
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. But for Nemrod a mitigating circumstance
of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender was credited. However, he appealed
n r
to the CA and ruled that he has failed to prove satisfactorily the elements of self defense
and that unlawful aggression did not exist. If you were the judge, will you appreciate
a the mitigating circumstance of provocation?
B a
h Answer: Yes. In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for the purpose of
s
mitigating a crime, one must look into the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of
e
the person provoked, and the place and time when the provocation is made. In the present case, a
l
finding that the act of the victim did not constitute unlawful aggression does not automatically
b
negate the attendant circumstance of sufficient provocation. (Gotis v. People)
o
TREACHERY
R
Question: Ramil while he was attending a wake with his brother Cristopher was sitting
nearby on a parked motorcycle talking to someone when Prince appeared from behind
n r
and started stabbing Ramil using a knife until he died. Prince was charged with
a a
murder. Prince his assault resulted to the death of Ramil but he argued that the offense
B
was only homicide and not murder because there was no treachery. RTC convicted
C h
Prince with murder which was later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prince argues
s
that the attack was not from behind but frontal thereby treachery was not present. Is
e
there trachery?
b l
Answer: Yes. Treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, giving
the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that
o
the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.
(People v. Francisco)
TREACHERY AND PREMEDITATION
R
a n
Question: On July 1, 1996, accused Paling, accompanied by Vilbar, allegedly killed
Walter Nolasco in Roxas, Cotabato. When arraigned, they both pleaded not guilty. One
h B
of the witnesses for the prosecution, Richard, said that he saw Paling and Ernie stabbing
s
Walter while Vilbar held him. After killing Walter, the accused warned Richard not to
C
speak about what he saw otherwise, they would also kill him. The RTC convicted
e
l
Paling and Vilbar of the crime of murder with a qualifying circumstance of treachery
and evident premeditation which decision was affirmed by the CA. Is the RTC correct
in convicting the accused for murder?
o
Answer: Yes. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is b
R
considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors
that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken
DEFENSE OF INSANITY
a n
advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. (People v. Paling)
C h
Question: AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. Paul, an acquaintance,
raped AAA inside his bedroom. Before finally letting the crying AAA go, however, Paul
threatened her with death should she disclose to anybody what had just happened
between them. Psychiatric evaluation revealed that AAA, although 42 years old at that
o
4|P a g e

R
e s
l
b time, had the mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10 year-old child. Accused-
appellant maintains that the trial court erred in giving full credence to and reliance on
AAAs inculpatory statements.
r
In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused-appellant invokes insanity. He
a
contends that the psychiatrist who examined him consistently testified that there was a
high possibility that he was suffering from schizo affective disorder when the alleged
B
rape incident happened. Rule on the invocation of defense of insanity.
s
Answer: Paul is sane. The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of
e
mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. It is improper to
l
assume the contrary. (People v. Alipio)
SELF-DEFENSE
o b
Question: Ruperto Arbalate and his sons Roel and Ramil Arbalate were charged with
R
murder for killing Selemen. Roel and Ramil were able to evade arrest and remained at
large. Hence, only Ruperto faced trial. During the arraignment, Ruperto pleaded not
a n a r
guilty. In his defense, Ruperto invoked self-defense. Moreover, he argued that there
was no abuse of superior strength. Without clear proof of this qualifying circumstance,
h B
Ruperto insisted that he must be convicted of homicide only. Should self-defense be
appreciated?
e s
Answer: No. To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the victim be
l
simultaneous with the attack on the accused, or at least both acts succeeded each other without
b
appreciable interval of time. (People v. Arbalate)
CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE
R o
Question: Upon seeing Anabel Bautista and Reynaldo Juguilon, Manulit stood up and
successively shot Reynaldo at the back, resulting in the latter’s death. He then tucked
n r
the gun in his waist, raised his hands, and shouted, “O, wala akong ginawang
a a
kasalanan at wala kayong nakita.”
h B
In his defense, Manulit offered a story of self-defense. While he and his cousin, Marvin,
were drinking, victim Reynaldo barged in holding a gun with both his hands. He
C
appeared not to be his normal self with reddish eyes, as if high on drugs.
e s
l
Despite his claim of self –defense, RTC convicted him for murder. Is the conviction
b
proper despite allegations of self-defense?
Answer: Yes. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict
R o
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 is present only when the one attacked faces real
n
and immediate threat to ones’ life. (People v. Manulit).
a
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety.
There must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a
h
threatening or intimidating attitude. (People v. Satonero)
B
ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
C e s
l
Question: Accused Juanito Apattad was charged in four separate informations with the
crime of rape against his 12-year old daughter. The child, AAA, testified her father
repeatedly raped her since 2001. The accused threatened to kill her if she will report the
o
incident to her mother and she eventually informed her of the rape. A defense witness b
R
claimed that on the date of the incident, the accused stayed in the former’s house, which
was only three kilometers away from the house of the accused. The RTC found him
n
guilty of three counts of rape. Is the RTC correct?
a
Answer. Yes. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the
h
perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Apattad)
C
ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
Question: SPO1 Loreto Nerpio held a children’s birthday party for his son at his
residence. Mario Salazar joined the drinking session and later on left the house of
o
5|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Nerpio. Thereafter, Nelly Villanueva, who was then waiting for a friend, saw Salazar
walking along the street. Villanueva saw a man poked a gun at the right side of
Salazar’s neck, and fired it. He identified Nerpio as the malefactor. Nerpio was charged
with homicide but he said he was busy at his child’s birthday party when the crime
a r
happened. Rule on the defense of alibi raised by the accused.
Answer: It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the
B
accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense must likewise
s
demonstrate that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or
e
in its immediate vicinity, during its commission. (Nerpio v. People)
b l
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
o
Question: Accused Mayor Ambagan Jr. was charged and convicted by the
R
Sandiganbayan with two counts of homicide as principal by inducement. The
prosecution presented statements from two persons who was said to be directly present
a n heard the mayor said “GE, IYAN PALA ANG GUSTO MO, MGA KASAMA
a r
during the shooting. The first witness (Bawalan) said that shooting started after he
h B
BANATAN N’YO NA YAN”. However, the second witness contradicts this when he
said that he instead pushed the mayor out of the road where the shooting incident
e s
occurred and that he did not hear the mayor saying those words which could have
provoked and initiate the shooting of the victims. Further, evidence provides that Rene
l
Amparo (one of Mayor Ambagan’s men) has negative paraffin test which would lead to
b
the fact that it is not the Mayor’s men who initiated the shooting but rather from the
o
deceased Rey Santos. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of the crime of double
homicide. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforequoted ruling. Is
R
the conviction as principal by inducement correct?
n r
Answer: No. The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the
a a
inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) that
B
such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
C h
(Ambagan Jr. v. People)
COMPUTATION OF IMPOSABLE PENALTY
s
l e
Question: Celestial was convicted of six counts of qualified theft through falsification of
b
commercial document. The issue of conviction has attained finality after the failure of
Celestial’s counsel to file her appellant brief. The court now only delves on the issue of
o
the imposition of proper penalty. How is the penalty computed?
R
Answer: Applying Article 70 of the RPC, such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty
n
years. Therefore, in spite of the six (6) penalties of forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua,
petitioner shall only suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years. (Celestial v.
People)
a B
h
PRESCRIPTION OF A CRIME
C
Question: By virtue of Administrative Order No. 13 issued by then President Fidel V.
Ramos creating a Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, a
e s
report dated January 4, 1993 identified the accounts of Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC)
as behest in character. Later the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG,
b l
o
filed an Affidavit-Complaint on January 6, 2003 with the Office of the Ombudsman,
against respondent directors and officers of RHC and the directors of DBP for violation
R
of Sections 3(e) and 3 (g) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti- Graft and Corrupt
n
Practices Act. However the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s Affidavit - Complaint
a
on grounds of prescription. Hence, this petition. Has the crime prescribed?
Answer: Yes. When date of the violation was committed be not known, then it shall begin to
investigation and punishment.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF DISCHARGE OF DUTIES
C h
run from the discovery of said violation and the institution of judicial proceedings for
o
6|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Question: The prosecution alleged that four police officers, manning a legal checkpoint,
spotted a swerving vehicle, driven by Sydeco who was under the influence of liquor.
The police officers flagged the vehicle down and asked Sydeco to alight from the
vehicle for a body and vehicle search. He refused and insisted on a plain view search
a r
only. By this remark, the policemen told him that he was drunk, boxed him, and poked
a gun at his head. The officers pulled Sydeco out of the vehicle and brought him to the
B
hospital where they succeeded in securing a medical certificate depicting Sydeco as
positive of alcohol breath.
e s
Sydeco was charged for violation of Section 56(f) of RA 4136 or the Land Transportation
l
Code and another for violation of Article 151 of the RPC. Sydeco then filed a complaint-
b
affidavit against the police officers. MeTC found Sydeco guilty as charged. The RTC
affirmed Sydeco’s conviction. This was affirmed by the CA and upheld the
o
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers. Is
R
appreciation of the presumption of regularity correct?
n r
Answer: No. The presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is disputable by
contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.
a a
The absence of conclusive proof being under the influence of liquor while driving coupled with
B
h
the forceful manner the police yanked petitioner out of his vehicle argues against or at least cast
s
doubt on the finding of guilt for drunken driving and resisting arrest. (People v. Sydeco)
e
BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY
b l
Question: Acting upon confidential information, the District Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID)
of Quezon City formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation to apprehend a certain
o
“Myrna” who was allegedly conducting illegal drug activities. According to the
prosecution, the DAID recovered the marked 500-peso bill used by the team from
R
"Myrna," as well as two plastic sachets, at the time of arrest of both "Myrna" and her
n r
companion, Saguera. "Myrna," who was later identified as Nene Quiamanlon, and
a a
Samula, as well as the recovered articles were brought to the station for proper
investigation and disposition.
h
RTC convicted Quiamanlon of violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act,
B
C s
specifically Sections 5 and 11 of Article II. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of
e
the trial court. Quiamanlon claimed that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
l
operation failed to observe the rules on chain of custody. Quiamanlon insisted that any
b
apprehending team having initial control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should
immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and
R o
photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative,
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
n
Rule on the merits of defense of violation of chain of custody.
a
Answer: The IRR of RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously
applied, provided "the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
h
by the apprehending officer/team." Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be
B
C s
preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
e
tampered with. Evidently, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of
l
the seized drugs. (People v. Quiamanlon)
b
BUY-BUST OPERATION
o
Question: A confidential informant reported to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of
R
Makati City that a certain "Vangie" was engaged in drug pushing activities. Hence, a
buy-bust operation was planned by the DEU. Vangie arranged to meet at Starbucks
n
Café on Rockwell Drive, Makati City. SPO1 Fulleros acceded to her request and headed
a
to the coffee shop. He gave Vangie the boodle money after examining the plastic bags.
Afterwards, he gave the pre-arranged signal to alert his team that the transaction had
C h
been consummated. The back-up operatives arrived while he was introducing himself
to Vangie as a DEU operative. She was placed under arrest and later identified as
Sobangee.
o
7|P a g e

R
e s
l
b RTC and CA found Sobangee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling methylamphetamine Sec. 5,
Art. II of RA No. 9165 or the hydrochloride. Sobangee claimed that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses suffered from major inconsistencies, such as: (1) the date the
a r
alleged informant came to the DEU office; (2) the time the buy-bust team left the office
to conduct its operation; (3) the place that the team first went to before going to the buy-
B
bust at Rockwell Center, Makati City; (4) the location of the operatives during the buy-
bust operation; (5) the site where the illegal substances seized were marked; (6) the
e s
amount involved in the buy-bust; (7) the officer who informed Sobangee of her
constitutional rights; and (8) the identity of the informant. Is the conviction correct?
b l
Answer. Yes. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the
prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: 1) Identity of the buyer and seller, the
o
object, and the consideration, 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. (People v.
R
Sabongee)
n r
BUY-BUST OPERATION
a a
Question: An informant arrived at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs at the Southern Police
B
District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig and reported that a certain “Paks” was pushing shabu on
h
P. Mariano St., Taguig. A team was dispatched to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2
s
Boiser and PO2 Lagos walked with the informant to meet Paks. Paks, satisfied that PO2
e
Boise, was indeed a drug user, agreed to sell P500.00 worth of shabu. He reached from
l
his camouflage shorts a plastic sachet and handed it to PO2 Boiser. After receiving the
b
plastic sachet from Paks, PO2 Boiser examined it under the light of a lamppost. Seeing
the pre-arranged signal acted out by PO2 Boiser, PO2 Lagos went to the scene and
from Paks.
R o
introduced himself as a police officer to Paks. The buy-bust money was then seized
n r
RTC found Paks Vicente, Jr. guilty of the crime charged. On appeal, Vicente, Jr. argued
a a
that Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 were not
complied with, since the buy-bust team failed to present a pre-operation report and
h B
photographs of the seized items. With this argument, he said that the seized items are
C s
now polluted evidence. As an appellate judge, will you uphold the RTC ruling?
e
Answer: Yes. Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science. Non-compliance
l
with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
b
inadmissible. It is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a
buy-bust operation. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
innocence of the accused. (People v. Vicente)
R o
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
n
BUY-BUST OPERATION
a
Question: In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon Abetong, was caught
h B
selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC rendered a decision finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA
C
affirmed his conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. Raising non-
e s
l
compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among others: (1) that the markings on
b
the items seized do not bear the date and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that
o
about three days have passed since the items were confiscated before they were brought
to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an inventory nor a photograph of
R
the recovered plastic sachet. Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the
n
accused based on the allegation of violation of the chain of custody?
a
Answer: No. In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon Abetong, was caught
selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond
h
reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
C
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the
integrity of the evidence was preserved. Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he
argued, among others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date and time of
the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have passed since the items were
o
8|P a g e

R
e s
l
b confiscated before they were brought to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an
inventory nor a photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. He likewise hinged his appeal on the
fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to the evidence locker, did not testify during
trial. (Peopl v. Abetong)
BUY-BUST OPERATION; ALIBI
a r
B
Question: The Taguig police formed a buy-bust team upon receipt of a report of illegal
activities of Pagkalinawan. He was arrested after sachets of shabu were recovered from
s
him. Pagkalinawan, interposed the defense of alibi. He said that armed men barged into
e
his house and pointed a gun at him. He was brought to the police station when the
l
police could not find any prohibited drugs.
o b
Pagkalinawan insists that what actually happened was an instigation and not a buy-
bust operation. Was there a valid entrapment in the form of buy-bust operation?
R
Answer: Yes. A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust
operation or what is known as a decoy solicitation, is not prohibited by law and does not render
n r
the buy-bust operation invalid. (People v. Pagkalinawan)
a BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY
B a
h Question: As a result of a buy-bust operation, Dela Cruz was charged with and
s
convicted of the crime of drug pushing. In his defense, the accused denied selling shabu
e
to PO2 Ibasco. In short, the accused used the defense of denial and alleged a frame-up
l
by the arresting officers. On appeal, he imputed material irregularities on the chain of
b
custody of the seized drugs. Rule on the irregularities on the chain of custody raised by
the accused.
R o
Answer: The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently
complete chain of custody. The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody
n r
of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins and also negates the operation of the
a a
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. (People v. Dela Cruz)
B
TEST-BUY
h s
Question: SPO1 Dela Cruz was part of a team that conducted a test-buy on to verify a
C e
report of Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug activities. When this was confirmed, a buy-
l
bust operation ensued. SPO1 Dela Cruz subsequently marked the sachet that was sold
to him as MDC-1 and the sachet found on the person of Elizabeth as MDC-2. The
convicted the accused.
o b
chemistry report confirmed that the subject drugs were positive for shabu. RTC
R
Elizabeth imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz observed the requirements
of RA 9165 on inventory and photographing of the illegal substance, arguing that said
uphold the conviction?

a n
police officer did not state where and when he marked the sachets of shabu. Will you
h
Answer: I will uphold the RTC decision. Non-compliance with the provisions of RA 9165 on
B
C s
the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case.
e
The conviction can be sustained if there are other independent evidence to establish the guilt of
l
the accused. (People v. Marcelino).
b
BUY-BUST OPERATIONS
o
Question: The Regional Special Operations Group IV (RSOG-IV) received a tip about a
group of drug traffickers led by Isidro Arguson operating in Cavite. SPO2 Geronimo
Pastrana, PO3 Ramos, and PO2 Emerson Balosbalos the operation in front of the
R
n
McDonald’s branch in P. Ocampo St., Pasay City. The sale was then consummated and
a
PO3 Ramos gave his signal and arrested them. The accused, by way of defense, alleged
that she just finished her laundry when she took her child to McDonald’s when she saw
h
a commotion. She then saw a woman who alighted from a van and pointed at her to her
C
companions and boarded her inside the van causing her to lose hold of her child. The
RTC and the CA ruled against the accused. Hence, the case. Is the conviction proper?
o
9|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Answer: No. As embodied in Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, i.e., the apprehending officer/team
having initial custody and control of the drug shall immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the [drug] in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
a r
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
B
(People v. Cervantes)
s
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
e
Question: Manuel Ressurreccion was convicted of illegal sale of shabu. On appeal to
l
the Supreme Court he broaches the view that SA Isidoro’s failure to mark the
b
confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drugs
identity. Accused-appellant Resurreccion now points to the failure of the buy-bust team
R o
to immediately mark the seized drugs as a cause to doubt the identity of the shabu
allegedly confiscated from him. Was there a violation of the chain of custody rule?
n r
Answer: No. Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not
a a
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody. It is essential for the prosecution to
introduce other evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. (People v. Resureccion)
h CHAIN OF CUSTODY
B
e s
Question: An informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Marikina Police
l
Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias "Boy Bicol" was at his Nipa hut
hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. When the team reached the said Nipa Hut, Dela Cruz was
o b
seen holding a shotgun but he later on dropped his shotgun when a police officer
pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the premises and saw a plastic bag of
R
shabu and drug paraphernalia. Dela Cruz was subsequently arrested and was separately
indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal possession of firearm. The RTC
n r
acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but
a a
convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. The accused-appellant filed a Notice
B
of Appeal of the RTC Decision on the ground that the prosecution his arrest was
h
patently illegal and the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the illegal
C s
drug allegedly in his possession. The CA sustained accused-appellant's conviction. Was
e
the prosecution able to establish possession of illegal drugs?
b l
Answer: No. An accused can be held to be in constructive possession of illegal drugs if it shown
that they enjoy dominion and control over the premises where these drugs were found. (People v.
o
Dela Cruz)
R
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
n
Question: The COA Special Audit Report stated that there were anomalies in the
payment of salary differentials, allowances, and benefits, among others. Pursuant to
a
such findings, three informations were filed by the Ombudsman against Munib Estino,
B
h
then Acting Governor, and Ernesto Pescadera, the Provincial Treasurer during Estino’s
s
stint. The said charges involve malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the
C
Revised Penal Code and two violations of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. The Sandiganbayan, in
e
l
the consolidated criminal cases, convicted both Estino and Pescadera for violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for failure to pay the Representation and Transportation
Allowance (RATA) of the provincial government employees of Sulu but acquitted them
o
as to the other charge for the same violation. As to the charge of malversation of public
funds, the Sandiganbayan exonerated Estino but convicted Pescadera for failure to
b
R
remit the GSIS contributions of the provincial government employees. Is the accused
n
guilty of the crime charged?
a
Answer: No. There is no proof that Pescadera misappropriated the said amount for his personal
h
use. While demand is not an element of the crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the
application of the presumption. Without this presumption, the accused may still be proved guilty
C
under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation. (Pescadera v. People)
LIABILITY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
o
10|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Question: Petitioner Uyboco, a private individual, and his co-accused was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise
known as the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner
asserts that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the existence of a conspiracy and in
a r
convicting him in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of such conspiracy.
May Uyboco be held liable for violation of RA 3019?
B
Answer: Yes. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted
s
and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019. (Uyboco
e
v. People)
l
TREACHERY
o b
Question: One evening, Estrella Doctor Casco along with her mother named Damiana
and two care- takers Liezl and Angelita, were walking home from Damiana’s medical
check-up when Estrella’s cousins Tony Tomas and Benedicto Doctor, together with
RNestor Gatchalian, suddenly came out from the side of the road. Without uttering a
n r
word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while Gatchalian, without a gun,
a a
allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor positioned himself at the back of Damiana and
B
Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas fired three more
h
gunshots at the former when she was already down on the ground. After which, the
s
three accused fled from the scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas,
e
Doctor and Gatchalian of the offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of
l
treachery and conspiracy which the CA affirmed with modification. Hence, this petition
b
was filed. Is the CA correct in affirming the RTC decision appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of treachery?
R o
Answer: Yes. For alevosiato qualify the crime to murder, it must be shown that: (1) the
malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety
n r
from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and manner
a a
of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery to be appreciated, it must be
present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. (People v. Tomas)
h
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES
B
C s
Question: Anthony was charged with murder and frustrated murder. The trial found
e
him guilty of the offenses charged. On appeal, aside from reiterating his alibi, he also
b l
pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The CA
found no merit in Anthony’s contentions. In reviewing the testimonies of the witnesses,
o
the appellate court found no inconsistencies that would question their credibility.
Hence, this petition. Rule on accused’s contentions of inconsistencies.
R
Answer: It is elementary that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony affect their
n
credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of
a
their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. (People v. Domingo)
h B
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES, POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
C s
Question: Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant in
e
Quezon City, noticed that Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc, were beating Jaime. As a result
l
of the beating died. Roda went to Camp Karingal in Quezon City to report what he had
b
witnessed. The police then filed an investigation report which became the basis for the
filing of Information against Amodia et al. RTC ruled that Amodia et al. were guilty of
Murder. CA affirmed the RTC decision. CA gave credence to the positive testimony of
R o
the prosecution eyewitness who, was not actuated by improper motive to testify against
accused-appellants. The CA, moreover, held that the killing was qualified by the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
a n
Amodia et al. contends that conviction is anchored on the positive testimony of the
h
prosecution eyewitness which was full of inconsistencies. They allege that it was
C
unbelievable that a person who had witnessed a crime should simply go home without
immediately reporting the matter to the authorities. Were the accused positively
identified enough to convict them?
o
11|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Answer: Yes. Positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and
without any showing of ill-motive on the part of an eye witness testifying on the matter, prevails
over denial of [the] accused, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. (People v. Amodia)
DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL
a r
B
Question: On November 20, 2001 in a forested area nearby the place and house of the
accused Didong and company, Didong hit with his piece of wood the nape of Ahladdin
s
(the victim who was also drunk at the time) then held by the hand by Nante. When
e
Nante released his hold, Didong again hit Ahladdin on the back of the knees. After
l
Boyet, Nante and Didong stabbed Ahladdin, Fred Gongon shot him saying
b
“Siguraduhin niyo patay na yan”. The following morning the dead body of Ahladdin
was discovered. Consequently, based on these established facts Didong and company
R o
were charged of murder qualified by treachery. On this charge Didong merely provided
the defense of alibi and denial. Was there treachery?
n r
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressors on
a a
unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby
ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressors, and without the slightest provocation on
h
the victims’ part.
B
RAPE AND DEFENSE OF ALIBI
e s
l
Question: The accused was charged of the crime rape of certain AAA. The prosecution
presented the fact that the victim together with her friends, went to a dance event but
o b
later on as she noticed that her friends were no longer at the dance floor, she decided to
go home to her grandmother’s house when on her way home, Alverio suddenly
R
appeared and raped her. During the incident, Alverio was armed with a knife which he
used to poke the victim and threatened her that he would kill her if she told anyone of
n r
what he has done. On the other hand, the accused denied all the accusations against
a a
him with an alibi. The RTC convicted Alverio which decision was affirmed by the CA.
B
Was the conviction correct?
h s
Answer: Yes. In cases involving the prosecution for rape, corroboration of the victim’s
C
testimony is not a necessary condition to a conviction for rape where the victim’s testimony is
reasonable doubt. (People v. Alverio)

l e
credible, or clear and convincing or sufficient to prove the elements of the offense beyond a
STATUTORY RAPE
o b
Question: AAA, the private complainant, was 11 years old while Lindo was their
R
neighbor. While AAA was sleeping, Lindo took her away to a place near a creek. He
n
tried inserting his penis into her vagina but there was no complete penetration. Not
achieving full penile penetration, he then made her bend over, and inserted his penis
a
into her anus, causing her to cry out in pain. RTC found him guilty of statutory rape
B
h
under Art. 335 of the RPC in relation to R.A No. 7610. The CA affirmed the judgment
s
and awarded exemplary damages. Was the conviction correct?
C
Answer: Yes. The mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of the victim’s
e
l
genitalia consummates the crime; the mere touching of the labia by the penis was held to be
b
sufficient. (People v. Lindo)
o
RAPE
R
Question: AAA, then 15 years old, went to her grandmother’s house upon learning that
her father and uncle were quarreling there. When she cried for help, Elmer Barberos, a
n
neighbor, went to her and told her that he would protect her. Barberos brought AAA to
a
his house and raped her. AAA was able to escape by jumping out of the window when
someone knocked at the door. Both the RTC and CA convicted Barberos of the crime of
rape. Is total penetration necessary to commit rape?
C h
Answer: No. Full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not required for the
commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even
o
12|P a g e

R
e s
l
b without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. (People v.
Barberos)
SWEETHEART THEORY IN RAPE
r
Question: Cias was charged with the crime of rape. In his defense, he argued that he
a
and the victim had been carrying an illicit affair for about six months. He alleged that in
B
all their previous assignations, she submitted herself to him voluntarily and willingly
on each occasion that they had sexual intercourse. Is relationship a defense in the crime
s
of rape?
l e
Answer: No. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have an unbridled license to
subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will. (People v. Cias)
o b
RAPE AND SWEETHEART THEORY
Question: AAA was alone in her house and was taking a bath when she noticed that
R
the lights in the living room were turned off which she thought was done by her live-in
n r
partner so she called his name. However, upon opening of the bathroom door, she saw
a a
Rommel Belo who was holding a bread knife and said "Sandali lang ito" and pushed her
inside the bathroom. Belo kissed and touched AAA's private parts while pointing the
h B
knife at AAA and eventually he was able to insert his penis into her vagina. Belo, in his
s
defense, claims that it was a consensual sex and that AAA was his girlfriend. Further,
e
he claims that the absence of bruises and contusions on AAA’s body, based on the
l
medico- legal report, negates the crime of rape. The RTC found Belo guilty of rape and
b
was affirmed by the CA. Is the conviction proper despite relationship with the victim?
Answer: Yes. “Sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by
R o
convincing evidence -- some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters,
notes, photographs and the like. (People v. Belo)
n r
RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
a a
Question: Four separate informations for rape and one for acts of lasciviousness were
h B
filed against Araojo. The latter tags AAA’s account of the alleged rape incidents, which,
for the most part, consisted of the same details, as utterly incredulous. If, as AAA
C s
alleged, she was raped, then the results of her medical examinations would have
e
yielded complete hymenal lacerations, considering AAAs tender age and the manner of
l
the sexual assault. Araojo theorizes that, since AAA had been hired as a babysitter, it is
b
possible that she was exposed to various forms of exploitation. Is the victim’s testimony
o
sufficient to warrant conviction?
R
Answer: Yes. The credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in
prosecution for rape. Withal, in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of
n
respect must be accorded to the findings of the trial court. (People v. Araojo)
RAPE COMMITTED BY A FATHER
a B
h
Question: On three different dates, Martinez allegedly raped his 13-year old daughter,
C s
AAA, who was mentally retarded. Martinez threatened to kill AAA if she would reveal
e
the incident to her mother. However, AAA’s teacher noticed that she appeared to be
l
unusually weak. Aware of the fact that Martinez had sired two children from AAA’s
b
elder sister, the teacher asked AAA if her father had raped her, to which AAA
answered in the affirmative. The teacher reported the same to the DSWD, and BBB, her
o
mother learned the rape incident. Martinez was then charged with three counts of
R
qualified rape. In his defense, Martinez raised denial and alibi. RTC found Martinez
guilty of three counts of rape under Art. 365 of the RPC. Convinced of AAA’s
n
credibility, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Martinez argued that AAA’s testimony is
a
not credible for she is mentally retarded. Is mental retardation a ground to discredit the
h
credibility of the testimony of the witness?
Answer: No. Anyone who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known such perception to
C
others, may be a witness. Thus, mental retardation does not disqualify a person from testifying.
What is essential is the quality of perception, and the manner in which this perception is made
known to the court. (People v. Martinez)
o
13|P a g e

R
e s
l
b RAPE
Question: Adelado Anguac is the common-law spouse of BBB, the mother of AAA.
Sometime in 1998 while sleeping with her siblings in a room in their residence, AAA
r
who was then 17 years old, found herself suddenly awakened by Anguac who raped
a
her. The sexual assault on AAA was repeated for five times. AAA subsequently became
pregnant. She disclosed the assaults to her Aunts. Two separate informations were filed
B
charging Anguac with rape and violation of RA 7610. The RTC found Anguac guilty.
s
CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling but treated the crime of rape charged in Criminal Case
e
No. RTC 2757-I as a violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 instead of Sec. 5(a) as found by the
l
trial court. Anguac on the other hand, questioned the sufficiency of the prosecution’s
b
evidence. Was the CA correct in convicting the accused for Sec.5(b) rather Sec. 5(a) as
found by the RTC?
R o
Answer: Yes. The character of the crime is determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and
circumstances in the information. The testimonies of the victim and the witnesses which
n r
buttressed her claim of the commission of the crime proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
Anguac. (People v. Anguac)
a STATUTORY RAPE
B a
h Question: Cruz was charged with one count of rape committed against AAA, 9 years
s
old. Upon arraignment Cruz pleaded not guilty. Medical examination result showed
l e
that AAA had two (2) hymenal lacerations. For his part, Cruz claimed that it was
impossible for him to commit rape as he had been sexually impotent since 1995. This
b
was further corroborated by his wife by saying that they seldom had sexual intercourse
o
after 1995. In 2001, Cruz was diagnosed to be suffering from erectile dysfunction.
R
The RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
ruling of RTC and ruled that his impotency was not proven with certainty and that the
n r
medical finding of erectile dysfunction was based on an examination more than three
a a
years after the rape occurred; thus, no categorical conclusion could be made that Cruz
B
was impotent when the rape was committed. Was there rape despite defense of
C h
impotency?
s
e
Answer: Yes. Impotency as a defense in rape cases must likewise be proved with certainty to
overcome the presumption in favor of potency.
STATUTORY RAPE
b l
o
Question: Ugos was charged with raping AAA, his 7-year old stepdaughter. While they
were looking for AAA’s mother, Ugos brought AAA to a creek and raped her. Ugos
R
denied the allegations and stated that the victim fell while looking for her mother
n
because the road was dark and slippery. The RTC found him guilty, which the CA
a
affirmed. Ugos contends that the testimonies of AAA and her mother reveal only the
commission of acts of lasciviousness and not rape since he only inserted his finger into
h
her sex organ. Is the use of a finger sufficient to commit the crime of rape?
B
C s
Answer: Yes. Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by inserting "any instrument
e
or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person." (People v. Ugos)
QUALIFIED THEFT
Question: Respondent Amelio Tria (Tria) is a former branch manager of Philippine
b l
o
National Bank’s (PNB) MWSS branch. MWSS opened an account in PNB-MWSS. On
R
April 22, 2004, PNB-MWSS received a letter from MWSS instructing the bank to issue a
manager’s check in the amount of P5, 200, 000.00 in favor of a certain Atty. Rodrigo
a n
Reyes. The employees of PNB, after authentication and verification approved the
request for the issuance of the manager’s check. On April 26, 2004, Tria accompanied
h
Atty. Reyes to PNB Quezon City branch since PNB-MWSS had insufficient funds to pay
the amount. He told the employee of PNB QC that Atty. Reyes is their valued client. On
C
February 2, 2005, Zaida Pulida (Pulida), a MWSS employee handling the subject bank
account inquired to PNB about the P5, 200, 000.00 debited to the account. Pulida
notified PNB that MWSS did not apply for the issuance of the said manager’s check.
o
14|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Furthermore, upon verification with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, it was
confirmed that there was no Rodrigo Reyes included in its roster. PNB conducted its
own investigation and held Tria liable for qualified theft. Tria denied the allegation and
contended other bank employees should be liable for the loss. Is Tria guilty of qualified
theft?
a r
Answer: Yes. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence
B
against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of
s
another without the latter’s consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of
e
theft becomes qualified. (PNB v. Tria)
l
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
o b
Question: Petitioners were officers of the Municipality of Paracelis, Mountain Province.
They issued a Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance in relation to the completion of a
road construction in the said municipality. As a result, the Government subsequently
Rissued a check for PhP106,970 as payment for the project. After COA investigation,
n r
petitioners were charged with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents. It was
a a
alleged that petitioners made it appear that they have personally inspected the
construction project and thereafter found the same to have been fully accomplished
h B
100%, when in truth and in fact, the work on the aforesaid project was not yet finished.
s
Is the conviction correct?
l e
Answer: Yes. The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 of the RPC are: (1) the
accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power, influence,
b
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false
o
pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission
of the fraud; (3) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause
R
which induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof,
n r
the offended party suffered damage. (Manangey v. Sandiganbayan)
a a
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
h B
Question: Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin was a former member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Misamis Occidental. Mayor Fuentes immediately approved and granted the request
C s
for financial assistance for a sports activity. While the Mayor attended a conference,
e
Mario served as Officer-in Charge. Pactolin borrowed Abastillas’ letter from the
b l
assistant treasurer and altered the same. Afterwards, Pactolin filed a complaint against
Mario with the Ombudsman, alleging that Mario illegally disbursed public funds in
o
connivance with the then city accountant. Aggrieved, Mario instituted a criminal
complaint against Pactolin before the Sandiganbayan. Pactolin was charged of
R
falsification of public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. Is
n
Pactolin guilty of falsification?
a
Answer: Yes. The settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in
B
possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.
(Pactolin v. Sandiganbayan)
ESTAFA under ART.315(b), RPC
C h s
Question: Spouses Erlinda and Eliseo Asejo went to the house of Vilma Castro to
l e
b
borrow PhP 100,000 to be shown to the bank (show money) and make it appear that the
Asejos were financially liquid. The spouses went back to Castro’s house where she
o
received the amount and signed a Trust Undertaking. When the obligation became due,
R
Castro went to the spouses to demand payment but she failed to collect the money.
Spouses Asejo were charged with Estafa under Art. 315 (b). They were found guilty as
demand required to convict the accused?
a n
charged by the RTC. The CA affirmed the judgment but modified the penalty. Is formal
h
Answer: No. Demand under this kind of estafa [Art. 315 (b)] need not be formal or written. It
C
is sufficient that all the elements of the crime are proved by the prosecution. (Asejo v. People)
PART B: CONCEPTS, GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND LEADING CASES
I. Preliminaries
o
15|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Q. What is the nature and scope of Criminal Law?

A. (1) Generality – will apply to people who commit any criminal act committed within
the territory of the Philippines and will generally deal with the characteristic of the person
r
accused of committing the crime;
B a
(2) Territoriality – Philippines will have jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its
territory except as provided for in treaties and laws of preferential application and will
s
normally deal with the characteristic of the place where the crime was committed; and
l e
(3) Prospectivity – based on Art.22 of RPC, the appreciation of the crime committed
b
must take into consideration the date of the passage of the law and give it retroactive
effect (a) if it is favorable to the accused; and (b) if the accused is not a habitual delinquent.
R o
Q. What provisions of the Bill of Rights are relevant to Criminal Law?
A. The Bill of Rights
a n Sec. 1: due process and equal protection clause;
a r
h B
Sec. 2: right against illegal arrest, illegal search and seizure (in relation to
admission in evidence of extrajudicial admissions, warrantless arrest,
s
warrantless search and seizure and planted evidence);
e
l
Sec. 3: privacy of communications (in relation to Wire Tapping Law);
b
Sec. 4 – freedom of religion (in relation to crime offending a religion);
o
Sec. 6 – liberty of abode (in relation to restraint of travel (issuance of Hold
Departure Order; illegal detention committed by a public officer or a private
individual);
R
a n
Sec.11 – free access to courts (in relation to right to appropriate legal
representation);
a r
h B
Sec. 12 – (1) and (3) Miranda rights (in relation to extrajudicial confessions and
s
when one can become a state witness), (2) and (4) Rights while under detention
C e
(in relation to Human Security Act of 2007 and Human Torture Act of 2009);
l
Sec. 13 – Right to bail (in relation to non-bailable offenses like Plunder,
b
Rebellion, etc. but pay attention to JPE v. Sandiganbayan decision which
introduced a new ground to grant bail which is not textually provided in the
o
Constitution);
R
Sec. 14 – Presumption of innocence (in relation to degree of proof required to
n
convict);
a
Sec. 15 – The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
h B
Sec. 16 – Right to speedy trial;
C s
Sec.16 – Nature of penalty of imprisonment (in relation to imposition of
e
penalties under RPC, Probation Law, Indeterminate Sentence Law, Diversion
l
and Rehabilitation);
b
Sec. 17 – Nature fines and physical detention in case of conviction (in relation to
o
appreciation of attending circumstances in the commission of the crime,
suspension of death penalty);
Sec. 17 – non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax;
R
Sec. 18 – prohibition against double jeopardy; and
a n
Sec. 22 – prohibition against ex post fact law/ bill of attainder.
Q. What are the elements of double jeopardy?
C h
A. Double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached; (2) it has been
validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A
first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the
o
16|P a g e

R
e s
l
b case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent, by a
competent court in a valid indictment for which the accused has entered a valid plea
during arraignment. Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No.
r
176830, February 11, 2014
a
Q. What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
B
A. The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in
s
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
e
whatever nature and for any purpose. To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also
b l
ordains the exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained in violation of said right
is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. However, the interdiction against
o
warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and
R
seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in the following
instances: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches;
a n a r
(4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (6)
search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and
h B
seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is
s
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court
e
recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest
l
effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. People of the Philippines v.
b
Vicente Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014.
o
Q. Is a hearing necessary to determine probable cause in the issuance of a warrant?
R
A. No. Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by
n r
the judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
a a
witnesses, the Supreme Court has ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the
determination thereof. In fact, the judge’s personal examination of the complainant and
h
the witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of
B
C s
issuing a warrant of arrest. Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No.
e
176830, February 11, 2014
l
Q. What is the rule on the admission of extrajudicial confession to appreciate the
b
element of conspiracy?
o
A. The exception provided under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule
allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of the
R
conspiracy by evidence other than the confession. The Supreme Court, however, has
n
previously stressed that mere association with the principals by direct participation,
a
without more, does not suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do not
prove conspiracy. It must be shown that the person concerned has performed an overt
h
act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence
B
C s
or approval of the act, without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not
e
sufficient to prove conspiracy. Gerry A. Salapuddin v. The Court of Appeals, Gov. Jum
l
Akbar, and Nor-Rhama J. Indanan, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.
b
Q. Cite the distinction between mala en se and mala prohibitum.
o
A. (1) mala en se by itself the act is inherently wrong (ex. killing another person)
R
while in mala prohibitum the act is merely prohibited by law (ex. smoking or jay
walking);
a n
(2) good faith is a defense in mala en se but not in mala prohibitum;
(3) stages of commission under Art.6 of RPC is considered in mala en se but not in
h
mala prohibitum;
C
(4) degree of participation under Title II of RPC is considered in mala en se but not in
mala prohibitum;
o
17|P a g e

R
e s
l
b (5) in mala en se, modifying circumstances are considered in determining imposable

penalty but not mala prohibitum; and
(6) in mala en se, generally, the crimes are punished under RPC while generally,
r
crimes considered mala prohibitum are punished under special penal law.
a
II. Circumstances Affecting the Appreciation of Commission of a Crime
B
Attending circumstance in the commission of crimes: justifying, mitigating,
s
exempting and aggravating (generic and qualifying), alternative circumstances ;
e
appreciation of each circumstance will depend on the facts surrounding the criminal
l
act as it would affect the criminal liability and extent of liability of the accused.
b
MEMORIZE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RPC.
o
Q. How will qualifying circumstance of treachery be appreciated?.
R
A. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against the person, employing
n r
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
a a
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Gunda Alias “Fred”, G.R. No.
h 195525, February 5, 2014.

B
e s
Q. How is intent to kill establish in the crime of murder?
l
A. The petitioners’ intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of
b
wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against
o
persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the
R
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. Rodolfo
n r
Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014.
a a
h
Q. What is conspiracy?
B
C e s
A. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
l
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be
b
a common design to commit a felony. While direct proof is not essential to establish
o
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
R
action, and community of interests. People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano,
n
G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014
a
Q. Is proof of previous agreement necessary to establish conspiracy?
B
C h
A. No. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point
s
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. Proof of a
l e
b
previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that
the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices. People of the
Philippines v. John Alvin Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013
Q. What are elements to establish self-defense?
R o
a n
A. By invoking self-defense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the commission of the
acts for which they were charged, albeit under circumstances that, if proven, would
h
have exculpated them by invoking the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
C
repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons
resorting to self-defense. Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most important
o
18|P a g e

R
e s
l
b of all is the element of unlawful aggression. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had
r
committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Simon
a
A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.
B
Q. What is alibi?
s
A. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly
e
unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing
l
evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the crime was
committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of
o b
the crime when it was committed. Alibi cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face
of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the
crime. People of the Philippines v. Jonathan “Uto” Veloso y Rama, G.R. No. 188849, February
R13, 2013
a n Q. When is alibi applicable as a defense?
a r
A. It has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove the
h B
following: (i) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the
s
crime; and (ii) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime
e
during its commission. People of the Philippines v. Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268,
l
February 12, 2014
b
Q. What is the probative value of an affidavit if the affiant is not presented in court?
o
A. An affidavit is hearsay unless affiant presented in court. It is settled that while
affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are acknowledged before a
R
notary public (here, a public officer authorized to administer oaths), they are still
n r
classified as hearsay evidence unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness
a a
stand to testify thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to cross-
examine them. With the prosecution’s failure to present the affiant to affirm his
h B
statement should be treated as hearsay and, thus, inadmissible to establish the truth or
C s
falsity of the relevant claims.
e
Q. How is circumstantial evidence appreciated in establishing one’s culpability?
b l
A. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from
which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience.
o
It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
R
which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Ricardo L.
n
Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014
a
Circumstantial evidence; when sufficient for conviction. Circumstantial evidence is
B
h
defined as that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference
which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established. It is sufficient for conviction
C
if: [a] there is more than one (1) circumstance; [b] the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and [c] the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
e s
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must
b l
o
constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The test to
R
determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict
n
the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with each
a
other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accuser’s guilt
and inconsistent with the accuser’s innocence. People of the Philippines v. P/Supt. Artemio
h
E. Lamsen, et al, G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013.
C
Minority as a Mitigating Circumstance. To establish minority one’s Certificate of Birth
may be introduced as evidence.
o
19|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that 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
a r
presumed to have acted with less discernment. This is regardless of the fact that his
minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly
B
presented for our consideration, since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the
rights of the state, the victim and his heirs. . People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013
e s
PLEASE MEMORIZE all attending circumstances BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE
l
FACED WITH QUESTIONS WHICH WILL CALL FOR THE APPLICATION OF
b
THESE DISTINCTIONS IN COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES, ACTORS IN THE
COMMISSION OF CRIMES, STAGES OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME,
R o
APPRECIATION OF ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND AVAILMENT OF
PROBATION.
a n a r
III. Felonies and other related matters
Classification of crimes; see your RPC on crimes against persons, national security,
h B
committed by public officers etc. and those under Special Penal Laws; concept of
s
impossible crime and when one can be held liable for it;
l e
Stages of commission of a crime and actors involved: attempted, frustrated and
b
consummated; Principal, accomplice and accessory. Please note the stage and degree
of participation will determine the penalties; actors may also be multiple offenders
o
and may be covered under any of the following - recidivism, quasi-recidivism,
R
habituality, habitual delinquency( nature of crime, time element and nature of
n r
aggravating circumstances are factors which are considered if the defendant is
a a
covered)
h B
Conspiracy; liability of conspirators. Assuming that the prosecution witnesses failed to
identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the commotion, Erwin’s
C s
liability is not diminished since he and the others with him acted with concert in
e
beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes all the assailants equally
l
liable as co-principals by direct participation. Since about 15 men, including accused
b
Erwin, pounced on their one helpless victim, relentlessly bludgeoned him on the head,
o
and stabbed him on the stomach until he was dead; there is no question that the
accused took advantage of their superior strength. The Supreme Court thus affirmed
R
the decision of the lower courts finding accused Erwin guilty of murder. People of the
n
Philippines v. Erwin Tamayo y Bautisa, G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014.
a
Frustrated homicide; elements. The crime of frustrated homicide is committed when: (1)
h B
an accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in
his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of
C
timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under
e s
l
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v.
b
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014 Consummated homicide;
elements. The crime of homicide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
R o
accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the
n
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Rodolfo
a
Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
h
Distinguish compound crime (when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
felonies); complex crime proper (when an offense is a necessary means for
C
committing the other); composite crime (special complex crime composed of two or
more crimes that the law treats as single indivisible and unique offense for being the
product of a single criminal impulse); continued crime (3 elements must concur:
o
20|P a g e

R
e s
l
b plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of criminal

intent and purpose; and unity of penal provision violated).
IV. Penalties
r
General principles; purpose why penalty is imposed; classification of penalties;
a
duration and effect of penalties.
B
Under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if it was of
s
conviction, state: "(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts
e
committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
b l
attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as
principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the
o
accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to
R
be recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived."
a n a r
A. Probation Law: nature and purpose of the law; when may defendant avail of
B
probation – after conviction and no appeal is made during the period perfecting an
h appeal; it is error on the part of the court to issue a Commitment Order on the same
s
day of promulgation because defendant’s right to appeal has not yet prescribed;
l e
conversely, if defendant filed an appeal, he can no longer avail of probation and if
defendant files an application for probation, he can no longer appeal; individuals
o b
found guilty of drug trafficking cannot avail of probation; probation also applies
even if penalty is only a fine; probation shall not exceed six years; consequences for
R
violating the terms of probation; when probation is deemed terminated.
n r
Probation; appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. Aside from the goals
a a
of according expediency and liberality to the accused, the rationale for the treatment of
appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically
h B
opposed legal positions. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have accepted
C s
the judgment. The application for probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an
e
accused for the crime which led to the judgment of conviction. This was the reason why
l
the Probation Law was amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing
b
from judgments of conviction – even if the sentence is probationable – for the purpose
of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his
o
bid. Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. People of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 188191, March 12,
R
2014.
n
PLEASE READ SEC. 9 OF THE PROBATION LAW AS TO WHO CANNOT AVAIL
a
OF THE BENEFITS OF PROBATION.
h B
B. Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw): purposes of the law; where a special law
adopted penalties from RPC, ISLaw will apply just as it would in felonies. PLEASE
C
READ SEC.2 OF ISLaw WHEN BENEFITS OF ISLaw MAY NOT BE AVAILED OF
e s
l
BY THE DEFENDANT. For example, a person convicted of plunder which is
b
punishable by life imprisonment cannot avail of ISLaw.
o
Persons not eligible for Parole. People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Gunda Alias
“Fred”,G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
R
the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no other aggravating
n
circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court of Appeals
correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the
a
two indivisible penalties. It must be emphasized, however, that appellant is not eligible
h
for parole pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. 9346 which states that ‘persons convicted of
offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be reduced to reclusion
C
perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.’
o
21|P a g e

R
e s
l
b C. Graduation of Penalty: graduation of penalties may be appreciated as follows –

stage of execution: for frustrated, 1 degree; for attempted stage, 2 degrees except: for
frustrated homicide, parricide or murder, 1 to 2 degrees and for attempted homicide,
r
parricide or murder, 1 to 2 degrees; nature of execution – as an accomplice, 1 degree
a
and as accessory, 2 degrees; privileged mitigating circumstance – for minority, 1
B
degree and incomplete justification or exemption(except accident), 1 or 2 degrees.
s
Minority as mitigating circumstance. People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013. The penalty
imposed upon Franklin, being a minor, must be accordingly modified. The penalty for
l e
murder is reclusion perpetua to death. A degree lower is reclusion temporal. There
being no aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed
o b
on Franklin should be reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, which
ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next
Rlower in degree is prision mayor, the medium period of which ranges from eight (8)
n r
years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Due to the seriousness of the crime and the
a a
manner it was committed, the penalty must be imposed at its most severe range.
h B
Imposition of Two Indivisible Penalties: People v. Seraspe, January 9, 2013. Under Section
15, Article III, in relation to Section 20, Article IV, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
e s
as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a
b l
fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The total weight of
the shabu confiscated in this case is 983.5 grams. Hence, the proper penalty should be
o
reclusion perpetua to death. But since the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
consists of two indivisible penalties, appellant was correctly meted the lesser penalty of
R
reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code which
n r
provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the
a a
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
B
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua, not composed of three periods. Bacolod v.
C h
People, July 15, 2013. It is imperative that the courts prescribe the proper penalties when
s
convicting the accused, and determine the civil liability to be imposed on the accused,
e
unless there has been a reservation of the action to recover civil liability or a waiver of
l
its recovery. The information specifically alleged that the house burned by the accused
b
was an inhabited dwelling. Pursuant to Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613
(Amending the Law on Arson), the penalty to be imposed if the property burned is an
R o
inhabited house or dwelling is from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Not being
composed of three periods, however, such penalty should be divided into three equal
n
portions of time, and each portion forms one period of the penalty. Yet, reclusion
perpetua, being an indivisible penalty, immediately becomes the maximum period,
a
leaving reclusion temporal to be divided into two in order to fix the medium and
B
h
minimum periods of the penalty. The three periods of the prescribed penalty of
s
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua are then as follows:
C
Minimum period – 12 years and 1 day to 16 years;
e
Medium period – 16 years and 1 day to 20 years;
Maximum period – reclusion perpetua.
b l
R o
Accordingly, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty in this case should be within
the range of the medium period of the penalty, i.e., from 16 years and 1 day to 20 years,
n
because neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attended the commission of
the crime; and the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range
a
of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime, without regard to its
h
periods.
C
Graduating Death Penalty – Death penalty is still the penalty to be reckoned with.
With the suspension of death penalty, the next imposable penalty shall apply.
o
22|P a g e

R
e s
l
b D. Three-fold and 40-year limitation rule: distinguish simultaneous service (ex.

imprisonment and fine) from successive rule (ex. where there is multiple penalties of
imprisonment); three-fold rule on maximum period of imprisonment; and 40-year
r
limitation rule.
a
E. Subsidiary Imprisonment: when defendant shall be subjected to subsidiary
B
imprisonment after final conviction; imposition of civil liability
s
F. Exemption from Criminal Liability under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act:
e
Distinguish between Diversion and Rehabilitation; how it can be availed of;
b l
G. Modes and Extinction of Criminal Liability: 1. from the Executive Branch: acts of
clemency by the President; 2. from the Legislative Branch: amnesty; 3. Prescription of
o
crimes; 4. Prescription of penalties; and 5. pardon by offended party, where allowed.
R
General Rule: In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must be considered,
n r
namely: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time when the
a a
period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time when the prescriptive period is
interrupted.
h B
V. The following are matters which are likely to be asked under Special Penal Laws:
e s
1. R.A. 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: A public officer may be charged
l
both under this law and a provision of the RPC ex. when a Mayor and the City
Treasurer connive to use public funds not for the purpose intended, they may also be
o b
held for malversation of funds under the RPC; or when a Sheriff alters a date of
execution of a court order, he may also be charged with falsification of public
documents under the RPC; there is complex crime under R.A.3019 under both
R
circumstances; PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A DISTICNTION IN
n r
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER
a a
THE RPC AND R.A.3019; review the participation of private individuals and
relatives under this law.
h B
Elements of Corruption under Sec.4 (a) of R.A. 3019.. Disini v. Sandiganbayan. The
C s
sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging the violation of Section 4(a) of
e
R.A. No. 3019 is similarly upheld. The elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A.
b l
No. 3019 are: that the offender has family or close personal relation with a public
official; that he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family or close
o
personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift,
R
material or pecuniary advantage from any person having some business, transaction,
n
application, request, or contract with the government; that the public official with
a
whom the offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business
B
transaction, application, request, or contract with the government.
h
Direct Bribery and Indirect Bribery, Disini, ibid., The elements of corruption of public
C s
e
officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are: that the offender makes offers or
l
promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and that the offers or promises
b
are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that
will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
R o
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; offenses under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. In a
catena of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that there are two (2) ways by which a
n
public official violates section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in the performance of his functions,
a
namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by
giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.
C h
The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. The disjunctive term
“or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.In other
words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. To be found guilty under the
second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to
o
23|P a g e

R
e s
l
b another, in the exercise of his official, administrative and judicial functions.” The element
of damage is not required for violation of section 3(e) under the second mode. Settled is the
rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be
indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under section 3 of
a r
R.A. 3019. Considering that all the elements of the offense of violation of section 3(e)
were alleged in the second information, the SC found the same to be sufficient in form
B
and substance to sustain a conviction. Isabelo A. Braza v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (1st
Division), G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013.
e s
Sandiganbayan; original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The
l
Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction over the claim against Asian Bank, for
b
the Supreme Court has ruled in Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
Sandiganbayan, that “the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction not only
o
over principal causes of action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth, but also over all
R
incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases.” Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company, as successor-in-interest of Asian Bank Corporation v. Hon. Edilberto G.
n r
Sandoval, et al, G.R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013
a a
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons acting in conspiracy
B
h
with public officers may be indicted. The only question that needs to be settled in the
s
present petition is whether herein respondent, a private person, may be indicted for
e
conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom
l
he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information.
Respondent contends that by reason of the death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public
o b
officer who was charged in the Information and, as such, prosecution against
respondent may not prosper. The Supreme Court was not persuaded and it said that the
only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His
R
death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of
n r
conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the death of
a a
Secretary Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who allegedly violated
B
Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March
h
25, 2014.
C s
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons acting in conspiracy
e
with public officers may be indicted. The requirement before a private person may be
b l
indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private
person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law,
o
however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together
with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be
R
charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the
n
private person may be indicted alone. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No.
a
168539, March 25, 2014.
B
R.A. 3019; Section 3(e); proof of the extent of damage is not essential. The third element
C h
of the offense – that the act of the accused caused undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefit, advantage or
s
e
preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused – was established here. Proof
l
of the extent of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or the
b
benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not merely negligible. Danilo
O. Garcia and Joven SD. Brizuela v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
197204, March 26, 2014.
R o
Liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Plameras v. People, September 4, 2013. The
n
following elements must concur to be liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019:
1)
a
The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or
h
official functions;
2)
C
He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
o
24|P a g e

R
e s
l
b 3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or
giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
a r
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 (R.A. 9165) – Review of the concept of
chain of custody as it relates to the evidence and eventual prosecution of the case
B
(Sec. 21); no mitigating and aggravating circumstances will be appreciated under law
because mere possession or any other act under the law is considered mala prohibita
e s
but knowledge must be established by the prosecution that the offender freely and
consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority (animus possidendi).
b l
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule. There are links that must be established in
the chain of custody in a buybust situation, namely: “first, the seizure and marking, if
o
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
R
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
n r
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth, the turnover and
a a
submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.” In
B
this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the
h confiscated shabu. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y Balverde, et al, G.R. No.
190621, February 10, 2014.
s
l e
Exception to the chain of custody rule: People v. Romeo Ong et. al., July 3, 2013.
Prosecution should establish the following links in that chain of custody of the
o b
confiscated item: 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
R
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
n r
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal
a a
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
h B
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link—
immediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and others—
C s
namely, that (a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and
e
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
b l
o
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of drugs; elements. With regard to the offense
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be
R
proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a
n
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
a
and consciously possesses the said drug. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No.
h B
198452, February 19, 2014
C s
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. In a successful prosecution for
e
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established:
l
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
b
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Place. People of the Philippines v.
Glenn Salvador y Balverde, et al, G.R. No. 190621. February 10, 2014.
R
Drugs Act means “to carry or convey from one place to another.” The very act ofo
Dangerous Drugs Act; “transport” defined. “Transport” as used under the Dangerous
n
transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is punished as an
a
offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing
dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or
h
knowledge. People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No. 189833, February
5, 2014
C
Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust operations; distinction between entrapment and
instigation. A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a
o
25|P a g e

R
e s
l
b 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. In
entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation
a r
legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by the
informant. Also, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as
B
indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the
need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his
e s
efforts. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in
obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security is
2013.
b l
disregarded. People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6,
o
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements. To establish the crime
R
of illegal sale of shabu as defined and punished under section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165,
the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following: (a) the identity of
n r
the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and
a a
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. The commission of
B
the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the
h consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer
s
receives the drug from the seller. In short, the Prosecution must show that the
e
transaction or sale actually took place, and present in court the thing sold as evidence of
l
the corpus delicti. People of the Philippines v. Arnold Tapere y Polpol, G.R. No.
b
178065, February 20, 2013
o
3. Anti-violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 2562) – Nature
of violence is not limited to physical but may cover economic and psychological acts.
R
Review S.C. ruling in People v. Genosa on battered woman syndrome which consists
n r
of three phases: tension-building phase; acute battering incident and tranquil, loving
a a
or non-violent phase. Battered woman syndrome is a valid defense that will
exonerate a woman from killing her spouse/partner.
h B
Dabalos v. RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, January 7, 2013. The Court will not read into
C s
Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 a provision that would render it toothless in the pursuit of
e
the declared policy of the State to protect women and children from violence and
l
threats to their personal safety and security. The law is broad in scope but specifies two
b
limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence
o
against women through physical harm, namely: 1) it is committed against a woman or
her child and the woman is the offenders wife, former wife, or with whom he has or
R
had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it results
n
in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably, while it is required that
a
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
h B
consequence of such relationship.
C s
4. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22): elements of the crime; an offender can be charged
e
both with estafa for each party offended and violation of B.P.22 for each count of
l
checks dishonored covered by the prohibition (ex. A pyramiding scam committed by
b
Zebra was uncovered which victimized 200 vendors for which 6 posted dated checks
were issued to each vendor to pay interest on their capital investment. Zebra shall be
o
held on 200 counts of estafa under the RPC and as many counts of violation of B.P.
R
for each check dishonored upon presentment.); relate situation with definition of
continued crime or delito continuado.
a n
Liability under B.P. 22. San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013. To be liable for violation of
B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and
h
issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
C
with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
o
26|P a g e

R
e s
l
b ordered the bank to stop payment. Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo
actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the
insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot convict her
with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22
a r
Estafa; syndicated estafa; elements. The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or
B
other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more
e s
persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),” or
b l
farmers’ associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general
public. Rafael H. Galvez and Katherine L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v.
o
Gilbert, et al./Gilbert Guy, et al v. Asia Untied Bank ,G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No. 187979/G.R.
R
No. 188030, February 20, 2013
n r
Effect of Acquittal on Civil Liability. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, November 11,
a a
2013.If acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, will not relieve the accused of the
B
corresponding civil liability.
h s
5. Anti- Fencing Law: Being a crime considered as malum prohibitum, mere
e
possession of a stolen good gives rise to prima facie presumption of violation of the
l
Anti-Fencing Law. A question involving sale of Ukay-ukay items might be asked.
b
Elements of Fencing. Ong v. People, April 10, 2013. The essential elements of the crime of
fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2) the
R o
accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
n r
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the
a
accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of
B a
h
value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there
s
is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.hanr
C e
6. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294): elements
l
of the crime; differentiate criminal intent from intent to possess; how will a person
b
be treated if found to have possessed an illegal firearm in a COMELEC check point,
will he be charged for violation of the Omnibus Election Law or for illegal
o
possession of firearm, or both; review concept of absorption in criminal law and
R
when it will and will not apply.
n
7. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001: define suspicious transactions, covered
transactions, covered institution, and covered persons; knowledge of the culprit’s
a
identity is not essential; effect of freeze order (only the Court of Appeals may issue
B
h
this order)
C s
8. Anti-Hazing Law: definition of hazing; requisites under Sec. 2 of the law; liability
e
of persons under Sec.4 of the law – who may held principals and accomplices; Read
l
the Lenny Villa case and latest decision penned by Justice Mendoza on the fraternity
b
rumble inside the U.P. campus resulting to death of a U.P. student. See the dissenting
opinion of Justice Peralta.
VI. Other possible matters which may be taken up in Criminal Law
R o
1. On prescription of a crime: The reckoning date of crime if not known right after its
n
commission may be computed from the date of discovery. Example: If a crime was
a
committed 10 years from its commission on October 17, 1993 was only reported by an
eyewitness on October 17, 2003 and the culprit was arrested only on October 17, 2013,
h
prescription will be counted only from October 17, 2003 and not from October 17,
C
1993.
2. On criminal liability: If Tiger borrowed a gun from Lion to kill Kangaroo but Tiger
did not use Lion’s gun but he instead stabbed Kangaroo. Will Tiger have any
o
27|P a g e

R
e s
l
b criminal liability? If Tiger agreed with the plan of Lion, he can be held liable as an
accomplice.
3. Kidnapping: If A, B and C stopped at gunpoint a van carrying a well-known artist
r
with her driver and personal assistant inside the van and announced “Kidnap ito”.
a
They forcibly took over the van, hit the driver’s head and left him along the road but
they took the personal assistant with them. They ordered the artist to call up her
B
talent manager to ask for a ransom of P5M. What crimes were committed by A, B and
s
C–
e
(a) As to the artist – kidnapping and serious illegal detention
b l
(b) As to the personal assistant – serious illegal detention
(c) as to the driver- grave coercion and depending on injuries sustained,
o
serious or less serious physical injuries
R
People v. Betty Salvador, April 10, 2013. In order for the accused to be convicted of
n r
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
a a
the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the
B
crime, namely: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another,
h or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping
s
must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following
l e
circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are
o b
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d)
the person kidnapped and kept in detained is a minor, the duration of his detention is
R
immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose
n r
of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is immaterial.
a a
People v. Nocum, April 1, 2013. Section 2 of RA 6539 defines carnapping as "the taking,
h B
with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent,
or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
C e s
things." The crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under Section 14 of the
l
said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. To prove the special complex crime of
b
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
R o
killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof." Thus, the prosecution in this case has the burden of proving that: (1)
n
Mallari took the Toyota FX taxi; (2) his original criminal design was carnapping; (3) he
a
killed the driver, Medel; and (4) the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
B
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."oblesvirtu
C h
4. Crimes covered under Art. 365 – In cases of criminal negligence, courts may impose
s
e
a penalty without considering any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Thus,
l
voluntary surrender will not be appreciated.
b
Negligence; Medical negligence; four elements the plaintiff must prove by competent
evidence. An action upon medical negligence – whether criminal, civil or administrative
R o
– calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence each of the following four
elements, namely: (a) the duty owed by the physician to the patient, as created by the
n
physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance with the specific norms or standards
a
established by his profession; (b) the breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act
h
in accordance with the applicable standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must be a
reasonably close and causal connection between the negligent act or omission and the
C
resulting injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient. Dr. Fernando P. Solidum
v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
o
28|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Res ipsa loquitor; applicability in medical negligence cases. The applicability of the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases was significantly and
exhaustively explained in Ramos v. Court of Appeals, where the Court said–Medical
r
malpractice cases do not escape the application of this doctrine. Thus, res ipsa loquitur
a
has been applied when the circumstances attendant upon the harm are themselves of
B
such a character as to justify an inference of negligence as the cause of that harm. The
application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law
s
since it is a judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances does, as
e
l
a matter of law, permit a given inference. Resort to res ipsa loquitur is allowed because
b
there is no other way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which the patient can
obtain redress for injury suffered by him. Dr. Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the
R o
Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014
5. Crime of Rape – Complex crime of rape with homicide may result if after the
n r
incident of rape, the victim was killed where there was no original intent to kill her.
a a
Aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity disguise and if alcohol was used
to embolden the offender may be appreciated by the court in imposing the penalty.
h B
Rape; three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. The three guiding principles in rape
e s
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
b l
of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost care and
caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits;
o
and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. People of the Philippines v.
Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014.
R
Rape; elements. The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) the
n r
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) said act was accomplished (a)
a a
through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
B
otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is
C h
demented. People of the Philippines v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February
12, 2014
s
l e
Rape; sweetheart theory. For the sweetheart theory to be believed when invoked by the
accused, convincing evidence to prove the existence of the supposed relationship must
o b
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
R
probative value. People of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19,
n
2014.
a
Rape; elements of statutory rape; carnal knowledge of a female without her consent is
h B
the essence of statutory rape. The elements of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a
female under 12 years or is demented; and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the
C
victim. Considering that the essence of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a female
without her consent, neither the use of force, threat or intimidation on the female, nor
e s
l
the female’s deprivation of reason or being otherwise unconscious, nor the employment
b
on the female of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to
o
commit statutory rape. People of the Philippines v. Tomas Teodoro y Angeles, G.R. No.
175876, February 20, 2013
6. Distinguish the crime of unjust vexation and acts of lasciviousness –
R
a n
7. Distinguish robbery, theft and qualified theft – as general rule, when crime of this
nature is committed, intent to gain is an essential element; the same principle applies
h
in carnapping (Anti- Carnapping Act of 1972, as amended)
C
Elements of Qualified Theft: Zapanta v. People, March 20, 2013. The elements of qualified
theft, punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said property belongs
to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done without the
o
29|P a g e

R
e s
l
b owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation

against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any of the
circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of
confidence.
a r
Homicide on occasion of robbery, victim is immaterial. People v. Welvin Diu, et al., April
3, 2013. When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all
B
those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as
s
principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they
e
did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
l
prevent the same.
b
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of the
robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All those who
o
conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of such crime,
R
although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal
conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer
n r
repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
a a
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for
B
h
instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to
s
preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
e
commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the
l
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.
o b
8. Distinguish libel, internet libel and oral defamation – malice is an essential
element in libel and under Art. 361, RPC proof of truth shall be admissible only if the
R
same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to facts
related/published.
a n a r
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
h B
concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed;
C s
and (d) existence of malice. There is “actual malice” or malice in fact when the offender
e
makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless
requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.

b l
disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here
2014.
R o
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No. 203335, February 11,
n
Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the
a
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
h
“similar means” for committing libel. But the Supreme Court’s acquiescence goes only
B
C s
insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes only the author of the libelous statement or
e
article.
l
9. Distinction between crime of rebellion and that of sedition – who may liable;
b
elements of each crime; can crime be considered as complex with robbery, complex
o
with homicide, complex with damage to property?
R
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
a n
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,
h
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed
with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.” Thus, when a killing is
C
committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder but the
killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be
prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone
o
30|P a g e

R
e s
l
b 10. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208) ; Anti-Child Pornography Act
of 2009 (R.A.9775), Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act (R.A. 7610, as amended) – acts punishable and who are liable;
In case of aliens, violating R.A. 9775, may they be subjected to both deportation
r
proceedings and a criminal action? YES; Read the conviction of Judge Adoracion
a
Angeles – judge was not suspended from judicial duties while conviction was
B
pending appeal; issuance of Protection Order even at the barangay level
s
Balois Alberto et. al. v. C.A. et. al. As held in People v. Pangilinan: “[I]f the victim is 12
e
years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section
l
5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
b
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act
o
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
Rcomplexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised
n r
Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
a a
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.”
h B
Cabalo v. People, June 10, 2013. Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertinently reads: SEC.
s
5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for
e
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
l
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
b
deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.” As
determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), the elements of the foregoing offense
o
are the following: (a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
R
conduct; (b) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse; and (c) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
n r
age.
a
11. Murder and Homicide
B a
C h
Murder; elements. To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must prove
s
that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by
e
any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code;
l
and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. People of the Philippines v. Mark
b
Joseph R. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013.
o
Homicide; intent to kill. The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at
whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The
R
evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter alia, the means used; the nature,
n
location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of the
a
malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim.
B
Accused’s intent to kill was simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. Using a gun, he
h
shot the victim in the chest. Despite a bloodied right upper torso, the latter still
C s
managed to run towards his house to ask for help. Nonetheless, accused continued to
e
shoot at the victim three more times, albeit unsuccessfully. These belie the absence of
l
petitioner’s intent to kill the victim. Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo v. People of the
b
Philippines, G.R. No. 188551, February 27, 2013.
o
12. Illegal Use of Alias
R
Illegal use of aliases. A person who uses various names and such contained his true
names, albeit at times joined with an erroneous middle or second name, or a misspelled
n
family name in one instance is not guilty of violating the Anti-Alias Law when he was
a
not also shown to have used the names for unscrupulous purposes, or to deceive or
confuse the public. The Court that the dismissal of the charge against him was justified
2014.
C h
in fact and in law. Revelina Limson v. Eugenio Juan Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31,
13. Bigamy (Both decisions were penned by Justice Peralta)
o
31|P a g e

R
e s
l
b Capili v. People, July 3, 2013. The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are: (1) the
offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in
case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead
according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
a r
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the accused may still be charged with
B
the crime of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the
second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second
s
marriage was celebrated.
e
l
People v. Odtuhan, July 17, 2013. The Family Code has settled once and for all the
b
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.
o
It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial declaration of nullity is required
R
before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a
bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
a n a r
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage
h B
should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
s
submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of the
e
marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
l
declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a
second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes
o b
the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
14. On computation of penalties – It is important to relate the felony committed with
R
the corresponding penalty prescribed for such felony, then consider the attending
circumstances which may shorten or lengthen the service sentence and if ISLaw

a n
applies, then the corresponding adjustments will have to be made.
a r
h B
C e s
b l
R o
a n
h B
C e s
b l
R o
a n
C h
o
32|P a g e

R

Loan Zon Criminal Law 2017 PW

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Loan Zon Criminal Law 2017 PW

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

e s

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

a the mitigating circumstance of provocation?

investigation and punishment.

innocence of the accused. (People v. Vicente)

a BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY

convicted the accused.

uphold the conviction?

reasonable doubt. (People v. Alverio)

demand required to convict the accused?

b Q. What is the nature and scope of Criminal Law?

a n Sec. 1: due process and equal protection clause;

b (5) in mala en se, modifying circumstances are considered in determining imposable

h 195525, February 5, 2014.

a n Q. When is alibi applicable as a defense?

b plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of criminal

b C. Graduation of Penalty: graduation of penalties may be appreciated as follows –

b D. Three-fold and 40-year limitation rule: distinguish simultaneous service (ex.

b owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation

requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.

13. Bigamy (Both decisions were penned by Justice Peralta)

Potrebbero piacerti anche