SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
BAR OPERATION

criminal law team

department head Atty. Jose Adrian Bonifacio
team advisers Pros. Elmer Manuel Sagsago
Atty. Daniel Dazon Mangallay

team head Jeldawn Jacel Nairra Corcha Sagsago

team members Berto D. Balicdang

Sheena Seemba D. Cameyeng
John Mark D. Gamonnac
Amelyn T. Matis
Mark Ryan L. Pascua
Harvey A. Pugong
Dianalynn Santos
Lourie Ann Tade
Jaylord Ascencio Q. Valdez

bar academics adviser Atty. Jerico Gay-ya

bar operations head Laureen F. Peralta-Retuta

SLU school of law dean Dean Lilybeth T. Sindayen-Libiran

SLU-SOL BAROPS © 2017

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2
PART I. REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)
BOOK 1 4
PART II. REVISED PENAL CODE (RPC)
BOOK 2 41
PART III. QUASI-OFFENSES 111
PART IV. SPECIAL LAWS 115

3
PART I. Revised Penal
Code (RPC) Book 1
A. Fundamental and General Principles in Criminal Law 5
1. Definition of Criminal Law 5
(a) Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita 5
2. Applicability and Effectivity of the Penal Code 6
(a) Generality 6
(b) Territoriality 7
(c) Prospectivity 7
B. Felonies 8
1. Criminal Liabilities and Felonies 8
(a) Impossible Crime 8
(b) Stages of Execution 8
(c) Continuing Crimes, Complex Crimes and Composite
Crimes 10
2. Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability 13
(a) Justifying Circumstances 13
(b) Exempting Circumstances 16
(c) Mitigating Circumstances 17
(d) Aggravating Circumstances 19
(e) Alternative Circumstances 25
(f) Absolutory Cause 25
3. Persons Liable and Degree of Participation 25
(a) Principals, Accomplices and Accessories 25
(b) Conspiracy and Proposal 28
(c) Multiple Offenders 31
C. Penalties 32
In Relation to RA 9346 – Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines 37
Three-fold rule 37
PD 968 – Probation Law 38
D. Criminal and Civil Liabilities 39
1. Extinction of Criminal Liabilities 39
2. Civil Liabilities in Criminal Cases 40

4
A. Fundamental and General Principles in Criminal Law
1. Definition of Criminal Law

BAR QUESTION 2012

What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws,
including the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (5%)

ANSWER:
The fundamental principle in applying criminal laws is the Doctrine of Pro
Reo which provides that penal laws shall always be construed liberally in favor of
the accused. In dubio pro reo, i.e., when in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in
consonance with the constitutional guarantee that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo who
wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa.
He wants to make the State prison a revenue earner for the country through a law
providing for premium accommodations for prisoners (other than those under
maximum security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for
those who want long-term premium accommodations.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like
amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term
occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board with special meals in air
conditioned single-occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star
hotels.
What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of criminal law,
taking into account the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and considerations of ethics
and morality (3%)? (10%total points)

ANSWER:
I would advise Senator Salcedo not to file the said bill. First, the bill is
unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It will
create economic inequality in our criminal justice system. Rich prisoners will enjoy
better amenities and privileges than those who are poor. Second, the bill will
defeat the purpose of penalties in criminal law, which is to secure justice,
retribution, and reformation.

MABUNOT v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 204659 September 19, 2016

Reyes, J.

FACTS:
Shiva and her group were sewing inside the classroom when the petitioner, who
was then under the influence of alcohol, arrived. The petitioner twisted the arm of
Michael Fontanilla, strangled James and boxed William Thomas. He boxed Shiva on her
left flank leaving the latter with a fractured rib. Shiva passed out and was thereafter
taken to Potia District Hospital, where she stayed for two days. Before finally leaving,
the petitioner also boxed Dennis. Back then, Shiva was 14 years old, while the
petitioner was 19. The petitioner also posits that since he and Dennis were exchanging
punches then, he could not have made a deliberate design to injure Shiva. Without
intent to harm Shiva, the petitioner insists that he deserves an acquittal.

ISSUE:
Is the injury inflicted on Shiva intentional and deliberate?

5
 HOLDING:
YES.
When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in
se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be
clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is
committed. However, physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong, rendering material
the existence of a criminal intent on the part of the offender. In this case, criminal
intent is not wanting. The petitioner cannot escape liability for his error. Indeed,
criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

KHITRI,v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016

Reyes, J.
FACTS:
Petitioners, received in trust from Spouses Hiroshi and Belen the amount of
P400,000.00 for the construction of a factory building to be built on the one-half
portion of the land of the petitioners. The petitioners failed to comply with their
obligation to build the proposed two-storey building and used the same for their own
personal use and benefits. Despite repeated demands made by private respondents, the
petitioners failed to return the P400,000.00 claiming that they explained to him that
one-half of the lot would be used for the two-storey factory. Later, Hiroshi learned that
instead of a two-storey factory, a two-door studio-type apartment was constructed.

ISSUE:
Is malicious intent present to sufficiently convict petitioners of estafa?

HOLDING:
NO.
The element of intent is described as the state of mind accompanying an act,
especially a forbidden act. Intentional felony requires the existence of dolus malus - that
the act or omission be done "willfully," "maliciously," "with deliberate evil intent," and
"with malice aforethought." The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a
crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent. As is required of the other elements of a felony, the existence of malicious
intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Applicability and Effectivity of the Penal Code

BAR QUESTION 2012

What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (5%)

ANSWER:
1. The penal law must be general in its application, otherwise, it would violate
the equal protection clause.
2. The penal law must not be an ex post facto law.
3. The penal law must not be a bill of attainder or one which punishes without
due process.
4. The penal law must not impose cruel, unusual, or degrading punishment.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and
driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally. The
pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? (3%)

6
 ANSWER:
Yes, Pierce is correct. Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in the
Philippines, is exempted from the general application of our penal laws. He enjoys
diplomatic immunity from suit.

DORADOv. PEOPLE G.R. No. 216671 October 3, 2016

Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
On March 15, 2004, Ronald was talking to his friends when Dorado, who was
then16 years old, fired his sumpak and hit Ronald between the eyes. Ronald fell
unconscious for about ten (10) minutes while Dorado's group ran away. Ronald was
brought to the Rizal Medical Center. Ronald was operated on his forehead and was
confined for a month at the Rizal Medical Center. As a result of the shooting incident,
Ronald lost his left eye while his right eye could only see some light. Dr. Artes, the
operating surgeon, testified that without medical intervention, Ronald could have died.
The Informations filed against him consistently stated his minority.

ISSUE:
Should Dorado be held liable?

HOLDING:
NO.
Dorado benefitted from the provisions of R.A. No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act of 2006, as amended. Even though the said law was enacted on April
28, 2006, the same must still be retroactively applied for the benefit of Dorado pursuant
to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law — favorabilia sunt amplianda adios
arestrigenda (penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect).

ATIZADO v PEOPLE, GR NO 173822, OCTOBER 13, 2010

Bersami, J.

HOLDING:
If a child in conflict with the law, who is a habitual delinquent, committed a
crime prior to the enactment of RA 9344, he is entitled to a retroactive application of the
law. Section 68 of RA 9344 expressly provides retroactive application of the privileges
available to a child in conflict with the law.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making it a criminal
offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma,
a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new
law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80‘s.
He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? (3%)

ANSWER:
Reporma may raise the argument that one of the limitations on the power
of Congress to enact a penal law is that it cannot pass an ex post facto law. An ex
post facto law is a law which makes an act criminal although at the time it was
committed, it was not yet so. Charging Reporma under this new law for his
previous membership in the Communist Party would be unconstitutional. The
retroactive application of the law cannot be prejudicial to the accused.

7
B. Felonies
1. Criminal Liabilities and Felonies

BAR QUESTION 2012

Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom
Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian
(Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when
actually Puti was intending to poison Pula. The Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic
solution which, when mixed with Pula‘s food, did not kill Pula. (4%)
(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit?
(B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture,
Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?

ANSWER:
(A) Puti committed the impossible crime of murder. All the elements of
an impossible crime are present. Puti’s act of mixing a solution with Pula’s food
would have been murder, a crime against persons. The act was done evil intent
which is to kill Pula. However, the crime was not accomplished because of the
employment of ineffectual means, i.e., the solution turned out to be non-toxic
which would not kill Pula. And said act would not fall under any other provision of
the RPC.
(B) No, my answer would not be the same. If as a result of the mixture,
Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days, the crime
committed by Puti is Less Serious Physical Injuries. It is not an impossible crime
because the last element of an impossible requires that the act performed should
not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

PEOPLE v SAPITULA G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
A buy-bust operation was conducted against the appellant. PO3 Palabay
approached accused-appellant who immediately handed to him a heat-sealed plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance; and PO3 Palabay, in exchange, gave
accused-appellant the marked money. Accused-appellant then counted the money while
PO3 Palabay placed the sachet in his pocket and removed his cap to signal the arrest to
the other police officers.

ISSUE:
Is the sale of the shabu only in the attempted stage?

HOLDING:
NO.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

The Court finds that all elements for illegal sale were duly established with
accused-appellant having been caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-
bust operation conducted by the buy-bust team of PO3 Palabay. The delivery of the
illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.

8
 MARASIGAN v. FUENTES G.R. No. 201310; January 11, 2016
Leonen, J.

FACTS:
While walking on his way home Marasigan passed by Fuentes‘ house. Marasigan
felt someone throw an object at him from behind, when he turned around he saw
Fuentes who disappeared. While speaking to Pablo, a witness, Fuentes suddenly
punched Marasigan on the face, making his nose bleed. Calilan and Lindo also hit him
while their unidentified companion sought to stop them. The respondents then
coordinated in assaulting him and that this assault culminated in efforts to hit his head
with a stone or hollow block. Gregoria Pablo, Jefferson Pablo's mother, tried to pacify
Fuentes, Calilan, and Lindo. They, however, continued to assault Marasigan until the
arrival of the neighbors.

ISSUE:
Should accused be liable for consummated murder?

HOLDING:
NO.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There
is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In this
case, accused were not able to inflict fatal blows because of the timely intervention of
the neighbors.

PEOPLE v. EDA G.R. No. 220715, August 24, 2016

Peralta, J.
FACTS:
Acting upon an information received from a civilian asset, PCI Ramirez formed a
buy-bust team. The buy-bust team, together with the civilian asset proceeded to
conduct the operation. On board the tricycle being driven by the civilian asset, they
approached Eda, the purported seller of shabu. PO2 Bejer was inside the sidecar of the
tricycle, while the civilian asset and Eda made the exchange. When PO2 Bejer saw the
exchange of one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and the marked
money, he immediately alighted from the tricycle and introduced himself to Eda as a
police officer.

ISSUE:
Are all the requisites of a consummated sale of dangerous drugs present?

HOLDING:
YES.
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of
the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. What is material is the proof
that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the
prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage?
Explain your answer in relation to what produces the crime of theft in its
consummated stage and by way of illustration of the subjective and objective phases
of the felony. (5%)

ANSWER:
NO, the crime of Theft has no frustrated stage.

9
 In the case of Valenzuela vs. People (GR 160188, June 21, 2007), the Supreme
Court ruled that unlawful taking is the element that produces the felony of Theft in
its consummated stage. Once unlawful taking is complete, theft is consummated.
Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. At
the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could
only be attempted theft. Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only
be attempted or consummated.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the crime of homicide, taking
into account the nature of the offense, the essential element of each of the stages of
execution and the manner of committing such intentional felony as distinguished
from felony committed through reckless imprudence. (5%)

ANSWER:
Illustration of an intentional felony, homicide and its 3 stages: attempted,
frustrated and consummated.
X, with intent to kill, shot Y.
If Y sustained a non fatal wound near the shoulder, X is liable of
Attempted Homicide. X’s act of shooting Y is an overt act directly connected to
homicide, however, he was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring
about homicide by reason some cause or accident other than his spontaneous
desistance, i.e., the wound inflicted is non fatal.
If Y sustained a fatal wound on the chest that could have caused his death
were it not for the immediate medical operation performed on him, the crime
committed is Frustrated Homicide. It is frustrated because when X inflicted a fatal
gunshot wound on Y, X has already performed all the acts of execution to bring
about homicide, however, homicide is not produce by reason of a cause
independent of the will of the perpetrator, i.e., an immediate medical operation
done on the victim.
If Y died, X is liable of homicide because X has already performed the
acts/elements necessary for the accomplishment of homicide.

Illustration of a felony committed though reckless imprudence.

X was driving his car recklessly when he hit a pedestrian.
If the pedestrian died, X is liable of Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide. Since the victim died, even if there was no intent to kill, the felony
resulting from the imprudence is homicide because intent to kill becomes a general
criminal intent which is presumed by law.
If the pedestrian did not die, X is liable of Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Physical Injuries. Since there was no intent to kill on the part of X, the felony
resulting from the imprudence would only be physical injuries. There is no such
crime as Reckless Imprudence resulting in Frustrated or Attempted Homicide
because there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused.

PEOPLE v. MORILLO AND AMBAS G.R. No. 208524, June 01, 2016
Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
Bocalbos was driving his Nissan Urvan and transporting passengers as a means
of earning extra income. While the van was cruising along Commonwealth Avenue,
Quezon City, one of the passengers suddenly announced, "Hold-up walang kikilos nang
masama!". Peralta, an armed passenger then ordered him to vacate the driver's seat and
move to the rear portion of the van. After executing a U-turn, Peralta, using a firearm,
shot Bocalbos in the head. Peralta's cohorts then took the valuables of the passengers
including that of Olitan. Peralta and Ambas were charged of Robbery with Homicide.

10
ISSUE:
Was the crime of robbery with homicide committed?

HOLDING:
YES.
In People v. Barra, this Court enumerated the elements that the prosecution
needs to prove in order to convict an accused of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, to
wit:
1. The taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation
against persons;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking is with animo lucrandi; and
4. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed.

The taking of Olitan‘s property was committed with violence and intimidation.
This taking happened after Peralta and Ambas announced a hold-up in order to rob the
passengers of the van of their valuables. And undoubtedly, homicide was also
committed when Bocalbos was shot in the head on the occasion of that robbery.

PEOPLE v. SABADLAB G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012

Bersamin, J.

There can be no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape when the
objective of the abduction was to commit the rape.

FACTS:
AAA was grabbed by her shoulders by Sabadlad and was ordered to go with him.
A gun was poked at her throat when she refused. Two men joined Sabadlab. She was
forced into a car blindfolded. After twenty minutes of travel accused brought her out of
the car, undressed her, tied her hands behind her back and raped her. The three
ravished her again and again. She was then returned to where she was abducted. The
RTC convicted Sabadlab for forcible abduction with rape.

ISSUE:
Is the crime of forcible abduction with rape a proper charge?

HOLDING:
NO.
The principal objective of Sabadlab and his two cohorts in abducting AAA and in
bringing her to another place was to rape and ravish her. This objective became evident
from the successive acts of Sabadlab immediately after she had alighted from the car in
completely undressing her as to expose her whole body, in kissing her body from the
neck down, and in having carnal knowledge of her. Although forcible abduction was
seemingly committed, the court cannot hold him guilty of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape when the objective of the abduction was to commit the rape. Under
the circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.

PEOPLE v. VILLAFLORES G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012

Bersamin, J.

A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of

two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense
for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a
specific penalty provided by law

FACTS:
Marita, who was 4 years old, had been playing at the rear of their residence
when her mother first noticed her missing from home. The next day, Manito reported to
the police that Marita was missing. They found Marita‘s lifeless body covered with a
blue and yellow sack inside the comfort room of an abandoned house. She had been
tortured and strangled to death. The ensuing police investigation led to two witnesses,
11
Aldrin Bautista and Jovy Solidum, who indicated that Villaflores might be the culprit
who had raped and killed Marita. Postmortem findings showed that the cause of death
was asphyxia by strangulation and indications of rape were found.
RTC convicted Villaflores of rape with homicide.

ISSUE:
Is the composite crime of rape with homicide committed?

HOLDING:
YES.
The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also
known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law
treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single
criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law.

The law on rape defines and sets forth the composite crimes of attempted rape
with homicide and rape with homicide. In both composite crimes, the homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion of rape. As can be noted, each of said
composite crimes is punished with a single penalty, the former with reclusion perpetua
to death, and the latter with death.

The phrases by reason of the rape and on the occasion of the rape are crucial in
determining whether the crime is a composite crime or a complex or compound crime.
The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to
the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape
is also the victim of the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide and the rape
(attempted or consummated) is clear and admits of no doubt.

PEOPLE v. ESUGON GR NO 195244, JUNE 22, 2015

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
Robbery with homicide is a composite crime, also known as a special complex
crime. It is composed of two or more crimes but is treated by law as a single indivisible
and unique offense for being the product of one criminal impulse. It is a specific crime
with a specific penalty provided by law, and is to be distinguished from a compound or
complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. A composite crime is truly
distinct and different from a complex or compound crime. In a composite crime, the
composition of the offenses is fixed by law, but in a complex or compound crime, the
combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less
grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. In a composite
crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific, but in a complex
or compound crime the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be
imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies the commission of a
complex or compound crime may be made the subject of a separate information, but a
light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms,
attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned
down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could not handle
rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together with
Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse
where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took turns in
raping her. After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house.
(4%)

(A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?

(B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one
hour after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty‘s death? Explain.
12
 ANSWER:
(A) Guapo and Pogi committed the complex crime of Forcible Abduction
with Rape. They abducted Pretty against her will and with lewd design, and
thereafter raped her. Forcible abduction was a necessary means to commit the
crime of Rape. Since there is conspiracy, Guapo and Pogi are responsible not only
for the rape each personally committed but also for the rape committed by his co-
conspirator.
(B) Guapo and Pogi would not be held liable for the death of Pretty.
Suicide is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection
between the rapes and the death. In People vs. Napudo (GR 168448, October 8, 2008),
the victim committed suicide due to rape. The accused was only charged with and
convicted of rape.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she was already
tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the situation
and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he raped her for a period of two (2) weeks.
What crime did Pogi commit? (4%)

ANSWER:
Pogi committed the special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Rape.
All the elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention are present.
Pogi, a private individual, kidnapped and detained Sexy by bringing her to a
deserted place. Said detention is illegal and is serious because it lasted for more
than 3 days and the victim is a female.
The special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
Rape resulted because Sexy, the victim of the kidnapping and detention, was
raped as a consequence of the detention. (Article 267, last par., RPC) Since it is a
special complex crime, regardless of the number of times the victim had been
raped, there is only one single indivisible offense of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Rape.

2. Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability

PEOPLE v. MAYINGQUE et. Al. G.R. No. 179709 JULY 6, 2010

Bersamin, J.

The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim
belie the assertion of self-defense. The presence of a large number of wounds on
the victim’s body negated self-defense, and indicated, instead, a determined
effort to kill the victim.

FACTS:
Accused-appelant et. al were charged of murder. He invoked self-defense
claiming that the victim punched him corroborated by the testimony of Tano. However,
witnesses Salvacion, Ruben, and Jaime positively pointed to accused-appellant Loloy as
the one who stabbed Tusi twice with a kitchen knife along with accused-appellants
Gorio as the one who hacked Tusi on the head with a bolo and Boy Roti, as the one who
held Tusi while the latter was being hacked, which are bolstered by the medico legal
findings that eight (8) out of twelve (12) stabs and incise wounds sustained by Tusi are
fatal wound.

ISSUE:
Is the accused‘s claim of self-defense tenable or persuasive?

13
HOLDING:
NO.
Toribio‘s evidence on self-defense was not persuasive enough, and lacked
credibility. Such evidence did not prevail over the clear showing by Salvacion and the
Bernals that Teofilo and his co-conspirators had ganged up on Edgardo with a knife
(Teofilo) and bolo (Gregorio) while the other two had held Edgardo to render him
defenseless. Indeed, the SC agree with the conclusion of both lower courts that the plea
of self-defense was belied by the number (12) and the different sizes of the wounds
inflicted on Edgardo. The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the
victim belie the assertion of self-defense. The presence of a large number of wounds on
the victim‘s body negated self-defense, and indicated, instead, a determined effort to kill
the victim.

PEOPLE v. DEL CASTILLO et.al. G.R. No. 169084 January 18, 2012
Bersamin, J.

Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of

the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was
holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.

FACTS:
Arnold Avengoza and Joven del Castillo claimed that they brought Winifreda and
her son to their house. Before they were able to reach Winifreda‘s house, three (3) men
appeared. One of them held Winifreda and when Arnold tried to help her, the two other
persons attempted to draw something from their waists prompting Del Castillo to hack
one of them. When the other man got mad, Del Castillo hacked him twice. They were
charged of murder.

ISSUE:
Did Arnold and Joven act in self-defense and defense of stranger?

HOLDING:
NO.
In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial
element, a condition sine qua non. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or
material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material
unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive
act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent
unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it
must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but
must be offensive and positively strong. Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a
mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip
where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming
to throw a pot.

PEOPLE v. PLACER G.R. No. 181753, October 9, 2013

Bersamin, J.:

There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, if no

unlawful aggression from the victim is established.

FACTS:
The fatal confrontation between Rosalino emanated from the near collision
between Rosalino‘s tricycle and the tricycle driven by Virgilio which then also carried
Ramon. The near collision immediately led to a heated exchange of words between
Rosalino and Virgilio, but they later parted with each going his separate way. However,
Virgilio soon after pursued Rosalino‘s tricycle and blocked its path. Both Ramon and
Virgilio quickly alighted from their tricycle to confront Rosalino, who also alighted from
his tricycle to protest. It was at that point when Ramon assaulted Rosalino by stabbing
14
the latter in the chest with his balisong, causing the latter to fall towards his own
tricycle. On his part, Virgilio also stabbed Rosalino in the stomach supposedly with an
ice pick just as the latter was falling down from Ramon‘s attack.

ISSUE:
Can the accused-appellants invoke self-defense?

HOLDING:
NO.
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, if no unlawful
aggression from the victim is established.

The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the
person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.
Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful
aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the
attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault
must be unlawful.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression;

and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means
an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not
consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be
offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or
opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression
must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand
to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or
like aiming to throw a pot.

BAR QUESTION 2011

Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his
rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his
death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the
victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any provocation
on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with
which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant
circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (7%)

ANSWER:
The Judge should impose an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor in
any of its period as the minimum term of the sentence to prision correccional in its
medium period as the maximum term of the sentence. Bruno was entitled to 2
privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the presence of 2
ordinary mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance which
under Articles 69 and 64(5), RPC, respectively, would lower the prescribed penalty
for homicide – reclusion temporal – to prision correccional.
There is incomplete self-defense because Bruno proved the presence of
unlawful aggression, as it was the victim who first attacked him, and did so without
provocation on Bruno‘s part. There is, however, no reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent/repel the unlawful aggression because Bruno used a
knife to stab the weaponless aggressor. In addition, Bruno proved the presence of 2
other mitigating circumstances, namely: voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of
guilt.

15
 There are no aggravating circumstances present because it was not
shown that Bruno disregarded the age of the victim or that nighttime facilitated the
commission. Further, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance because the crime happened in the house where both Bruno and the
victim lived.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the
indeterminate penalty should be within the range of prision correccional in its medium
period and the minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower
in degree or arresto mayor in any of its period.

BAR QUESTION 2013 (Battered Woman Syndrome)

Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr.
B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his ―barkadas‖ until the
wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of
their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat
Ms. A and their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one
of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that
required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses
committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly
beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly
stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against her.
Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession of a
knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his
instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered three
(3) stab wounds.
Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (5%)

ANSWER:
Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. She is
suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress resulting from
cumulative abuse by her husband. She even consulted a psychologist several times,
as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. Under Section 26, RA 9262 of The
Anti- Violence against Women and their Children Act, ―victim survivors who are
found by the court to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for the
justifying circumstance of self-defense under the Revised penal Code.‖

VERDADERO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 216021, March 02, 2016

Mendoza, J.

In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it

is permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition during a reasonable
period before and after.

FACTS:
Verdadero was charged with the crime of murder for killing Romeo B. Plata. In
2003, Verdadero was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was given medications to
address his mental illness. In 2009, he was again confined for the fourth (4th) time at
CVMC due to a relapse. On March 12, 2009, Miriam proceeded to CVMC, after she
heard of the stabbing incident. There, she saw Verdadero removing the IV tubes
connected to his body and, thereafter, locked himself inside the comfort room.
Eventually, Verdadero was given sedatives and was transferred to an isolation room
after Miriam informed the nurses of the incident.

Dr. Pagaddu agreed with Dr. Andres-Juliana that Verdadero had suffered a
relapse on the day of the stabbing incident.

16
 On the day of the stabbing incident, Maynard, his neighbor, perceived that
Verdadero was again of unsound mind noting that he had reddish eyes and appeared to
be drunk.

ISSUE:
Is Verdadero insane at the time of the commission of the crime?

HOLDING:
YES.
Insanity must be present at the time the crime had been committed.
An imbecile or an insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless the
latter had acted during a lucid interval. The defense of insanity or imbecility must be
clearly proved for there is a presumption that the acts penalized by law are voluntary.

In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is

permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition during a reasonable period
before and after. Direct testimony is not required nor is specific acts of disagreement
essential to establish insanity as a defense. A person's mind can only be plumbed or
fathomed by external acts. Thereby his thoughts, motives and emotions may be
evaluated to determine whether his external acts conform to those of people of sound
mind. To prove insanity, clear and convincing circumstantial evidence would suffice.

NADYAHAN v. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 193134, March 2, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Nadyahan was charged with homicide. Nadyahan claimed self-defense and
presented medical certificate to prove he suffered a lacerated wound on his forehead.
The courtfinding an incomplete self-defense, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of four ( 4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

ISSUE:
Can the proven incomplete self-defense reduce the penalty?

HOLDING:
YES.
Under Article 69 of the RPC, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed
by law. There being an incomplete self-defense, the penalty should be one (1) degree
lower or from reclusion temporal to prision mayor to be imposed in its minimum period
considering the presence of one ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender pursuant to Article 64(2).

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty shall be
prision mayor minimum, the proper period after considering the mitigating
circumstance, which has a range of six ( 6) years and one ( 1) day to eight (8)
years. The minimum penalty is the penalty next lower in degree which is
prisioncorreccional in any of its periods, the range of which is six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the trial court correctly sentenced petitioner to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to
eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

17
 PEOPLE v REYES, G.R. Nos. 177105-06 August 4, 2010
Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
The Sandiganbayan appreciated the mitigating circumstance of old age in favor
of the petitioner by virtue of his being already over 70 years old.
The Sandiganbayan thereby erred. The mitigating circumstance of old age under
Article 13 (2) of the Revised Penal Code applied only when the offender was over 70
years at the time of the commission of the offense. The petitioner, being only 63 years
old when he committed the offenses charged, was not entitled to such mitigating
circumstance.

BAR QUESTION 2012

What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)

ANSWER:
A privileged mitigating circumstance is that which if present or attendant
in the commission of a felony shall affect the imposition of penalty as to degree.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating
circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating
circumstance/s. (5%)

ANSWER:
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged mitigating
circumstances are as follows:

1. As to offsetting: An ordinary mitigating circumstance can be

offset by a generic aggravating circumstance WHEREAS a privileged mitigating
circumstance cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance.
2. As to reduction of penalty: An ordinary mitigating circumstance,
if not offset by an aggravating circumstance, has the effect of lowering the imposable
penalty to its minimum period WHEREAS a privileged mitigating circumstance has
the effect of lowering the imposable penalty by one to two degrees.

BAR QUESTION 2013

A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the
crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of
Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the
imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law
provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor
offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor
offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. (8%)
(A) May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated
considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?
(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum
prohibitum?
(C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal
was filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an application for
probation?
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence?

ANSWER:
(A) Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is
a minor, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua.
Now that it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying
circumstances therein may also be applied. Even if reclusion perpetua is a single
indivisible penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still be
considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the
18
 penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed
regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary
mitigating circumstances.

(B) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special

penal laws. Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which in
turn was graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. (People vs.
Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011)

(C) Yes. A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a
notice of appeal. Section 42, RA 9344 provides: ―The court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any
time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into
account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby amended accordingly.‖
The phrase ―at any time‖ mentioned in Section 42 means that the child
in conflict with the law may file an application for probation at any time, even
beyond the perio-d for perfecting an appeal and even if the child has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction.

(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor offender shall
serve his sentence in agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with
Section 51 of RA 9344 as amended.

PEOPLE v. SUAREZ et al G.R. No. 224889, October 19, 2016

Mendoza, J.

FACTS:
Appellants left the videoke bar where they had a few drinks and proceeded to a
lamppost outside. While standing, Suarez broke a bottle and the three started to push
each other. At this point, the victim Roger was also outside the bar and shouted at
appellants, "You all go home." Appellants made a sign to Roger with their fingers,
beckoning the latter to come closer. When Roger Setera got close, Vicencio and Suarez
started to box him. Ravena who was positioned at the back of Roger delivered a stab
blow to the latter's back. Ravena then ran away followed by Suarez and Vicencio.

ISSUE:
Is treachery employed?

HOLDING:
NO.
The fight that ensued in this case was unplanned. It cannot be declared with
certainty that the boxing and stabbing were consciously and deliberately adopted by the
accused to thereby ensure the commission of the offense without risk to them arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. Besides, Roger had already
been forewarned of the danger that might befall him before he approached the accused.

PEOPLE v. VALDEZ G.R. No. 175602, January 18, 2012

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Treachery is the employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of
any of the crimes against persons which tend to directly and specially insure its
execution, without risk to the offending party arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. It encompasses a wide variety of actions and attendant
circumstances, the appreciation of which is particular to a crime committed.

19
 PEOPLE v. PLACER G.R. No. 181753, October 9, 2013
Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
There is no treachery if the killing was preceded by a face to face confrontation
between the parties.

PEOPLE v. SUAREZ ,RAVENA AND VICENCIO G.R. No. 224889

Mendoza, J.

HOLDING:
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous
to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crime. It has been held that the mere presence of two assailants, one
of them armed with a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.
Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance.

PEOPLE v. CONCEPCION AND MORALES G.R. No. 212206, July 04, 2016
Perez, J.

HOLDING:
The fact that the arms of the victim were held by Leopoldo and Algel when he
was stabbed in the back by accused Toto Morales is enough to qualify the killing to
murder." Further, the Court of Appeals added that "appellants' attack and their co-
accused came without warning and without the slightest provocation from the victim."

PEOPLE v. ALICANTE G.R. No. 201584, June 15, 2016

Perez, J.

HOLDING:
Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of abuse of superior strength.
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim
does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength,
there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim.

PEOPLE v. OANDASAN, JR G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
The fact that the shooting of the three victims had occurred in quick succession
fully called for a finding of the attendance of treachery in the attacks against all the
victims. None of the three victims was aware of the imminent deadly assault by the
accused, for they were just enjoying their drinks outside their bunkhouse.

The essence of treachery lies in the attack that came without warning, and was
swift, deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victims no chance to resist, or retaliate, or escape, thereby ensuring the
accomplishment of the deadly design without risk to the aggressor, and without the
slightest provocation on the part of the victims.

20
 PEOPLE v. VILLARICO G.R. No. 158362; APRIL 4, 2011
Bersamin, J.

The essence of treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack that leaves
the victim unable to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the
offense.

FACTS:
The assailants gunned Haide down while he was preoccupied in the kitchen of
his own abode while getting dinner ready for the household. He was absolutely unaware
of the imminent deadly assault from outside the kitchen, and was for that reason in no
position to defend himself or to repel his assailants.

ISSUE:
Is treachery present?

HOLDING:
YES.
There is treachery when: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of
treachery lies in the suddenness of the attack that leaves the victim unable to defend
himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the offense. It is the suddenness of the
attack coupled with the inability of the victim to defend himself or to retaliate that
brings about treachery; consequently, treachery may still be appreciated even if the
victim was facing the assailant.

RUSTIA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 208351 October 5, 2016

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Ambrocio went to the Brgy. Hall to meet Rustia, Jr., Rustia, Sr. and Faustino to
talk about the land that Ambrocio bought from Agcaoile. In the course of their
argument, Rustia, Jr. restrained Ambrocio on his waist while Rustia, Sr. and Faustino
helped him restrain both the hands of Ambrocio. When Ambrocio was lying on the
ground, Rustia, Jr. took the gun from Ambrocio‘s waist and pointed it at Ambrocio.
Ambrocio raised his hands saying that he will not fight but he still shot him. When they
started to walk away, Rustia, Jr. returned and took another shot at Ambrocio causing
his death.

ISSUE:
Is Rustia, Jr. liable of murder qualified by treachery?

HOLDING:
NO.
To establish the attendance of treachery in such an environment, the State's
evidence must competently and convincingly show that the accused made some
preparation to kill the victim; hence, a killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be
treacherous.

PEOPLE v. SALAHUDDIN G.R. No. 206291 January 18, 2016

Peralta, J.

HOLDING:
Two conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely, (a) the employment
of means of execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to

21
retaliate; and (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously
adopted.

In this case, the trial court correctly ruled that the fatal shooting of Atty.
Segundo was attended by treachery because appellant shot the said victim suddenly
and without any warning with a deadly weapon. Atty. Segundo G. Sotto, Jr., who was
driving his jeep with his teenage niece as passenger sitting on his right side on the front
seat, was totally unaware that he will be treacherously shot just 200 meters away from
his residence. He was unarmed and was not given any opportunity to defend himself or
to escape from the deadly assault. After he was hit when the gunman fired the first two
shots at him and his niece and after he lost control of his jeep which bumped an
interlink wire fence and stopped, he was again shot three times by the gunman.

PEOPLE v. ALECANTE G.R. No. 201584, June 15, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Ryan Vasquez, the 9-year-old brother of the victim, returned home. Ryan was
atop the staircase leading to their house when he saw "Totong" and another man
lingering outside their door. Ryan saw the two men peeping inside the house and out of
fear of being spotted by Totong and his companion, he hid in a spot by the stairs, more
or less 8 meters away from where the men were standing. Ryan saw Totong fire the first
shot. The bullet went through the door, hitting his sister Janjoy on the right side of her
body. Totong then kicked the door open and shot Janjoy on the head. The two men
immediately fled the scene.

ISSUE:
Is treachery present to qualify the crime to murder?

HOLDING:
YES.
The first shot was fired from behind a closed door, catching the victim by
surprise. The second shot to the victim's head was fired immediately after the door was
forced open by the accused-appellant. Such manner of execution of the crime ensured
the safety of accused-appellant from retaliation and afforded the victim no opportunity
to defend herself.

PEOPLE v. CONCEPCION AND MORALES G.R. No. 212206, July 04, 2016
Perez, J.

HOLDING:
The fact that the arms of the victim were held by Leopoldo and Algel when he
was stabbed in the back by accused Toto Morales is enough to qualify the killing to
murder." Further, the Court of Appeals added that "appellants' attack and their co-
accused came without warning and without the slightest provocation from the victim."

SUPERIORITY IN NUMBER

PEOPLE v. SUAREZ, RAVENA AND VICENCIO G.R. No. 224889

Mendoza, J.

HOLDING:
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously advantageous
to the aggressor and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crime. It has been held that the mere presence of two assailants, one

22
of them armed with a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength.
Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance.

PEOPLE v. ALICANTE G.R. No. 201584, June 15, 2016

Perez, J.

HOLDING:
Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of abuse of superior strength.
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim
does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength,
there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim.

Evident premeditation

PEOPLE v. SALAHUDDIN G.R. No. 206291 January 18, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Atty. Sotto together with his niece, Liezel, were on their way home when they
heard 2 gun shots. Liezel was shot on the shoulder. Thinking that they were being fired
at, she turned towards her uncle. While bending downwards, she heard a sound of a
motorcycle and another 3 gunshots from the person in the motorcycle. After which the
motorcycle left. Atty. Sotto died while Liezel was severely injured. Saladhuddin was
charged with murder, the crime attended by evident premeditation.

ISSUE:
Is there evident premeditation that attended the crime?

HOLDING:
NONE.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. For it to
be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
(1) The time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
(3) Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.
The specific time when the accused determined to commit the crime, and the
interval between such determination and execution, cannot be determined. No evidence
was adduced to prove the first and third elements of evident premeditation.

PEOPLE v. DE LA CRUZ G.R. No. 207389, February 17, 2016

Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
While victim Corazon and Joan were having breakfast, appellant suddenly
barged in their apartment, grabbed Corazon by her neck and stabbed her in the back.
Appellant continued stabbing the victim although she was already down. Joan testified
that Corazon told her that appellant threatened to kill the victim for an alleged affair
with his wife. Appellant was charged with murder attended by evident premeditation.

23
ISSUE:
Is there evident premeditation?

HOLDING:
NONE.
The aggravating or qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation did not
attend the crime because there is no evidence at all that the killing was preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent during the
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. In fact, the prosecution here has
adduced no evidence at all to show that sufficient time had lapsed before appellant
decided or determined to commit the crime; nor that appellant, by some convincing act
or action, had indeed clung to his determination to kill the victim; let alone that
sufficient time had indeed lapsed or transpired between the decision to kill and its
actual execution, to allow appellant time or opportunity to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his
rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his
death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the
victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any provocation
on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with
which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant
circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (7%)

ANSWER:
The Judge should impose an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor in
any of its period as the minimum term of the sentence to prision correccional in its
medium period as the maximum term of the sentence. Bruno was entitled to 2
privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the presence of 2
ordinary mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance which
under Articles 69 and 64(5), RPC, respectively, would lower the prescribed penalty
for homicide – reclusion temporal – to prision correccional.
There is incomplete self-defense because Bruno proved the presence of
unlawful aggression, as it was the victim who first attacked him, and did so without
provocation on Bruno‘s part. There is, however, no reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent/repel the unlawful aggression because Bruno used a
knife to stab the weaponless aggressor. In addition, Bruno proved the presence of 2
other mitigating circumstances, namely: voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of
guilt.
There are no aggravating circumstances present because it was not
shown that Bruno disregarded the age of the victim or that nighttime facilitated the
commission. Further, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance because the crime happened in the house where both Bruno and the
victim lived.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the
indeterminate penalty should be within the range of prision correccional in its medium
period and the minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower
in degree or arresto mayor in any of its period.

BAR QUESTION 2013

A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. D at 10 o‘clock in the evening,
with C as the driver of the tricycle which they would use in going to and leaving the
house of Mr. D, and A and B as the ones who would enter the house to get the
valuables of Mr. D. As planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B
entered the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the master‘s bedroom
and started getting all the valuables he could see, while B entered another room.
While inside the room, B saw a male person and immediately B brought out his gun

24
 but he accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window, hitting a
neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by the gunfire and
policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen arrived. A and B panicked and got
hold of a young boy and shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the
house that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse. A and B
demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to bring them to a certain
place and that would be the time that they would release the young boy. The
policemen acceded. In the meantime, C was arrested by the policemen while he was
about to flee, while A and B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.
What crime/s did A, B, and C commit, and what modifying
circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s? (6%)

ANSWER:
A, B, and C committed the crime of robbery with homicide under Article
294, RPC. The criminal design was to rob but in the course of said robbery, B
accidentally pulled the trigger of his gun hitting and killing a neighbour of the victim.
Even if said death is accidental, the crime is still robbery with homicide because the
killing took place by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The term ―homicide‖ is
used in its generic sense, which includes accidental death.
A, B, and C are all liable as principals because they are conspirators.
They all agreed to the commission of the crime.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present because the crime
was committed inside the dwelling of the offended party who has not given the any
provocation.

BAR QUESTION 2013

During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that
accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she
eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to
wit:
(1.) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;
(2.) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
(3.) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;
The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What
circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against AA?
(4%)

ANSWER:
The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. All
the elements of recidivism are present. AA is on trial for the crime of theft. He has
already been convicted by final judgment of robbery. Both robbery and theft are
embraced in the same title of the RPC. And, he is also about to be convicted of the
crime of theft for which he is on trial. AA is, therefore, a recidivist.
That more than 10 years has lapsed from the time he was convicted by
final judgment of robbery in 2003 to his trial for the crime of theft in 2014 is of no
moment because recidivism does not prescribe.

3. Persons Liable and Degree of Participation

BAR QUESTION 2012

Who is an accomplice? (5%)

ANSWER:
An accomplice is one who, not being a principal, cooperates in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. (Article 18, RPC)

25
BAR QUESTION 2011
Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of the
criminal design of the principal, their participation, the penalty to be imposed in
relation to the penalty for the principal, and the requisites/elements to be
established by the prosecution in order to hold them criminally responsible for their
respective roles in the commission of the crime. (5%)

ANSWER:
The distinctions between a conspirator and an accomplice are as follows:
1. As to knowledge of the principal‘s criminal design: A conspirator
knows the criminal design because he was part of the planning and decision to
commit the crime; WHEREAS an accomplice knows the criminal design because he
was informed by the principal and he concurred with it.
2. As to their participation: A conspirator authors the commission of
the crime; WHEREAS an accomplice is a mere instrument who performs acts which
are not indispensable, previous or simultaneous, to the commission of the crime.
3. As to the penalty to be imposed: The penalty to be imposed on a
conspirator is the of the same degree as that of the principal WHEREAS the penalty
to be imposed on an accomplice is one degree lower than that of the principal.
4. As to the elements to be established by the prosecution:
To convict one as a conspirator, the elements are: (a) that two or more
persons come to an agreement; (b) that the agreement concerns the commission of
felony; and (c) that these persons decide to commit the felony; WHEREAS the
elements to be proved to convict one as an accomplice are: (a) that there is a
community of design between the principal and the accomplice; (b) that the
accomplice performs acts previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime;
and (c) that the acts performed by an accomplice is related to those of the principal.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August, 1998 while
Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform,
came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault
until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he
saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He
kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that
included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to
do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after,
the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted that their
loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)

ANSWER:
Abelardo is not criminally liable.
He is not liable as an accessory because he has no knowledge of the
commission of the crime of robbery. Mere presumption will not suffice. Moreover,
granting for the sake of argument that his act would amount to that of an accessory
– concealing the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof to prevent its
discovery (Article 19, par.2, RPC) – he is exempted from criminal liability, being the
brother of Modesto. (Article 20, RPC)
He is also not liable as a fence under PD 1612, the Anti Fencing Law. The
elements of fencing are: (1) that a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2)
that the accused, who was not a principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery or
theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any other manner deals with any article, item or object that is the
proceeds of robbery or theft; (3) that the accused knows or should have known that
the thing in his possession is the proceeds of robbery or theft; and (4) that there is,
on the part of the accused, intent to gain, for himself or for another. Although the
first 3 elements are present, the last element of intent to gain is absent. Abelardo
kept quiet about the 2 bags of money in the vault because he was unsure of what to
do under the circumstances.

26
BAR QUESTION 2013
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he
saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red
declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then
proceeded to the men‘s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr.
Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply
said, ―You already know what I want,‖ and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White
proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (4%)
(A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and
Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green?
(B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and
Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow?

ANSWER:
(A) Mr. White and Mr. Blue are liable for the death of Mr. Green as
principals by direct participation. They were the ones who directly took part in the
killing of the victim. Mr. Red is not liable as a principal by inducement because his
statement that Mr. White and Mr. Blue were ―to take care of Mr. Green‖ was not
made directly with the intent of procuring the commission of the crime. The words he
uttered to Mr. White and Mr. Blue: ―You already know what I want,‖ may not be
considered as powerful and threatening so as to amount to physical or moral
coercion. Likewise, there is no showing that Mr. Red exercised moral ascendency or
influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue.
(B) Mr. White and Mr. Blue are liable as principals by direct
participation for the crime of physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow. Their liability
would depend on the extent of the physical injuries inflicted – either serious, less
serious, or slight physical injuries. Mr. Red has no criminal liability because he did
not participate in the act of hurting Ms. Yellow.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver
engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a
ransom note demanding that Carla‘s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in
exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by
Carla‘s parents, Enrique‘s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued
while Enrique was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was
never received by Carla‘s parents and filed a case of ―Impossible crime to commit
kidnapping‖ against Enrique.
Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of
grave coercion? (4%)

ANSWER:
The Prosecutor is not correct. There is no ―Impossible crime to commit
kidnapping‖. First, an impossible crime applies only to Crimes against Persons and
Crimes against Property under Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively. Kidnapping
is a Crime against Personal Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC. Second, even if
the ransom note was not received by Carla‘s parents, the crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention for ransom is already consummated. Under Article 267,
RPC, Kidnapping for Ransom is committed ―when the kidnapping or detention is for
the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.‖ To
consummate the crime, it suffices that the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not
necessary that the ransom note be received or that ransom be paid.
No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion because the crime
committed, as explained above, is kidnapping for ransom.

27
 PEOPLE v. OLAZO et al, G.R. No. 220761, October 3, 2016
Caguioa, J.

FACTS:
Rogelio Lasconia together with Charito Hernandez and others hatched a plan to
rob the spouses Erlinda and Nicanor Vallecera inside their home. Accused Rogelio
Lasconia, Rommel Escobio and Eddie Fernandez were able to enter the house thru the
help of Dionesia Lasconia, who was then employed as a stay-out house help of the
spouses Vallecera. After they took the one hundred thousand cash, several jewelries
and other valuable items, Rommel Escobio slashed Erlinda‘s throat with the use of a
samurai. Accused were charged with Robbery with Homicide as co-conspirators.

ISSUE:
Who must be held liable for the death of Erlinda?

HOLDING:
All accused are liable for the death of Erlinda as co-conspirators. There is
conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is present when one
concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt
act which produces the crime. In proving conspiracy, direct evidence is not
indispensable as its existence may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before,
during, and after the commission of the crime.

MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was charged for plunder because she signed the
additional CIFs requested for by Uriarte as a means of approval.

ISSUE:
Can she be liable for Plunder as a co-conspirator?

HOLDING:
NO.
The gravamen of the conspiracy charge is that each of them, by their individual
acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation and
acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. There was no such agreement proven in this case.
GMA‘s approval of Uriarte‘s requests, even if unqualified, could not make her part of
any criminal conspiracy to commit plunder or any other crime considering that her
approval was not by any means irregular or illegal.

PEOPLE v. MOHAMMAD and LADJAHASAN G.R. No. 213221 November 9, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
A civilian informant reported that a certain ―Bong Biyan‖ identified as
Mohammad, was selling shabu. Thereafter, a buy-bust operation was conducted; when
POI Santiago knocked on the door it was Ladjahasan who responded and asked their
intention, to which the latter replied that he wanted to buy P200.00 worth of shabu;
after hearing the intention, Ladjahasan closed the door; a few seconds later,
Mohammad came at the door, got the money from POI Santiago and handed to the
latter the shabu. The two were then arrested. By way of defense,Ladjahasan alleged her
non-participation in the said transaction.

28
ISSUE:
Is conspiracy between Mohammad and Ladjahasan proven?

HOLDING:
YES.
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such
acts point to a point purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests.

No other logical conclusion would follow from the concerted action except that
they had a common purpose and community of interest in selling shabu.

ATIZADO and MONREAL v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 173822 October 13, 2010
Bersamin, J.

Conspiracy can be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
criminal act was perpetrated.

FACTS:
Marandilla, one of the witnesses narrated that on April 18, 1994, she and the
victim, Rogelio Llona, went to the house of Desder. That while she is in the sala, she
heard people running and 2 successive gunshots. She then saw Atizado pointing a gun
at the prostrate body of Llona. She went to aid Llona, and then she saw Monreal
pointing the gun at her. The petitioners suddenly fled the scene of shooting.

ISSUE:
Did the prosecution fail to prove that conspiracy exists?

HOLDING:
NO.
Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Yet, the State
did not have to prove the petitioners previous agreement to commit the murder,
because their conspiracy was deduced from the mode and manner in which they had
perpetrated their criminal act. They had acted in concert in assaulting Llona, with their
individual acts manifesting a community of purpose and design to achieve their evil
end. As it is, all the conspirators in a crime are liable as co-principals. Thus, they
cannot now successfully assail their conviction as co-principals in murder.

PEOPLE v. VALDEZ G.R. No. 175602, January 18, 2012

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony. Proof of the actual
agreement to commit the crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied
or inferred from their acts. Herein, both lower courts deduced the conspiracy between
the accused from the mode and manner in which they perpetrated the killings. The
court is satisfied that their deduction was warranted. To be a conspirator, one did not
have to participate in every detail of the execution; neither did he have to know the
exact part performed by his co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal acts.

29
 PEOPLE v. DEL CASTILLO et.al. G.R. No. 169084 January 18, 2012
Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
The individual and collective acts of the accused prior to, during and following
the attack on the victims reflected a common objective of killing the latter. Thereby, all
the accused, without exception, were co-conspirators. Conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.

Conspiracy is either express or implied. Thus, the State does not always have to
prove the actual agreement to commit the crime in order to establish conspiracy, for it
is enough to show that the accused acted in concert to achieve a common purpose.
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of
the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of
the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community
of interest. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the
existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. Once
a conspiracy is established, each co-conspirator is as criminally liable as the others, for
the act of one is the act of all. A co-conspirator does not have to participate in every
detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the
co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal act,

PEOPLE v. MOHAMMAD and LADJAHASAN G.R. No. 213221 November 9, 2016

Peralta, J.
HOLDING:
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such
acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests.
It is clear from the testimony of POI Santiago that Ladjahasan and Mohammad were of
one mind in selling shabu to him as shown by their series of overt acts during the
transaction, to wit: (1) when POI Santiago knocked on the door of the room occupied by
the accused, it was Ladjahasan who responded by slightly opening the door; (2) after
opening the door, Ladjahasan then asked PO 1 Santiago of their intention, to which the
latter replied that he wanted to buy P200.00 worth of shabu; (3) after hearing the
intention of POI Santiago, Ladjahasan closed the door; (4) a few seconds later,
Mohammad came at the door, got the money from POI Santiago and handed to the
latter the shabu. No other logical conclusion would follow from the concerted action of
both Mohammad and Ladjahasan except that they had a common purpose and
community of interest. Their modus operandi was for Ladjahasan to screen the buyer
while Mohammad does the actual sale. Conspiracy having been established,
Ladjahasan is liable as co-principal regardless of her participation.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Define conspiracy. (5%)

ANSWER:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit. (Article 8, RPC)

BAR QUESTION 2012

Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a
manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%)

ANSWER:
Illustration of conspiracy as a felony – A, B, C, D, and E conspired to
overthrow the government. For merely conspiring, they are already liable of
Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion penalized under Article 136, RPC. Here, conspiracy

30
is a crime by itself because the law penalizes the mere act of conspiring, without
need for the offenders to actually commit rebellion, the crime agreed upon.
Illustration of conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability – A, B, and C
conspired to kill X. They agreed to wait and ambush X in a dark portion of the street
where he usually passes by. For merely conspiring, they are not yet liable. Here,
conspiracy is only a means of committing a crime because the law does not penalize
conspiracy to commit murder. For A, B, and C to become liable, they must actually
commit the crime agreed upon, murder.

BAR QUESTION 2014

While walking alone on her way home from a party, Mildred was seized at
gun point by Felipe and taken on board a tricycle to a house some distance away.
Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove the tricycle.
At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Mildred against her will and under the threat of Felipe's gun. Lucio
was not around when the sexual assaults took place as he left after bringing his
colleagues and Mildred to their destination, but he returned everyday to bring food
and the news in town about Mildred's disappearance. For five days, Felipe, Julio and
Roldan kept Mildred in the house and took turns in sexually assaulting her. On the
6th day, Mildred managed to escape; she proceeded immediately to the nearest
police station and narrated her ordeal.
What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio commit and what was
their degree of participation? (7%)

ANSWER:
Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable for the special complex
crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape. It was sufficiently
proved that the 4 accused kidnapped Mildred and held her in detention for 5 days
and carnally abused her. Since it is a special complex crime, no matter how many
times the victim had been raped, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape. The composite acts are regarded as a single
indivisible offense with only one penalty. It is illegal detention and not forcible
abduction since it was evident that the intent was to detain the victim.
As to the degree of their participation, Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are
all liable as principals. There was implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single
criminal design or purpose. (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., GR 186417, July 27, 2011) Although
Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults took place, there is complicity on his
part as he was the one who drove the tricycle at the time the victim was seized and
he returned everyday to bring food and news to his conspirators.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%)

ANSWER:
The offender is a habitual delinquent if within a period 10 years from the
date of his last conviction or last release from jail of any of the crimes of serious
physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification,
he shall be found guilty of any of these crimes a third time or oftener. (Article 64, RPC)

BAR QUESTION 2012

Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed,
the period of time the crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed, and
their effects in relation to the penalty to be imposed on a convict.
(5%)
ANSWER:
The following are the distinctions between recidivism and habitual
delinquency:

31
 1. As to the crimes committed: In recidivism, the crimes are only required to
be embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code WHEREAS in habitual
delinquency, the crimes are specified as serious physical injuries, less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, and falsification.
2. As to the period of time the crimes are committed: In recidivism, there is
no required period of time between the first crime which must be a conviction by
final judgment and the second crime WHEREAS in habitual delinquency, each crime
must be committed within a period of 10 years from the date of his last conviction or
last release from jail.
3. As to the number of crimes committed: In recidivism, there must be at
least 2 crimes committed WHEREAS in habitual delinquency, there must be at least
3 crimes committed.
4. As to the effect on the imposable penalty: Recidivism is a generic
aggravating circumstance which will increase the imposable penalty to its maximum
period if not offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance WHEREAS habitual
delinquency is a special or extraordinary aggravating circumstance which will bring
about the imposition of an additional penalty for the third or subsequent crime. It
cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.

C. Penalties
NOTE: Amendatory Law on Penalties — RA 10951 — increasing the penalties

LADINES v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 167333; January 11, 2016

Bersamin, J.

Philip, Mario and Erwin were watching a dance during the Grand Alumni
Homecoming of the Bulabog Elementary School in Sorsogon when Pedro and Licup
passed by them. Pedro suddenly and without warning, approached and stabbed Erwin
below the navel with a machete and left thereafter. Erwin was rushed to the hospital
where he died.

Pedro and Licup were charged with homicide. The RTC found Pedro guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide without any mitigating
circumstances and sentenced him to suffer 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17
years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum, which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:
Is the penalty proper?

HOLDING:
NO.
The lower courts could not impose 17 years and four months of the medium
period of reclusion temporal, which was the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty without specifying the
justification for so imposing. By not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling
of the period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the indeterminate sentence became
arbitrary, or whimsical, or capricious. In the absence of the specification, the maximum
of the indeterminate sentence for the petitioner should be the lowest of the medium
period of reclusion temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal.

NADYAHAN v. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 193134 March 2, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Nadyahan was charged with homicide. During the trial he invoked self – defense.
The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four ( 4) years and two (2)

32
months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision
mayor minimum, as maximum.

ISSUE:
Can the proven incomplete self-defense reduce the penalty?

HOLDING:
YES.
Under Article 69 of the RPC, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed
by law. There being an incomplete self-defense, the penalty should be one (1) degree
lower or from reclusion temporal to prision mayor to be imposed in its minimum period
considering the presence of one ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender pursuant to Article 64(2).

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty shall be
prision mayor minimum, the proper period after considering the mitigating
circumstance, which has a range of six ( 6) years and one ( 1) day to eight (8)
years. The minimum penalty is the penalty next lower in degree which is prision
correccional in any of its periods, the range of which is six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the trial court correctly sentenced petitioner to four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to eight
(8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

FRANSDILLA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 197562, August 20, 2015

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Private complainant Lalaine Yreverre saw appellant Aurora Engson and 4 others
in front of their gate, Lalaine then asked Aurora what is their purpose. Aurora told
Lalaine that she was from the POEA. It was upon said pretension that Lalaine allowed
her to enter their house. Later on, four men who are with Aurora went inside the house
and announced that it was a hold-up wherein they took personal belongings and
dollars. Accused were charged for the complex crime of robbery in an inhabited house
and robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Accused was sentenced to
an imprisonment ranging from 12 years of Prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4
months of reclusion temporal as maximum

ISSUE
Is the penalty proper?

HOLDING:
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for the complex crime is
that for the most serious felony, which, in this case, was the robbery in an inhabited
house by armed men punishable by reclusion temporal, to be imposed in the maximum
period. Hence the maximum of the indeterminate sentence of 12 years of prision mayor,
as minimum, to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal, must be corrected to
17 years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal

ZAFRA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner was tasked to receive tax payments for which Revenue Official
Receipts (ROR) were issued. An audit was conducted. A comparison of the entries in
said documents revealed that the data pertaining to 18 RORs with the same serial
numbers vary with respect to the name of the taxpayer, the kind of tax paid, the
amount of tax and the date of payment. Of particular concern to the audit team were

33
the lesser amounts of taxes reported in appellant‘s MRCs and the attached RORs
compared to the amount reflected in the CARs and PNB‘s RORs. Petitioner was charged
and found guilty by the RTC of 18 counts of malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents to which the CA affirmed. Petitioner contends that he
should be found guilty only of malversation through negligence relying on the passage
of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Should the conviction of the petitioner for several counts of malversation of
public funds through falsification of public documents be upheld?

HOLDING:
YES.
His reliance on the passage of RTC is grossly misplaced. because the RTC did
not thereby pronounce that he had been merely negligent. The passage was nothing but
a brief forensic discourse on the legal consequence if his defense were favorably
considered, and was not the basis for finding him guilty. The Court would not be barred
from holding him liable for the intentional crime of malversation of public funds
through falsification of public documents because his appealing the convictions kept
the door ajar for an increase in his liability.
The penalty for malversation under paragraph 2 of Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code is prision mayor in its minimum and medium period. The range of this
penalty is not found in Article 76 which fixes the duration of penalties imposable.
Considering that this penalty is not composed of three periods, the tie prescribed
should be divided into three equal portions, each portion forming one period, pursuant
to Article 65 of the RPC.

MARIANO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 178145, July 07, 2014

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Reynaldo was charged for reckless imprudence. Reynaldo claims that
Ferdinand‘s injuries were the result of a mere accident. Reynaldo claims that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered. Reynaldo did not
stop his pick-up and he proceeded on his way for fear that the bystanders might harm
him and his companions. After bringing his companions to their house in Marungko,
Angat, Bulacan, Reynaldo proceeded to Camp Alejo S. Santos in Malolos, Bulacan to
surrender and report the incident.

ISSUE:
In a charge of reckless imprudence, is the accused entitled to the penalty
reduced by one degree if he has two ordinary mitigating circumstances in his favor?

HOLDING:
NO.
Contrary to the petitioner‘s insistence, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender cannot be appreciated in his favor. Paragraph 5 of Article 365, Revised Penal
Code, expressly states that in the imposition of the penalties, the courts shall exercise
their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code. ―The rationale of the law,‖ according to People v. Medroso, Jr.: can
be found in the fact that in quasi-offenses penalized under Article 365, the
carelessness, imprudence or negligence which characterizes the wrongful act may vary
from one situation to another, in nature, extent, and resulting consequences, and in
order that there may be a fair and just application of the penalty, the courts must have
ample discretion in its imposition, without being bound by what We may call the
mathematical formula provided for in Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. On the basis
of this particular provision, the trial court was not bound to apply paragraph 5 of
Article 64 in the instant case even if appellant had two mitigating circumstances in his
favor with no aggravating circumstance to offset them.

34
 HIGA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 185473, August 17, 2016
Reyes, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged for 51 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Carullo is a
manufacturer and seller of jewelry while the petitioner was her former customer who
later became her dealer. Carullo delivered numerous pieces of jewelry to the petitioner
for the latter to sell. As security for the payments items sold, the petitioner gave Carullo
51 post-dated checks. However, when the subject checks were deposited on their
respective due dates, they were dishonored on the ground that they were drawn against
a closed account. The trial court found petitioner guilty and was meted the penalty of
fine with the total amount of P6,093,550.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, to suffer an imprisonment of one (1) year of prision correccional, to pay
Carullo the amount of P6,450,260.00 representing the amount of the fifty-one (51)
bounced checks, subjects of the instant cases

ISSUE:
Is the penalty of one-year imprisonment for each count of violation of B.P. Blg.
22 proper?

HOLDING:
NO.
While petitioner is no doubt in violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the penalty of
imprisonment of one year for each count of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is improper being
out of the range of the penalty prescribed which merely is imprisonment of not less
than thirty (30) days but not more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than but not
more than double the amount of the check, or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.

ATIZADO v PEOPLE, GR NO 173822, OCTOBER 13, 2010

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9344, Monreal , who has been
detained for over 16 years from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present,
the entire period of Monreal‘s detention is credited in the service of his sentence.

In this regard, the benefits in favor of children in conflict with the law as granted
under Republic Act No. 9344, which aims to promote the welfare of minor offenders
through programs and services, such as delinquency prevention, intervention,
diversion, rehabilitation and re-integration, geared towards their development, are
retroactively applied to Monreal as a convict serving his sentence.

HUBILLA v. PEOPLE GR NO. 176102, NOVEMBER 26, 2014

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Although Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 allows the suspension of the
sentence of a child in conflict with the law adjudged as guilty of a crime, the suspension
is available only until the child offender turns 21 years of age.

If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended
sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years.

35
 In this case, petitioner was over 23 years of age at the time of his conviction for
homicide by the RTC on July 19, 2006. Hence, the suspension of his sentence was no
longer legally feasible or permissible.

PEOPLE v FONTANILLA, GR NO 177743, January 25, 2012

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
The trial court sentenced the accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
for murder. This is however an erroneous imposition of penalty.

Under the rules on the application of indivisible penalties in Article 63 of the

Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed if there are
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. Reclusion perpetua and death, being
indivisible, should not be imposed as a compound, alternative or successive penalty for
a single felony. In short, the imposition of one precluded the imposition of the other.

PEOPLE v REYES, G.R. Nos. 177105-06 August 4, 2010 (PENALTY)

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
Under Section 9 of RA 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019
is imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than 15 years, and
perpetual disqualification from public office. Pursuant to Section 1 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by a special law, the accused is punished with
an indeterminate sentence the maximum of which does not exceed the maximum fixed
by the law violated, and the minimum is not less than the minimum term prescribed by
the law violated.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of
R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied for probation but
his application was denied because the probation law does not apply to drug
offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the suspension of his sentence
under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code.
Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence provided under this
law? (7%)

ANSWER:
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to Michael.
Under Section 40, RA 9344 as amended, the suspension of sentence lasts only until
the offender reaches the maximum age of 21 years. Since Michael was already 21
years old, he can no longer be given a suspended sentence. However, in lieu of
confinement in a regular penal institution, Michael may serve his sentence in an
agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. (Section 51,
RA 9344 as amended; People vs. Jacinto, GR 182239, March 16, 2011; People vs. Salcedo, GR 186523,
June 22, 2011; Padua vs. People, GR 168546; July 23, 2008; People vs. Sarcia, GR 169641, September
10, 2009)

36
 PEOPLE v. PEPINO G.R. No. 174471; January 12, 2016
Brion, J.

FACTS:
Pepino and his companions abducted Edward from his office and asked a P40
million ransom for his release. After negotiations, they agreed to a P700,000 ransom.
The family driver brought the agreed amount to the convenience store as instructed.
That evening, the abductors blinded Edward, made him board a car and drove for 30
minutes. Upon stopping, they told Edward that he could remove his blindfold after 5
minutes. When Edward removed his blindfold, he found himself inside his own car
parked at the UP Diliman Campus. He drove home and reported his kidnapping to the
anti-crime crusader.

The RTC convicted Pepino and Gomez of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention and sentenced them to suffer the death penalty.

ISSUE:
Is the penalty imposed proper?

HOLDING:
NO.
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, mandates the imposition of
the death penalty when the kidnapping or detention is committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. Ransom, as employed in the Law,
is so used in its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing of
value, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or
detained person, a payment that releases one from captivity.

With the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ''An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" the death penalty may no longer be
imposed. Gomez was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's Day, without prior
notice, Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned
him down and abruptly left, leaving her condo door unlocked. Roman attempted to
follow, but appeared to have second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's
condo, let himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendy's arrival later that
evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in hand, forced her to
undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman then tied Wendy's hands to
her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times that night.
Roman was charged with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of rape,
but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. Instead,
the judge sentenced Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-
fold rule.
Was the judge correct? (7%)
ANSWER:
The judge is not correct. The Three Fold Rule applies to service of
sentence, not on the imposition of penalty. The computation under the three-fold
rule is for the prison authorities to make. The court must impose all penalties for all
the crimes the accused have been found guilty of. The court must impose a penalty
for each rape. The proper penalty, therefore, is reclusion perpetua for each count of
rape.

37
 NEW: RA 10707 – crimes against public disorder such as alarm and scandal and
direct assault are now PROBATIONABLE.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Under which of the following circumstances is probation not applicable?

a) Probation is not applicable when the accused is sentenced to serve a

maximum of six (6) years.
b) Probation is not applicable when the accused has been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of less than one (1) month and/or
fine of less than P200.00.
c) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect assault.
d) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect bribery.

** No correct answer. In 2012 when this exam was given, the correct
answer is ―c‖ because Indirect Assault is a Crime against Public Order. Under
Section 9 of the Probation Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall not extend to
those offenders convicted of any crime against the national security and the public
order.
However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707,
which was approved last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those ―offenders convicted
of any crime against the public order‖ have been excluded from the list of
disqualified offenders to avail of probation.

BAR QUESTION 2013

A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the
crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of
Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the
imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law
provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor
offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor
offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. (8%)
(A) May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be
appreciated considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and
fine?
(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum
prohibitum?
(C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of
appeal was filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an
application for probation?
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his
sentence?

ANSWER:
(A) Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is
a minor, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua.
Now that it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying
circumstances therein may also be applied. Even if reclusion perpetua is a single
indivisible penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still be
considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the
penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed
regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary
mitigating circumstances.
(B) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special
penal laws. Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which in
turn was graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. (People vs.
Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011)

38
 (C) Yes. A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a
notice of appeal. Section 42, RA 9344 provides: ―The court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any
time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into
account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby amended accordingly.‖
The phrase ―at any time‖ mentioned in Section 42 means that the child
in conflict with the law may file an application for probation at any time, even
beyond the period for perfecting an appeal and even if the child has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor offender shall
serve his sentence in agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with
Section 51 of RA 9344 as amended.

D. Criminal and Civil Liabilities

1. Extinction of Criminal Liabilities

DEGANOS v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013

Bersamin, J.

Novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability under the penal

laws of the country. Only the State may validly waive the criminal action
against an accused. Novation is relevant only to determine if the parties have
meanwhile altered the nature· of the obligation prior to the commencement of
the criminal prosecution in order to prevent the incipient criminal liability of
the accused.

FACTS:
In an amended information dated March 23, 1994, the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Bulacan charged Brigida D. Luz, alias Aida Luz, and Narciso Degafios in
the Regional Trial Court in Malolos, Bulacan with estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1
(b) of the Revised Penal Code. RTC found Degaños guilty as charged but acquitted Luz
for insufficiency of evidence, imposing on Degaños twenty years of reclusion temporal.
Degaños claims that his partial payments to the complainants novated his contract
with them from agency to loan, thereby converting his liability from criminal to civil.
Petitioner assails the decision for not finding that novation had converted the liability of
the accused into a civil one.

ISSUE:
Did the novation convert the liability of the accused into a civil one?

HOLDING:
Novation is not a ground under the law to extinguish criminal liability. Article 89
(on total extinguishment) and Article 94 (on partial extinguishment) of the Revised Penal
Code list down the various grounds for the extinguishment of criminal liability. Not
being included in the list, novation is limited in its effect only to the civil aspect of the
liability, and, for that reason, is not an efficient defense in estafa. This is because only
the State may validly waive the criminal action against an accused. The role of novation
may only be either to prevent the rise of criminal liability, or to cast doubt on the true
nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that the breach of
the obligation would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is
made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to.

39
 PEOPLE v LAYAG GR. No. 214875 October 17, 2016
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
Ariel Layag was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of Qualified
Rape by Sexual Intercourse, two counts of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault and one
count of Acts of Lasciviousness. Prior to the promulgation of the resolution, Ariel died.

ISSUE:
Is the criminal liability of Ariel Layag extinguished?

HOLDING:
YES.
Death of the accused extinguishes criminal liability in as much as there is no
longer a defendant to stand as the accused. The civil action instituted for the recovery
of the civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
criminal action.

2. Civil Liabilities in Criminal Cases

Dr. LUMANTAS v. CALAPIZ G.R. No. 163753, January 15, 2014

Bersamin, J.

It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also

civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged does
not necessarily extinguish his civil liability.

FACTS:
The petitioner treated Hanz who was brought to the Hospital for emergency
appendectomy and he also circumcised him. However, Hanz‘ urethra was damaged as
and could not be fully repaired and reconstructed. Thus, Hanz‘s parents brought a
criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless imprudence resulting to serious
physical injuries.

ISSUE:
Should petitioner be held civilly liable despite his acquittal of the crime of
reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries?

HOLDING:
YES.
The failure of the Prosecution to prove his criminal negligence with moral
certainty did not forbid a finding against him that there was preponderant evidence of
his negligence to hold him civilly liable. The undesirable outcome of the circumcision
performed by the petitioner forced the young child to endure several other procedures
on his penis in order to repair his damaged urethra. Surely, his physical and moral
sufferings properly warranted the amount of P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages.

40
 PART II. Revised
Penal Code (RPC) Book
2
A. Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations 42
B. Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State 44
C. Crimes against Public Order 46
D. Crimes against Public Interest 52
E. Crimes against Public Officers 58
F. Crimes against Persons 66
G. Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security 81
H. Crimes against Property 87
I. Crimes against Chastity 102
J. Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons 105
K. Crimes against Honor 108

41
A. Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations
1. Treason
Treason
- breach of allegiance to a government,
committed by a person who owes
allegiance to it.
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a Filipino
citizen or an alien residing in the
Philippines
2. That there is war in which the
Philippine is involved
3. That the offender:
a. Levies war against the
Government, or
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort.
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
Conspiracy to commit treason
- when in times of war, two or more
persons come to an agreement to levy
war against the Government or to
adhere to the enemies and to give
them aid or comfort, and decide to
commit it.
Proposal to commit treason
- when in times of war, a person who
has decided to levy war against the
Government or to adhere to the
enemies and to give them aid or
comfort, proposes its execution to
some other person or persons.
3. Misprision of treason
 Elements:
1. That the offender must be owing
allegiance to the government and
not a foreigner
2. That he has knowledge of any
conspiracy (to commit treason)
against the Government
3. That he conceals or does not
disclose and make known the
same as soon as possible to the
Government or fiscal of the
province or the mayor or fiscal of
the city in which he resides
4. Espionage
Espionage
- The offense of gathering, transmitting,
or disclosing information respecting
the national defense with intent or
reason to believe that the information
is to be used to the injury of the
AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit
treason
3. Misprision of treason
4. Espionage
AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
5. Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals
6. Violation of neutrality
7. Corresponding with hostile country
8. Flight to enemy’s country
9. Piracy in general and mutiny on the
high seas or in Philippine waters
Republic of the Philippines or to the
advantage of any foreign nation.
Acts Punishable:
1. By entering, without authority
therefor, a warship, fort, or naval or
military establishment or reservation
to obtain any information, plans,
photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippines
 Elements
1) That the offender enters any of the
places mentioned above (Art. 117);
2) That he has no authority therefor;
3) That his purpose is to obtain
information, plans, photographs or
other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the
Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the representative of
a foreign nation the contents of the
articles, data or information referred
to in (1), which he had in his
possession by reason of the public
office he holds
 Elements
1) That the offender is a public
officer;
2) That he has in his possession the
articles, data or information by
reason of the reason of the public
office he holds;
42
 3) That he discloses their contents to (b) seize the whole or part of the
a representative of a foreign cargo of said vessel, its
nation. equipment or personal
belongings of its complement
5. Violation of neutrality or passengers
 Elements:
1. That there is war in which the Mutiny On The High Seas
Philippines is not involved; - The raising of commotions,
2. That there is a regulation issued disturbances, or acts of disobedience to
by competent authority for the the commands of the ship captain, which
purpose of enforcing neutrality acts involve violence.
3. That the offender violates such
regulation. Qualifying Circumstances
1. whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same
2. whenever the pirates have abandoned
6. Correspondence with hostile country
their victims without means of saving
 Elements: themselves
1. That it is in time of war in which 3. whenever the crime is accompanied by
the Philippines is involved; murder, homicide, physical injuries or
2. That the offender makes rape.
correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by
enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either:
a. Prohibited by the Government,
or
b. Carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs, or
c. Containing notice or
information which might be
useful to the enemy.
d.

7. Flight to enemy’s country

 Elements:
1. that there is war in which the
Philippines is involved;
2. that the offender must be owing
allegiance to the government ;
3. that the offender attempts to flee
or go to enemy country;
4. that going to enemy country is
prohibited by competent authority

8. Piracy in general and mutiny in the High seas

Piracy
- The robbery or forcible depredation on
the high seas, without lawful authority
and done with animo furandi and in
the spirit and intention of universal
hostility

 Elements:
1. That the vessel is on the high seas
or on Philippine waters
2. That the offenders are not
members of its complement or
passengers of the vessel;
3. That the offender:
(a) attacks or seizes that vessel or
43
B. Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State
1. Arbitrary detention
1. Arbitrary detention
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer to the proper judicial authorities
or employee; 3. Delaying Release
2. That he detains a person;
3. That the detention is without legal 4. Expulsion
grounds. 5. Violation of domicile

2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the 6. Search warrants maliciously obtained
proper judicial authorities and abuse in the service of those legally
 Elements: obtained
1. That the offender is a public officer
or employee 7. Searching domicile without witnesses
2. That he has detained a person for 8. Prohibition, interruption, and
some legal ground
3. That he fails yo deliver such person dissolution of peaceful meetings
to the proper judicial authorities 9. Interruption of religious worship
within:
Crimes or offenses 10. Offending the religious feelings
Hours
punishable by
12 hours light penalties or their
equivalent
18 hours correctional penalties or 4. Expulsion
their equivalent
afflictive or capital Acts Punishable:
36 hours
penalties 1. Expelling a person from the Philippines
2. Compelling a person to change his
residence
3. Delaying Release
Acts Punishable:  Elements:
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial 1. That the offender is a public officer
or executive order for the release of the or employee
prisoner 2. That he expels any person from the
2. Unduly delaying the service of the Philippines or compels a person to
notice of such order to the said change his residence
prisoner 3. That the offender is not authorized
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon to do so by law
any petition for the liberation of such
person
5. Violation of Domicile
 Elements: Acts Punishable:
1. That the offender is a public officer 1. Entering any dwelling against the will
or employee; of the owner
2. That there is a judicial or executive 2. Searching papers or other effects found
order for the release of a prisoner or therein without the previous consent of
detention prisoner or that there is a such owner
proceeding upon petition for the 3. Refusing to leave the premises, after
liberation of such person having surreptitiously entered said
3. That the offender without good dwelling and after having been required
reason delays : to leave the same
1) The service of the notice of
such order to the prisoner, or  Elements common to the three:
2) The performance of such 1. That the offender is a public officer
judicial or executive order for or employee;
the release of the prisoner, or 2. That he is not authorized by
3) The proceedings upon petition judicial order to enter the dwelling
for the release of such person.

44
 and/or to make a search therein for
papers or other effects
 Qualifying Circumstances
1. If the offense is committed at
nighttime
2. If any papers or effects not
constituting evidence of a crimes
are not returned immediately after
the search made by the offender
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in  Elements:
the service of those legally obtained
Acts Punishable:
1. Procuring a search warrant without
just cause
 Elements:
1) That the offender is a public
officer or employee
2) That he procures a search
warrant
3) That there is no just cause
2. Exceeding his authority or by using
unnecessary severity in executing a
search warrant legally procured
 Elements:
1) That the offender is a public
officer or employee
2) That he has legally procured a
search warrant
3) That he exceeds his authority or
uses unnecessary severity in
executing the same.
together with others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction of abuse
or redress of grievances.
 Elements common to the three:
1. That the offender is a public officer
or employee
2. That performs any of the acts
punishable.
9. Interruption of Religious Worship
1. That the offender is a public officer
or employee
2. That religious ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion are
about to take place or are going on
3. That the offender prevents or
disturbs the same
10. Offending Religious feelings
 Elements:
1. That the acts complained of were
performed
a) in a place devoted to religious
worship, or
b) during celebration of any
religious ceremony
2. That acts must be notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the
faithful.

7. Searching Domicile without witnesses

 Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer
or employee
2. That he is armed with search
warrant legally procured
3. That he searches the domicile,
papers or other belongings of any
person
4. That the owner, or any member of
his family or two witnesses residing
in the same locality are not present

8. Prohibition, Interruption and dissolution of

peaceful meetings
Acts Punishable:
1. Prohibiting or interrupting, without
legal ground, the holding of a peaceful
meeting, or by dissolving the same
2. Hindering any person from joining any
lawful association or from attending
any of its meetings
3. Prohibiting or hindering any person
from addressing, either alone or
45
C. Crimes against Public Order
1. Rebellion or insurrection
 Elements:
1. That there be (a) public uprising, and (b)
taking arms against the Government.
2. That the purpose of the movement is
either:
a. To remove from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws:
i. The territory of the Philippines
or any part thereof; or
ii. Any body of land, naval or
other armed forces;
b. To deprive the Chie Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives.
2. Coup d’ etat
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a person or persons
belonging to the military or police or
holding any public office or employments;
2. That it is committed by means of a swift
attack accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;
3. That the attack is directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of
the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks,
public utilities or other facilities needed
for the exercise and continued possession
of power;
4. That the purpose of the attack s to seize
or diminish state power.
3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat,
rebellion or insurrection
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
- when two or more persons come to an
agreement to rise publicly and take arms
against the Government for any purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it.
Proposal to commit rebellion
- when the person who has decided to rise
publicly and take arms against the
Government for any purposes of rebellion
proposes its execution to some other person
or persons.
4. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
Acts Punishable:
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the
means in their power; or
1. Rebellion or insurrection
2. Coup d’etat
3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d’etat, rebellion or insurrection
4. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
5. Inciting to rebellion
6. Sedition
7. Conspiracy to commit sedition
8. Inciting to sedition
9. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of
Congress and similar bodies
10. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress
or similar bodies
11. Violation of parliamentary immunity
12. Illegal assemblies
13. Illegal associations
14. Direct assaults
15. Indirect assaults
16. Disobedience to summons issued by
Congress, its committees or
subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, its committees,
subcommittees or divisions
17. Resistance and disobedience to a person
in authority or the agents of such person
18. Tumults and other disturbances of public
order
19. Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances
20. Alarms and scandals
21. Delivering prisoners from jails
22. Evasion of service of sentence
23. Evasion on occasion of disorders
24. Violation of conditional pardon
25. Commission of another crime during
service of penalty imposed for another
previous offense
46
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of
their offices under the control of the rebels;
or
3. By accepting appointment to office under
them
5. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection.
 Elements:
1. That the offender does not take arms or is
not in open hostility against the
Government;
2. That he incites others to the execution of
any of the acts of rebellion;
3. That the inciting is done by means of
speeches, proclamation, writings,
emblems, banners or representations
tending to the same end.
6. Sedition.
 Elements:
1. That the offenders rise (1) publicly, and (2)
tumultuously;
2. That they employ force, intimidation, or
other means outside of legal methods;
3. That the offenders employ any of those
means to attain any of the following
objects:
a. To prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding of
any popular election;
b. To prevent the National Government,
or any provincial or municipal
government, or any public officer
thereof from freely exercising its or his
functions, or prevent the execution of
any administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of any
public officer or employee;
d. To commit, for any political or social
end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class;
and
e. To despoil, for any political or social
and, any person, municipality or
province, or the National Government
of all its property or any part thereof.
7. Conspiracy to commit sedition
There must be an agreement and a
decision to rise publicly and tumultuously
to attain any of the objects of sedition
8. Inciting to sedition.
Acts of inciting to sedition:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, etc.
 Elements:
1) The offender does not take direct part
in the crime of sedition.
2) That he incites other to the
accomplishment of any of the acts
which constitute sedition.
3) That the inciting is done by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, cartoons, banners, or other
representations tending to the same
end.
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
tend to disturb the public peace.
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous
libels against the Government or any of the
duly constituted authorities thereof, which
tend to disturb the public peace.
 No. 2 and 3 are punishable when:
a. They tend to disturb or obstruct lawful
officer in executing the functions of his
office;
b. They tend to instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes;
c. They suggest or incite rebellious
conspiracies or riots;
d. They lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to
disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the Government
 2 Rules
 Clear and Present Danger Rule
 The words must be of such a nature that
by uttering them there is a danger of a
public uprising and that such danger
should be both clear and imminent.
 There must be a reasonable ground to
believe that the danger apprehended is
imminent and that the evil to be prevented
is serious one
 The danger must not only be probable but
very likely inevitable
 Dangerous Tendency Rule
 When the words uttered or published
could easily produce disaffection among
the people and a state of feeling in them
incompatible with a disposition to remain
loyal to the Government and obedient to
the laws.
9. Act tending to prevent the meeting of the
assembly and similar bodies.
 Elements:
1. That there be projected or actual meeting
of the national assembly or any of its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional committees or divisions
47
 thereof, or of any provincial board or city
or municipal council or board.
2. That the offender who may be any person
prevents such meeting by force or fraud.
10. Disturbance of proceedings
 Elements:
1. That there be a meeting of the National
Assembly or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions
thereof, or of any provincial board or city
or municipal council or board.
2. That the offender does any of the following
acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings.
b. He behaves while in the presence of
any such bodies in such a manner as
to interrupt its proceedings or to
impair the respect due it.
11. Violation of parliamentary immunity.
Act punishable:
1. By using force, intimidation, threats, or
frauds to prevent any member of the National
Assembly from (1) attending the meetings of
the Assembly or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions
or committees or division thereof, or from (2)
expressing his opinions, or(3) casting his
votes.
 Elements:
1) That the offender (any person) uses
force, intimidation, threats or fraud;
2) That the purpose of the offender is to
prevent any member of the National
Assembly from:
a. attending the meeting of the
Assembly or any of its committees
or constitutional commissions,
ect.; or
b. expressing his opinions; or
c. casting his vote.
2. By arresting or searching, any member
thereof while the National Assembly is in
regular or special session, except in case such
member has committed a crime punishable
under the Code by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
 Elements:
1) That the offender is a public officer or
employees;
2) That he arrests or searches any
member of the National Assembly;
3) That the Assembly, at the time of
arrest or search, is in regular or
special session;
4) That the member arrested or searched
has not committed a crime punishable
under the code by a penalty higher
than prision mayor.
12. Illegal assemblies.
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the code.
 Requisites:
a. That there is a meeting, a gathering of
group of persons, whether in a fixed
place or moving;
b. That the meeting is attended by armed
persons;
c. c. That the purpose of the meeting is
to commit any of the crimes
punishable under the Code.
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether
armed or not, is incited to the commission of
the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or assault upon a person in
authority or his agents.
 Requisites:
a. That there is a meeting, a gathering of
group of persons, whether in a fixed
place or moving.
b. That the audience, whether armed or
not, is incited to the commission of the
crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, or assault.
13. Illegal associations.
1. Associations totally or partially organized for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code.
2. Associations totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals.
14. Direct assault.
Forms:
1. Without public uprising, by employing force,
or by intimidation for the attainment of any of
the purposes enumerated in defining the
crimes of rebellion and sedition.
 Elements:
a. That the offender employs force or
intimidation.
b. That the aim of the offender is to
attain any of the purposes of the
crime of rebellion or any of the
objects in the crime of sedition.
c. That there is no public uprising.
48
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
employing force, or by seriously intimidating
or seriously resisting any person in authority
or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on the
occasion of such performance.
 Elements:
a. That the offender (a) makes an attack,
(b) employs force, (c) makes a serious
intimidation, or (d) makes a serious
resistance.
b. That the person assaulted is a person
in authority or any of his agents.
c. That at the time of assault upon
person in authority or any of his
agents: (a) is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, or that
he is assaulted, (b) by reason of the
past performance of official duties.
d. That the offender knows that the one
he is assaulting is a person in
authority or his agent in the exercise
of his duties.
e. That there is no public uprising.
15. Indirect assault
 Elements:
1. That a person in authority or his agent is
the victim of any of the forms of direct
assault defined in article 148.
2. That a person comes to the aid of such
authority or his agent.
3. That the offender makes use of force or
intimidation upon such person coming to
the aid of the authority or his agent.
16. Disobedience to summons issued by the National
Assembly, its committees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
divisions.
Acts Punishable:
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey
summons of the National Assembly, it‘s
special or standing committees and
subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees,
subcommittees or divisions, or by commission
or committee chairman or member authorized
to summon witnesses.
2. By refusing to be sworn or place under
affirmation while being before such legislative
or constitutional body or official.
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to
produce any books, papers, documents, or
records in his possessions, when required by
them to do so in the exercise of their
functions.
4. By restraining another from attending as a
witness in such legislative or constitutional
body.
5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or
refusal to be sworn by any such body or
official.
17. Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or the agents of such person.
 Elements of resistance and serious
disobedience
1. That a person in authority or his agent is
engaged in the performance of official duty
or gives a lawful order to the offender.
2. That the offender resists or seriously
disobeys such person in authority or his
agent.
3. That the act of the offender is not included
in the provision of Article 148, 149, and
150.
 Elements of simple disobedience
1. That an agent of a person in authority is
engaged in the performance of official duty
or gives a lawful order to the offender.
2. That the offender disobeys such agent of a
person in authority.
3. That such disobedience is not of a serious
nature.
18. Tumults and other disturbances of public order
Acts Punishable
1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public
place, office or establishment.
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances,
function or gatherings, or peaceful meetings,
if the act is not included in Article 131 and
132;
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion
or sedition in any meeting, association or
public place;
4. Displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order in such
place;
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who
has been legally executed.
―Tumultuous‖ disturbance or interruption
- is caused by more than 3 persons who are
armed or provided with means of violence
19. Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterance
Act punishable:
1. By publishing or causing to be published, by
means of printing, lithography or any other
means of publication, as news any false news
which may endanger the public order, or
cause damage to the interest or credit of the
state.
49
2. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to
the constituted authorities or by praising,
justifying, extolling any act punished by law,
by the same means or by words, utterances or
speeches.
3. By maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official resolution or document
without proper authority, or before they have
been published officially.
4. By printing, publishing disturbing (or causing
the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or
leaflets which do not bear the real‗s name, or
which are classified as anonymous.
20. Alarms and Scandals
Act punishable:
1. Discharging any firearms, rocket, firecracker,
or other explosive within any town or public
place, calculated to cause (which produce)
alarms or danger.
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive
to another or prejudicial to public tranquility.
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering
about at night or while engaged in any other
nocturnal amusements.
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public
places while intoxicated or otherwise,
provided Article 153 is not applicable.
Charivari
- includes a medley of discordant voices, a
mock serenade of discordant noises made on
kettles, tins, horns, etc, designed to annoy or
insult.
21. Delivering prisoners from jail
 Elements:
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or
penal establishment
2. That the offender removes therefrom such
person or helps the escape of such person
22. Evasion of Service of Sentence during the term of
his sentence
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict by final
judgment
2. That he is serving his sentence which
consists in deprivation of liberty
3. That he evades the service of his sentence
by escaping during the term of his
sentence
 Qualifying Circumstances
1. By means of unlawful entry
2. By breaking doors windows gates walls
roofs or floors
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence or intimidation
4. Through connivance with other convicts
or employees of the penal institution
23. Evasion of Service of Sentence on the occasion of
disorders, Conflagrations, Earthquakes or other
Calamities
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict by final
judgment, who is confined in a penal
institution
2. That there is disorder resulting from
conflagration, earthquake, explosion,
similar catastrophe or mutiny in which he
has not participated
3. That the offender evades the service of his
sentence by leaving the penal institution
where he is confined, on the occasion of
such disorder or during mutiny
4. That the offender fails to give himself up
to the authorities within 48 hours
following the issuance of a proclamation
by the Chief Executive announcing the
passing away of such calamity.
24. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence
(Violation of conditional pardon)
Conditional pardon
- A contract between the Chief Executive, who
grants the pardon, and the convict, who
accepts it. Since it is a contract, the pardoned
convict is bound to fulfill its conditions and
accept all its consequences, not as he
chooses, but according to its strict terms.
 Elements:
1. That the offender was a convict
2. That he was granted a conditional pardon
by the Chief Executive
3. That he violated any of the conditions of
such pardon
25. Commission of another crime during service of
penalty imposed for another previous offense
Quasi-recidivism
- A special aggravating circumstance where a
person, after having been convicted by final
judgment, shall commit a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving the same.
 Elements:
1. That the offender was already convicted
by final judgment of one offense
2. That he committed a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving the same
50
BAR QUESTIONS
BAR QUESTION 2014
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating during an
examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated his examination booklet
and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme embarrassment.

In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any warning,
slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes had not
Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him
repeatedly, causing him injuries.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (7%)

ANSWER:
Mariano is liable of 2 counts of Direct Assault.

The elements of Direct Assault are: (a) that the accused makes an attack, employs
force, makes a serious intimidation or a serious resistance; (b) that the person assaulted is
a person in authority or his agent; (c) that at the time of the assault the person in authority
or his agent is engaged in the performance of his official duties or that the assault was on
the occasion of the performance of his official duties; (d) that the accused knows that the
person he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties;
and (e) that there is no public uprising.

The first Direct Assault is qualified by laying of hands on a person in authority.

Mariano slapped Ms. Reyes, a person in authority under Article 152, RPC, while she was in
the performance of her official duties.

The second Direct Assault was committed when Mariano repeatedly punched Dencio
who became an agent of a person in authority when he came to the aid of Ms. Reyes, a
person in authority who was a victim of direct assault.

NOTE:
However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which was
approved last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any crime
against the public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders to avail
of probation.

51
D. Crimes against Public Interest
Difference:
Counterfeiting
- refers to money or currency;
Forgery
- Refers to instrument of credit and obligations
and securities issued by the Philippine
government or any banking institution
authorized to issue the same;
Falsification
- Can only be comitted on documents.
1. Counterfeiting and forgery
Acts Punishable:
1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of
the Philippines.
2. Forging the signature of the President.
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
2. Using forged signature or counterfeited seal
 Elements:
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was
counterfeited or the signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive was forged by another
person.
2. That the offender knew of the
counterfeiting or forgery.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged
signature or stamp.
3. Counterfeiting coins
Counterfeiting coins
- Imitation of genuine coins whether legal
tender or not.
 Elements:
1. That there be false or counterfeited coins.
2. That the offender either made imported or
uttered such coins.
3. That in case of uttering such false or
counterfeited coins, he connived with the
counterfeiters or importers.
4. Mutilation of coins
Mutilation of coins
- The deliberate act of diminishing the proper
metal contents of the coin either by
scrapping, scratching, or filling the edges of
the coin and the offender gathers the metal
dust that has been scraped from the coin.
 Elements:
1. The coin mutilated is legal tender.
2. Offender gains from the precious metal
extracted from the coin.
3. Should be a coin not a bill.
FORGERIES
1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government
of the Philippines, forging the signature or
stamp of the Chief Executive
2. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or
stamp
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins
4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of
mutilated coins
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without
connivance
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer, importing, and
uttering of such false or forged notes and
documents
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering
insturments not payable to bearer
8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or
bank notes and other instruments of credit
FALSIFICATION
9. Falsification of legislative documents
10. Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary
11. Falsification by private individuals and use of
falsified documents
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and
telephone messages and use of said falsified
messages
13. False medical certificates, false certificates of
merit or service
14. Using false certificates
15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments
or implements for falsification
OTHER FALSITIES
16. Usurpation of authority or official functions
17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name
18. Illegal use of uniform or insignia
19. False testimony against a defendant
20. False testimony favorable to the defendant
21. False testimony in civil cases
22. False testimony in other cases and perjury
23. Offering false testimony in evidence
24. Machinations in public auction
25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade
26. Importation and disposition of falsely marked
articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or
other precious metals or their alloys
27. Substituting and altering trademarks and trade
names or service marks.
28. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration
of trade mark or trade name, or service mark;
fraudulent designation of origin, and false
description.
52
5. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without
connivance
Acts Punishable:
1. Possesion of coin, counterfeited or mutilated
by another, with intent to utter the same,
knowing that is false or mutilated.
 Elements:
a. Possession.
b. With intent to utter.
c. Knowledge.
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
 Elements:
a. Actual uttering.
b. Knowledge.
6. Forging treasury or bank notes
How forgery is committed
1. Giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or order, the
appearance of a true genuine document.
(forging or counterfeiting)
2. Erasing, substituting or altering by any
means the figures, letter, words, or signs
contained therein. (falsification)
Forging
- Committed by giving to a treasury or bank
note or any instrument payable to bearer or
to order the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
Falsification
- Committed by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting, or altering by any means, the
figures, letters, words, or signs contained
therein.
Acts Punishable:
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank
notes or other documents payable to bearer.
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations
or notes.
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or
notes in connivance with forgers or importers.
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering
Importation of false or forged obligations or notes
- to bring them into the Philippines , which
presupposes that the obligations or notes are
forged or falsified in a foreign country.
Uttering false or forged obligations or notes
- offering obligations or notes knowing them to
be false or forged, whether such offer is
accepted or not, with a representation, by
words or actions, that they are genuine and
with intent to defraud.
 Elements:
1. There is an instrument payable to order or
other documents of credit not payable to
bearer.
2. The offender either forged, imported or
uttered such instrument.
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the
forger or importer.
8. Illegal possession and use of instruments of credit
 Elements:
1. That a treasury or bank note or other
obligation and security payable to bearer,
or any instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to
bearer is forged or falsified by another
person.
2. That the offender knows that any of those
instruments is forged or falsified.
3. That he performs any of these acts:
a. Using any of such forged or falsified
documents; or
b. Possession with intent to use any of
such forged or falsified instruments
9. Falsification of legislative documents
 Elements:
1. There is a bill, resolution, or ordinance
enacted or approved or pending approval
by Congress or any provincial, city or
municipal board.
2. The offender alters the same.
3. He does not have proper authority.
10. Falsification by public officer, employee, notary
or ecclesiastic minister
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or
notary public.
2. He takes advantage of his official position.
3. He falsifies a document by committing any
of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so
participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact
made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation
in a genuine document which changes
its meaning
53
 g. Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such
original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine
original; or
h. Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical
minister who shall commit any of the
offenses enumerated, with respect to any
record or document of such character that
its falsification may affect the civil status
of persons.
11. Falsification and use of falsified documents by
private persons
Acts Punishable:
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial
document committed by a private person.
 Elements:
a. Offender is a private individual.
b. He committed any act of falsification
under Article 171.
c. The falsification is committed in a
public, official or commercial
document or letter of exchange.
2. Falsification of a private document committed
by a private person.
 Elements:
a. The offender commits any acts of
falsification.
b. Falsification was committed in any
private document.
c. There is damage sustained by another
person or at least intent to cause
damage.
3. Use of falsified document.
 Elements:
a. Offender knows that the document is
falsified by another person.
b. The false document is covered by
Aricle 171 and art. 172.
c. He introduced said document in
evidence in any judicial proceeding.
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and
telephone messages and use of the messages.
Acts Punishable:
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone messages.
 Elements:
a. Offender is any officer of the
government or of any private
corporation engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless cable, or
telephone messages.
b. He utters and/or falsifies a fictitious
wireless telegram or telephone
message of any system.
2. Use of falsified messages.
 Elements:
a. Offender knows that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone messages were
falsified by an officer or employee of
the government or an officer or
employee of a private corporation
engaged in the service of serving or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message.
b. He used the falsified documents.
c. The use resulted to prejudice of a third
person or at least there was intent to
cause such prejudice.
13. False medical cert, cert of merits or service, etc.
Certificate
- Any writing by which testimony is given that
fact has or has not taken place.
14. Use of falsified certificate
 Elements:
1. There must be a false certificate as
defined in Art. 174.
2. Knowledge that certificates are false.
3. Offender uses the same.
15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or
implements of manufacturing
Acts Punishable:
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines
any stamps, dies, marks or other instruments
or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification.
2. Possession with intent of using the said
instruments or implements for counterfeiting
or falsification made in or introduced in the
Philippines.
16. Usurpation
Acts Punishable:
1. Usurpation of Authority
 Elements:
a. The offender knowingly and falsely
represents himself,
b. To be an officer, agent or
representative of any department or
agency of the Philippine Government
or of any foreign government.
2. Usurpation of official function.
 Elements:
1. The offender performs an act.
54
 2. The act pertains to any person in
authority or public officer of the
Philippine government or any foreign
country or agency thereof.
3. Under pretense of official position and
without being lawfull, entitled to do so.
17. Using fictitous and concealing true name
Fictitious name
- any other name which a person publicly uses
without authority of law.
Acts Punishable:
1. Using fictitious name.
 Elements:
a) Offender uses a name other than his
real name.
b) The fictitious name was used publicly.
c) The purpose is:
1) Conceal a crime;
2) Evade a judgement;
3) Cause damage to public interest.
2. Concealing true name.
 Elements:
a) The offender conceals his true name
and other personal circumstances.
b) The purpose is to conceal his identity.
18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia
- Elements:
1. The offender makes use of insignia,
uniforms or dress.
2. The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains
to an office not held by such person or a
class of persons of which he is not a
member.
3. The said insignia, uniform, or dress is
used publicly and improperly.
19. False testimony against a defendant
- Elements:
1. There is a criminal proceeding.
2. The offender testifies falsely under oath
against the accused.
3. The offender who gives false testimony
knows that it is false.
4. Defendant against whom the false
testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted in a final judgement.
20. False testimony favorable to the defendant
- Elements:
1. There is a criminal case.
2. A person gives false testimony.
3. The testimony is in favor of the defendant.
21. False testimony in civil cases
- Elements:
1. The testimony is given in a civil case.
2. The testimony relates to the issues
presented in said case.
3. The testimony is false.
4. The offender knows that the testimony is
false.
5. Testimony is malicious and given with an
intent to affect the issues presented in
said case.
22. False testimony in other cases and perjury.
False testimony in other cases applies to cases
like special proceedings and special civil status.
Perjury
- A willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
in writing and under oath made upon a
material matter before a competent officer
authorized to administer oaths.
Acts Punishable:
1. By falsely testifying under oath.
2. By making a false affidavit.
- Elements of Perjury:
1. Offender makes a statement under oath or
executes an affidavit upon a material matter.
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths.
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the statement or
affidavit.
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing
the falsity is required by law.
23. Offering false testimony in evidence
- Elements:
1. Offender offers in evidence a false witness
or testimony.
2. He knows that the witness or the
testimony was false.
3. The offer is made in any judicial or official
proceeding.
24. Machinations in public auctions
Acts Punishable:
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for restraining from taking part
in public auction.
 Elements:
a) There is a public auction.
b) The offender solicits any gift or
promise from any of the bidders.
c) The gift or promise solicited is the
consideration for his refraining from
taking part in public auction.
d) The purpose of the offender is to
reduce the price.
55
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises, or
any artifice.
25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade.
Acts Punishable:
1. Combination to prevent free trade or free
competition in the market.
 Elements:
a) Entering into any contract or
agreement or taking part in any
conspiracy or combination in the form
of trust or otherwise.
b) In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market.
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market.
 Elements:
a) Monopolizing any merchandise or
object of trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other person or
persons to monopolize said
merchandise or object.
b) Altering the price thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any
artifice.
c) To restrain free competition in the
market.
3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or
importer combining, conspiring or agreeing
with any person to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase
the market price of merchandise.
 Elements:
a) They combine, conspire or agree with
any person.
b) Purpose is to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of any
merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed,
assembled in or imported into or used
in the Philippines.
26. Importation and disposition of false articles made
of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their
alloys
- Elements:
1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles
made of gold, silver or other precious
metals or alloys.
2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those
articles of merchandise fail to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of said metals or
alloys.
3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands,
or marks fail to indicate the actual
fineness or quality of the metals or alloys.
27. Substituting or altering trademarks, tradenames
or service marks
Acts Punishable:
1. Substituting the trade name, trademark of
some other manufacturer or dealer, or a
colorable imitation thereof for the trade name,
trademark, or dealer upon any article of
commerce and selling the same.
2. Selling or offering for sale such articles of
commerce knowing that the trade name or
trademark has been fraudulently used.
3. Using or substituting the service mark of
some other person or a colorable imitation of
such mark in the sale or advertising of his
services.
4. Printing, lithographing or reproducing trade
name, trademark or service mark of one
person or a colorable imitation thereof to
enable another person to fraudulently use the
same knowing the fraudulent purpose for
which it is to be used.
28. Unfair competition and fraud
Acts Punishable:
1. Unfair Competition.
 Elements:
a) Selling goods.
b) Giving them the general appearance of
the goods of another manufacturer or
dealer.
c) The general appearance is shown in
the goods themselves, or in the
wrapping of their packages, or in the
device or words therein, or in any
feature of their appearance.
d) There is actual intent to deceive the
public or defraud a competitor.
2. False designation of origin or false
description.
 Elements:
a) By affixing, applying, annexing to his
goods or services a false designation of
origin, or any false description or
representation.
b) Selling such goods or service.
3. Fraudulent Registration
 Elements:
a) Procuring by fraudulent means from
the patent office or from any other
office.
b) The registration of trade name,
trademark or service mark.
56
 CASES

GARONG v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 172539 November 16, 2016

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner, then a court interpreter, issued a simulated court order in connection to the
judicial reconstitution of Silverio's Transfer Certificate of Title.

ISSUE:
Is the petitioner guilty of the crime of falsification?

HOLDING:
YES.
The petitioner committed falsification by a private individual in the manner as provided
in paragraph 7, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: ―Issuing in an authenticated form
a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or
including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine
original.‖The falsification by the petitioner could have been committed without taking
advantage of his public position as the court interpreter. His work for the court is of no
consequence to his criminal liability, for the crime could have been committed even by any
other individual, including one who did not work in the court in any official capacity. In this
case, the petitioner committed the simulation of the court order despite his not having the duty
to make, or prepare, or otherwise intervene in the preparation of orders.

 BAR QUESTIONS

BAR QUESTION 2013

Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial
deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn
from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the
P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount of
P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his
signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr.
White for P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr.
Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was
convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents.
(4%)

(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White‘s claim of forgery, there was
no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any
injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing
that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second
check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?

ANSWER:
(A) The first defense of Mr. Gray that there was no evidence showing that he
was the author of the forgery has no merit. The law presumes that the possessor and
user of a falsified document is the falsifier or forger thereof. Likewise, his second defense
that Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa) has
no merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is not considered in attempted estafa. It is
considered only in consummated estafa.
(B) Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that the first check is forged justifies the
entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the second check is
also a forgery. Further, granting for the sake of argument that the entrapment was
illegal, such will not validate the withdrawal based on the second check which is also
forged. His criminal liability in forging the second check is not affected by the alleged
illegality of the entrapment procedure.

57
E. Crimes committed by Public Officers
DERELICTION OF DUTY
1. Knowingly rendering unjust
judgment
2. Rendering judgment through
negligence
3. Rendering unjust interlocutory
order
4. Malicious delay in
administration of justice
5. Dereliction of duty in prosecution
of offenses
6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or
solicitor – revelation of secrets
7. Direct bribery
8. Indirect bribery
9. Qualified bribery
10. Corruption of Public Officials
FRAUD AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
AND TRANSACTIONS
11. Frauds against the public treasury
and similar offenses
12. Other frauds
13. Prohibited transactions
14. Possession of prohibited interest
by a public officer
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY
15. Malversation by appropriating,
misappropriating or permitting
any other person to take public
funds or property
16. Failure of accountable officer to
render accounts
17. Failure of a responsible public
officer to render accounts before
leaving the country
18. Illegal use of public funds or
property
19. Failure to make delivery of public
funds or property
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
20. Conniving with or consenting to
evasion
21. Evasion through negligence
22. Escape of prisoner under the
custody of a person not a public
officer
Infidelity in the custody of documents
23. Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents
24. Officer breaking seal
25. Opening of closed documents
Revelation of secrets
25. Revelation of secrets by an officer
the 26. Public officer revealing secrets of
private individual
OTHER OFFENSES OR
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC
OFFICER
Disobedience, refusal of assistance, and
maltreatment of prisoners
27. Open Disobedience
28. Disobedience to order of superior
officer, when said ordered was
suspended by inferior officer
29. Refusal of assistance
30. Refusal to discharge elective office
31. Maltreatment of prisoners
Anticipation, prolongation, and
abandonment of the duties and powers of
public office
32. Anticipation of duties of a public
office
33. Prolonging performance of duties
and powers
34. Abandonment of office or position
Usurpation of powers and unlawful
appointments
35. Usurpation of legislative powers
36. Usurpation of executive functions
37. Usurpation of judicial functions
38. Disobeying requests for
disqualification
39. Orders or requests by executive
officer to any judicial authority
40. Unlawful appointments
Abuses against Chastity
41. Abuses against Chastity
58

1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a case
submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is unjust
4. That the judge knows that his judgment is
unjust
2. Judgment rendered through negligence
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a case
submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust
4. That it is due to his inexcusable
negligence or ignorance
3. Unjust interlocutory order
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a) knowingly renders unjust
interlocutory order or decree, or
b) renders a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order or decree through
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That there is a proceeding in court
3. That he delays the administration of
justice
4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the
delay is caused by the judge with
deliberate intent to inflict damage on
either party in the case
5. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer who
has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or
to prosecute offenses
2. That knowing the commission of the
crime, he does not cause the prosecution
of the criminal (i.e to gather evidence and
then file the appropriate charges) or
knowing that a crime is about to be
committed he tolerates its commission
3. That the offender acts with malice and
deliberate intent to favor the violator of
the law
6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor -
revelation of secrets
Acts Punishable:
1. Causing damage to his client, either:
a) by any malicious breach of professional
duty; or
b) inexcusable negligence or ignorance
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client
learned by him in his professional capacity
damage not necessary
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing
party in the same case without the consent
the attorney‗s taking the defense of the other
party, there is no crime
7. Direct bribery
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer within the
scope of Article 203;
2. Offender accepts directly an offer or a
promise or receives a gift or present by
himself or through another;
3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift
or present received by the public officer
a) With a view to committing some crime;
or
b) In consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust; or
c) To refrain from doing something which
it is his official duty to do.
4. The act which offender agrees to perform
or which he executes be connected with
the performance of his official duties.
Note:
Mere agreement between the proponent and the
public officer consummates the crime. The act of
refraining to do the act constitutes another crime.
As long as there is meeting of the minds, there is
no crime of frustrated bribery or frustrated
corruption of public officials. The crimes are
either attempted or consummated
8. Indirect bribery
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts;
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of
his office.
9. Qualified bribery
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with
law enforcement;
2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting
an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death;
3. Offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift, or present.
59
10. Corruption of Public Officials
 Elements:
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives
gifts or presents to a public officer;
2. The offers or promises are made or the
gifts or presents given to a public officer,
under circumstances that will make the
public officer liable for direct bribery or
indirect bribery.
11. Frauds against the Public Treasury and Similar
Offenses
 Elements of Frauds against Public
Treasury
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has taken advantage of his office, that
is, he intervened in the transaction in his
official capacity;
3. He entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use
of any other scheme with regard to
furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or the adjustment or settlement
of accounts relating to public property or
funds;
4. He had intent to defraud the government.
 Elements of Illegal Exaction
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted
with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees
and other imposts.
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or
omissions:
a) Demanding , directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law; or
b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt ,
as provided by law , for any sum of
money collected by him officially;
c) Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a
nature different from that provided by
law
12. Other frauds
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Article 315 to 318.
13. Prohibited transactions
 Elements:
1. Offender is an appointive public officer;
2. He becomes interested, directly or
indirectly, in any transaction of exchange
or speculation;
3. The transaction takes place within the
territory subject to his jurisdiction;
4. He becomes interested in the transaction
during his incumbency.
14. Possession of Prohibited Interest By A Public
Officer
Persons liable:
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly,
became interested in any contracts or
business in which it was his official duty to
intervene;
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants
who, in like manner, took part in any contract
or transaction connected with the estate or
property in the appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they had acted;
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the
estate.
15. Malversation of Public Funds or Property –
Presumption of Malversation
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his
office;
3. Those funds or property were public funds
or property for which he was accountable;
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to
take them.
16. Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts
 Elements:
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the
service or separated therefrom by
resignation or any other cause;
2. He is an accountable officer for public
funds or property;
3. He is required by law or regulation to
render account to the Commission on
Audit, or to a provincial auditor;
4. He fails to do so for a period of two
months after such accounts should be
rendered.
17. Failure of A Responsible Public Officer to Render
Accounts before Leaving the Country
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is an accountable officer for public
funds or property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave
the Philippine Islands without securing a
certificate from the Commission on Audit
showing that his accounts have been
finally settled (certificate of clearance).
60
18. Illegal use of public funds or property (Technical
Malversation)
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. There are public funds or property under
his administration;
3. Such fund or property were appropriated
by law or ordinance;
4. He applies such public fund or property to
any public use other than for which it was
appropriated for.
19. Failure to make delivery of public funds of
property
 Elements:
1. Public officer has government funds in his
possession;
2. He is under obligation to make payment
from such funds;
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.
20. Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had in his custody or charge a
prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in
the latter‗s escape.
21. Evasion through Negligence
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment;
3. Such prisoner escapes through
negligence.
22. Escape of Prisoner under the Custody of a Person
not a Public Officer
 Elements:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him;
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the
escape takes place through his negligence.
23. Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He removes, destroys or conceals a
document or papers;
3. Said document or papers should have
been entrusted to such public officer by
reason of his office;
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third
party or to the public interest has been
caused.
24. Officer Breaking Seal
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the custody of papers
or property;
3. These papers or property are sealed by
proper authority;
4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be
broken.
25. Opening of Closed Documents
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. Any closed papers, documents, or object
are entrusted to his custody;
3. He opens or permits to be opened said
closed papers, documents or objects;
4. He does not have proper authority.
26. Revelation of Secrets by An Officer
1. Revealing any secrets known to the
offending public officer by reason of
his official capacity;
 Elements:
a) Offender is a public officer;
b) He knows of a secret by reason of his
official capacity;
c) He reveals such secret without
authority or justifiable reasons;
d) Damage, great or small, is caused to
the public interest.
2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of
which he may have charge and which should not
be published
 Elements:
a) Offender is a public officer;
b) He has charge of papers;
c) Those papers should not be published;
d) He delivers those papers or copies thereof
to a third person;
e) The delivery is wrongful;
f) Damage is caused to public interest.
27. Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private
individual
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He knows of the secrets of a private
individual by reason of his office;
3. He reveals such secrets without authority
or justifiable reason.
28. Open Disobedience
 Elements:
1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
61
 2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a
superior authority;
3. Such judgment, decision or order was
made within the scope of the jurisdiction
of the superior authority and issued with
all the legal formalities;
4. He, without any legal justification, openly
refuses to execute the said judgment,
decision or order, which he is duty bound
to obey.
29. Disobedience to Order of Superior Officer When
Said Order Was Suspended by Inferior Officer
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. An order is issued by his superior for
execution;
3. He has for any reason suspended the
execution of such order;
4. His superior disapproves the suspension
of the execution of the order;
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
30. Refusal of Assistance
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice
or other public service;
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously.
31. Refusal to Discharge Elective Office
 Elements:
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a
public office;
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge
the duties of said office;
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to
be sworn in or to discharge the duties of
said office.
32. Maltreatment of Prisoners Under Article 235.
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or
detention prisoner;
3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the
following manners:
a) By overdoing himself in the correction
or handling of a prisoner (by final
judgment) or detention prisoner under
his charge either –
1) By the imposition of punishment
not authorized by the regulations;
or
2) By inflicting such punishments
(those authorized) in a cruel and
humiliating manner; or
b) By maltreating such prisoners to
extort a confession or to obtain some
information from the prisoner.
33. Anticipation of Duties of A Public Office
 Elements:
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office
or employment, either by election or
appointment;
2. The law requires that he should first be
sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
3. He assumes the performance of the duties
and powers of such office;
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or
given the bond required by law.
34. Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers
 Elements:
1. Offender is holding a public office;
2. The period provided by law, regulations or
special provision for holding such office,
has already expired;
3. He continues to exercise the duties and
powers of such office.
35. Abandonment of Office or Position under Article
238
 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He formally resigns from his position;
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted;
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of
the public service.
36. Usurpation of Legislative Powers
 Elements:
1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer;
2. He:
a) makes general rules or regulations
beyond the scope of his authority or
b) attempts to repeal a law or
c) suspends the execution thereof.
37. Usurpation of executive functions
 Elements:
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He:
a) assumes a power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or
b) obstructs the executive authorities
in the lawful exercise of their
powers.
38. Usurpation of judicial functions powers (art. 241)
 Elements:
1. Offender is an officer of the executive
branch of the government;
2. He
a) assumes judicial powers, or
62
 b) obstructs the execution of any order or
decision rendered by any judge within
his jurisdiction.

39. disobeying request for disqualification (art. 242)

 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A proceeding is pending before such
public officer;
3. There is a question brought before the
proper authority regarding his
jurisdiction, which is not yet decided;
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain
from continuing the proceeding;
5. He continues the proceeding.

40. Orders or request by executive officer to any

judicial authority ( Art. 243)
 Elements:
1. Offender is an executive officer;
2. He addresses any order or suggestion to
any judicial authority;
3. The order or suggestion relates to any
case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice.

41. Unlawful Appointments ( Art. 244)

 Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a
public office;
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications
therefore;
4. Offender knows that his nominee or
appointee lacks the qualification at the
time he made the nomination or
appointment.

42. Abuses against chastity penalties

 Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer.
2. That he solicits or makes immoral or
indecent advances to a woman.
3. That such woman must be:
a) interested in matters pending
before the offender for decision, or with
respect to which he is required to submit
a report to or consult with a superior
officer; or
b) under the custody of the
offender who is a warden or other public
officer directly charged with the care and
custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest; or
c) the wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same degree by affinity
of the person in the custody of the
offender

63
 CASES

JOSE REYES v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 177105-06 AUGUST 12, 2010

Bersamin, J.

In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is not a judge,

attempts to perform an act the authority for which the law has vested only in a
judge

FACTS:
The accused Jose V. Reyes, is a public officer, Provincial Adjudicator of DARAB
in Malolos, Bulacan. That while in the performance of his official function and taking
advantage thereof, with full knowledge of a Decision in AC-GR CV-02883 of the CA,
which declared Belen de Guia as the true owner of the lands litigated in said case,
rendered a decision in DARAB Case No. 034-Bul-88, thereby favoring and emboldening
the tenants-respondents in said DARAB case to unlawfully continue occupying the
lands of Belen de Guia, the complainant, to her damage and prejudice, as well as to the
public interest.

ISSUE:
Is the accused guilty of usurpation of judicial function?

HOLDING:
NO.
In usurpation of judicial function, the accused, who is not a judge, attempts to
perform an act the authority for which the law has vested only in a judge. However, the
petitioner‘s task as Provincial Adjudicator when he rendered judgment in DARAB Case
No. 034 BUL‘88 was to adjudicate the claims of the opposing parties. As such, he
performed a quasi-judicial function, closely akin to the function of a judge of a court of
law. He could not be held liable under Article 241 of the RPC, therefore, considering
that the acts constitutive of usurpation of judicial function were lacking herein.

ZAFRA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Appellant was the only Revenue Collection Agent of the BIR in San Fernando, La
Union from 1993-1995. Among his duties was to receive tax payments for which BIR
Form 25.24 or the revenue official receipts (ROR) were issued. The original of the ROR
was then given to the taxpayer while a copy thereof was retained by the collection
officer.

An audit team, all from the central office of the BIR, was tasked to audit the
cash and non-cash accountabilities of the appellant. Of particular concern to the audit
team were the lesser amounts of taxes reported in appellant‘s MRCs and the attached
RORs compared to the amount reflected in the CARs and PNB‘s RORs. Likewise, some
of PNB‘s ROR‘s show that it paid the total sum of Php500,606.15, as documentary
stamp tax. Yet, appellant‘s MRCs yielded only the total sum of Php1,115.00, for the
same RORs, or a difference of Php499,491.15.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of malversation of public funds through falsification of public
documents?

HOLDING:
YES.
The findings of fact of the RTC were affirmed by the CA. Hence, the petitioner
was correctly convicted of the crimes charged because such findings of fact by the trial
court, being affirmed by the CA as the intermediate reviewing tribunal, are now binding

64
 and conclusive on the Court. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Prosecution
sufficiently established that the petitioner had been the forger of the falsified and
tampered public documents, and that the falsifications of the public documents had
been necessary to commit the malversations of the collected taxes.

MESINA V PEOPLE, GR 162489 JUNE 17, 2015

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the
culpa is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged
differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is still committed. All
that is necessary for a conviction is sufficient proof that the accused accountable officer
had received public funds or property, and did not have them in his possession when
demand therefor was made without any satisfactory explanation of his failure to have
them upon demand. For this purpose, direct evidence of the personal misappropriation
by the accused is unnecessary as long as he cannot satisfactorily explain the inability to
produce or any shortage in his accounts.

 BAR QUESTIONS

BAR QUESTION 2013

Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to
issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy‘s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge.
After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of
release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center.
At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let
Takas out.
What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (4%)

ANSWER:
Filthy is liable of:
1) Delivery of prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted
in the removal of Takas, a detention prisoner, from jail.
2) Corruption of Public Officials, Article 212, RPC, because he gave
P500,000.00 to the clerk of court, under circumstances in which said
public officer would be liable of direct bribery.
3) Falsification of Public Document, Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by
inducement because he gave the clerk of court P500,000.00 to induce
him to forge the signature of the judge in the order of release.

Loko is liable of:

1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he accepted P500,000.00 in
consideration of the execution of an act which constitutes a crime, i.e.,
forging the signature of the judge in the order of release that would
enable Takas to get out of jail, in connection with the performance of
his duty as a clerk of court.
2) Falsification of Public Document, Article 171, RPC, because he took
advantage of his position as a clerk of court in forging the signature of
the judge in the order of relase.
3) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted
in the removal of Takas from jail by forging the signature of the judge
in the in the falsified order of release.

The guard is liable of:

1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he agreed to open the gate
and let Takas out in consideration of P10,000.00.
2) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, Article 223, RPC, because he, as
the custodian of Takas, connived or consented to his escape by
opening the gate.

65
F. Crimes against Persons
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
1. Parricide
1. Parricide (Art. 246)
 Elements:
1. That a person is killed 2. Murder (Art. 248)
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused 3. Homicide (Art. 249)
3. That the accused is the Father, Mother or
Child, whether legitimate or illegitimate or 4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray (Art.
a legitimate other descendants or 250)
ascendants, or the legitimate spouse, of
the accused 5. Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray (Art. 251)
Death or Physical injuries inflicted under
6. Giving assistance to suicide (Art. 253)
exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
7. Discharge of firearms (Art. 254)
 Requisites:
1. That a legally married person or a 8. Infanticide (Art. 255)
parent surprises his spouse or his
9. Intentional Abortion (Art. 256)
daughter, the latter under 18 years of
age and living with him, in the act of 10. Unintentional Abortion (Art.257)
committing sexual intercourse with 11. Abortion practiced by the woman herself
another person
2. That he or she kills any or both of or by her parents (Art. 258)
them or inflicts upon any or both of 12. Abortion practice by a physician or
them any serious physical injury in
the act or immediately thereafter midwife and dispensing of abortives (Art.
3. That he has not prompted or 259)
facilitated the prostitution of his wife
or daughter or that he or she has not 13. Duel (Art. 260)
consented to the infidelity of the other 14. Challenging to a duel (Art. 261)
spouse.
15. Mutilation (Art. 262)
Note: This is not a crime but a matter of
defense. PHYSICAL INJURIES

2. Murder 16. Serious physical injuries (Art. 263)

 Elements: 17. Administering injurious substances or
1. That a person is killed
beverages (Art. 264)
2. That the accused killed him
3. That the killing was attended by any 18. Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265)
qualifying circumstances 19. Slight physical injuries and
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide
maltreatment (Art. 266)
 Qualifying Circumstances
1. Treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with aid of armed men, RAPE
employing means to weaken the defense, 20. Rape (Art. 266-A)
or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any
2. In consideration of a price, reward or other public calamity
promise 5. With evident premeditation
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
vessel, derailment of or assault upon a the victim or outraging or scoffing at his
street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, person or corpse
by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great NOTE:
waste and ruin Under RA 8294, killing of a person with
4. On occasion of any calamities or of an the use of explosive like a hand grenade, is
earthquake, eruption of a volcano, now homicide (no longer murder) because the
66
use of an explosive is only an aggravating
circumstance when it is used to kill.
“Killing of a person with the use of hand
grenade or other explosives is no longer
murder but only homicide since RA 8294
provides for unlawful use of explosives as an
aggravating circumstance which connotes
only a generic aggravating circumstance. The
clear purpose of the law is to do away with the
separate prposecution for illegal possession of
firearm and explosives when the unlicensed
firearm or explosives is used in committing
any crime in the Revised Penal Code. [People
v. Comadre, 461 SCRA 366) (Bar Question
2008)
3. Homicide
 Elements:
1. That a person is killed
2. That the accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance
3. That the accused had the intention to kill,
which is presumed.
4. That the killing was not attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances of murder,
or by that of parricide or infanticide
4. Death Caused in tumultuous Affray
 Elements:
1. That there be several persons
2. That they did not compose of groups
organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally
3. That these several persons quarreled and
assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner
4. That someone was killed in the course of
the affray
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually
killed the deceased
6. That the person or persons who inflicted
serious physical injuries or who used
violence can be identified
5. Physical Injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray
 Elements:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray
2. That a participant or some participants
thereof suffer serious physical injuries or
physical injuries of less serious nature
only
3. That the person responsible therefor
cannot be identified
4. That all those who appear to have used
violence upon the person of the offended
party are known
6. Giving Assistance to Suicide
Acts Punishable:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether
the suicide is consummated or not
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit
suicide to the extent of doing the killing
himself
7. Discharge of Firearm
 Elements:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm
against or at another person
2. That the offender has no intention to kill
that person
8. Infanticide
 Elements:
1. That a child was killed
2. That the deceased child was less than 3
days (72 hours) of age
3. That the accused killed the said child
9. Intentional Abortion
 Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is exerted or drugs or
beverages administered or that the
accused otherwise acts upon such
pregnant woman
3. That as a result of the use of the violence
or drugs or beverages upon her, or any
other act of the accused, the foetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom
4. That the abortion is intended
10. Unintentional Abortion
 Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant
woman without intending an abortion
3. That the violence is unintentionally
exerted
4. That as a result of the violence the foetus
dies either in the womb or after having
been expelled therefrom.
11. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or her
parents
 Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion
2. That the abortion is intended
3. That the abortion is caused by –
4. The pregnant woman herself
5. Any person, with her consent
6. Any of her parents, with her consent for
the purpose of concealing her dishonor
67
12. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and
dispensing abortives
 Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who
suffered an abortion
2. That an abortion is intended
3. That the offender who must be a
physician or midwife, causes or assists, in
causing the abortion
4. That said physician or midwife takes
advantage of his or her scientific
knowledge or skill
 Elements as to PHARMACISTS:
1. That the offender is a pharmacist
2. That there is no proper prescription from
a physician
3. That the offender dispenses any abortives
13. Duel
Acts Punishable:
1. Killing one‘s adversary in a duel
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical
injuries
3. Making a combat although no physical
injuries have been inflicted
14. Challenging to a duel
Acts Punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge
to a duel
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for
having refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel
15. Mutilation
Mutilation
- lopping or clipping off of some part of the
body
2 Kinds:
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving
him, either totally or partially of some
essential organ for reproduction
 Elements:
a) That there be a castration, that is,
mutilation of organs necessary for
generation, such as penis or ovarium
b) That the mutilation is caused
purposely and deliberately that is to
deprive the offended party of some
essential organ for reproduction
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is,
by lopping or clipping off any part of the body
of the offended party, other than the essential
organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that
part of his body
16. Serious Physical Injuries
 Ways Committed:
1. By wounding
2. By beating
3. By assaulting
4. By administering injurious substance
 Serious Physical Injuries
1. When the injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent or blind in
consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted
2. When the injured person:
a) Loses the use of speech or the power
to hear, smell, loses an eye, a hand or
a foot an arm or a leg
b) Loses the use of any such member,
c) Becomes incapacitated for the work in
which he was therefore habitually
engaged, in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted
3. When the person injured:
a) Becomes deformed
b) Loses any other member of his body
c) Loses the use thereof
d) Becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he
has habitually engaged for more than
90 days, in consequence of the
Physical injuries inflicted
4. When the injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30
days but not more than 90 days as a
result of the physical injuries inflicted
Deformity
- physical ugliness, permanent and definite
abnormality. It must be conspicuous and
visible.
17. Administering injurious substances or beverages
 Elements:
1. That the offender inflicted upon another
any serious physical injury
2. That it was done by knowingly
administering to him any injurious
substances or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity
3. That he had no intent to kill
18. Less Serious Physical injuries
 Elements
1. That the offended party is incapacitated
for labor for 10 days or more but not
exceeding 30 days, or needs medical
attendance for the same period of time
68
 2. That the physical injuries must not be
those described in the preceding crimes
 Qualifying Circumstances
1. There is a manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person
2. There are circumstances adding ignominy
to the offense
3. Victim is either the offender‘s parents,
ascendant, guardians, curators or
teachers
4. Victim is a person of rank or person in
authority, provided the crime is not direct
assault
19. Slight Physical Injury
3 Kinds
1) That which incapacitated the offended party
for labor from 1 – 9 days or required medical
attendance during the same period
2) That which did not prevent the offended party
from engaging in his habitual work or which
did not require medical maintenance
3) Ill-treatment of another by deed without
causing injury
20. Rape (Art. 266-A)
How committed:
a. Rape by Sexual Intercourse
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a man
2. That the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman
3. That such act is accomplished under
any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority
d. When the woman is under 12
years of age or demented
b. Rape by Sexual Assault
 Elements:
1. That the offender commits an act of
sexual assault
2. That the act of sexual assault is
committed by any of the following
means:
a. By inserting his penis into another
person‘s mouth or anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or
object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
3. That the act of sexual assault is
accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
a) By using force or intimidation
b) When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious
c) By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority
d) When the woman is under 12
years of age or demented
 Qualified Rape
- When rape is committed with any of the
following aggravating/ qualifying
circumstances:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the
rape, a homicide is committed
2. When the victim is under 18 years of
age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the 3rd civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim
3. When the victim is under the custody
of the police or military authorities or
any law enforcement or penal
institution
4. When the rape is committed in full
view of the husband, parent, any of
the children, or other relatives within
the 3rd civil degree of consanguinity
5. When the victim is a religious engaged
in legitimate religious vocation or
calling and is personally known to be
such by the offender before or at the
time of the commission of the crime
6. When the victim is a child below 7
years old
7. When the offender knows that he is
afflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other
STD and the virus or disease is
transmitted to the victim
8. When committed by any member of
the AFP or paramilitary units thereof
or the PNP or any law enforcement
agency or penal institution, when the
offender took advantage of his position
to facilitate the commission of the
crime
9. When by reason or on the occasion of
the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation or
disability
10. When the offender knew of the
pregnancy of the offended party at the
time of the commission of the crime
11. When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or
physical handicap of the offended
party at the commission of the crime
69
CASES

PEOPLE v. MACAL G.R. No. 211062; January 13, 2016

Perez. J.

The relationship between the victim and the offended party distinguishes
the crime of parricide from homicide.

FACTS:
Auria and Manuel Macal married in March 2000. At the time of the incident, the
spouses Macal and Auria‘s mother, Angeles, were living together in a house. Angeles
and her children came from the local peryahan, when Angeles heard Auria, who was in
their bedroom with Manuel, shouting a plea for help. Upon hearing her plea of help,
Angeles and her companions raced towards the bedroom and kicked open the room.
They saw a bloodied Auria on one side of the room, Manuel was next to Auria who was
trying to stab himself. Auria was brought to the hospital but she was pronounced dead
on arrival, while, Manuel escaped before the police could reach the crime scene.

ISSUE:
Is Macal guilty of the crime of parricide?

HOLDING:
YES.
The key element that qualifies the killing to parricide was satisfactorily
demonstrated in this case. Among the three requisites, the relationship between
the offender and the victim is the most crucial. This relationship is what
actually distinguishes the crime of parricide from homicide. In parricide
involving spouses, the best proof of the relationship between the offender and
victim is their marriage certificate. The outright admission of the accused-
appellant in open court that he delivered the fatal stabbing blow that ended
Auria's life established his culpability.

PEOPLE v. PRADO G.R. No. 214450, August 10, 2016

Perez, J.

HOLDING:
It is murder when the shooting of the unsuspecting victims was sudden and
unexpected which effectively deprived them of the chance to defend themselves or to
repel the aggression, insuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor
and without any provocation on the part of the victim

DE GUZMAN v PEOPLE GR No. 178512, November 26, 2014

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the 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 but did not die because of timely medical assistance;
and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. The essential element in frustrated or
attempted homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or
simultaneously with the infliction of injuries.

70
 In this case, intent to kill was present. We concur with them. Contrary to
the petitioner‘s submission, the wounds sustained by Alexander were not mere
scuffmarks inflicted in the heat of anger or as the result of a fistfight between
them. The petitioner wielded and used a knife in his assault on Alexander. The
medical records indicate, indeed, that Alexander sustained two stab wounds,
specifically, one on his upper left chest and the other on the left side of his face.
The petitioner‘s attack was unprovoked with the knife used therein causing such
wounds, thereby belying his submission, and firmly proving the presence of
intent to kill. The wound on Alexander‘s chest is sufficient to result into his
death were it not for the timely medical intervention.

Inflicting mortal wound upon the victim constitutes frustrated homicide.

PEOPLE v. ARCILLO G.R. No. 211028 July 13, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
AAA was sixteen years old on the date of the rape incident. Medical evaluation
was suggestive of sexual abuse. Appellant denied that he raped AAA, he claimed that on
the date it was done, he and his wife were on the farm. During the cross-examination,
appellant testified that he and his wife were at the cemetery visiting relatives. The trial
court judge asked clarificatory questions which led to appellant admitting that he knew
AAA.

ISSUE:
Did the prosecution establish the elements of the crime of rape?

HOLDING:
YES.
The prosecution in the present case positively established the elements of rape
required under Article 266-A of the RPC. First, the appellant had carnal knowledge of
the victim. AAA was positive and categorical in asserting that appellant inserted his
penis into her vagina. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical evaluation which
is suggestive of sexual abuse. Second, appellant employed threat and force. Fie used a
long blade to threaten AAA to submit to his desire. At the time of the rape incident, AAA
was only 14 years old. However, the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not
proven. Thus, appellant was correctly convicted of the crime of simple rape.

PEOPLE v SABDLAB GR NO 175924 MARCH 14 2012 (RAPE)

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render
her/him incapable of giving valid consent may be accepted as evidence in the
prosecution of rape.

CRUZ v PEOPLE, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
The intent of the offender to lie with the female defines the distinction between
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness. The felony of attempted rape requires such
intent; the felony of acts of lasciviousness does not. Only the direct overt acts of the
offender establish the intent to lie with the female. However, merely climbing on top of a
naked female does not constitute attempted rape without proof of his erectile penis
71
being in a position to penetrate the female's vagina. The intent to penetrate is manifest
only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching
the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is committed.

PEOPLE vs. VILLAMOR, G.R. No. 202187, February 10, 2016

Peralta, J.

HOLDING:
YES.
The rape is considered as qualified when the victim is under eighteen (18) years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim. These elements which were alleged in the information were proven
in this case.

PEOPLE v. SUEDAD G.R. No. 211026, June 8, 2016

Perez, J.

HOLDING:
Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape. In this type of
rape, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the
woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.

The courts properly appreciated the circumstances of minority and relationship

that qualify the crime of rape and increase the severity of the penalty. AAA was eleven
(11) years old at the time of the rape incidents and appellant is her father. The passage
of Republic Act No. 9346 however debars the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the
appellate court correctly reduced the penalty from death penalty to reclusion perpetua
for each count of rape.

PEOPLE v LAGBO G.R. 207535, February 10, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
AAA was 12 years old when accused, her father, first raped her. Reminiscent of
the first rape, while she and accused-appellant were alone inside their house, the latter
boxed AAA's face, forced her to lie down on the "papag", undressed her, threatened her,
placed himself on top of her, covered her mouth and pulled her hair while repeatedly
making pumping motions. Accused-appellant committed the third rape on February 14,
2002. He and AAA were again left alone inside their house. She was made to lie down
on the kitchen floor where accused-appellant succeeded in sexually defiling her.

In the medical report, AAA was found to be without hymenal laceration. Accused
claim that the physical evidence on record does not support AAA's allegation of rape
considering that the examination made by the physician showed that there was no
laceration in the hymen and there was no evident injury found at the time of the
examination.

In her direct examination, Dr. Punongbayan explained that AAA's hymen was
estrogenized, making it elastic, such that a fully erect male sex organ can penetrate
AAA's vagina without causing hymenal injury.

ISSUE:
Is presence of hymenal laceration necessary to prove sexual abuse?
72
HOLDING:
NO.
It has been elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies
from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without
laceration during intercourse. In any case, a medical examination and a medical
certificate, albeit corroborative of the commission of rape, are not indispensable to a
successful prosecution for rape. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries or
fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and although medical results may not indicate
physical abuse or hymenal lacerations, rape can still be established since medical
findings or proof of injuries are not among the essential elements in the prosecution for
rape.

In the present case, the credible disclosure of AAA that accused-appellant raped
her is the most important proof of the commission of the crime. Indeed, the testimony of
a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same appears to be
trustworthy and reliable.

PEOPLE v. DELA ROSA G.R. No. 206419 June 15, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Taking advantage of his moral authority and influence to the offended party,
accused had carnal knowledge with AAA, a thirty-one (31) year old woman with a
mental age of a nine (9) year old minor, against the latter's will and consent. The said
crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance that the accused knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and physical handicap of his victim at the time of the
commission of the offense, the offended party being a retardate, is deprived of reason.

ISSUE:
Does the knowledge by the accused of the mental disability of the victim qualify the offense?

HOLDING:
Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the
commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death.
In this case, such knowledge was properly alleged in the Information filed against the
appellant, and was sufficiently proven by the prosecution as appellant in fact had lived
with AAA and BBB for a considerable period of time.

PEOPLE v. LAGBO G.R. No. 207535, February 10, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
AAA was 12 years old when accused, her father, first raped her. Reminiscent of
the first rape, while she and accused-appellant were alone inside their house, the latter
boxed AAA's face, forced her to lie down on the "papag", undressed her, threatened her,
placed himself on top of her, covered her mouth and pulled her hair while repeatedly
making pumping motions. This time, however, AAA mustered the courage to relate the
incident to her mother when the latter arrived. To AAA's disappointment, though, her
mother refused to believe her.

Accused-appellant committed the third rape on February 14, 2002. He and AAA
were again left alone inside their house. She was made to lie down on the kitchen floor
where accused-appellant succeeded in sexually defiling her.

Thus, in three (3) separate Informations, all accused-appellant was indicted for
rape qualified by his relationship with, and the minority of, AAA.

73
ISSUE:
Is accused appellant guilty of qualified rape?

HOLDING:
YES.
The elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3)
done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the
time of the rape; (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of
the parent of the victim. In this case, the prosecution has alleged and proved beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of qualified rape. has alleged and proved beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of qualified rape.

PEOPLE v. REGALADO G.R. No. 210752, August 17, 2016

Perez, J.

HOLDING:
For a conviction for Statutory Rape to prosper, the following elements must
concur: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years of age or is demented; and (b) the
offender has carnal knowledge of the victim.

The age of the victim AAA was proven by her birth certificate which established
that she was only eight (8) years of age at the time she was repeatedly molested by
Regalado.

PEOPLE v. PITALLA G.R. No. 223561 October 19, 2016

Velasco Jr., J.

HOLDING:
When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is
termed "statutory rape" as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What
the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. In this case,
the prosecution satisfactorily established all the elements of statutory rape.

PEOPLE v. COMBOY G.R. NO. 218399 March 2, 2016

Perlas – Bernabe, J.

HOLDING:
To sustain a conviction for statutory rape, the prosecution must establish
the following: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and
(c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.

In the case at bar, the Court agrees with the finding of the courts a quo that the
prosecution was able to prove that Comboy: (a) had carnal knowledge of her without her
consent on two (2) separate occasions, the first occurring sometime in 2006 and the
second in February 2008; and (b) attempted to have carnal knowledge of her on May 17,
2009, but was stopped by a reason other than his own desistance.

The Court deems it proper to modify Comboy‘s conviction based on the

information filed, from two (2) counts of Statutory Rape and one (1) count of
Attempted Rape to two (2) counts of Qualified Rape and one (1) count of Attempted
Qualified Rape. The rape charges were qualified by the fact that Comboy is a parent of
the victim.

74
 PEOPLE v. SONIDO G.R. No. 208646 June 15, 2016
Perez, J.

FACTS:
Appellant had carnal knowledge with AAA, an eight year old. AAA reported the
incident. She then was subjected to a physical examination by Dr. Banglot to which the
Medical Certificate states no hymenal lacerations.

During direct examination, Dr. Banglot explained that sexual abuse may have
happened but did not leave any mark on AAA's body. She further stated that
considering the lapse of time between the incident and the examination, any abrasion
would no longer be seen and will have healed because female genitalia are very vascular
and have ample blood supply.

ISSUE:
Are hymenal lacerations required in the conviction of an accused for the crime of
rape?

HOLDING:
NO.
The rule is settled that hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. In fact,
it has also been ruled that a medical examination is merely corroborative in character
and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape.

In rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim's testimony.AAA vividly

described the rape committed against her as an eight-year. Her recollections during
trial revealed a credible and consistent narration of her ordeal with appellant's hands.
AAA disclosed details that no child of her young age could have invented or concocted.

PEOPLE v. PADIT G.R. No. 202978, February 01, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
AAA, who was four years old, went out of the house to buy bread. On her way to
the store, she was called by accused-appellant, who is their neighbor and the uncle of
her mother, and whom AAA calls as Lolo Victor. Accused-appellant brought AAA inside
his house. He then brought her upstairs, caused her to lie down and removed her short
pants. Accused-appellant also removed his short pants and proceeded to rub his penis
against AAA's vagina.

ISSUE:
Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime
of rape?

HOLDING:
YES.
Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily
connections with a woman. This explains why the slightest penetration of the female
genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia by
the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes consummated
rape.
This Court has held that rape is committed on the victim's testimony that she
felt pain. In fact, AAA still felt severe pain in her vagina when she was being given a
bath by her mother after her molestation. This kind of pain could not have been the
result of mere superficial rubbing of accused-appellant's sex organ with that of the
victim. Such pain could be nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient to
constitute rape.

75
 The fact that she claimed that accused-appellant rubbed his penis against her
vagina did not mean that there was no penetration. This explains why the slightest
penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape.

PEOPLE v. CAGA G.R. No. 206878, August 22, 2016

Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
While still intoxicated and asleep, Caga succeeded in mounting and in
penetrating AAA‘s private parts with his penis. She tried to push him away as she had
menstruation at that time, but failed to stop him as this person proceeded to kiss her
on the lips and then went on to take undue liberties with her person. All the while, AAA
thought that it was her boyfriend Randy who was having coitus with her.

ISSUE:
Is proof of physical force, threat, or intimidation necessary for a conviction of
rape?

HOLDING:
NO.
In the case at bench, physical force, threat or intimidation is not necessary, for
the simple reason that an unconscious and extremely intoxicated woman cannot freely
and voluntarily give her consent to engaging in sexual intercourse. Caga raped an
unconscious and extremely intoxicated woman - a fact that was duly alleged in the
Information and duly established by the prosecution's evidence during the trial.

PEOPLE v. MAYOLA G.R. No. 214470, December 7, 2016

Peralta, J.

HOLDING:
In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather,
uncle, or common-law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of
violence. Therefore, although there was no actual violence employed, the crime
committed is qualified rape since the offender is the father.

PEOPLE v. CASTAÑAS G.R. NO. 192428, APRIL 20, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Accused was charged with rape of a 4 – year old neighbor. After trial, the RTC
fond accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape and was sentenced with
death penalty. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision but modifying the penalty
to reclusion perpetua and the damages awarded. Before the SC, accused insists that if
he indeed raped AAA, such a violent act would have left a physical sign or mark.

ISSUE:
Is proof of full penetration of the orifice or rupture in the victim‘s hymen
necessary for conviction?

HOLDING:
NO.
Full penetration of the vagina orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the
rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the
penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal
knowledge. To be precise, the touching of the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum by the penis constitutes consummated rape.

76
 PEOPLE v. REYES G.R. No. 173307, July 17, 2013
Bersamin, J.

Slightest penetration of the labia of the female victim's genitalia

consummates the crime of rape.

FACTS:
Reyes raped AAA. Although his penis achieved only a slight penetration of her
vagina, he succeeded in satisfying his lust, as confirmed later on when CCC, the mother
of the victim, found semen on AAA‘s panties.

ISSUE:
Is rape committed?

HOLDING:
In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in
consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The
Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan that the mere touching of the external
genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute
carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for
the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact
with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated
once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either
labia of the pudendum.
As the Court has explained in People v. Bali-balita, the touching that constitutes
rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight
brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim‘s vagina, or the mons
pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia.
Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the
labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that
for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the
surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of
the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established.

PEOPLE OF v. VICTORINO REYES G.R. No. 173307; July 17, 2013

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
AAA and her sister BBB watched television at Reyes‘ house just across the street
from their house. Only Reyes and his two sons were in the house. By 9:00 p.m., AAA
and BBB rose to go home but as they were leaving, Reyes suddenly pulled AAA into the
store attached to the sala of his house. He told her in the dialect, ―Come here and let us
have sex.‖ AAA struggled to free herself from him while BBB went to her succor by
pulling her away from him but his superior strength prevailed. BBB could only cry as
he dragged AAA into the store.
Inside the store, Reyes kissed AAA, mashed her breasts and threatened to kill
her. He pulled down her long pants and panties below her knees, took out his penis.
She fought back by boxing and pushing him away, but her efforts were futile. However,
her effort was not enough, he then thrust his penis into her vagina and made push and
pull movements. Although his penis achieved only a slight penetration of her vagina, he
succeeded in satisfying his lust.

ISSUE:
Is rape committed?

HOLDING:
YES.
77
 All that the law requires is that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman
under the circumstances described in the law. By definition, carnal knowledge was the
act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman. This understanding of
rape explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the
crime.

PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ G.R. No. 208406, February 29,2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
AAA, a 27-year old woman with a mental age of a six year-old child was raped by
the accused.

ISSUE:
What kind of rape is committed?

HOLDING:
Carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12
years of age is rape of a woman deprived of reason, thus, AAA's rape falls under
paragraph l(b) of Article 266-A which is statutory rape.

PEOPLE v. GABUYA AND GIRON G.R. No. 209038, June 08, 2016
Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
Gabuya pointed a knife at AAA‘s neck and held her left shoulder. He told her not
to shout or else he would kill her. Gabuya and Giron then dragged her to a vacant lot
along Visitacion Street. "AAA" was then pushed to the ground. Giron removed "AAA's"
pants and underwear while Gabuya touched her breasts. Giron also removed his short
pants and brief; went on top of "AAA;" inserted his penis into her private parts; and
then pumped his lower body against her private parts. While Giron was doing this,
Gabuya was over "AAA's" head, holding her, while his right hand was pointing a knife at
her, threatening to kill her if she shouts for help. "AAA" tried to get Giron off her body
but was no match to his strength.

ISSUE:
Should physical resistance be proven by the victim to convict the crime of rape?

HOLDING:
Records revealed that the victim was continuously intimidated by accused-
appellants' threat of killing her when she resists or shouts, AAA has no other recourse
but to give in to accused-appellants' orders so as to preserve her life and safety.

In any case, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving
resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust
because of fear for life and personal safety.

PEOPLE v. BUTIONG GR No 168932, October 19, 2011

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 because a
mental retardate is not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act. Proof of force or
intimidation is not necessary, it being sufficient for the State to establish, one, the
sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and, two, the mental retardation
of the victim. Rape of a mental retardate falls under paragraph 1, b), of Article 266-A

78
because the provision refers to a rape of a female "deprived of reason," a phrase that
refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation

PEOPLE v. PUSING GR No. 208009,July 11, 2016

Leonen, J.

HOLDING:
Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 provided that whenever the child who is subjected to
sexual abuse is under 12 years of age, the offenders shall be prosecuted under Article
335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be. In this case, the victim
has an actual age of 12 but with a mental age of 9. This makes the victim under 12
years old which is within the contemplation of the law.

PEOPLE v. VILLAFLORES GR NO. 184926, APRIL 11, 2012

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
The phrases by reason of the rape and on the occasion of the rape are crucial in
determining whether the crime is a composite crime or a complex or compound crime.
The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to
the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape
is also the victim of the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide and the rape
(attempted or consummated) is clear and admits of no doubt. In contrast, the import of
the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer to a killing that occurs immediately before or
after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape, where the
victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as
the killing is linked to the rape, became evident.

PEOPLE v. LUPAC GR NO 182230, SEPTEMBER 19, 2012

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
The essence of rape is carnal knowledge of a female either against her will
(through force or intimidation) or without her consent (where the female is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, or is under 12 years of age, or is demented). The
Prosecution showed during the trial that AAA had been asleep when he forced himself
on her. Such showing competently established the rape thus charged, as defined by
paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, for AAA, being unconscious in her
sleep, was incapable of consenting to his carnal knowledge of her. Indeed, the Court
has uniformly held in several rulings that carnal knowledge of a female while she was
asleep constituted rape.

PEOPLE v DALAN GR NO. 203086 JUNE 11, 2014

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation, the crime committed is simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(b) as
she is considered "deprived of reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is equivalent
to that of a person under 12. In short, carnal knowledge with a mental retardate whose
mental age is that of a person below 12 years, while akin to statutory rape under Article
266-A, paragraph 1(d), should still be designated as simple rape under paragraph 1(b).

79
 BAR QUESTION 2013
Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that
Ganda was a transgender. On their first night, after their marriage, Macho
discovered that Ganda was a transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated
argument ensued. In the course of the heated argument, a fight took place wherein
Ganda got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts
and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from
continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar
with guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the
latter‘s death.
What was the crime committed? (4%)
ANSWER:
Macho committed the crime of Homicide. Since death resulted from
Macho‘s act of accidentally pulling the trigger of the gun, homicide is committed.
Here, intent to kill is a general criminal intent which is presumed by law because the
victim died.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and
charms, attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun,
Pretty turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could
not handle rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home.
Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned
warehouse where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took
turns in raping her. After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at
her house. (4%)

(A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?

(B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging
herself one hour after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty‘s death?
Explain.

ANSWER:
(A) Guapo and Pogi committed the complex crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape. They abducted Pretty against her will and with lewd design,
and thereafter rape the her. Forcible abduction was a necessary means to commit
the crime of Rape. Since there is conspiracy, Guapo and Pogi are responsible not
only for the rape each personally committed but also for the rape committed by his
co-conspirator.
(B) Guapo and Pogi would not be held liable for the death of Pretty.
Suicide is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection
between the rapes and the death. In People vs. Napudo (GR 168448, October 8, 2008), the
victim committed suicide due to rape. The accused was only charged with and
convicted of rape.

80
G. Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267)
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual.
2. That he kidnaps or detain another, or in
any other manner deprives the latter of
his liberty.
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping
must be illegal.
4. That in the commission of the offense, any
of the following circumstances is present.
a) That the kidnapping or detention lasts
for more than 3 days
b) That it is committed simulating public
authority
c) That any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped
or detained or threats to kill him are
made
d) That the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female or a public
officer.
 Aggravating Circumstances:
1. If the purpose of kidnapping or detention
is to extort ransom
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention
3. When the victim is raped
4. When the victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts
2. Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268)
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in
any other manner deprives him of his
liberty
3. That the act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal
4. That the crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 267
3. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269)
 Elements:
1. That the offender arrest or detains
another person.
2. That the purpose of the offender is to
deliver him to the proper authorities.
3. That the arrest or detention is not
authorized by the law or there is no
reasonable ground therefor.
AGAINST LIBERTY
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
(Art. 267)
2. Slight illegal detention (Art. 268)
3. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269)
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
(Art. 270)
5. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
(Art. 271)
6. Slavery (Art. 272)
7. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273)
8. Services rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt (Art. 274)
AGAINST SECURITY
9. Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim (Art.
275)
10. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276)
11. Abandonment of minor by person
entrust with his custody; indifference of
parents (Art. 277)
12. Exploination of minors (Art. 278)
13. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280)
14. Other forms of trespass (Art. 281)
15. Grave threats (Art. 282)
16. Light threats (Art. 283)
17. Other light threats (Art. 284)
18. Grave coercion (Art. 286)
19. Light coercion (Art. 287)
20. Other similar coercions (Art. 288)
21. Formation, maintenance and prohibition
of combination of capital or labor
through violence or threats (Art. 289)
22. Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence (Art. 290)
23. Revealing secrets with abuse of office
(Art. 291)
24. Revealing of industrial secrets (Art. 292)
81
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art.
270)
 Elements:
1. That the offender is entrusted which the
custody of a minor person (whether over
or under 7 years of age).
2. That he deliberately fails to restore the
said minor to his parents or guardians.
5. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271)
 Elements:
1. That the minor is living in the home of his
parents or guardians or the person
entrusted with his custody.
2. That the offender induces said minor to
abandon such home.
6. Slavery (Art. 272)
 Elements:
1. That the offender purchases, sells,
kidnaps or detains a human being.
2. That the purpose of the offender is to
enslave such human being.
7. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273)
 Elements:
1. That the offender retains a minor in his
service.
2. That it is against the will of the minor.
3. That it is under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted
with the custody of such minor.
8. Service rendered under compulsion in payment of
debt (Art. 274)
 Elements:
1. That the offender compels a debtor to
work for him, either as household servant
or farm laborer.
2. That it is against the debtor‘s will.
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce
that payment of a debt.
9. Abandonment of a person in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim (Art. 275)
 Elements:
1. The place is not inhabited;
2. The accused found there a person
wounded or in danger of dying;
3. The accused can render assistance
without detriment to himself;
4. The accused fails to render assistance.
10. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276)
 Elements:
1. That the offender has the custody of a
child.
2. That the child is under seven years of age.
3. That he abandons such child.
4. That he has no intent to kill the child
when the latter is abandoned.
11. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with
his custody; indifference of parents (Art. 277)
Acts Punishable:
1. By delivering a minor to a public institution
or other persons without the consent of the
one who entrusted such minor to the care of
the offender or, in the absence of that one,
without the consent of the proper authorities.
2. By neglecting his (offender‘s) children by not
giving them the education which their station
in life requires and financial condition
permits.
 Elements:
1. That the offender has charge of the
rearing or education of a minor.
2. That he delivers said minor to a public
institution or other persons.
3. That the one who entrusted such child to
the offender has not consented to such
act; or if the one who entrusted such child
to the offender is absent, the proper
authorities have not consented to it.
12. Exploiting of minors (Art. 278)
Acts Punishable:
1. By causing any boy or girl under 16 years of
age to perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength or contortion,
the offender being any person.
2. By employing children under 16 years of age
who are not the children or descendants of
the offender in exhibitions of acrobat,
gymnast, rope – walker, diver or wild – animal
tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc., or
circus manager or person engaged in a
similar calling.
3. By employing any descendant under 12 years
of age in dangerous exhibitions enumerated
in the next preceding paragraph, in offender
being engaged in any of the said callings.
4. By delivering a child under 16 years of age
gratuitously to any person following any of
the callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to
any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or
person entrusted in any capacity with the
care of such child.
5. By inducing any child under 16 years of age
to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers to follow any
person engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to accompany
any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender
being any person.
82
13. Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280)
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a private person.
2. That he enters the dwelling of another.
3. That such entrance is against the latter‘s
will.
 Qualifying Circumstances
If the offense is committed by means of
violence or intimidation, the penalty is higher.
14. Other forms of trespass (Art. 281)
 ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender enters the closed
premises or the fenced estate of another.
2. That the entrance is made while either of
them is uninhabited.
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest.
4. That the trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner of the caretaker
thereof.
15. Grave threats (Art. 282)
Acts Punishable:
1. By threatening another with the infliction
upon his person, honor or property or that of
his family of any wrong amounting to a crime
and demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and the
offender attained his purpose.
2. By making such threat without the offender
attaining his purpose.
3. By threatening another with the infliction
upon his person, honor or property or that of
his family of any wrong amounting to a crime,
the threat not being subject to a condition.
 Elements:
1. That the offender threatens another
person with the infliction upon the latter‘s
person, honor, or property; or upon that
of the latter‘s family, any wrong
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime
3. That there is a demand for money or that
any other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful
4. That the offender attains his purpose
16. Light threats (Art 283)
 Elements:
1. That the offender makes a threat to
commit a wrong
2. That the wrong does not constitute a
crime
3. That there is a demand for money or that
other condition is imposed even though
not unlawful;
4. That the offender has attained his
purpose or that he has not attained his
purpose
17. Other Light Threats (Art 285)
Acts Punishable:
1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it
be in lawful self-defense
Two acts punishable:
a) Threatening another with a weapon, even
if there is no quarrel
b) Drawing a weapon in quarrel, which is not
lawful self-defense
2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of
anger, with some harm not constituting a
crime, without persisting in the idea involved
in his threat
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm
not constituting a felony
18. Grave threats (Art 286)
Two ways of committing:
1. Preventing another by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, from doing something
not prohibited by law
2. Compelling another, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong
 Elements:
1. That a person prevented another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or
that he compelled him to do something
against his will, be it right or wrong
2. That the prevention or compulsion be
effected by violence, threats or
intimidation
3. That the person that restrained the will
and liberty of another had not the
authority of law or the right to do so, in
other words, that the restrain shall not be
made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right
19. Light Coercion (Art 287)
 Elements:
1. That the offender must be a creditor
2. That he seizes anything belonging to his
debtor
3. That the seizure of the thing be accomplished
by means of violence or display of material
force producing intimidation
4. That the purpose of the offender is to apply
the same to the payment of the debt.
20. Other Similar Coercions (Art 288)
Acts Punishable:
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permitting the forcing or
compelling of the laborer or employee of the
offender to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind from him
 Elements:
83
 a) That the offender is any person, agent
or officer of any association or
corporation
b) That he or such firm or corporation
has employed laborers or employees
c) That he forces or compels, directly or
indirectly, or knowingly permits to be
forced or compelled, any of his or it‘s
laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any
kind from him or from said firm or
corporation
24. Art 292. Revelation of Industrial Secrets
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a person in charge,
employee or workman of a manufacturing
or industrial establishment
2. That the manufacturing or industrial
establishment has a secret of the industry
which the offender learned
3. That the offender reveals such secrets
4. That prejudice is caused to the owner

2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee

by means of tokens or objects other than the
legal tender currency of the Philippines,
unless expressly requested by such laborer or
employee
 Elements:
a) That the offender pays the wages due
a laborer or employee employed by
him by means of tokens or objects
b) That those tokens or objects are other
than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines
c) That such employee or laborer does
not expressly request that he be paid
by means of token or objects

21. Formation, Maintenance and prohibition of

Combination of capital or Labor through violence
or threats (Art 289)
 Elements:
1. That the offender employs violence or
threats in such a degree as to compel or
force the laborers or employees in the free
and legal exercise of the industry or work
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain,
or prevent coalitions of capital or labor
strike of laborers or lockout of employees.

22. Art 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of

correspondence
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual or
even a public officer not in the exercise of
his official function
2. That he seizes the papers or letters of
another

23. Art 291. Revealing Secrets with abuse of office

 Elements:
1. That the offender is a manager, employee
or servant
2. That he learns a secret of his principal or
master in such capacity
3. That he reveals such secrets.

84
Cases

FENIX et al v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 189878, July 11, 2016

Sereno, C.J.

FACTS:
Ong and company sought sanctuary at the San Carlos Seminary. They were
brought there out of fear for their security following the magnitude of the impact of
Ong's revelation about the existence of an audio tape of a conversation between then
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
commissioner regarding the alleged rigging of the 2004 presidential elections. All of
them voluntarily entered the seminary to seek protection and eventually left it on their
own accord.

ISSUE:
Is there illegal detention?

HOLDING:
NONE.
There is no illegal detention where the supposed victim consents to the
confinement. In this case, all of them voluntarily entered the seminary to seek
protection.

Bar Questions
BAR QUESTION 2013
Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio‘s house. There, Manolo
noticed a nice painting that exactly looked like the painting which he reported was
stolen from him some years back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but
Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately from
a friend. Manolo later proved to Tonio that the painting was indeed the stolen
painting. (4%)
(A) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?
(B) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one night, broke
into Tonio‘s house by destroying the wall and taking the painting. What, if any,
would be the liability of Manolo?

ANSWER:
(A) Tonio may be charged with violation of PD 1612, The Anti-
Fencing Law. Under Section 5 of the said law, mere possession of any article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the proceeds of robbery or thievery is
prima facie evidence of fencing. Since Tonio is in possession of a stolen painting, the
law presumes that he committed the crime of fencing.
(B) Manolo is liable of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article
280, RPC. Trespass to dwelling is qualified by use of force and violence since Manolo
entered the house of Tonio against the will of the latter.

BAR QUESTION 2014

While walking alone on her way home from a party, Mildred was seized at
gun point by Felipe and taken on board a tricycle to a house some distance away.
Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove the tricycle.
At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Mildred against her will and under the threat of Felipe's gun. Lucio
was not around when the sexual assaults took place as he left after bringing his
colleagues and Mildred to their destination, but he returned everyday to bring food
and the news in town about Mildred's disappearance. For five days, Felipe, Julio and
Roldan kept Mildred in the house and took turns in sexually assaulting her. On the
6th day, Mildred managed to escape; she proceeded immediately to the nearest
police station and narrated her ordeal.

85
 What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio commit and what was
their degree of participation? (7%)

ANSWER:
Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable for the special complex
crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape. It was sufficiently
proved that the 4 accused kidnapped Mildred and held her in detention for 5 days
and carnally abused her. Since it is a special complex crime, no matter how many
times the victim had been raped, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape. The composite acts are regarded as a single
indivisible offense with only one penalty. It is illegal detention and not forcible
abduction since it was evident that the intent was to detain the victim.
As to the degree of their participation, Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are
all liable as principals. There was implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single
criminal design or purpose. (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., GR 186417, July 27, 2011) Although
Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults took place, there is complicity on his
part as he was the one who drove the tricycle at the time the victim was seized and
he returned everyday to bring food and news to his conspirators.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she was
already tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the
situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he raped her for a period of two
(2) weeks.
What crime did Pogi commit? (4%)

ANSWER:
Pogi committed the special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention with Rape.
All the elements of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention are present.
Pogi, a private individual, kidnapped and detained Sexy by bringing her to a deserted
place. Said detention is illegal and is serious because it lasted for more than 3 days
and the victim is a female.
The special complex crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
with Rape resulted because Sexy, the victim of the kidnapping and detention, was
raped as a consequence of the detention. (Article 267, last par., RPC) Since it is a
special complex crime, regardless of the number of times the victim had been raped,
there is only one single indivisible offense of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Rape.

86
H. Crimes against Property
1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
Robbery
- the taking of personal property belonging to of persons (Art. 294)
another, with intent to gain, by means of 2. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
violence, or intimidation of any person or intimidation (Art. 298)
using force upon anything
 Elements 3. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
1. That there be personal property, building or edifice devoted to worship (Art.
belonging to another 299)
2. That there is unlawful taking of that
property 4. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
3. That the taking must be with intent to private building (Art. 302)
gain 5. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art.
4. That there is violence against or
304)
intimidation of any person, or force upon
anything 6. Brigandage (Art. 306)
7. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art.
1. Acts punished as robbery with violence against or 307)
intimidation of persons (Art. 294) 8. Theft (Art. 308)
Acts Punishable:
9. Qualified Theft (Art. 310)
1. When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide is committed 10. Theft of the property of the National Library
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or and National Museum (Art. 311)
intentional mutilation or arson 11. Occupation of real property or usurpation of
3. When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting real rights in property (Art. 312)
in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness 12. Altering boundaries (Art. 313)
is inflicted 13. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314)
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in the 14. Swindling (Art. 315)
loss of the use of speech or the power to hear 15. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316)
or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand, a 16. Swindling a minor (Art. 317)
foot, or a leg or the loss of the use of any such
17. Other deceits (Art. 318)
member or incapacity for the work in which
the injured person I theretofore habitually 18. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
engaged is inflicted property (Art. 319)
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the
19. Destructive Arson (Art. 320)
commission of the robbery is carried to a
degree clearly unnecessary for the 20. Other forms of arson (Art. 321)
commission of the crime 21. Arson of property of small value (Art. 323)
6. When in the course of its execution, the 22. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 324)
offender shall have inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the 23. Burning one’s own property as means to
robbery any of the physical injuries in commit arson (Art. 325)
consequence of which the person inured 24. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by
becomes deformed or loses any other member
of his body or loses the use thereof or the offender (Art. 326)
becomes ill or incapacitated for the 25. Malicious mischief (Art. 327)
performance of the work in which he is 26. Special cases of malicious mischief (Art. 328)
habitually engaged for more than 90 days or
the person injured becomes ill or 27. Damage and obstruction to means of
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days communication (Art. 330)
7. If the violence employed by the offender does 28. Destroying or damaging statues, public
not cause any of the serious physical injuries
defined in Article 263, or if the offender monuments or paintings (Art. 331)
employs intimidation only.

87
2. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
intimidation (Art. 298)
 Elements:
1. That the offender has intent to defraud
another
2. That the offender compels him to sign,
execute, or deliver any public instrument
or document
3. That the compulsion is by means of
violence or intimidation
3. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building
or edifice devoted to worship (Art. 300)
Inhabited house
- Any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting the
dwelling of one or more persons, even though
the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be
absent therefrom when the robbery is
committed
Public Building
- Every building owned by the Government or
belonging to a private person but used or
rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same
Dependencies
- All interior courts, corrals, warehouses,
granaries or inclosed places :
1. Contiguous to the building
2. Have an interior entrance connected
therewith
3. Form part of the whole
- Does NOT include orchards and lands used
for cultivation, even if closed, contiguous to
the building, and having direct connection
therewith
 Elements of 1st Kind:
1. That the offender entered:
a) An inhabited place
b) Public building
c) Edifice devoted to religious worship
2. That the entrance was effected by any of
the following means:
a) Through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress
b) By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or
breaking any door or window
c) By using false keys, picklocks or
similar tools
d) By using any fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority
3. That once inside the building, the
offender took personal property belonging
to another with intent to gain
 Elements of 2nd Kind:
1. That the offender is inside a dwelling
house, public building, or edifice devoted
to religious worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he entered it;
2. That the offender takes personal property
belonging to another, with intent to gain,
under any of the following circumstances
a) By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
chests, or any other kind of locked or
sealed furniture or receptacle
b) By taking such furniture or objects
away to be broken or forced open
outside the place of the robbery
4. Robbery in an uninhabited house or by a band
(Art. 302)
 Elements
1. That the offender entered an uninhabited
place or a building which was not a
dwelling house, not a public building, or
not an edifice devoted to religious
worship
2. That any of the following circumstances
was present:
a) The entrance was effected through an
opening not intented for entrance or
egress
b) A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
window was broken
c) The entrance was effected through
the use of false keys, picklocks or
other similar tools
d) A door, wardrobe, chest or any sealed
or closed furniture or receptacle was
broken
e) A closed or sealed receptacle was
removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere
3. That with intent to gain, the offender
took therefrom personal property
belonging to another
False keys (Art. 305)
- Deemed to include:
1. The tools mentioned in Article 304
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner
3. Any keys other than those intended by
the owner for use in the lock forcibly
opened by the offender
5. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art. 304)
 Elements
1. That the offender has in his possession
picklocks or similar tools
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are
specially adopted to the commission of
robbery
88
 3. That the offender does not have lawful
cause for such possession
Brigandage (Art. 306)
 Elements
1. There must be at least 4 armed persons
2. They formed a band of robbers
3. The purpose is any of the following:
a) committing robbery in the highway or
b) kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom, or
c) for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force and violence
6. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art. 307)
 Elements
1. That there is a band of brigands
2. That the offender knows the band to be of
brigands
3. That the offender does any of the following
acts:
a) aiding, abetting or protecting such a
band of brigands
b) giving them information of the
movements of the police or other peace
officers of the Government
c) acquiring or receiving the property
taken by such brigands
 it is presumed that the person performed any
of the acts knowingly, unless the contrary is
proven
7. Theft (Art. 308)
 Elements
1. committed by any person
2. with the intent to gain
3. without violence or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things
4. take personal property of another
5. without the latter‘s consent
8. Qualified Theft (Art. 310
 Qualifying Circumstances
1. theft is committed by a domestic servant
2. or with grave abuse of confidence
3. or if the property stolen is motor vehicle,
mail matter or large cattle or consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of the
plantation or fish taken from a fishpond
or fishery
4. or if property is taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance
9. Theft of the property of the National Library and
National Museum (Art. 311)
- If the property stolen be any property of the
National Library of the National Museum
10. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real
rights in property (Art. 312)
 Elements
1. any person by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons
2. take possession of any real property
3. or usurp any real rights in property
belonging to another
11. Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313)
 Elements
1. any person
2. alter the boundary marks or monuments
of towns, provinces, or estates or any
other marks
3. intended to designate the boundaries of
the same
12. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314)
 Elements
1. any person
2. abscond with his property
3. to the prejudice of his creditors
13. Swindling or Estafa (Art. 315)
 Elements of Estafa in general:
1. Accused defrauds another:
a. By abuse of confidence, or
b. By means of deceit; and
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to offended party
Acts punishable
1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
a) By altering the substance, quantity, or
quality or anything of value which the
offender shall deliver by virtue of an
obligation to do so, even though such
obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration.
b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even
though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money,
goods, or other property.
c) By taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in blank,
and by writing any document above such
89
 signature in blank, to the prejudice of the
offended party or of any third person.
2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud
a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight
of anything pertaining to his art or
business.
c) By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee, without prejudice
to the action for calumny which the
offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the
offender shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty.
d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation when the
funds therein bank were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check. The failure
of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of notice
from the bank and/or the payee or holder
that said check has been dishonored for
lack or insufficiency of funds shall be
prima facie evidence of deceit constituting
false pretense or fraudulent act. (As
amended by R.A. 4885, approved June
17, 1967.)
e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house, or apartment house and the like
without paying therefor, with intent to
defraud the proprietor or manager thereof,
or by obtaining credit at hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house, or apartment house by the use of
any false pretense, or by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or
apartment house after obtaining credit,
food, refreshment or accommodation
therein without paying for his food,
refreshment or accommodation.
3. through fraudulent means
a) By inducing another, by means of deceit,
to sign any document.
b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice
to insure success in a gambling game.
c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in
whole or in part, any court record, office
files, document or any other papers.
14. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316)
Acts Punishable
1. pretending to be the owner of any real
property and sell, encumber or mortgage the
same
2. knowing that the real property is encumbered
and dispose of the same
3. owner of personal property who wrongfully
takes it from its lawful possessor to the
prejudice of the latter or any third person
4. to the prejudice of another, execute any
fictitious contract
5. accept any compensation given under the
belief that it was in payment of services
rendered or labor performed by him, when in
fact he did not actually perform such services
or labor
6. while being a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action, without express
authority from the court or before the
cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by
him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other
manner, encumber the real property or
properties with which he guaranteed the
fulfillment of such obligation.
15. Swindling a minor (Art. 317)
 Elements
1. That the offender takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor;
2. That he induces such minor (1) to assume
an obligation, or (2) to give release, or (3)
to execute a transfer of any property right;
3. That the consideration is (1) some loan of
money, (2) credit, or (3) other personal
property;
4. That the transaction is to be the detriment
of such minor;
16. Other deceits (Art. 318)
 Acts Punishable
1. By defrauding or damaging another by
any other deceit not mentioned in the
preceding articles;
2. By interpreting dreams, by making
forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking
advantage of the credulity of the public in
any other similar manner, for profit or
gain.
17. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property
(Art. 319)
Acts punishable
1. knowingly remove any personal property
mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law to
any province or city other than the one in
which it was located at the time of the
execution of the mortgage, without the written
90
 consent of the mortgagee, or his executors,
administrators or assigns.
2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge
personal property already pledged, or any part
thereof, under the terms of the Chattel
Mortgage Law, without the consent of the
mortgagee written on the back of the
mortgage and noted on the record hereof in
the office of the Register of Deeds of the
province where such property is located.
18. Destructive arson (Art. 320)
Acts punishable
1. Burn any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or
military powder or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government.
2. Burn any passenger train or motor vehicle in
motion or vessel out of port
3. In an inhabited place, burn any storehouse or
factory of inflammable or explosive materials
19. Arson of property of small value (Art. 323)
 Elements
1. Arson of any uninhabited hut, storehouse,
barn, shed, or any other property
2. value of which does not exceed 25 pesos
3. committed at a time or under
circumstances which clearly exclude all
danger of the fire spreading
20. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 324)
 Elements
1. any person causes destruction
2. by means of explosion, discharge of
electric current, inundation, sinking or
stranding of a vessel, intentional
damaging of the engine of said vessel,
taking up the rails from a railway track,
maliciously changing railway signals for
the safety of moving trains, destroying
telegraph wires and telegraph posts, or
those of any other system, and, in general,
by using any other agency or means of
destruction
21. Burning one’s property as means to commit arson
(Art. 325)
 Elements
1. any person guilty of arson or causing
great destruction of the property
belonging to another
2. even though the fire is set to or destroyed
his own property for the purposes of
committing the crime
22. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the
offender (Art 326)
 Elements
1. property burned is the exclusive property
of the offender
2. arson was committed for the purpose of
defrauding or causing damage to another,
or prejudice was actually caused, or if the
thing burned shall have been a building in
an inhabited place
23. Malicious Mischief (Art. 327)
 Elements
1. any person
2. deliberately cause the property of another
3. any damage not falling within the terms of
Article 328
24. Special cases of malicious mischief (Art. 328)
 Acts Punishable
1. Causing damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions,
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive
substance
3. Spreading any infection or contagion
among cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the
National Museum or National Library
5. or to any archive or registry, waterworks,
road, promenade, or any other thing used
in common by the public
25. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication (Art. 330)
Acts punishable
1. Damaging any railway, telegraph or telephone
lines
Note: If damage resulted in any derailment of
cars, collision or other accident, the penalty is
higher.
26. Destroying or damaging statutes, public
monuments or paintings (Art. 331)
 Acts Punishable
1. Destroying or damaging statutes or other
useful or ornamental public monument
2. Destroying or damaging any useful or
ornamental painting of a public nature
91
Cases and Bar Questions

PEOPLE v. CRUZ G.R. No. 200081, June 8, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Private complainant Eduardo S. Carlos, the owner of Chromax engaged in the
business of selling tires, discovered irregularities in the balance sheet. Cruz, as the
manager of Chromax, had sole access to the money and other collectibles of Chromax;
he had sole authority to issue receipts; he gave commissions without Carlos' authority;
he forged the amount in the sales report and receipts. Besides, Cruz admitted that he
took the unaccounted money without Carlos' knowledge and authority.

ISSUE:
Is accused-appellant Cruz guilty of qualified theft?

HOLDING:
YES.
All the elements of Qualified Theft are present in this case. Cruz exploited his
position to take the money and was able to accomplish the crime with grave abuse of
confidence. Cruz took advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage?
Explain your answer in relation to what produces the crime of theft in its
consummated stage and by way of illustration of the subjective and objective phases
of the felony. (5%)

ANSWER:
NO, the crime of Theft has no frustrated stage.
In the case of Valenzuela vs. People (GR 160188, June 21, 2007), the Supreme
Court ruled that unlawful taking is the element that produces the felony of Theft in
its consummated stage. Once unlawful taking is complete, theft is consummated.
Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession
of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. At the same time,
without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted
theft. Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
consummated.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check
payable to cash in the amount of P1 million, to be deposited to the account of
Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X credited the
amount to the account of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit
slip. Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told
her that the amount of P1 million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus,
Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of P1 million from her account
and to turn over the same to Madam X. As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily
acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the
withdrawal of the amount.
What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain.
(5%)

ANSWER:
Madam X committed the crime of Qualified Theft under Article 310, RPC.
When Madam X, a bank teller, received the check payable to cash in the amount of
P1million for deposit to the account of Madam Y, what was transferred to her was
merely the physical or material possession thereof. Hence, her subsequent

92
 misappropriation of the amount shall constitute theft, qualified by grave abuse of
confidence. There is grave abuse of confidence because the relationship of
guardianship, dependence, and vigilance between the depositor and the bank
created a high degree of confidence between them which Madam X, as the bank teller
representing the bank, abused.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take one of the
smaller purses without paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to leave
her own purse in place of the one she took. Her act was discovered and Clepto was
charged with theft. She claimed that there was no theft, as the store suffered no
injury or prejudice because she had left a purse in place of the one she took.
Comment on her defense. (3%)

ANSWER:
The defense of Clepto has no merit. Theft is already consummated from
the moment Clepto took possession of one of the smaller purses inside a high-end
shop, without paying for it. She took the personal property of another, with intent to
gain, without the consent of the latter. Damage or injury to the owner is not an
element of theft, hence, even if she left her purse in lieu of the purse she took, theft
is still committed.

PEOPLE v. ESPIA G.R. No. 213380, August 10, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Appellants entered the Ganzon's residence and declared a hold-up after pointing
their guns at Mrs. Ganzon and house helper Azucena. They took the valuables of the
spouses. They also took the Spouses Ganzon with them but were found dead due to
gunshot wounds on their heads the following morning.Appellant's co-accused admitted
the taking of the cash, checks, and pieces of jewelry of Spouses Ganzon. Furthermore,
the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were strengthened by the admission of Rex and
Jessie that they indeed used firearms in order to ensure the consummation of the
robbery.

ISSUE:
Is the crime of robbery with homicide properly established?

HOLDING:
YES.
The testimony of co-accused Morana regarding the robbery up to the events
leading to the killing of the victims establishes that the crime of homicide was
committed on the occasion or by reason of robbery. Importantly, the contemporaneous
acts of appellant and his co-accused in entering the Ganzon's residence; ordering its
occupants to drop to the ground; asking where the money and other valuables were
kept; and taking the cash and several personal belongings of the Spouses Ganzon prove
that they were initially motivated by animus lucrandi.

BAR QUESTION 2012

Who are brigands? (5%)

ANSWER:
When more than 3 armed persons form a band of robbers for any of the
following purposes: (1) to commit robbery in the highway; (2) to kidnap persons for
the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom; or (3) to attain by means of force and
violence any other purposes, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands.
(Article 306, RPC)

93
 BAR QUESTION 2012
Distinguish brigandage from robbery in band as to elements, purpose of the
offender, and agreement among the offenders. (5%)

ANSWER:
The following are the distinctions between brigandage and robbery in
band:
1. As to elements: The elements of brigandage are: (a) that there be
at least 4 armed persons; (b) that they form a band of robbers; and (c) that their
purpose is either to commit robbery in the highway, or to kidnap persons for the
purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or to attain by means of force and violence
any other purposes, WHEREAS the elements of robbery in band are: (a) that there
be at least 4 armed persons: and (b) that they took part in the commission of a
robbery.
2. As to purpose of the offenders: In brigandage, the purpose of the
brigands is either to commit robbery in the highway, or to kidnap persons for the
purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or to attain by means of force and violence
any other purposes, WHEREAS in robbery in band, the purpose of the robbers is to
commit robbery, not necessarily in the highway.
3. As to agreement among the offenders: In brigandage, the
agreement among the brigands is to commit robbery in the highway, WHEREAS in
robbery in band, the agreement among the robbers is to commit only a particular
robbery.

BAR QUESTION 2013

A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. D at 10 o‘clock in the evening,
with C as the driver of the tricycle which they would use in going to and leaving the
house of Mr. D, and A and B as the ones who would enter the house to get the
valuables of Mr. D. As planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B
entered the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the master‘s bedroom
and started getting all the valuables he could see, while B entered another room.
While inside the room, B saw a male person and immediately B brought out his gun
but he accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window, hitting a
neighbour that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by the gunfire and
policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen arrived. A and B panicked and got
hold of a young boy and shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the
house that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse. A and B
demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to bring them to a certain
place and that would be the time that they would release the young boy. The
policemen acceded. In the meantime, C was arrested by the policemen while he was
about to flee, while A and B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.
What crime/s did A, B, and C commit, and what modifying
circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s? (6%)

ANSWER:
A, B, and C committed the crime of robbery with homicide under Article
294, RPC. The criminal design was to rob but in the course of said robbery, B
accidentally pulled the trigger of his gun hitting and killing a neighbour of the victim.
Even if said death is accidental, the crime is still robbery with homicide because the
killing took place by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The term ―homicide‖ is
used in its generic sense, which includes accidental death.
A, B, and C are all liable as principals because they are conspirators.
They all agreed to the commission of the crime.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present because the crime
was committed inside the dwelling of the offended party who has not given the any
provocation.

94
 KHITRI,v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016
Reyes, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners, received in trust from Spouses Hiroshi and Belen the amount of
P400,000.00 for the construction of a factory building to be built on the one-half
portion of the petitioners‘ land. The petitioners failed to comply with their obligation to
build the proposed two-storey building and used the same in their own personal use
and benefits. Despite repeated demands made by private respondents, the petitioners
failed to return the P400,000.00 claiming that they explained to him that one-half of the
lot would be used for the two-storey factory. Later, Hiroshi learned that instead
of a two-storey factory, a two-door studio-type apartment was constructed. Petitioners
were charged of estafa.

ISSUE:
Are petitioners liable for estafa?

HOLDING:
NO.
Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, the elements of estafa with abuse
of confidence are as follows:
(1) that the money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender
in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by
the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
(3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of
another; and
(4) That there is demand by the offended party to the offender.

In the case at bar, the presence of the first and last elements is undisputed.
However, the elements of misappropriation and prejudice were not sufficiently
established.

The essence of estafa committed with abuse of confidence is the appropriation or

conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return
should be made. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the act of using or
disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or
use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not
only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right.

PEOPLE v. VILLANUEVA G.R. No. 163662, February 25, 2015

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Villanueva made 9 checks drawn against Philippine National Bank (PNB), 8 of
which were postdated for the jewelry she had purchased. Madarang accepted the
checks upon the assurance of Villanueva that they would be funded upon presentment.
The draweee bank paid only one of the eight postdated checks since the remaining
checks were dishonored by reason of Account Closed or Drawn Against Insufficient
Funds. As a result thereof, Madarang suffered prejudice since she failed to collect from
Villanueva the balance of Php995,000.00. Villanueava was charged with the crime of
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE:
Did Villanueva commit estafa in issuing the postdated checks?

95
HOLDING:
YES.
The estafa charged under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) may be committed when:
(1) The offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance;
(2) At the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds
in the bank, or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check;
and
(3) The payee has been defrauded.
The deceit should be the efficient cause of the defraudation, and should either
be prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of the fraud.
All the elements were proven. The first element was admitted by Villanueva. It is
clear that Madarang would not have parted with and entrusted the pieces of valuable
jewelry to Villanueva whom she barely knew unless Villanueva gave such assurance to
her. The second element was likewise established because the checks were dishonored
upon presentment due to insufficiency of funds or because the account was already
closed. The third element was also proved by the showing that Madarang suffered
prejudice by her failure to collect from Villanueva the balance of P995,000.00.

ISON v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 205097, June 8, 2016

Reyes,J.

FACTS:
Col. Vergara had asked Ison to look for a buyer of 2 parcels of fishpond.
Although there is no conclusive proof as to the exact extent or limit of the authority
granted to Ison, the fact remains that she acted upon a color thereof. Ison then sold the
fishponds to Vergara before she sold the same to Ramos and Barroga.

ISSUE:
Is Ison guilty of estafa by means of deceit?

HOLDING:
NO.
The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false
statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which
induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence of such requisite, any
subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear,
cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision

CHENG v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 174113; January 13, 2016

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
Cheng received jewelries from Rodriguez to be sold on commission basis. Upon
delivery of the last batch of jewelry, Cheng issued a check as full security for the
jewelries. Cheng failed to remit the proceeds or to return the unsold jewelry on due
date. Rodriguez presented the check to the bank for encashment, but was dishonored
due to insufficient funds.

ISSUE:
What crime was committed?

HOLDING:
Estafa with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence through misappropriation
was committed.

96
 The essence of this kind of Estafa is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return should be made. The
words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of another's
property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's
personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right. In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal
presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds
of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of their
whereabouts.

PEOPLE v. SOLINA G.R. No. 196784; January 13, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Solina defrauded the private complainants into believing that she had the
authority and capability to send them for overseas employment in Japan and because
of such assurances, private complainants each parted with P20,000.00 in exchange for
said promise of future work abroad. Accused--appellant's promise never materialized
thus private complainants suffered damages to the extent of the sum of money that
they had delivered to accused-appellant.

An information was filed charging Solina with the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale under RA 8042. Under 7 separate informations she was also charged for
estafa.

ISSUE:
Can she be charged for the separate offense of illegal recruitment and estafa?

HOLDING:
YES.
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under R.A. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article
315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third
person.

PASCUAL v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 204873, July 27, 2016

Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
Pascual, an employee at the City Assessor's Office of Las Piñas City, personally
offered Tiongco to facilitate the payment of capital gains tax through her alleged
"connections" at the BIR office. The amount 130,000 was given to Pascual as payment
of the tax. However, the latter was given a fake BIR receipt.

ISSUE:
Is Pascual guilty of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document?

HOLDING:
YES.
The State was able to satisfactorily establish the elements of estafa, to wit: "(1)
that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and
(2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person. ‗The State was also able to establish the following elements of the
crime of Falsification of Public Document: (a) That the offender is a public officer,
97
employee, or notary public; (b) That he takes advantage of his official position; and (c)
That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding 4) [and] that such person or persons did not in fact so participate
in the proceeding.
Pascual defrauded Tiongco by pretending that she had "connections" or
"contacts" within the BIR.

KHITRI v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 210192, July 04, 2016

Reyes,J.

HOLDING:
The essence of estafa committed with abuse of confidence is the appropriation or
conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to which a return
should be made. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote the act of using or
disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or
use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not
only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the
property of another without right.

PEOPLE vs. BAYKER, G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Makati Criminal Case for Illegal Recruitment and Criminal Case for Estafa in two
separate Informations.

Accused having no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment,

promised and recruited complainants, Miparanum, Caniazares and Dahab an overseas
job abroad and in consideration of said promise, said complainants paid and delivered
to accused the amount of P52,000.00, P10,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively as
processing fees of their papers, but on the promised dates of departure, accused failed
to send the complainants abroad. Despite demands to reimburse or return the amount
paid as processing fees, accused refused and fail to reimburse or return to
complainants the aforesaid amounts.

ISSUE:
Can accused be charged for the separate offense of illegal recruitment and
estafa?

HOLDING:
YES.
Illegal recruitment is committed in large scale when it is committed against
three or more persons individually or as a group. In the case, she had committed acts of
recruitment against at least three persons despite her not having been duly licensed or
authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for that
purpose. The conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment committed in
large scale did not preclude her personal liability for estafa. The elements of estafa as
charged are, namely: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. In contrast, the crime of illegal recruitment
committed in large scale, as indicated earlier, requires different elements.

98
 DE CASTRO v. PEOPLE GR NO. 171672 February 2, 2015
Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
According to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex
crime is that corresponding to the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its
maximum period. Otherwise, the penalty will be void and ineffectual, and will not attain
finality.

The falsification of commercial documents is punished with prision correccional

in its medium and maximum periods, in contrast, estafa is punished according to the
value of the defraudation. Therefore, in a complex crime of estafa through falsification of
commercial documents, the penalty imposable is that of the graver offense which in this
case is estafa.

PATULA v PEOPLE GR NO 164457 APRILL 11, 2012

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Distinction should be made as to when the crimes of Estafa and Falsification
will constitute as one complex crime and when they are considered as two separate
offenses. The complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of Documents is committed
when one has to falsify certain documents to be able to obtain money or goods from
another person. In other words, the falsification is a necessary means of committing
estafa. However, if the falsification is committed to conceal the misappropriation, two
separate offenses of estafa and falsification are committed. In the instant case, when
accused collected payments from the customers, said collection which was in her
possession was at her disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries which she made on
the duplicate copies of the receipts were contrived to conceal some amount of her
collection which she did not remit to the company. Accused shall be held liable for the
separate crimes of estafa and falsification of document.

PEOPLE V VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 163662 February 25, 2015

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
Estafa will not lie when the parties waive the negotiable character of the check,
and instead treat the same as proof of an obligation. For instance, when there is an
agreement between the parties at the time of the issuance and postdating of the checks
that the obligee shall not encash or present the same to the bank, the obligor cannot be
prosecuted for estafa because the element of deceit is lacking. When the payee was
informed that the checks are not covered by adequate funds, bad faith or estafa shall
not arise.

BAR QUESTION 2011

William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of real
property. In 1994, William's wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the
preparation of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) giving him the authority to sell two
(2) parcels of land registered in the name of Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in
the SPA was forged and, through this forged SPA and without the consent and
knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded in selling the two (2) parcels for Php
2,000,000. He pocketed the proceeds of the sale.
Mercedes eventually discovered William's misdeeds and filed a criminal
complaint. William was subsequently charged with estafa through falsification of
public document.
Was the criminal charge proper? (7%)

99
 ANSWER:
Yes, the criminal charge of estafa through falsification of public
document is proper. William forged the signature of his mother in law in the Special
Power of Attorney, a public document, as a necessary means to sell her properties
without remitting the proceeds thereof, thereby committing estafa. Although the
relationship of affinity created between Wiliam and his mother in law survived the
death of his wife Anita, the absolutory cause under Article 332(1), RPC does not
apply to him. Said absolutory cause is strictly limited to the simple cases of theft,
estafa/swindling, and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of these
crimes is complexed with another crime. (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De
Carungcong vs. People, GR 181409, February 11, 2010)

BAR QUESTION 2013

Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug
case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through
his lawyer, to the clerk of court.
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence
and convicted the accused. (4%)

(A) Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting
or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer,
in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also
with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be
charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he
correct?
(B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he
misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge
correct?

ANSWER:
(A) No. Malo is not correct. One may be charged with violation of RA
3019 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same act. This is expressly
provided for in Section 3, RA 3019 which states: ―In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing laws, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of public officers and hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx‖
Moreover, RA 3019 is a special law, hence, the elements of the offense are not the
same as those penalized under the RPC.
(B) Yes, the charge is correct. Estafa is committed by any person who
shall ask money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government
employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the money for his own
personal use and benefit. (Article 315[2][c], RPC)

BAR QUESTION 2013

Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of
plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of
Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in
the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed‘s payment of three
(3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance
of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie,
as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The
following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated
checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same
assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When the
checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds
and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month
after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks.
Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor‘s office a complaint against
Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
100
 During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several
amounts from Mr. Ed as partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and
insisted that the complaint should continue despite the partial payments. On the
other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the
obligation is merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie
accepted the partial payments.
Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)

ANSWER:
Mr. Ed is liable of one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) for the
issuance of the first 3 checks because he issued them simultaneous with the
transaction in order to defraud another. However, the 2 other checks had been
issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, hence, estafa is not committed as the
issuance of said checks was not the efficient cause of defraudation.
Mr. Ed is also liable of 5 counts of violation of BP 22, The Bouncing
Checks Law, for the issuance of the 5 checks which were dishonored for insufficiency
of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless or bum check;
deceit/fraud is not an element.
Mr. Ed‘s defense of partial payments constituting novation and absence
of demand letter will not free him from the criminal liability already incurred. The
partial payments would only affect his civil liability while his claim of absence of
demand letter is negated by the receipt of notice of dishonor.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of
P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from
Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the
P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the
amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the
check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited
another check signed by Mr. White for P200,000.00, which amount he later
withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and
attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (4%)

(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White‘s claim of
forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr.
White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on
the defense of Mr. Gray.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no
showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on
the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?

ANSWER:
(A) The first defense of Mr. Gray that there was no evidence showing
that he was the author of the forgery has no merit. The law presumes that the
possessor and user of a falsified document is the falsifier or forger thereof. Likewise,
his second defense that Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check
(attempted estafa) has no merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is not considered
in attempted estafa. It is considered only in consummated estafa.
(B) Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that the first check is forged
justifies the entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the
second check is also a forgery. Further, granting for the sake of argument that the
entrapment was illegal, such will not validate the withdrawal based on the second
check which is also forged. His criminal liability in forging the second check is not
affected by the alleged illegality of the entrapment procedure.

101
I. Crimes against Chastity
1. Adultery (Art. 333) 1. Adultery (Art. 333)
 Elements: 2. Concubinage (Art. 334)
1. That the woman is married
3. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336)
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband 4. Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
3. That as regards the man with whom she has 5. Simple seduction (Art.338)
sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married. 6. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the
offended party (Art. 339)
2. Concubinage (Art 334)
7. Corruption of minors (Art. 340)
 Elements:
1. That the man must be married 8. White slave trade (Art. 341)
2. That he committed : 9. Forcible abduction (Art. 342)
a) Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
b) Having sexual intercourse under 10. Consented abduction (Art. 343)
scandalous circumstance with a woman
not his wife 4. That it is committed by means of deceit
c) Cohabiting with her in any other place
3. That as regards the woman, she must know 6. Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party
him to be married (Art 339)
 Elements:
3. Acts of Lasciviousness (Art 336) 1. That the offender commits acts of
 Elements: lasciviousness or lewdness
1. That the offender commits any act of 2. That the acts are committed upon a woman
lasciviousness or lewdness who is virgin or single or widow of good
2. That the act if lasciviousness is committed reputation, under 18 years of age but over 12
against a person of either sex years, or a sister or descendant regardless of
3. That it is done – her reputation or age
a) When the offended party is deprived of 3. That the offender accomplishes the acts by
reason or otherwise unconscious abuse of authority, confidence, relationship or
b) By means of fraudulent machination or deceit.
grave abuse of authority
c) When the offended is under 12 years of age 7. Corruption of Minors (Art. 340)
or is demented
Acts punishable:
Promote or facilitate the prostitution or
4. Qualified Seduction (Art 337) corruption of persons under age to satisfy the lust of
Two Classifications another
a. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18
years of age by certain persons, such as a person 8. White Slave Trade (Art 341)
in authority, priest, teacher etc.
Acts Punishable
 Elements:
1. Engaging n the business of prostitution
1. That the offended party is a virgin, which
2. Profiting by prostitution
is presumed if she is unmarried and of
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of
good reputation
prostitution
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18
years of age
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse 9. Forcible Abduction (Art 342)
with her  Elements:
4. That there is abuse of authority, 1. That the person abducted is any woman
confidence or relationship on the part of regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation
the offender 2. That the abduction is against her will
b. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant 3. That the abduction is with lewd design
by her ascendant, regardless of her age or
reputation 10. Consented Abduction (Art. 343)
 Elements:
5. Simple Seduction (Art 338) 1. That the offended party must be a virgin
 Elements: 2. That she must be over 12 years and under 18
1. That the offended party is over 12 and under years of age
18 years of age 3. That the taking away of the offended party
2. That she must be of good reputation, single or must be with her consent, after solicitation or
widow cajolery from the offender
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with 4. That the taking away of the offended party is
her with lewd designs

102
CASES and BAR QUESTIONS

ANGELES v PEOPLE GR. 212562 October 12, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Jacqueline and her friends went to Avelino‘s "kubo" for a karaoke session. They
were singing and drinking when Avelino joined them. When Avelino was about to leave,
Jacqueline requested him to stay longer, so the singing and drinking continued on.
After taking a bath, Jacqueline went to bed, with her body covered with a bath towel.
She was later awakened when she felt something heavy on top of her and somebody
licking and sucking her breasts. When she opened her eyes, Avelino was on top of her.
She ran outside while Avelino followed her repeatedly saying "Mare, pasensiyana,
pasensiyana, mali akong inakala saiyo."

ISSUE:
Can Avelino be charged of the crime of acts of lasciviousness?

HOLDING:
NO.
The facts indicate that the alleged acts of accused-appellant are in the nature of
amorous advances made by an ardent lover or sexual partner, at the very least. Such
conclusion can be drawn from the invitation made by the purported victim an hour
before the said incident. The invitation indicative of the purported victim's consent must
be interpreted vis-a-vis the incidents which occurred a few minutes before and after
they parted ways. From the time the invitation was extended and until the time
accused-appellant entered the room, there was no significant occurrence which could
have led Avelino to conclude that Jacqueline changed her mind. Viewed in this light,
Avelino‘s initial reaction of - "Mare, pasensiyana, pasensiyana, maliakonginakalasaiyo"
- would make sense. The consent was only effectively and categorically withdrawn or
revoked when she pushed Avelino away.

PEOPLE v DADULLA, GR NO 172321 FEBRUARY 9, 2011

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
The act of opening the zipper and buttons of AAA‘s shorts, touching her and
trying to pull her from under the bed manifested lewd designs, not intent to lie with her.
Therefore, the act committed is only acts of lasciviousness.

CRUZ v PEOPLE, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Touching of the victim‘s genitalia with the hands of the accused and mashing
the victim‘s breast are susceptible of double interpretation. These are circumstances
which show that the intention is either rape or simple seduction (or acts of
lasciviousness). In this case, the intent was not clear hence accused shall only be liable
for acts of lasciviousness.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms,
attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned
down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could not handle
rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together with

103
Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse
where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took turns in
raping her. After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house.
(4%)

(A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?

(B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one hour
after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty‘s death? Explain.

ANSWER:
(A) Guapo and Pogi committed the complex crime of Forcible Abduction
with Rape. They abducted Pretty against her will and with lewd design, and
thereafter rape the her. Forcible abduction was a necessary means to commit
the crime of Rape. Since there is conspiracy, Guapo and Pogi are responsible
not only for the rape each personally committed but also for the rape committed
by his co-conspirator.
(B) Guapo and Pogi would not be held liable for the death of Pretty.
Suicide is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection
between the rapes and the death. In People vs. Napudo (GR 168448, October 8, 2008),
the victim committed suicide due to rape. The accused was only charged with
and convicted of rape.

104
J. Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons
1. Simulation of births, substitution of one
child for another and concealment or
1. Simulation of Births, substitution of one child for
abandonment of a legitimate child (Art.
another, and concealment or abandonment of a
347)
legitimate child (Art. 347)
Acts Punishable: 2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348)
1. Simulation of birth 3. Bigamy (Art. 349)
2. Substitution of one child for another 4. Marriage contracted against provisions
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate
of law (Art. 350)
child with intent to cause such child to lose
its civil status 5. Premature marriages (Art.351)
 Elements 6. Performance of illegal marriage
1. The child must be legitimate ceremony (Art. 352)
2. The offender conceals or abandons
such child 2. A woman whose marriage was annulled or
3. The offender has the intent to cause dissolved, if she shall marry before her
such child to lose its civil status delivery or before the expiration of the period
of 301 days after the legal separation
2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348)
How committed: 6. Performance of Illegal marriage ceremony (Art.
By assuming the filiations or parental or
352)
conjugal rights of another
How committed:
Priests or ministers of any religious
3. Bigamy (Art. 349)
denomination or sect, or civil authorities who
 Elements shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
1. That the offender has been legally married ceremony
2. That the marriage has not been 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 marriage or
subsequent marriage
4. That the second or subsequent marriage
has all the essential requisites for validity.

4. Marriage contracted against the provisions of

laws (Art. 350)
 Elements
1. That the offender contracted marriage
2. That he knew at the time that –
a. The requirements of the law were not
complied with; or
b. The marriage was in disregard of a
legal impediment

5. Premature Marriages (Art. 351)

Persons liable:
1. A widow who married within 301 days from
the date of death of her husband or before
having delivered if she is pregnant at the time
of his death

105
CASES and BAR QUESTIONS

LASANAS v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014

Bersamin, J.

Any person who contracts a second marriage without first having a

judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, albeit on its face
void and inexistent for lack of a marriage license, is guilty of bigamy as defined
and penalized by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS:
Petitioner‘s first marriage was void for lack of a marriage license or an affidavit of
cohabitation. Petitioner then married for the second time.

ISSUE:
Is the accused liable for bigamy?

HOLDING:
YES.
Pursuant to Teves, the accused‘s conviction for bigamy is affirmed. The crime of
bigamy was consummated from the moment he contracted the second marriage without
his marriage to Socorro being first judicially declared null and void, because at the time
of the celebration of the second marriage, his marriage to Socorro was still deemed valid
and subsisting due to such marriage not being yet declared null and void by a court of
competent jurisdiction.

What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy," according to People v.

Odtuhan is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence
of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent
courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void,
and so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage
exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

BAR QUESTION 2012

What are the elements of the crime of bigamy? (5%)

ANSWER:
The elements of bigamy are:
1. That the offender has been legally married;
2. That said first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case
his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared
presumptively dead;
3. That he contracts a subsequent or second marriage; and
4. That the subsequent or second marriage would have been valid
had it not been for the existence of the first marriage.

BAR QUESTION 2012

If you were the judge in a bigamy case where the defense was able to prove
that the first marriage was null and void or a nullity, would you render a judgment of
conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer. (2%)

ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I would render a judgment of conviction. Proof that
the first marriage is null and void or a nullity is not a defense in bigamy.
Article 349, RPC is clear: Any person who contracts a second marriage
without first having a judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage,
albeit on its face void and inexistent, is guilty of bigamy.

106
 Parties to the marriage are not permitted to judge for themselves its
nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts. Only
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared by the court can it be held as void. As
long as the previous marriage was not lawfully dissolved or judicially declared void,
contracting a new marriage constitutes bigamy. (Lasanas vs. People, GR#159031, June 23,
2014)

BAR QUESTION 2012

Assuming the existence of the first marriage when accused contracted the
second marriage and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, would you render a judgment of
conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer. (3%)

ANSWER:
If I were the Judge, I would still render a judgment of conviction. A
subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity is absolutely of no moment in so far as the State‘s penal
laws are concerned. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid
marriage is automatically void for being bigamous, the nullity of the second marriage
is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. (Tenebro
vs. CA, GR 150758, February 18, 2004)
It is a settled rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon
the commission of the offense. Hence, the crime of bigamy is committed by a person
from the time he contracts the second marriage while his first marriage exists. The
finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of his second marriage does not impede
the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him. (James Walter Capili vs. People, GR
183805, July 3, 2013)

107
K. Crimes against Honor
Defamation (Art. 353)
4. Means the offense of injuring a person‘s
character, fame or reputation through false
and malicious statements.
 Elements:
1. That there must be an imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defeat, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstance
2. That the imputation must be made
publicly
3. That it must be malicious
4. That the imputation must be directed to a
natural or juridical person, or one who is
dead.
5. That the imputation must tend to cause
the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
person defamed.
 General Rule: Malice is presumed from every
defamatory imputation
 Exceptions when malice is NOT
presumed
Privileged Communications:
1. A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance
of any legal, moral, or social duty
2. A fair and true report, made in good
faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report, or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions
 Doctrine of Fair Comment
5. That while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false,
because every man is presumed innocent until
his guilt is judicially proved, and every false
imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless,
when the discreditable imputation is directed
against a public person in his public capacity,
it is not necessarily actionable
1. Libel by means of writing or similar means (Art.
355)
Means of Committing:
1. Writing 7. Painting
2. Printing 8. Theatrical exhibition
3. Lithography 9. Cinematographic
4. Engraving exhibition
5. Radio 10. Or any similar means
6. Phonograph
1. Libel by means of writing or similar
means (Art. 355)
2. Threatening to publish and offer to
prevent such publication for a
compensation (Art. 356)
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to
in the course of official proceedings (Art.
357)
4. Slander (Art. 358)
5. Slander by deed (Art. 359)
6. Incrimination innocent person (Art. 363)
7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such
publication for compensation (Art 356)
Acts Punishable:
1. Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child
or other members of his family
2. By offering to prevent the publication of such
libel for compensation or money consideration
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the
course of official proceedings (Art 357)
 Elements:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or
manager of a newspaper daily or magazine
2. That he publishes facts connected with
the private life of another
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor,
virtue and reputation of said person
4. Slander or Oral Defamation (Art 358)
Kinds
1. Simple Slander
2. Grave Slander, when it is serious and
insulting nature
5. Slander by deed (Art 359)
Kinds
1. Simple slander by deed
2. Grave slander by deed, serious in nature
 Elements:
1. That the offender performs any act not
included in any other crime against honor
2. That such act is performed in the
presence of other person or persons
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon the offended party.
108
6. Incriminating Innocent person (Art. 363) 7. Intriguing against Honor (Art 364)
 Elements: 6. When a person makes any intrigue which has
1. That the offender performs an act for its principal purpose to blemish the honor
2. That by such act he directly incriminates or reputation of another person
or imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime
3. That such act does not constitute perjury

CASES AND BAR QUESTIONS

DE LEON v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 212623; January 11, 2016

Mendoza, J.

FACTS:
At a scheduled hearing before the PLEB at Manila City Hall, SPO3 Leonardo with
several companions were about to enter the office when De Leon uttered , "Walanghiya
kang mangongotong na pulis ka, ang yabang yabang mo noon. Patay ka sa akin
ngayon." The words uttered by De Leon caused SPO3 Leonardo embarrassment because
there were several persons present at the PLEB premises. De Leon was charged with
Grave Oral Defamation.

ISSUE:
Should De Leon be held liable for grave oral defamation?

HOLDING:
NO.
An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission
of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission,
condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in
contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. It must be stressed
that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and
mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether
written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence
of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the
plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself

Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not
only upon the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the
special circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the
offended party. "The gravity depends upon:
(1) the expressions used;
(2) the personal relations of the accused and the offended party; and
(3) the special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or relationship
between the offended party and the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of
the offender at the time.

In particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger,

with some provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony."
In this case, the court held that the words uttered by De Leon were defamatory
in nature however it only constituted simple oral defamation.

BAR QUESTION 2014

In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi wrote an unflattering
article about Pablo, a famous singer, and his bitter separation from his wife. The
article portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband and caused him to lose lucrative
endorsement contracts. Pablo charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi countered
that she did not commit libel because Pablo has attained the status of a public figure

109
so that even his personal life has become a legitimate subject of public interest and
comment.
Is Gigi correct? (7%)

ANSWER:
No. Gigi is not correct.
Gigi was attacking the personal life of Pablo as a husband and not his
public life as a famous singer. She portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband that
caused him to lose lucrative endorsement contracts. Such defamatory utterances are
not protected. Any attack upon the private character of a public figure on matters
which are not related to their works would constitute libel. (Sazon vs. CA, GR 120715,
March 29, 1996; Fermin vs. People, GR 157643, March 28, 2008)

110
PART III. Quasi-
offenses
Criminal Negligence 112
Imprudence and Negligence (Art 365) 112
CASES AND BAR QUESTIONS 112
SENIT v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 192914; January 11, 2016 112
MARIANO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 178145, July 07, 2014 113
SOLIDUM v PEOPLE, GR NO 192123 MARCH 10, 2014 113

111
Criminal Negligence
Imprudence and Negligence (Art 365)
How committed:
1. Committing though reckless imprudence any act which had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave of less grave felony or light felony.
2. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute
a grave or less serious felony
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence, simple
imprudence or negligence
4. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which if done maliciously,
would have constituted a light felony.

 Elements of Reckless Imprudence

1. That the offender does or fails to do an act
2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary
3. That it be without malice
4. That material damage results
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration:
a) His employment or occupation
b) Degree of intelligence, physical condition
c) Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place

 Elements of Simple Imprudence

1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.

CASES AND BAR QUESTIONS

SENIT v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 192914; January 11, 2016

Reyes, J.

FACTS:
Monhinder was driving his pick-up along Aglayan from Valencia with his wife
Rosalinda, son and househelper. A Super 5 bus driven by Senit recklessly drove on the
right shoulder of the road and overtook another south-bound ten-wheeler truck that
slowed at the intersection, obviously to give way to another vehicle about to enter the
intersection. Seeing the ten-wheeler truck slow down, it was incumbent upon Senit to
reduce his speed or apply on the brakes of the bus in order to allow the pick-up to
safely make a left turn. Instead, he drove at a speed too fast for safety. As a result, the
Super 5 bus crashed into the right side of the pick-up. All passengers of the pick-up
were injured and immediately brought to the hospital.

ISSUE:
Can Senit be held liable for reckless imprudence?

HOLDING:
YES.
In flagrantly failing to observe the necessary precautions to avoid inflicting
injury or damage to other persons and things, Senit was recklessly imprudent in
operating the Super 5 bus. Thus, the petitioner cannot blame Toor, Sr. for not noticing
a fast-approaching bus, as the cited law provides that the one overtaking on the road
has the obligation to let other cars in the opposite direction know his presence and not
the other way around as the petitioner suggests.

112
 MARIANO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 178145, July 07, 2014
Bersamin, J.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or

failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to
perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.” To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act
must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of the motor
vehicle, but a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.

FACTS:
Ferdinand dropped by his mother‘s house to pick up some items. He parked his
jeep in front of the house of his mother and alighted therefrom. However, he was
bumped by a moving vehicle, thrown four (4) meters away and lost consciousness.

ISSUE:
Is the accused liable for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries?

HOLDING:
YES.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or failing
to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.‖ To constitute
the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence
in the operation of the motor vehicle, but a willful and wanton disregard of the
consequences is required. The Prosecution must further show the direct causal
connection between the negligence and the injuries or damages complained of.

SOLIDUM v PEOPLE, GR NO 192123 MARCH 10, 2014

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests
of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. Reckless imprudence, on the
other hand, consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from
which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.

In order for a doctor to be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting to

homicide, it must be shown that the doctor failed to comply with the standard of care
observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of
treatment or the present state of medical science.
In this case, The Prosecution did not prove the elements of reckless imprudence
beyond reasonable doubt because the circumstances cited by the CA were insufficient
to establish that Dr. Solidum had been guilty of inexcusable lack of precaution in
monitoring the administration of the anesthetic agent to Gerald.

**Note: The SC in Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro (GR#172716, 11/172010) ruled that:
―Reckless Imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a
means to commit other crimes, hence, conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars

113
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various consequences. xxx
xxx xxx The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. xxx xxx
xxx And as the careless act is single , whether the injurious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense criminal negligence remains one and the same, and cannot be split
into different crimes and prosecutions. xxx xxx xxx‖)

BAR QUESTION 2013

Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the crime of homicide, taking
into account the nature of the offense, the essential element of each of the stages of
execution and the manner of committing such intentional felony as distinguished
from felony committed through reckless imprudence. (5%)

ANSWER:
Illustration of an intentional felony, homicide and its 3 stages:
attempted, frustrated and consummated.
X, with intent to kill, shot Y.
If Y sustained a non fatal wound near the shoulder, X is liable of
Attempted Homicide. X‘s act of shooting Y is an overt act directly connected to
homicide, however, he was not able to perform all the acts of execution to bring
about homicide by reason some cause or accident other than his spontaneous
desistance, i.e., the wound inflicted is non fatal.
If Y sustained a fatal wound on the chest that could have caused his
death were it not for the immediate medical operation performed on him, the crime
committed is Frustrated Homicide. It is frustrated because when X inflicted a fatal
gunshot wound on Y, X has already performed all the acts of execution to bring
about homicide, however, homicide is not produced by reason of a cause
independent of the will of the perpetrator, i.e., an immediate medical operation done
on the victim.
If Y died, X is liable of homicide because X has already performed the
acts/elements necessary for the accomplishment of homicide.

Illustration of a felony committed though reckless imprudence.

X was driving his car recklessly when he hit a pedestrian.
If the pedestrian died, X is liable of Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide. Since the victim died, even if there was no intent to kill, the felony
resulting from the imprudence is homicide because intent to kill becomes a general
criminal intent which is presumed by law.
If the pedestrian did not die, X is liable of Reckless Imprudence resulting
in Physical Injuries. Since there was no intent to kill on the part of X, the felony
resulting from the imprudence would only be physical injuries. There is no such
crime as Reckless Imprudence resulting in Frustrated or Attempted Homicide
because there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused.

114
PART IV. Special
Penal Laws
A. Anti-Arson Law (PD 1613) 116
B. Anti-Carnapping Law (RA 6539, aab. RA 7659) 117
C. Anti-Child Abuse Law (RA 7610, aa.) 118
D. Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) 120
E. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, aa.) 123
F. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (PD 532) 126
G .Anti-Plunder Act (RA 7080, aa.) 127
H .Anti-Torture Act (RA 9745) 128
I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208) 129
J. Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) 131
K. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165) 134
L. Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103, aa.) 140

115
A. Anti-Arson Law (PD 1613)
PEOPLE v. ABAYON G.R. No. 204891 September 14, 2016
Brion, J.

There is no complex crime of arson with homicide because the crime of

arson absorbs the resultant death or is a separate crime altogether.

FACTS:
Abayon's neighbors heard a hissing sound and smelled leaking gas. Robert, one
of his neighbors noticed that Abayon was holding an unlit cigarette inserted between
his left index and middle fingers and that his right hand was turning on and off the gas
tank.

At past midnight, the house started to catch fire. The house was completely
burned down along with the personal effects of the residents. Three (3) persons also
died because of the fire. The RTC found Abayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of arson resulting in multiple homicide.

ISSUE:
Is the complex crime of arson with homicide a proper charge?

HOLDING:
NO
There is no complex crime of arson with homicide because the crime of arson
absorbs the resultant death or is a separate crime altogether.

In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what
crime/crimes was/were perpetrated, it is required to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but death
results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the
resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if the main objective is to kill a particular person
who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish
such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to
kill a particular person, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then
there are two separate and distinct crimes committed, homicide or murder, and arson.

116
B. Anti-Carnapping Law (RA 6539, aab. RA 7659)
BAR QUESTION 2012
A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury
warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom
were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal
employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and
asportation of the entire van and its contents.

a) If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who
hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise
known as the Anti--Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your
answer. (5%)

ANSWER:
No. If I were the public prosecutor, I would charge the ten men of
violation of RA 6539, The Anti-Carnapping Act. All the elements of carnapping are
present. (1) there was actual taking of a motor vehicle, the postal van; (2) the postal
van belonged to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (4) the
taking was done without the consent of the owner and with force, violence and
intimidation against the 3 van employees who were occupants thereof.
It is not highway robbery under PD 532 because there was no showing
that the 10 men were a band of robbers organized for the purpose of committing
robbery indiscriminately. What was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van,
hence, carnapping.

117
C. Anti-Child Abuse Law (RA 7610, aa.)
BONGALON v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013
Bersamin, J.

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime
of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. 1. Only when the
laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused
to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a
human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished
under the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS:
Jayson Dela Cruz and Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined the evening
procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession
passed in front of the petitioner‘s house, the latter‘s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a
minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him ―sissy‖; that the petitioner confronted
Jayson and Roldan and called them names like ―strangers‖ and ―animals‖; that the
petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face;
that the petitioner then went to the brothers‘ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz,
their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the
petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and
reported the incident; that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the Bicol
Regional Training and Teaching Hospital. RTC found and declared the petitioner guilty
of child abuse as charged. CA affirmed the conviction. The petitioner has come to the
Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Did the act of the accused constitute child abuse?

HOLDING:
NO.
The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands
on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a
human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The
records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the
moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern
for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the
hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific
intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.

ROSALDES v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 173988 October 8, 2014

Bersamin, J.

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime
of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the
laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused
to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a
human being should it be punished as child abuse.

FACTS:
Grade 1 pupil Michael Ryan Gonzales accidentally bumped his teacher, herein
petitioner, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. Petitioner then pinched Michael on
his thigh, held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor causing him to hit a
desk and, consequently, losing his consciousness. Petitioner proceeded to pick Michael
by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor.The physical pain
experienced by the victim had been aggravated by an emotional trauma that caused
him to stop going to school altogether out of fear of the petitioner, compelling his
118
parents to transfer him to another school where he had to adjust again.Thus, the
petitioner was charged and found guilty of child abuse punished under RA 7610.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of the crime of child abuse punishable under RA 7610

HOLDING:
YES.

"Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child
which includes any of the following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in

serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or
death.
In the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore, the maltreatment may
consist of an act by deeds or by words that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being. The act need not be habitual. It was also
shown that the petitioner‘s act was neither her first nor only maltreatment of a child.
A school teacher employing unnecessary violence over her minor pupils shall be
liable for violation of RA 7610.

Such established circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt that the

petitioner was guilty of child abuse by deeds that degraded and demeaned the intrinsic
worth and dignity of Michael Ryan as a human being.Although the petitionercould duly
discipline Michael Ryan as her pupil, her infliction of the physical injuries on him was
unnecessary, violent and excessive.

119
D. Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612)
LIM v PEOPLE GR. No. 211977 October 12, 2016
Velasco Jr., J.

FACTS:
Engr. Gulmatico is the project engineer of Sultan Kudarat. He received a
komatsu Road Grader from the former project engineer. While undergoing repair it was
removed from the compound by Banosing and brought it to Davao City. The equipment
was found at the Basco Metal Supply owned by Mariano Lim, who alleged that he
bought the equipment from Banosing. He showed a certificate of ownership as proof
thereof. It was also found that the equipment is not included in the inventory of
equipment of DPWH.

ISSUE:
Can Lim be charged under the anti-fencing act?

HOLDING:
NO..
The following are the essential elements of the crime of fencing:
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes, or 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 said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object
or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and:
4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

On the first element, we find that the prosecution failed to establish that theft
had been committed. The crime of theft is necessary for an accused to be found guilty of
fencing, however, there was no ownership on the part of DPWH of the equipment to
begin with. Thus, the first element for the crime of fencing is not present. The third
element is likewise not present. It cannot be said that Lim has knowledge that the
equipment has been a subject of theft since Lim was able to provide affidavit of
ownership which he relied thereon when he bought the equipment from Banosing.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August, 1998 while
Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform,
came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault
until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he
saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He
kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that
included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to
do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after,
the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted that their
loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)

ANSWER:
Abelardo is not criminally liable.

He is not liable as an accessory because he has no knowledge of the

commission of the crime of robbery. Mere presumption will not suffice. Moreover,
granting for the sake of argument that his act would amount to that of an accessory
– concealing the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof to prevent its

120
discovery (Article 19, par.2, RPC) – he is exempted from criminal liability, being the
brother of Modesto. (Article 20, RPC)
He is also not liable as a fence under PD 1612, the Anti Fencing Law. The
elements of fencing are: (1) that a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; (2)
that the accused, who was not a principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery or
theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any other manner deals with any article, item or object that is the
proceeds of robbery or theft; (3) that the accused knows or should have known that
the thing in his possession is the proceeds of robbery or theft; and (4) that there is,
on the part of the accused, intent to gain, for himself or for another. Although the
first 3 elements are present, the last element of intent to gain is absent. Abelardo
kept quiet about the 2 bags of money in the vault because he was unsure of what to
do under the circumstances.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Inigo for P500,000. While driving
his newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of
his vehicle's Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the
plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the
Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different
from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of
the Fortuner, signed by Inigo, also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as
Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the Fortuner
were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to correspond to a
vehicle previously reported as carnapped.
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Inigo sold him a carnapped
vehicle and he did not know that he was buying a carnapped vehicle.
If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge
Roberto with a crime? (7%)

ANSWER:
If I were the public prosecutor, I would charge Roberto of violation of PD
1612, The Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of fencing are: (1) that a crime of robbery
or theft has been committed; (2) that the accused, who was not a principal or
accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells, disposes, or buys and sells, or in any other manner deals
with any article, item or object that is the proceeds of robbery or theft; (3) that the
accused knows or should have known that the thing in his possession is the
proceeds of robbery or theft; and (4) that there is, on the part of the accused, intent
to gain, for himself or for another.
All the elements are present. Someone carnapped the Toyota Fortuner,
and sold it to Roberto who did not take part in the commission of the crime. Roberto
should have known that the car was stolen because it was not properly documented
as the deed of sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct numbers of
the vehicle‘s engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check the papers
covering his purchase.
Roberto‘s claim of good faith has no merit because PD 1612 is a malum
prohibitum, therefore, good faith is not a defense. (Dimat vs. People, GR 181144, January
25, 2012)

BAR QUESTION 2013

Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio‘s house. There, Manolo
noticed a nice painting that exactly looked like the painting which he reported was
stolen from him some years back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but
Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately from
a friend. Manolo later proved to Tonio that the painting was indeed the stolen
painting. (4%)
(A) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?
(B) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one
night, broke into Tonio‘s house by destroying the wall and taking the painting. What,
if any, would be the liability of Manolo?

121
 ANSWER:
(A) Tonio may be charged with violation of PD 1612, The Anti-
Fencing Law. Under Section 5 of the said law, mere possession of any article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the proceeds of robbery or thievery is
prima facie evidence of fencing. Since Tonio is in possession of a stolen painting, the
law presumes that he committed the crime of fencing.
(B) Manolo is liable of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article
280, RPC. Trespass to dwelling is qualified by use of force and violence since Manolo
entered the house of Tonio against the will of the latter.

122
E. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, aa.)
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016
Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
The accused, all public officers committing the offense in relation to their
respective offices, directly or indirectly, acquired ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate
amount of PHP365, 997,915.00 more or less, through any or a combination or a series
of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means.

The accused separately filed their demurrers to evidence asserting that the
Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against them.

The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the
accused within its jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia.

Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on certiorari before the
Supreme Court to assail the denial of their demurrers to evidence, on the ground of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE 1:
Was the predicate act of raiding the public treasury alleged in the information
proved by the Prosecution?

HOLDING 1:
NO.
The common thread that binds all the four terms in Section 1(d) of Republic Act
No. 7080 together (misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public
funds) is that the public officer used the property taken. Pursuant to the maxim of
noscitur a sociis, raids on the public treasury requires the raider to use the property
taken impliedly for his personal benefit.

ISSUE 2:
Was there an evidence of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth
in the total amount of not less than P50 million?

HOLDING 1:
NONE.
The Prosecution adduced no evidence showing that either GMA or Aguas or even
Uriarte, for that matter, had amassed, accumulated or acquired illgotten wealth of any
amount. There was also no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, presented by the
Prosecution showing even the remotest possibility that the CIFs of the PCSO had been
diverted to either GMA or Aguas, or Uriarte.

GIANGAN v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Aurelia Bernadas hired Delfin Buot to construct the wooden fence on her land
which the accused removed. She visited accused Giangan to inquire, but the latter
shouted at her: ―It is within my power as barangay captain to destroy the fence,‖ and
―Don‘t tell me what to do, you just file a case in court;‖

Giangan contends that as public officials, he and his co-accused acted within
the bounds of the law and that he, as the barangay chairman, held the authority and
responsibility to maintain public order, while Domail, as a barangay councilor, could
also act as a peace officer to maintain public order within the barangay.

123
ISSUE:
Did the accused violate section 3 of RA 3019?

HOLDING:
NO.
For violation of Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019, it must be established that the
accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; He
must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligence in the discharge of his functions and; His action caused any undue injury to
any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.

Giangan and his co-accused did not act with gross bad faith and manifest
impartiality when they removed the wooden posts of the fence of Bernadas. On the
contrary, their actuations evinced good faith.

TAN v PEOPLE GR. No. 218902 October 17, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Tan was charged with and convicted of violation of section 3 RA 3019 punishing
corrupt practices of public officers. Tan was alleged to have conspired with the
Barangay officials of the Municipality of Maasin, Iloilo City. Tan, representing IBC,
entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Municipality of Maasin for the
rechanneling of the Tigum River path. The Resolution which was the basis of the MOA
was however alleged not to exist or has been passed by the Sanggunian Bayan. Thus,
all the local officials involved in the rechanneling project conspiring with Tan, entered
into a contract that is grossly disadvantageous to the government particularly to the
Municipality of Maasin as it has been deprived of the revenues, which could have been
collected from the IBC out of the hauling activities of the latter for sand and gravel if
there was no such MOA

ISSUE:
Should Tan be held liable for violation of Section 3, RA 3019?

HOLDING:
NO.
There are two ways by which a public official violates Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in
the performance of his functions, to wit: (1) by causing undue injury to any party,
including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either mode or both. The
disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019.

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 R.A. 3019,
including (e) thereof. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law
to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike constituting graft or
corrupt practices act or which may lead thereto

BAR QUESTION 2013

Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug
case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through
his lawyer, to the clerk of court.
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence
and convicted the accused. (4%)

124
 (A) Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting
or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer,
in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also
with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be
charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he
correct?
(B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he
misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge
correct?

ANSWER:
(A) No. Malo is not correct. One may be charged with violation of RA
3019 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same act. This is expressly
provided for in Section 3, RA 3019 which states: ―In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing laws, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of public officers and hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx‖
Moreover, RA 3019 is a special law, hence, the elements of the offense are not the
same as those penalized under the RPC.
(B) Yes, the charge is correct. Estafa is committed by any person who
shall ask money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government
employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the money for his own
personal use and benefit. (Article 315[2][c], RPC)

125
F. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (PD 532)
BAR QUESTION 2012
A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury
warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom
were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal
employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and
asportation of the entire van and its contents.

a) If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who
hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise
known as the Anti--Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your
answer. (5%)

ANSWER:
No. If I were the public prosecutor, I would charge the ten men of
violation of RA 6539, The Anti-Carnapping Act. All the elements of carnapping are
present. (1) there was actual taking of a motor vehicle, the postal van; (2) the postal
van belonged to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (4) the
taking was done without the consent of the owner and with force, violence and
intimidation against the 3 van employees who were occupants thereof.
It is not highway robbery under PD 532 because there was no showing
that the 10 men were a band of robbers organized for the purpose of committing
robbery indiscriminately. What was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van,
hence, carnapping.

BAR QUESTION 2012

If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of
highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction (5%)

ANSWER:
The elements of highway robbery under PD 532 are:
1. That there is unlawful taking of property of another;
2. That said taking is with intent to gain;
3. That said taking is done with violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things or other unlawful means; and
4. That it was committed on any Philippine highway.
To sustain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution must prove
that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only
robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed men. (People vs. Mendoza,
GR 104461, February 23, 1996; Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 79543, October 16, 1996)

126
G. Anti-Plunder Act (RA 7080, aa.)
BAR QUESTION 2013
City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa,
through an ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for the construction of a
road leading to the poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the
road leading to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in the
amount of P10 million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually lost in
the bidding.
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million
could not be accounted for although reports showed that these were lent to City
Engr. A‘s authorized drivers but the same were never returned. Further, there were
funds under City Engr. A‘s custody amounting to P10 million which were found to be
missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was instrumental in
awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building costing P10 million
to a close relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed
that City Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50 million, which was way beyond
his legitimate income. (8%)

(A) If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file
against City Engr. A?
(B) Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less than P50
million, will your answer still be the same?

ANSWER:
(A) If I am the Ombudsman, I would file a case of Plunder under RA
7080 against City Engineer A. Engr. A is a public officer who amassed, accumulated
or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination of overt or criminal acts of
misuse, misappropriation, conversion, or malversation of public funds, receiving
kickbacks from persons in connection with a government contract or project by
reason of his of office or position, and illegally or fraudulently conveying or disposing
of assets belonging to the national government, in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least P50 million.
(B) Yes, my answer will still be the same. City Engr. A‘s net worth
being less than P50 million is not determinative of his liability. What is material is
the fact that he acquired, amassed and accumulated ill-gotten wealth of more than
P50million. The basis of plunder is the combination of criminal acts or series of acts
that accumulated at least P50million. The predicate crimes are already absorbed in
the crime of plunder.

127
H. Anti-Torture Act (RA 9745)
BAR QUESTION 2011
AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary
confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of detention. During the
period of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him
physical discomfort. What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the
solitary confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (5%)

ANSWER:
The crime committed is Violation of RA 9745, The Anti-Torture Act. Food
deprivation and confinement in solitary cell are considered as physical and
psychological torture under Section 4(2) of RA 9745.

128
I. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208)
PEOPLE v. VILLANUEVA GR. No. 210790 September 14, 2016
Perez, J.

FACTS:
Beverly is the registered owner of On Top Videoke Bar, where many young girls
are working as a GRO. Police officers raided the bar. Beverly and the five other
employees were subjected to inquest proceedings, and charged with violation of human
trafficking under RA 9208.Beverly asserted that she merely provided capital for the
business and that her brother, Villanueva, Jr., was the one managing the same.

ISSUE:
Is being a registered owner of a videoke bar sufficient to convict a person guilty
of trafficking in person?

HOLDING:
NO.
Recruiting, harboring, or maintaining a person for the purpose of exploitation
are acts performed by persons who may or may not be registered owners of
establishments. Thus, being the registered owner per se does not make one criminally
liable for the acts of trafficking committed in the establishment. What the prosecution
should have done was to prove the act of trafficking by other means, and not by mere
showing that accused-appellant was the registered owner.

PEOPLE v. SPOUSES YBAÑEZ et. Al G.R. No. 220461, August 24, 2016
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
The complainants categorically testified that they were hired as GROs and
tasked to entertain customers to the extent of even having sexual intercourse with
them, and being paid commissions for said services. The bar was likewise designed with
a stage where the GROs were made to dance in provocative outfits. It had a VIP room
where the customers could caress and grope the girls, and a Super VIP room where they
could completely satisfy their lust. The crime was attended by the qualifying
circumstances of minority, victims Angeline and Virgie being 15 and 17 years of age,
respectively, and that the crime was committed by a syndicate and in large scale.

ISSUE:
Is the crime of Trafficking in Persons committed?

HOLDING:
When the trafficked person is a child, a person below 18 years of age or one who
is over 18 but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition, the offense becomes qualified.

In this case, Trafficking in Persons were committed by the accused through

recruitment of persons by means of fraud, deception, and taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person for the purpose of sexual exploitation. And the offense is
qualified in this instance since two of the trafficked person is a child and another one
has a mental disability. As supported by their birth certificates, Bonete was merely 15
years old and Antonio was 16 when they were hired in 2006. Although Turado was
more than 18 years old when she started at Kiray, she was found to be functioning
within a mildly retarded level, and therefore, incapable of protecting herself from abuse
and exploitation.

129
 BAR QUESTION 2013
Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial
models for a TV advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project.
Loko offered her a contract, which Ganda signed. She was asked to report to an
address which turned out to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its most
featured attraction.
What is Loko‘s liability, if any? What effect would Ganda‘s minority have
on Loko‘s liability? (4%)

ANSWER:
Loko is liable of the crime of Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208. He
recruited, offered and hired Ganda by means of fraud or deception for the purpose of
exploitation or prostitution. By means of deceit, i.e., in the guise of making her a
commercial model, Loko recruited Ganda for the purpose of prostitution.
Ganda‘s minority is a qualifying circumstance. Under Section 6, RA
9208, when the trafficked person is a child, the crime committed is Qualified
Trafficking in Persons, penalized by life imprisonment.

130
J. Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)
NAVARRA,V. PEOPLE G.R. No. 203750, June 6, 2016
Peralta, J.

The person who actually signed a check in behalf of the drawer is liable
under BP 22. A corporate officer cannot shield himself from liability on the
ground that it was a corporate act and not his personal act. The general rule is
that a corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can be held
civilly liable when he is convicted.

FACTS:
Navarra is the Chief Finance Officer of Reynolds Philippines Corporation
(Reynolds). Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) granted Reynolds a
loan line of P82 Million and a foreign exchange line of P900,000.00. Subsequently,
Reynolds,through Navarra and its Vice-President for Corporate Affairs, George Molina,
issued seven (7) Asia Trust checks for the payment of its loan obligation.
The checks were all dishonored for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."
HSBC sent another notice of dishonor with respect to another check and demanded its
payment as well as that of the six (6) other checks previously dishonored. Reynolds
refused to pay.

ISSUE:
Is the person who actually signed a check in behalf of the drawer liable under
BP 22?

HOLDING:
YES.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum; it is simply the
commission of the act that the law prohibits, and not its character or effect, which
determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Malice or criminal intent is
completely immaterial. The maker's knowledge is presumed from the dishonor of the
check for insufficiency of funds.

A corporate officer cannot shield himself from liability on the ground that it was
a corporate act and not his personal act. The general rule is that a corporate officer who
issues a bouncing corporate check can be held civilly liable when he is convicted. The
criminal liability of the person who issued the bouncing checks in behalf of a
corporation stands independent of the civil liability of the corporation itself, such civil
liability arising from the Civil Code. But BP 22 itself fused this criminal liability with the
corresponding civil liability of the corporation itself by allowing the complainant to
recover such civil liability, not from the corporation, but from the person who signed the
check in its behalf.

RESTERIO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 177438 September 24, 2012

Bersamin, J.

The mere presentment of the two registry return receipts was not
sufficient to establish the fact that written notices of dishonor had been sent to
or served on the petitioner as the issuer of the check
There must be proof of actual and personal receipt of the notice of
dishonor.

FACTS:
The petitioner was charged with a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Petitioner issued a check payable to Villadolid. Petitioner allegedly issued the check
with knowledge of insufficiency of funds. The check when presented for encashment
was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "ACCT. CLOSED‖. Villadolid
presented proof that he sent a notice of dishonor through a registered mail.

131
ISSUE:
Was the notice of dishonor sufficient?

HOLDING:
NO.
The presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds is brought into existence
only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and that within
five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment.

The mere presentment of the two registry return receipts was not sufficient to
establish the fact that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on the
petitioner as the issuer of the check. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or
mailers was necessary in order for the giving of the notices of dishonor by registered
mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of the notices of dishonor to predicate
the existence of the second element of the offense.

RESTERIO v PEOPLE G.R. No. 177438 SEPTEMBER 24 2012

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
The mere act of issuing a worthless check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or
even as an evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode of payment is covered by B.P.
22. It is a crime classified as malum prohibitum. The law is broad enough to include,
within its coverage, the making and issuing of a check by one who has no account with
a bank, or where such account was already closed when the check was presented for
payment.

BAR QUESTION 2014

Frank borrowed Pl,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank
issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the
transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had
insufficient funds and requested that the deposit of the check be deferred.
Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to
pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas
Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law).
Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%)

ANSWER:
Yes, the charge is correct. Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, The
Bouncing Checks Law, is malum prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance
of a check without sufficient funds. Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check
was issued on account or for value, the purpose for which the check was issued, the
terms and conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the
offender. Hence, the request of Frank to defer the deposit of the check as it has
insufficient funds will not militate against the prosecution for violation of BP 22.

BAR QUESTION 2013

Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug
case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through
his lawyer, to the clerk of court.
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence
and convicted the accused. (4%)

(A) Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting
or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer,
in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also
132
with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be
charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he
correct?
(B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he
misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge
correct?

ANSWER:
(A) No. Malo is not correct. One may be charged with violation of RA
3019 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same act. This is expressly
provided for in Section 3, RA 3019 which states: ―In addition to acts or omissions of
public officers already penalized by existing laws, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of public officers and hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx‖
Moreover, RA 3019 is a special law, hence, the elements of the offense are not the
same as those penalized under the RPC.
(B) Yes, the charge is correct. Estafa is committed by any person who
shall ask money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government
employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the money for his own
personal use and benefit. (Article 315[2][c], RPC)

BAR QUESTION 2014

Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of
plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of
Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in
the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed‘s payment of three
(3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance
of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie,
as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The
following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated
checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same
assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When the
checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds
and corresponding notices of dishonour were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One
month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks.
Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor‘s office a complaint against
Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several
amounts from Mr. Ed as partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and
insisted that the complaint should continue despite the partial payments. On the
other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the
obligation is merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie
accepted the partial payments.
Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)

ANSWER:
Mr. Ed is liable of one count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) for the
issuance of the first 3 checks because he issued them simultaneous with the
transaction in order to defraud another. However, the 2 other checks had been
issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, hence, estafa is not committed as the
issuance of said checks was not the efficient cause of defraudation.
Mr. Ed is also liable of 5 counts of violation of BP 22, The Bouncing
Checks Law, for the issuance of the 5 checks which were dishonoured for
insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless or bum
check; deceit/fraud is not an element.
Mr. Ed‘s defense of partial payments constituting novation and absence
of demand letter will not free him from the criminal liability already incurred. The
partial payments would only affect his civil liability while his claim of absence of
demand letter is negated by the receipt of notice of dishonour.

133
K. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165)

PEOPLE v. AMARO G.R. No. 207517, June 1, 2016

Peralta, J.

HOLDING:
For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. 9165, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.

PEOPLE v. BULA WAN G.R. No. 204441, June 8, 2016

Perez, J.

HOLDING:
For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under one of the important element is the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs it is material that the sale actually took place,
and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the
poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. Receipt of the
marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.
On a final note, the court clarified that possession is necessarily included in the
sale of dangerous drugs.

PEOPLE v. BULA WAN G.R. No. 204441, June 8, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
I01 Rodolfo S. De La Cerna, Jr. arrested the accused after the accused handed
to him the marijuana wrapped in a magazine paper. No consideration was received by
the accused.

ISSUE:
Is accused appellant guilty of illegal sale?

HOLDING:
NO.
For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under one of the important element is the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. Receipt of the
marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.

134
 PEOPLE v. AMARO G.R. No. 207517, June 1, 2016
Peralta, J.

HOLDING:
For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, one of the important elements is the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
for it. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. Receipt of the marked
money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.

PEOPLE v. ZACARIA G.R. No. 214238 September 14, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
SP02 Montederamos et al conducted a buy-bust operation to entrap accused-
appellant Zacaria wherein 2 plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were
recovered from him. Zacaria contends that the allegations against him were baseless
because the prosecution failed to prove that there was indeed a sale of shabu as there
was no simultaneous actual exchange of the money and the shabu.

ISSUE:
Is the actual payment of buy-bust money necessary in the prosecution for illegal
sale of shabu?

HOLDING:
NO.
There is no requirement that in buy-bust operations, there must be a
simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not
indispensable, but merely corroborative in nature. Neither law nor jurisprudence
requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.

GAMBOA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 220333 November 14, 2016

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:
In the instant case, PO1 Sahagun and SPO1 Manuel marked and inventoried the
seized items upon arrival at the police station. However, their testimonies failed to show
that they took photographs of the said items and that Gamboa, or his representative,
was able to observe or, at the very least, knew that the confiscated items were being
marked. They were likewise silent as to the presence of the other required witnesses. An
examination of the records would similarly show that the prosecution did not offer the
photographs of the seized items.

ISSUE:
Are complainants‘ conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs defined
and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 proper?

HOLDING:
NO.
In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the accused was in possession of
an item or object identified as a dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
Notably, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond
reasonable doubt. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the

135
dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the
same.

The prosecution failed to acknowledge the shortcomings of the apprehending

team in complying with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. It was silent on the
absence of a representative from the DOJ and an elected public official to witness the
inventory and receive copies of the same. Similarly unexplained was the dearth of
photographs of the seized items, which could have taken place in the police station
where they were marked and inventoried.

PEOPLE v. CLOMA G.R. No. 215943 November 16, 2016

Carpio, J.

FACTS:
SPO1 Ellevera testified that he was the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation.
He identified Cloma as the seller of the shabu and confirmed the exchange of the P500
marked money and shabu. For his defense, Cloma denied the allegations of the
prosecution.

ISSUE:
Can the accused be charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs?

HOLDING:
YES.
In People v. Gaspar, we held that the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-
buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummated the buy-bust transaction
between the entrapment officers and the accused. The crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated.

PEOPLE v. ABARQUIZ G.R. No. 210617 December 7, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
PO3 Baruelo categorically identified the appellant as the seller of the dangerous
drugs contained in a plastic sachet who handed him the said plastic sachet upon giving
him the P500.00-peso bill. This testimony was corroborated by the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti, which was the dangerous drugs itself.

ISSUE:
Was the conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs proper?

HOLDING:
YES.
In this case, the prosecution has clearly established the elements of the crime as
presented in the testimony of PO3 Baruelo who represented himself as the poseur-
buyer in the buy-bust operation. The chain of custody of the confiscated drugs,
paraphernalia and other seized items was evidently in accordance with the mandate of
Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. In view of
the foregoing, this Court has taken cognizance of the fact that a testimony of a perfect
chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain.

LUY v PEOPLE GR. NO. 200087 October 12, 2016

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
This case involves the criminal attempt by the petitioner to smuggle dangerous
drugs (shabu) inside a detention facility to her detained husband by submerging the

136
packets of shabu inside a plastic jar filled with strawberry juice and cracked ice. JO3
Joaquin was on her usual duty when she searched the effects of Yolanda for possible
contrabands. Her attention was called on the strawberry juice placed on a white
container full of cracked ice. They went to the guardhouse and transferred the juice into
a bowl. Illegal drugs were revealed while the ice scattered.

ISSUE:
Can Yolanda be held liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs?

HOLDING:
YES.
She was caught in the voluntary possession of the shabu. In addition, she
presented no evidence about her being authorized to possess the shabu. Worthy to
reiterate is that her mere possession of the shabu constituted the crime itself.
Her animus possidendi — the intent to possess essential in crimes of mere possession
like this - was established beyond reasonable doubt in view of the absence of a credible
explanation for the possession.

PEOPLE v. ABENES G.R. No. 210878, July 07, 2016

Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
According to SPO1 Badua and SPO1 Lag-ey, it was PO1 Moyao who took initial
custody of the seized plastic sachet when appellant, JonalynAbenes was frisked at the
time of arrest and who allegedly marked the same with initials. However, for no
apparent reason, PO1 Moyao was not even presented in court to identify the plastic
sachet and more importantly to acknowledge the alleged marking thereon as her own.

ISSUE:
Can the accused be convicted even if the shabu was not properly identified in
court?

HOLDING:
NO.
"In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It is therefore of prime importance that in these
cases, the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable
doubt.

PEOPLE v. BARTOLINI, G.R. No. 215192, July 27, 2016

Carpio, J.

FACTS:
In a buy- bust operation, Bartolini was arrested and recovered from him was the
marked money in the amount of Php 80.00 and 3 stalks of marijuana. In his testimony,
SPO4 Larot stated that the marked money was Php 100.00.

ISSUE:
Is there a necessity to present the marked money in the conviction of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs?

HOLDING:
NONE.
It is not essential that the marked money be presented in court or that the
money used in the buy-bust operation is marked. In People v. Cruz where the Court
held that the failure to use marked money or to present it in evidence is not material
since the sale cannot be essentially disproved by the absence thereof. However, the

137
discrepancy in the marked money, taken together with the other gaps and lapses in this
case, raises questions on the transaction that allegedly took place.

PEOPLE OF v ASISLO G.R. No. 206224January 18, 2016

Peralta, J.

FACTS:
IA1 Natividad arrested Asislo immediately after the latter opened one of the
sacks loaded with bricks of marijuana. It was also admitted that the agents did not
prepare marked money for the buy-bust operation. Hence, there was no receipt of any
consideration for the marijuana.

ISSUE:
Is the receipt of the buy-bust money indispensable in the crime of illegal sale of
drugs?

HOLDING:
YES.
In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to
the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the
illegal transaction.

PEOPLE OF v ASISLO G.R. No. 206224January 18, 2016

PERA Peralta, J.

FACTS:
IA1 Natividad arranged to buy from Asislo marijuana. Asislo arrived at the
designated place on board a vehicle. Upon inspection of the sacks and confirmed that it
is marijuana, asislao was arrested and charged of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The
court ruled that Asislao cannot be convicted of illegal sale in the absence of
consideration but Asislao can still be convicted of illegal delivery and transport of
dangerous drugs.

ISSUE:
Can Asislao be convicted of illegal delivery and transport of dangerous drugs?

HOLDING:
YES.
The essential element of the charge of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs
is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. As defined in the
case of People v. Mariacos, "transport" means "to carry or convey from one place to
another.

There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug.

When the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact
of transportation itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the
criminal act. The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that
the act of transporting was committed. In this case, the purpose of selling the
dangerous drugs was clearly established when Asislao arrived at the designated place to
consummate the transaction.

PEOPLE v PIAD et al G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016

Mendoza, J.

FACTS:
The police went to the house of Piad to conduct a buy-bust operation and PO1
Arevalo acted as the poseur-buyer. Piad was then arrested and charged of illegal sale of

138
dangerous drugs while Villarosa, Carbo and Davis were charged of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.

ISSUE:
Can accused-appellants be convicted of the crimes charged?

HOLDING:
YES.
In the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution
established that after the arrest of Piad, the team found Villarosa, Carbo and Davis
sitting on the floor and surrounded by one (1) heat-sealed sachet and two (2) unsealed
sachets. The elements of illegal possession were proven because there was a proximate
company of at least 2 persons without any legal authority to possess the illicit items.

139
L. Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103, aa.)
ZAFRA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 176317, July 23, 2014
Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Appellant was the only Revenue Collection Agent of the BIR in San Fernando, La
Union from 1993-1995. Among his duties was to receive tax payments for which BIR
Form 25.24 or the revenue official receipts (ROR) were issued. The original of the ROR
was then given to the taxpayer while a copy thereof was retained by the collection
officer.

An audit team all from the central office of the BIR, was tasked to audit the cash
and non-cash accountabilities of the appellant. Of particular concern to the audit team
were the lesser amounts of taxes reported in appellant‘s MRCs and the attached RORs
compared to the amount reflected in the CARs and PNB‘s RORs. Likewise, some of
PNB‘s RORs show that it paid the total sum of Php500,606.15, as documentary stamp
tax. Yet, appellant‘s MRCs yielded only the total sum of Php1,115.00, for the same
RORs, or a difference of Php499,491.15.

Petitioner was charged and found guilty by the RTC of 18 counts of malversation
of public funds through falsification of public documents to which the CA affirmed.
Different penalties were imposed on each count of the offense.

ISSUE:
Was the imposition of the penalty proper?

HOLDING:
He was duly convicted of 18 counts of malversation of public funds through
falsification of public documents, all complex crimes. Pursuant to Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty for each count is that prescribed on the more serious
offense, to be imposed in its maximum period.

Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, an indeterminate sentence

is imposed on the offender consisting of a maximum term and a minimum term. The
maximum term is the penalty under the Revised Penal Code properly imposed after
considering any attending circumstance; while the minimum term is within the range of
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense
committed.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law was applicable here, save for the counts for
which the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua. Considering that each count was
a complex crime without any modifying circumstances, the maximum term of the
penalty for each count is the maximum period. However, because such penalty for
malversation was lower than the penalty of prision mayor imposable on falsification of a
public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, it is the penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period that was applicable. On other hand, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence for each count should come from the penalty next lower than
that prescribed under Article 217 of the Revised PenalCode, except in Criminal Case No.
4635 where the penalty next lower is prisioncorreccional in its full range.

LUY v PEOPLE GR. NO. 200087 October 12, 2016

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner was convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and was
imposed the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day and to pay a
fine of P300,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine by
the RTC.
140
ISSUE:
Is the penalty proper?

HOLDING:
NO.
The correct penalty was an indeterminate sentence whose minimum should not
be less than the minimum of 12 years and one day and whose maximum should not
exceed the maximum of 20 years as prescribed by R.A. No. 9165. The imposition of the
indeterminate sentence was required by Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law if
the offense is punished by any other law provided that the maximum term shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same. Therefore, the indeterminate sentence should
be 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum.
The RTC's imposition of subsidiary imprisonment "in case of inability to pay the
fine" of P300,000.00 was invalid and legally unenforceable because subsidiary penalty
shall not be imposed when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision
correccional.

NADYAHAN v. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 193134, MARCH 2, 2016

Perez, J.

FACTS:
Nadyahan was charged with homicide. Nadyahan claimed self-defense and
presented medical certificate to prove he suffered a lacerated wound on his forehead.
The court finding an incomplete self-defense, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of four ( 4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

ISSUE:
Can the proven incomplete self-defense reduce the penalty?

HOLDING:

YES.
Under Article 69 of the RPC, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed
by law. There being an incomplete self-defense, the penalty should be one (1) degree
lower or from reclusion temporal to prision mayor to be imposed in its minimum period
considering the presence of one ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender pursuant to Article 64(2).

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty shall be
prision mayor minimum, the proper period after considering the mitigating
circumstance, which has a range of six ( 6) years and one ( 1) day to eight (8)
years. The minimum penalty is the penalty next lower in degree which is prision
correccional in any of its periods, the range of which is six (6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the trial court correctly sentenced petitioner to four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to eight
(8) years of prision mayor minimum, as maximum.

LASANAS V PEOPLE, G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014

Bersamin, J.
HOLDING:
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for bigamy is prision
mayor. With neither an aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance attendant in the
commission of the crime, the imposable penalty is the medium period of prision mayor,
which ranges from eight years and one day to 10 years. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range
141
of prision correccional, the penalty next lower than that prescribed for the offense,
which is from six months and one day to six years. Accordingly, the indeterminate
sentence of two years and four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, as imposed by the RTC, was proper.

LADINES v PEOPLE, G.R. No. 167333, January 11, 2016

Bersamin, J.

Homicide is punished with reclusion temporal. Taking the absence of any

modifying circumstances into consideration, the RTC fixed the indeterminate penalty of
10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and four months of
the medium period of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The lower courts could not impose 17 years and four months of the medium
period of reclusion temporal, which was the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty without specifying the
justification for so imposing. They thereby ignored that although Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code, which has set the rules "for the application of penalties which
contain three periods," requires under its first rule that the courts should impose the
penalty prescribed by law in the medium period should there be neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, its seventh rule expressly demands that "within the limits of
each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the
number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or
lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime."

By not specifying the justification for imposing the ceiling of the period of the
imposable penalty, the fixing of the indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or
whimsical, or capricious. In the absence of the specification, the maximum of the
indeterminate sentence for the petitioner should be the lowest of the medium period of
reclusion temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal.

MESINA v PEOPLE, GR NO 1642489 JUNE 17, 2015 (PENALTY)

Bersamin, J.

HOLDING:
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law states that an indeterminate
sentence is imposed on the offender consisting of a maximum term and a minimum
term. The maximum term is the penalty properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code
after considering any attending circumstance; while the minimum term is within the
range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
offense committed.

Conformably with the instructions on the proper application of the

Indeterminate Sentence Law in malversation reiterated in Zafra v. People: (a) the
penalties provided under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code constitute degrees; and
(b) considering that the penalties provided under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
are not composed of three periods, the time included in the prescribed penalty should
be divided into three equal portions, each portion forming a period, pursuant to Article
65 of the Revised Penal Code.

BATISTIS v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 181571 December 16, 2009

Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
A test-buy was conducted in the premises of Batistis, and confirmed that he was
actively engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of counterfeit Fundador

142
brandy products without any authorization. Pursuant to a lawful search, it yielded 20
empty Carlos I bottles, 10 empty bottles of Black Label whiskey, two empty bottles of
Johnny Walker Swing, an empty bottle of Remy Martin XO, an empty bottle of Chabot,
241 empty Fundador bottles, 163 boxes of Fundador, a half sack of Fundador plastic
caps, two filled bottles of Fundador brandy, and eight cartons of empty Jose Cuervo
bottles. Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc., a Philippine corporation exclusively authorized
to distribute Fundador brandy products imported from Spain wholly in finished form
charged Batistis with infringement of trademark and unfair competition. Batistis was
convicted of the crime of trademark infringement only with penalty of imprisonment of
TWO (2) YEARS and to pay a fine of FIFTY THOUSAND (Php50,000.00) PESOS.

ISSUE:
Is the penalty imposed proper?

HOLDING:
NO.
The penalty fixed was contrary to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.

The imposition of an indeterminate sentence with maximum and minimum

periods in criminal cases not excepted from the coverage of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law pursuant to its Section 2 is mandatory. This the court modified the penalty to
imprisonment ranging from two years, as minimum, to three years, as maximum, and a
fine of P50,000.00.

The Nang Kay exception cannot be applied to Batistis because the crime
committed is a grave economic offense evidenced by the large number of bottles
confiscated negating any justification for leniency.

BAR QUESTION 2011

How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in imposing a sentence? (5%)

ANSWER:
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there are two formulae for
determining the indeterminate penalty to be imposed on the convict – that for
felonies under the RPC and that for crimes defined by special penal laws.
If the crime is penalized by the RPC, the maximum term of the sentence shall
be that penalty provided for by law after appreciating all the attending circumstances
surrounding the commission of the crime, while the minimum term of the sentence
shall be one degree lower than the maximum, the range of the minimum left to the
sound discretion of the court.
If the crime is penalized by special laws, the minimum of the
indeterminate penalty should not be less than the minimum of the penalty
prescribed by the law and the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should not be
beyond or should not exceed that of the maximum of the penalty prescribed by the
special law. (Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law)

BAR QUESTION 2014

Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his
rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his
death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the
victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he

143
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any provocation
on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with
which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant
circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (7%)

ANSWER:
The Judge should impose an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor in any of
its period as the minimum term of the sentence to prision correccional in its medium
period as the maximum term of the sentence. Bruno was entitled to 2 privileged
mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the presence of 2 ordinary
mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance which under
Articles 69 and 64(5), RPC, respectively, would lower the prescribed penalty for
homicide – reclusion temporal – to prision correccional.
There is incomplete self-defense because Bruno proved the presence of unlawful
aggression, as it was the victim who first attacked him, and did so without
provocation on Bruno‘s part. There is, however, no reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent/repel the unlawful aggression because Bruno used a
knife to stab the weaponless aggressor. In addition, Bruno proved the presence of 2
other mitigating circumstances, namely: voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of
guilt.
There are no aggravating circumstances present because it was not shown that
Bruno disregarded the age of the victim or that nighttime facilitated the commission.
Further, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the
crime happened in the house where both Bruno and the victim lived.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the
indeterminate penalty should be within the range of prision correccional in its medium
period and the minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower
in degree or arresto mayor in any of its period.

BAR QUESTION 2013

A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime,
was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of
Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the
imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law
provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor
offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor
offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. (8%)

(A) May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated

considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?
(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum
prohibitum?
(C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal
was filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an application for
probation?
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence?

ANSWER:
(A) Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is
a minor, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua.
Now that it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying
circumstances therein may also be applied. Even if reclusion perpetua is a single
indivisible penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still
be considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if
the penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed
regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary
mitigating circumstances.

144
 (B) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special
penal laws. Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which
in turn was graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. (People vs.
Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011)
(C) Yes. A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a
notice of appeal. Section 42, RA 9344 provides: “The court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at
any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking
into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby amended accordingly.”
The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section 42 means that the child in
conflict with the law may file an application for probation at any time, even
beyond the period for perfecting an appeal and even if the child has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor offender shall
serve his sentence in agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with
Section 51 of RA 9344 as amended.

145