Anti-Fencing Law of 1979

(Secs. 1 to 5, PD 1613, as amended by PD 1744)

Punishable acts

Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by Prision
Mayor.

The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another.

Attending Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

Destructive Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion
Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:

1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives,

inflammable or combustible materials are stored.

2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted

to culture, education or social services.

3. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually

assemble.

4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for

transportation of persons or property

4. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial,
administrative or other official proceedings.

5. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement,

shopping center, public or private market, theater or movie house or any
similar place or building.

6. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated

or congested area.

Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:

1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies;

2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;

3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or

tunnel;

4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard,

bamboo grove or forest;

4. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and

5. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.

Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The penalty in any case of arson shall be
imposed in its maximum period;
 1. If committed with intent to gain;

2. If committed for the benefit of another;

3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or

occupant of the property burned;

4. If committed by a syndicate.

The offense is committed by a syndicate if it is planned or carried out by a group of three

(3) or more persons.

Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.

Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:

1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or
establishment.

2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored

within the building note necessary in the business of the offender nor for
household us.

3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible

substances or materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any
mechanical, electrical, chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start
a fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or
premises of the burned building or property.

4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual
value at the time of the issuance of the policy.

4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than
two fires have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the
control of the offender and/or insured.

5. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and
stored in a building or property had been withdrawn from the premises
except in the ordinary course of business.

6. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before

the fire in exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of
the person or property of the victim.
 Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009
(Secs. 3 a-c, 4 and 5, RA 9755)
Punishable acts

"Child pornography" refers to any representation, whether visual, audio, or written

combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other
means, of child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities.

(c) "Explicit Sexual Activity" includes actual or simulated -

(1) As to form:

(i) sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, but not limited to,
contact involving genital to genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or
oral to anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(2) bestiality;

(3) masturbation;

(4) sadistic or masochistic abuse;

(5) lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts, pubic area

and/or anus; or

(6) use of any object or instrument for lascivious acts

Attending Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

It shall be unlawful for any person:

(a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in

the creation or production of any form of child pornography;

(b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography;

(c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote,

export or import any form of child pornography;

(d) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to sell,
distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That possession of three (3) or
more articles of child pornography of the same form shall be prima facie
evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;

(e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for the

commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms,
cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments purporting to be a legitimate
business;

(f) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication companies, by

themselves or in cooperation with other entities, to distribute any form of
child pornography;

(g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or control of a

child to knowingly permit the child to engage, participate or assist in any
form of child pornography;

(h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;

(i) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;

 (j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;

(k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in this section.
Conspiracy to commit any form of child pornography shall be committed
when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it; and

(l) To possess any form of child pornography.

The crime of child pornography is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a

group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another and shall
be punished under Section 15(a) of this Act.
 Anti-Fencing Law of 1979

(Secs. 2 and 5, PD 1612)

Punishable acts

"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or
in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows,
or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.

Attending Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or

association, the president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should
have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.

Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence
of fencing.

Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores,
establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of
anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before
offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from
the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General,
Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required
by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

(Sec. 3, RA 3019, as amended)

Punishable acts

Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers

already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any
public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an

act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or
offense.

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,

percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection
with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other
part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under
the law.

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other

pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for
whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained,
or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration
for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this
Act.

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a

private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.

(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient

justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before
him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or
for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in
favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction

manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby.

(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any

business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or
takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.

(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a

material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board,
panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in
such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in
the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
 Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers
responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.

(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit

in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license,
permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.

(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by

his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized
persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release
date.

The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in
subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the
confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with
the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be
permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting
business in any form with the Government.

Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of
such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some
business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such
public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by
consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall
include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional
employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any
public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.

Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines,
the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction,
contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom
he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of
business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the
time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval
of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends
upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant
to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a
profession.

Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the
Congress during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any
personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and
particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term.

Attending Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

(a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished
 Anti-Hazing Act of 2018
(Secs. 2 and 3, RA 8049, as amended by RA 11053)

Prohibited Acts

1. All forms of hazing in fraternities, sororities, and organizations in schools, including

citizens' military training and citizens' army training.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Three million pesos

(P3,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon those who actually planned or participated
in the hazing if, as a consequence of the hazing, death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation
results therefrom;

2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon:

a. All persons who actually planned or participated in the conduct of the hazing;

b. All officers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are actually present
during the hazing;

c. The adviser of a fraternity, sorority, or organization who is present when the

acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent
the same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities if such adviser or adviser or advisers can do so without
peril to their person or their family;

d. All former officers, non-resident members, or alumni of the fraternity,

e. Officers or members of a fraternity, sorority, or organization who knowingly

cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present
thereat; and

f. members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are present during the
hazing when they are intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or illegal
drugs;

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a fine of One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon all persons who are present in the
conduct of the hazing;

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal and fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon former officers, non-resident member, alumni of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after the commission of any of the
prohibited acts proscribed herein, will perform any act to hide, conceal, or

5. The penalty of prision correcional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intimidate, threaten, force, or employ, or administer any form of
vexation against another person for the purpose of recruitment in joining or
promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or organization. The persistent and
repeated proposal or invitation made to a person who had twice refused to
participate or join the proposed fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall be prima
facie evidence of vexation for purposes of this section; and

6. A fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the school if the
fraternity, sorority, or organization filed a written application to conduct an initiation
which was subsequently approved by the school and hazing occurred during the
 initiation rites or when no representatives from the school were present during the
initiation as provided under Section 5 of this Act:

As Principal

"The owner or lessee of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as principal
and penalized under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, when such owner or lessee has
actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the law enforcement
authorities if they can do so without peril to their person or their family. If the hazing is
held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals and penalized under
paragraphs (a) or (b) hereof when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted
therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring or failed to
promptly report the same to the law enforcement authorities if such parents can do so
without peril to their person or their family.

As Accomplice

"The school authorities including faculty members as well as barangay, municipal, or city
officials shall be liable as an accomplice and likewise be held administratively accountable
for hazing conducted by the fraternities, sororities, other organizations, if it can be shown
that the school or barangay, municipal, or city officials allowed or consented to the
conduct of hazing, but such officials failed to take an by action to prevent the same from
occurring or failed to promptly report to the law enforcement authorities if the same can
be done without peril to their person or their family.

Jurisprudence:

DANDY DUNGO and GREGORIO SIBAL, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209464 July 1, 2015

Ruling: The accused are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as an initiation rite or practice as a

prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by
placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or
otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. From the said
definition, the elements of the crime of hazing can be determined:

1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into

membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization;

2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or

organization; and

3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating

situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

Classes of direct participants are: the first class of principals would be the actual
participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation
rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of
the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical
harm shall be liable as principals. The second class of principals would be the officers,
former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually
planned the hazing. The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an
organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the
hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat due to their indispensable cooperation
in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The next class of principals would
be the fraternity or sorority's adviser. The last class of principals would be the parents of
the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.
 Anti-Hijacking Law
(Secs. 1 and 3, RA 6235)

Punishable Acts

1. To compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or

to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight. An aircraft is in flight from the
moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until any of such doors is
opened for disembarkation

2. To compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp

the control thereof while it is within the said territory .

Qualifying Circumstances

Any person violating any provision of the foregoing section shall be punished by an
imprisonment of not less than twelve years but not more than twenty years, or by a fine
of not less than twenty thousand pesos but not more than forty thousand pesos.

The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to death, or a fine of not less than twenty-
five thousand pesos but not more than fifty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any
person committing such violation under any of the following circumstances:

1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the
aircraft;

2. Whenever he has exploded or attempted to explode any bomb or explosive to

destroy the aircraft; or

3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or

rape.

Jurisprudence

People vs. Ang Cho Kio

July 29, 1954

The act of the accused who compelled the pilot to change the course of the airplane from
Laoag to Amoy instead of directing it to Aparri and, in not complying with such illegal
requirement, the accused discharged various revolver shots, killing hi, could have been
punished under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6235, had this law been already in effect.
 Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
(Secs. 3 (a, b, d, f) and 4, RA 9995)

Prohibited Acts

1. To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the
naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the
consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy;

2. To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or

recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;

3. To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording

of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or

4. To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or

broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
similar means or device.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

The penalty of imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7)
years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not
more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the
court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4 of this Act.

1. If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be

deemed revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the
editor and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and
broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media.

2. If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be

administratively liable.

3. If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after

serving his/her sentence and payment of fines.

Jurisprudence: No available
 Anti-Plunder Act
(Secs. 1 and 2, RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659)

Punishable Acts

1. The amassing, accumulating or acquiring of ill-gotten wealth through a combination

or series of the following overt or criminal acts:
a. Through misappropriation, misuse, conversion or malversation of public funds
of raids on the public treasury

b. By directly or indirectly receiving commissions, gifts, shares, percentages,

kickbacks or equities in connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office/position of the officer in question.

c. By the Illegal/fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the

national government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities
(including government-owned/controlled corporations)

d. By directly or indirectly receiving, obtaining or accepting any shares of stock,

equity or any other form of interest or participation (including the promise of
future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking)

e. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other

combinations and/or implementing decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests

f. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, influence

or connection to unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of the Filipino people and
the Republic of the Philippines

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

1. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives
by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts above in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million
pesos (P50,000,000.00),

2. Any person who participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder shall
likewise be punished.

Jurisprudence:
ESTRADA VS .SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 148560, November 19, 2001

Held: The Supreme Court held that plunder is malum in se which requires proof of
criminal intent. Moreover, the legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is
heinous offense implies that it is amalum in se. The predicate crimes in the case of
plunderinvolve acts which are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, and are committed
“wilfully, unlawfully and criminally” by the offender, alleging his guilty knowledge. This,
the crime of plunder is a malum in se.
 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
(Sec. 3, RA 7877)
Punishable Acts
1. Any employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence
or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of
whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is liable for either work,
education or training-related sexual harassment.
2. Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as
herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it
would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in
any way would discriminate, deprive ordiminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;

(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing
labor laws; or

(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:

(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;

(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to

the offender;

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the
granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other
benefits, privileges, or consideration; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive

environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

Jurisprudence

DOMINGO vs. RAYALA

G. R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008

Facts:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC,
filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched her shoulder, part of
her neck then tickled her ears. Rayala argued that his acts does not constitute sexual
harassment because for it to exist, there must be a demand, request or requirement of
sexual favor.

Issue:

Whether or not Rayala commit sexual harassment.

Rulings:

Yes.

It is true that RA No. 7877 calls for a “demand, request or requirement of a sexual
favor.” But, it is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor
be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal
certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate
conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of
future privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones – all these
acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.

Discussion:

In the abovementioned case, the first element of the crime of sexual harassment is
present - that is, the offender has authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over victim
in a work, training, or education environment.

Considering that the offender was the chairman of NLRC where the complainant was
a Stenographer Reporter, the former had moral ascendancy over the latter. It is settled
that moral ascendancy is a critical element of sexual harassment under RA No. 7877.

Moreover, because of the acts of the offender, an intimidating and hostile environment
was felt by the complainant as, after the last incident, she filed for leave of absence and
requested transfer to another unit. Hence, the Court ruled that it is not essential that the
demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for
promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondent’s acts result in creating
an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
 Anti-Torture Act of 2009
(Secs. 3 (a,b), 4 and 5, RA 9745)

Punishable Acts
1. The offender intentionally inflict torture (an act by which severe pain or sufferring,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person) on a person for the
purpose of either:

 Obtaining from him/her or a third person information or confession;

 Punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed;
 Intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or
 For any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

Torture could either be physical or mental/psychological.

Physical Torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in

authority or agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her custody that causes
severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body, such
as:

(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle
butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;

(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human excreta and
other stuff or substances not normally eaten;

(3) Electric shock;

(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of
pepper or other chemical substances on mucous membranes, or acids or spices directly
on the wound(s);

(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement, urine, vomit
and/or blood until the brink of suffocation;

(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position;

(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign objects into the sex organ
or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;

(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body such as the genitalia, ear,
tongue, etc.;

(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;

(10) Pulling out of fingernails;

(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;

(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory. alertness or will
of a person, such as:

(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or reduce mental competency;
or

(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain symptoms of a disease; and

(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture.

Mental/Psychological Torture refers to acts committed by a person in authority or

agent of a person in authority which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:

(1) Blindfolding;

(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with bodily harm, execution or other
wrongful acts;

(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;

(4) Prolonged interrogation;

(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or public humiliation of a detainee
or prisoner;

(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one place to
another, creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily executed;

(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;

(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the person's family, relatives or any
third party;

(9) Denial of sleep/rest;

(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her in public
places, shaving the victim's head or putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;

(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member of his/her family;
and

(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.

2. The offender is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority who inflicts

“other cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” not enumerated under
Section 4 of this Act, against a person under his/her custody, which attains a level of
severity causing sufferring, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

1. Any person who actually participated or induced another in the commission of torture
or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the
execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal.
2. Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official
who issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever
purpose shall be held equally liable as principals.

3. The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate
senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable
as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have
led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by
his/her subordinates.

If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have
known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates
or by others within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission,
when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as
principals.

4. Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge
that torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is being
committed and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice,
takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:

(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment;

(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting m the escape of the principal/s in
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the official's public
functions.

Jurisprudence

Torture of Jerryme C. Corre

This case was investigated by CHR III Regional Office and was endorsed to DOJ
Manila for filing of criminal charge (Torture) against PO1 Aries M. Amposta and PO2
Jerick B. Dee Jimenez. The case (Pp vs. PO1 Aries M. Amposta and PO2 Jerick B. Dee
Jimenez) is heard before MTCC Branch 1, Angeles City, Pampanga. The case has
already been promulgated by the court on 29 March 2016 and this is the first case of
torture in the Philippines that has merited a conviction.
PO2 Jerick Dee Jimenez was sentenced on March 29 to a maximum of two years
and one month imprisonment by Judge Irineo Pangilinan Jr. of the Angeles City Municipal
Trial Court in Cities Branch 11 for torturing bus driver Jerryme Corre.
The court gave weight to Corre's claim of physical assault and the testimony of his
live-in partner, Lyne Margarette Cabilangan, who saw the driver with wounds on his knees
and wrists and bruises on his buttocks when she visited him a day after the arrest.

"The spontaneous statement of the victim made to his live-in partner that he was hurt
by the police is part of the res gestae (Latin for things done) and consequently trustworthy,
because it was made under the external circumstances of physical and mental shock,
and under a stress of nervous excitement which stilled the reflective faculties of the
victim," the decision read.
 The court also noted the results of the examination done by a Commission on Human
Rights medico-legal doctor on Corre's scars, "indicating the severity of the physical abuse
inflicted upon him, especially the electrocution."

"All told, accused Jimenez by his direct participation and in cooperation with his co-
policemen tortured, physically and mentally, the witness to extract confession from him,
thereby violating Section 4 (1)(3) Republic Act 9745 in relation to Section 14 (g) thereof,"
the court said.
 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
(Secs. 3, 4 and 6, RA 9208, as amended)

Punishable Acts
1. ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS - Trafficking in persons is committed by any
person, natural or juridical, who, by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, shall:

(a) recruit; obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive a
person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or
sexual exploitation.

(b) introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading
him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(c) offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(d) undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or
sexual exploitation;

(e) maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;

(f) adopt persons by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes or to facilitate the
same for purposes of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(g) adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(h) recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force,
fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of
organs of said person;

(i) recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor, maintain,offer, hire, provide, receive, or
adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad;

(j) recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or receive a
person by means defined in Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor, slavery,
debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to
cause the person either:

(1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she
or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or

(2) To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes.

(k) recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or
receive a child for purposes of exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to,
the act of buying and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of children shall include:
 (1) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage and forced labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;

(2) The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic performances;

(3) The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of
drugs; and

(4) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by
its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm their health,
safety or morals; and

(l) organize or diect other persons to commit the offenses defined as acts of trafficking
under this Act.

However, the means to commit trafficking in person is not required if the victim is a
child.

2. ATTEMPTED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS - Where the offender in trafficking in

persons failed or did not execute all the elements of the crime of trafficking in persons,
such overt acts shall be deemed as an attempt to commit any of the offenses in Section
4 of this Act.

If the victim is a child, any of the following acts shall also be deemed as attempted
trafficking in persons:

(a) Facilitating the travel of a child who travels alone to a foreign country or territory
without valid reason therefor and without the required clearance or permit from the
DSWD, or a writtenrmit or justification from the child’s parent or legal guardian;
(b) Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit of consent or a written consent for
adoption;
(c) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the purpose of selling the child;
(d) Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling the child; and
(e) Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody thereof through any means from
among hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and
low-income families, for the purpose of selling the child.

Accomplice Liability – Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts defined in this Act.

Accessories Liability – Whoever has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principal or as accomplices, take part in its
commission in any of the following manners:

(a) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime;

(b) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or effects or instruments

thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;

(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the

crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his or her public functions or is
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

3. ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS -

(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
 (b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling
certificates, registration stickers and certificates of any government agency which issues
these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with government regulatory and
pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement,

publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means, including the use of
information technology and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in persons;

(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating

the acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from government agencies
that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for departing
persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at
international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession
of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;

(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal

documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent
them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate
agencies; and

(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.

(h) To tamper with, destroy, or cause the destruction of evidence, or to influence or

attempt to influence witnesses, in an investigation or prosecution of a case under this Act;

(i) To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal,

remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or purported passport or other travel,
immigration or working permit or document, or any other actual or purported government
identification, of any person in order to prevent or restrict, or attempt to prevent or restrict,
without lawful authority, the person’s liberty to move or travel in order to maintain the labor
or services of that person; or

“(j) To utilize his or her office to impede the investigation, prosecution or execution of
lawful orders in a case under this Act.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

Considered as qualified trafficking are:

trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;

(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known
as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude
or debt bondage;

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is

deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
 (d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public
officer or employee;

(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member
of the military or law enforcement agencies;

(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and

(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended
party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Jurisprudence

PEOPLE vs. LALLI

GR No. 195419, October 12, 2011
Facts:
On June 3, 2005 in the City of Zamboanga, Lolita Plando who was on her to the house
of her grandfather, met Ronnie Aringoy and Rachel Canete. On the day they met, Ronnie
proposed to Lolita a work in Malaysia. She was interested and so she gave her mobile
number.
On the next day, Lolita and Ronnie met again to discuss further the job he was offering
in Malaysia. She was told that she will work as a restaurant entertainer and will be paid
500 Malaysian ringgits. She only need to have a passport and she’s good to go on June
6, 2005.
On the following day, Ronnie introduced Lolita to Hadja Lalli, the person who will be
helping her and three other girls to go to Malaysia to work.
On June 6, 2005, Lolita together with Hadja Lalli, Nestor who the financier, and the 3
other girls went on board and travelled to Malaysia.
Upon arriving the girls were introduced to a Chinese Malay who will be their Boss.
When they arrived at the Pipen club, they were informed that they will work as
entertainers. Lolita was forced. She had customers night after night who used her and
forced her to have sexual intercourse. Some even physically abused her.
One night, Lolita was able to contact her sister who is in Malaysia and asked for help.
Lolita was able to escape – she was rescued and was able to go back to Zamboanga
City.
Lolita was advised to file a complaint against Hadja Lalli and Ronnie Arngoy with the
police regarding her ordeal in Malaysia.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal
recruitment and trafficking in persons for their acts
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals and RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Illegal recruitment and Trafficking in Persons.
Recruiting without a license a person, child or adult, to work as a prostitute abroad
constitutes the crime of trafficking in person and illegal recruitment.
 Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004
(Secs. 3, 5 and 26, RA 9262)

Punishable Acts

1. Any person who commits any act or a series of acts against:

a) a woman who is his wife;
b) former wife;
c) or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship;
d) or with whom he has a common child;
e) or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family
abode - which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm
or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, commits violence against
women and their children.

Physical, Sexual, and Pschological violence, as well as Economic abuse inflicted

to those offended party enumerated above, are punishable.

Physical Violence are acts that include bodily or physical harm;

Sexual violence is an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman

or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:

a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as

a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking
the sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and
indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films
thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together
in the same room with the abuser;

b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by
force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or
coercion;

c) Prostituting the woman or child.

Psychological violence are acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or

emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and
mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual
or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.

Economic abuse are acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially
dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

a. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any

legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other
spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the
Family Code;

b. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use
and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;

c. destroying household property;

 d. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal
money or properties.

2. The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of
the following acts:

(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;

(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;

(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;

(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which
the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the
woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against
the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with
the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or
conduct:

(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to
her/his family;

(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support
legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient
financial support;

(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;

(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation,

business or activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or solely
controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties;

(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling
her actions or decisions;

(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity
which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through
intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;

(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another,

that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her
child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:

(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;

(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;

(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child
against her/his will;

(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or
pets of the woman or her child; and

(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or
her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial
of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

1. If the acts of violence in Section 5(a),

a) resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised
Penal Code;
b) those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of prison
mayor;
c) those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision
correccional;
d) and those constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto
mayor.
2. If the acts of violence in Section 5 (h & i) are committed while the woman or child
is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall
be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section.

3. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome (BWS), do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from
battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall
be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.

Jurisprudence

DINAMLING vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 19952, June 22, 2016

Facts:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of
R.A. No. 9262. It is alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological
violence upon a woman with whom he has two children, resulting to mental and
emotional anguish and public humiliation by repeated verbal and emotional abuse
consisting of several bad and insulting utterance directed against the victim.

Dinamling pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262.

Ruling:

The elements of the crime are;

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom
such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be
legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode.
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through the acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or
access to the children or similar acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed
that the victim is a woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling
and had two common children. The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s
physical and verbal abuse.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just

like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by
the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage
sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as the element of
the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in
Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary
to present a testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical
violence done by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the
crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar,
when the physical violence done, petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching, kicking
and stripping her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of physical violence, are
also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven that they resulted
in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional
suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be proven. In this instance,
the physical violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. As such,
whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical violence translates to
psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's mental or emotional well-
being.
 BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
(Section 1, BP.22)
Punishable Acts
1.) Makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment.
2.) Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and
issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

Jurisprudence
In the case of MA. ROSARIO P. CAMPOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and FIRST WOMEN'S CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondents., G.R.
No. 187401, September 17, 2014, it states that to be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the
following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or creditor
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(Section 5, 11, 15 and 21, RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640)

Punishable Acts

1.) Unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act
as a broker in any of such transactions.
2.) Drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade.
3.) If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should
a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any
offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof.
4.) Organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed
in this Section.

5.) Unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy",
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid
diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly
designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to
Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

9.) Apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug, after a confirmatory test.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender
under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to
the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
Jurisprudence
People v. Posada
Facts:
Accused-appellants Roger Posada and Emily Posada were convicted by the RTC Branch
43, Virac, Catanduanes, in Criminal Case No. 3490 for selling 12 pieces of transparent
sealed plastic sachet, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu with a total
weight of 0.4578 grams, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in Criminal Case No. 3489 for possession of
one piece of torn plastic sachet, containing residue of a crystalline substance
(allegedly shabu), a piece of small aluminum foil, a pair of small scissors, and 15 pieces
of used lighter all of which are intended to be used for smoking or introducing dangerous
drugs into the body of a person, in violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, the accused-appellants filed an appeal before the Court
of Appeals (CA) which, via a Decision dated June 17, 2010, affirmed the RTC Decision
as to the accused-appellants' conviction in Criminal Case No. 3490 but acquitted Roger
in Criminal Case No. 3489 on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Issue:
I. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants
notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of custody and integrity of
the alleged seized illegal items.
II. Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appelants
despite the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
On the first factual issue, the Court found that the records of the case and the testimonies
of witnesses belie the accused-appellants' contention.

On the second factual issue, the Court found the accused-appellants' claim not supported
by evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 2010 is MODIFIED.
Accused-appellants ROGER POSADA and EMILY POSADA ARE FOUND GUILTY OF
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF TWELVE (12) SACHETS OF METHAMPETAMINE
HYDROCHOLORIDE OR SHABU, WITH A NET WEIGHT OF 0.4578 GRAMS AND ARE
HEREBY SENTENCED TO THE INDETERMINATE PENALTY OF TWELVE (12) YEARS
AND ONE (1) DAY, AS MINIMUM, TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8)
MONTHS, AS MAXIMUM AND A FINE OF P300,000.00.
 Comprehensive Firearms & Ammunition Regulation Act
(Section 28 and R.A. 10591)

Punishable Acts

a.) Unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;

b.) Three (3) or more small arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired
or possessed by any person;
c.) Unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light weapon;
d.) Unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-B light weapon;
e.) Unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the following
conditions:

(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;

(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit
the target such as thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;

(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;

(4) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and

(5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.

f.) Unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a small arm;

g.) Unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a small arm or Class-A light
weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person
charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the former
violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
h.) Unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-A light weapon;
i.) Unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If the
violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-A light weapon, the former
violation shall be absorbed by the latter;
j.) Unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-B light weapon; and
k.) Unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-B light weapon. If the
violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-B light weapon, the former
violation shall be absorbed by the latter.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

1. If homicide or murder or crimes defined in the RPC or special laws is/are committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.

2. If the violation is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of

rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be
absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d'etat.

Jurisprudence
JALAL BANGCOLA Y DIMALAANG ALYAS AKMAD, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 230434, August 09, 2017].

Facts:
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged the petitioner in the RTC with illegal possession
of firearms in violation of Section 28(g) of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act).

At around 8:30 in the morning of March 18, 2014, a confidential informant reported to the
District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Manila
Police District (MPD), the peddling of shabu by the petitioner along Palanca Street near
Isetann-Carriedo in Quiapo, Manila. PO3 Rizaldy Liangco, acting upon the instruction of
his superior officer, conducted tactical interrogation of the informant. Thereafter, the
DAID-SOTG set up a drug buy-bust operation after the informant had pinpointed the
location of the petitioner. For that purpose, the operatives of the DAID-SOTG positioned
themselves in the area in question, waiting for the transaction to push through. After the
petitioner had talked with the poseur-buyer and the transaction had been consummated
with the giving of the buy-bust money, the poseur-buyer flicked his cigarette to the
pavement as the pre-arranged signal. However, the petitioner noticed the movement of
the approaching back-up officers and tried to escape. Fortunately, PO2 Boco was able to
hold on to the petitioner with the aid of PO3 Pastor and PO3 Liangco. At that point, PO2
Pastor noticed the conspicuous bulge in the petitioner's waist, and ordered him to fall to
the ground. Once the latter complied, PO2 Pastor frisked him and in the process
recovered from the right side of his waist a firearm - specifically, a .45 caliber pistol with
seven rounds of ammunition. The officers then apprised him of his constitutional rights,
and brought him to their office.

The officers marked all items recovered from the petitioner, including the buy-bust
money, shabu, firearm and its ammunitions. In due time, they secured the certification
from the Firearms Explosives Office in Camp Crame, Quezon City to the effect that the
petitioner was not a registered firearm holder.

As stated, the RTC found and pronounced the petitioner guilty as charged.

On appeal, the petitioner branded his arrest as illegal because the Prosecution did not
establish the conduct of the buy-bust operation. He argued that because his arrest for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs was illegal, the product of the search conducted on him
was inadmissible against him.

The CA affirmed the petitioner's conviction, and observed that his violation of Republic
Act No. 10591 was an offense separate and distinct from his violation of Republic Act No.
9165.

Issues:
The petitioner continues to insist on his innocence, positing that the CA erred in affirming
his conviction.

HELD:
The appeal lacks merit. WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on
November 28, 2016, subject to the MODIFICATION that petitioner JALAL D.
BANGCOLA shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision
mayor in its medium period, as the minimum, to 10 years, eight months and one day
of prision mayor in its maximum period, as the maximum; and ORDERS him to pay the
costs of suit.
 Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
(Sections 4, 5 and 6, R.A. 10175)
Punishable Acts

Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and
systems:

(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without
right.

(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any
non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including
electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.

(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or

deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without
right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

(4) System Interference. — The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference

with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting,
damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program,
electronic document, or electronic data message, without right or authority, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.

(5) Misuse of Devices.

(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise

making available, without right, of:

(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily

for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or

(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole
or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent
that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this
Act.

(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with
intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under
this section.

(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to
profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such
a domain name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with

the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration:

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the
registrant, in case of a personal name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

(b) Computer-related Offenses:

(1) Computer-related Forgery. —

(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in
inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal
 purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly
readable and intelligible; or

(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-
related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or
dishonest design.

(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer

data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage
thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the
penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer,
possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether
natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the
penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or

indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a
computer system, for favor or consideration.

(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable
by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through
a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree
higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.

(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of commercial

electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell,
or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:

(i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative
announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or

(iii) The following conditions are present:

(aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and

reliable way for the recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial
electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;

(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise

the source of the electronic message; and

(cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include

misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the
recipients to read the message.

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.

Other Offenses. — The following acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets
or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held
liable.

(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to
commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

Jurisprudence
The Disini Case
The Supreme Court of Philippines declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as unconstitutional. It held that Section 4(c)(3)
violated the right to freedom of expression by prohibiting the electronic transmission of
the Supreme Court of Philippines declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 as unconstitutional. It held that Section 4(c)(3) violated the right
to freedom of expression by prohibiting the electronic transmission of unsolicited
commercial communications. It found Section 12 in violation of the right to privacy
because it lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness in collecting real-time computer
data. It struck down Section 19 of the Act for giving the government the authority to
restrict or block access to computer data without any judicial warrant. Solicited
commercial communications. It found Section 12 in violation of the right to privacy
because it lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness in collecting real-time computer
data. It struck down Section 19 of the Act for giving the government the authority to
restrict or block access to computer data without any judicial warrant.

Facts

The case arises out of consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court of the Philippines on
the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Act
No. 10175.The case arises out of consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court of the
Philippines on the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012, Act No. 10175.

The Petitioners argued that even though the Act is the government’s platform in
combating illegal cyberspace activities, 21 separate sections of the Act violate their
constitutional rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression and access to
information. The Petitioners argued that even though the Act is the government’s platform
in combating illegal cyberspace activities, 21 separate sections of the Act violate their
constitutional rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression and access to
information.

In February 2013, the Supreme Court extended the duration of a temporary restraining
order against the government to halt enforcement of the Act until the adjudication of the
issues. In February 2013, the Supreme Court extended the duration of a temporary
restraining order against the government to halt enforcement of the Act until the
adjudication of the issues.

Decision Overview

Justice Abad delivered the Court’s opinion. Justice Abad delivered the Court’s opinion.

The government of Philippines adopted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for the
purpose of regulating access to and use of cyberspace. Several sections of the law
define relevant cyber crimes and enable the government to track down and penalize
violators. The government of Philippines adopted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
for the purpose of regulating access to and use of cyberspace. Several sections of the
law define relevant cyber crimes and enable the government to track down and penalize
violators.

Among 21 challenged sections, the Court declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Act
as unconstitutional. Among 21 challenged sections, the Court declared Sections 4(c)(3),
12, and 19 of the Act as unconstitutional.

Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic

communications, commonly known as spams, that seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
of products and services unless the recipient affirmatively consents, or when the purpose
of the communication is for service or administrative announcements from the sender to
its existing users, or “when the following conditions are present: (aa) The commercial
electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to
reject receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same
source; (bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the
source of the electronic message; and (cc) The commercial electronic communication
does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to
induce the recipients to read the message. “Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission of
unsolicited commercial electronic communications, commonly known as spams, that
seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale of products and services unless the recipient
affirmatively consents, or when the purpose of the communication is for service or
administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, or “when the
following conditions are present: (aa) The commercial electronic communication contains
a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject receipt of further commercial
electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source; (bb) The commercial electronic
communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message;
and (cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include
misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read
the message.”

The government argued that unsolicited commercial communications amount to both

nuisance and trespass because they tend to interfere The government argued that
unsolicited commercial communications amount to both nuisance and trespass because
they tend to interfere with the enjoyment of using online services and that they enter the
recipient’s domain without prior permission. With the enjoyment of using online services
and that they enter the recipient’s domain without prior permission.
The Court first noted that spams are a category of The Court first noted that spams are a
category of commercial speech, which does not receive the same level of protection as
other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression,” but is nonetheless entitled to
protection.” It ruled that the prohibition on transmitting unsolicited
communications “would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited
commercial ads addressed to him.” Accordingly, the Court declared Section4(c)(3) as
unconstitutional. commercial speech, which does not receive the same level of protection
as other constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression,” but is nonetheless entitled to
protection.” It ruled that the prohibition on transmitting unsolicited
communications “would deny a person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited
commercial ads addressed to him.” Accordingly, the Court declared Section4(c)(3) as
unconstitutional.

Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law enforcement without a court warrant “to collect
or record traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted
by means of a computer system.” Traffic data under this Section includes the origin,
destination, route, size, date, and duration of the communication, but not its content nor
the identity of users. Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law enforcement without a court
warrant “to collect or record traffic data in real-time associated with specified
communications transmitted by means of a computer system.” Traffic data under this
Section includes the origin, destination, route, size, date, and duration of the
communication, but not its content nor the identity of users.

The Petitioners argued that such warrantless authority curtails their civil liberties and set
the stage for abuse of discretion by the government. They also claimed that this provision
violates the right to privacy and protection from the government’s intrusion into online
communications. The Petitioners argued that such warrantless authority curtails their civil
liberties and set the stage for abuse of discretion by the government. They also claimed
that this provision violates the right to privacy and protection from the government’s
intrusion into online communications.

According to the Court, since Section 12 may lead to disclosure of private

communications, it must survive the rational basis standard of whether it is narrowly
tailored towards serving a government’s compelling interest. According to the Court,
since Section 12 may lead to disclosure of private communications, it must survive the
rational basis standard of whether it is narrowly tailored towards serving a government’s
compelling interest. The Court found that the government did have a compelling interest
in preventing cyber crimes by monitoring real-time traffic data. The Court found that the
government did have a compelling interest in preventing cyber crimes by monitoring real-
time traffic data.

As to whether Section 12 violated the right to privacy, the Court first recognized that the
right at stake concerned informational privacy, defined as “the right not to have private
information disclosed, and the right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.” In
determining whether a communication is entitled to the right of privacy, the Court applied
a two-part test: (1) Whether the person claiming the right has a legitimate expectation of
privacy over the communication, and (2) whether his expectation of privacy can be
regarded as objectively reasonable in the society. As to whether Section 12 violated the
right to privacy, the Court first recognized that the right at stake concerned informational
privacy, defined as “the right not to have private information disclosed, and the right to
live freely without surveillance and intrusion.” In determining whether a communication
is entitled to the right of privacy, the Court applied a two-part test: (1) Whether the person
claiming the right has a legitimate expectation of privacy over the communication, and (2)
whether his expectation of privacy can be regarded as objectively reasonable in the
society.

The Court noted that internet users have subjective reasonable expectation of privacy
over their communications transmitted online. However, it did not find the expectation as
objectively reasonable because traffic data sent through internet “does not disclose the
actual names and addresses (residential or office) of the sender and the recipient, only
their coded Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.” The Court noted that internet users have
subjective reasonable expectation of privacy over their communications transmitted
online. However, it did not find the expectation as objectively reasonable because traffic
data sent through internet “does not disclose the actual names and addresses (residential
or office) of the sender and the recipient, only their coded Internet Protocol (IP)
addresses.”

Even though the Court ruled that real-time traffic data under Section 12 does not enjoy
the objective reasonable expectation of privacy, the existence of enough data may reveal
the personal information of its sender or recipient, against which the Section fails to
provide sufficient safeguard. The Court viewed the law as “virtually limitless, enabling
law enforcement authorities to engage in “fishing expedition,” choosing whatever
specified communication they want.” Even though the Court ruled that real-time traffic
data under Section 12 does not enjoy the objective reasonable expectation of privacy, the
existence of enough data may reveal the personal information of its sender or recipient,
against which the Section fails to provide sufficient safeguard. The Court viewed the law
as “virtually limitless, enabling law enforcement authorities to engage in “fishing
expedition,” choosing whatever specified communication they want.”

Accordingly, the Court struck down Section 12 for lack of specificity and definiteness as
to ensure respect for the right to privacy. Accordingly, the Court struck down Section 12
for lack of specificity and definiteness as to ensure respect for the right to privacy.

Section 19 authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to a computer

data found to be in violation of the Act. The Petitioners argued that this section also
violated the right to freedom of expression, as well as the constitutional protection against
unreasonable Section 19 authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access
to a computer data found to be in violation of the Act. The Petitioners argued that this
section also violated the right to freedom of expression, as well as the constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court first recognized that computer data constitutes a personal property, entitled to
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, the Philippines’
Constitution requires the government to secure a valid judicial warrant when it seeks to
seize a personal property or to block a form of expression. Because Section 19
precluded any judicial intervention, the Court found it unconstitutional. The Court first
recognized that computer data constitutes a personal property, entitled to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, the Philippines’ Constitution requires
the government to secure a valid judicial warrant when it seeks to seize a personal
property or to block a form of expression. Because Section 19 precluded any judicial
intervention, the Court found it unconstitutional.
 Human Security Act of 2007
(Secs. 3 to 6, RA 9372)

The Human Security Act of 2007 is an act to secure the State and to protect the people
from acts of “Terrorism”.

It condemns terrorism as inimical and dangerous to national security and to the welfare
of the people, thereby making terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, humanity,
and the law of nations.
TERRORISM refers to any act punishable under the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code and special penal laws which sows and creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand.

PERSON/S LIABLE; ACTS PUNISHED

Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of
the Revised Penal Code:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);

b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);

c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts committed by private persons;

d. Article 248 (Murder);

e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);

f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under

(1) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);

(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control
Act of 1990);

(3) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);

(4) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);

(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974);
and,

(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives)

PENALTIES
Crime of Terrorism (Section 3)
• Forty (40) years of imprisonment
• No parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, or known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism (Section 4)
When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same
• Forty (40) years of imprisonment
Accomplice (Section 5)
• Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code
or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the execution of
either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.
Accessory (Section 6)
• Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the RPC, takes part subsequent
to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting
the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the
body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or passing in the escape of the principal
or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for

accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories,
falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).

Note: No jurisprudence under this law.

 New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016
(Secs. 3 to 4, RA 10833)

The New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (RA 10883) is a law which punishes carnapping in
the Philippines.

The new Anti-Carnapping Act or Republic Act 10883 repealed RA 6539 that was passed
in 1972.
CARNAPPING is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
by using force upon things. (Section 3a)
MOTOR VEHICLE refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
power using the public highways.

Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Garcia and
Bernabe, G.R. No. 138470, 1 April 2003 that it does not matter if the person from whom
the motor vehicle was taken is not the owner thereof. What is simply required is that the
property taken does not belong to the offender.

PEOPLE v. GARCIA
FACTS:
Ferdinand Ignacio leased his Toyota Tamaraw FX to Joselito Cortez for 2 days at
P2,000.00 per day. Said vehicle was then rented to Garcia and Bernabe for P4,000.00
per day, to be paid upon their return from Bicol. Wilfredo Elis, driver of Cortez,
accompanied Garcia and Bernabe to leave for Bicol. After 4 days, however, Garcia and
Bernabe did not return. On the other hand, the Tarlac Police went to Anao, Tarlac to
confront 2 suspicious looking persons, thereafter identified as Garcia and Bernabe, who
were selling a Tamaraw FX for a mere P50,000.00 therein. Upon their arrival, however,
the two had already left for Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija. The Nueva Ecija Police,
coordinating with the Tarlac Police, saw Garcia and Bernabe, and asked them to present
documents evidencing their ownership of the Tamaraw FX. Due to their failure to present
such documents, they were brought to the police station in Moncada, Tarlac. Garcia and
Bernabe admitted to the Moncada Police that they attempted to sell the Tamaraw FX of
Ignacio. When Cortez visited the two in detention, Garcia admitted that they had stabbed
Elis because the latter did not want to coordinate with them, and dumped him along the
highway in San Rafael, Bulacan; Bernabe, on the other hand, did not deny nor affirm the
admission of Garcia.
RTC: Guilty of carnapping with homicide.
ISSUE:
W/N Garcia and Bernabe are guilty of carnapping with homicide. – YES.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS.

PRINCIPLES:
The elements of carnapping are:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; and
4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.
Unlawful taking is the taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means
of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Although the
possession of Garcia and Bernabe of the Tamaraw FX was initially lawful, the unlawful
killing of Elis for the purpose of taking the vehicle, since the latter refused to join the former
in their plan to appropriate the vehicle, radically transformed the character of said
possession into an unlawful one. This undoubtedly satisfied the element of unlawful taking
through violence.
The duration of the lease of the Tamaraw FX, whether for an indefinite period as
contended by the defense, or only for 4 days, as claimed by the prosecution, has no
bearing on the culpability of Garcia and Bernabe; what is decisive here is the purpose of
the two in killing Elis.
In crimes of unlawful taking of property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary
that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof; what is
simply required is that the property taken does not belong to the offender.
Furthermore, a person in possession of a stolen article is presumed guilty of having
illegally and unlawfully taken the same unless he can satisfactorily explain his possession
of the thing. Bernabe and Garcia, however, were unable to give a plausible explanation
why they still had the Tamaraw FX in their possession. Bernabe claims that they went to
Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija to have the dent on the vehicle repaired; Garcia, on the other
hand, testified that there was no such damage.

ACTS PUNISHED; PENALTIES

Carnapping
Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless of the value of the
motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than twenty (20) years and
one (1) day but not more than thirty (30) years, when the carnapping is committed without
violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for
not less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty (40) years, when
the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed when the owner,
driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of
the carnapping.
Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed
by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any
person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping shall
be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.
Concealment of Carnapping

Any person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six
(6) years up to twelve (12) years and a fine equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of
the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved in the
violation; Provided, That if the person violating any provision of this Act is a juridical
person, the penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its president, secretary, and/or
members of the board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may have
directly participated in the violation.

Any public official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in
this Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission
of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding
paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be
permanently disqualified from holding public office.
 Obstruction of Justice Law
(Sec. 1 PD 1829)

Obstruction of justice refers to the commission of acts penalized under Presidential

Decree No. 1829 (“Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders”).

The declared purpose of PD 1829 is to discourage public indifference or apathy towards

the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts
which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension
and prosecution of criminal offenders.

PUNISHABLE ACTS
The law covers the following acts of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases:

• a. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting

the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats.
• b. Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or
object with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in criminal
cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases.
• c. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or
has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under
existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction.
• d. Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading
prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes.
• e. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process
or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscals’ offices, in Tanodbayan, or
in the courts.
• f. Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with
knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases.
• g. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discontinuing, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender.
• h. Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon
his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his
family in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful,
in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in criminal cases.
• i. Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law
enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in
confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and
not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the
investigator or the court.

PENALTIES
The penalty is imprisonment, fine or both. Imprisonment ranges from 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 6 years (prision correccional in its maximum period). The fine ranges from
P1,000 – P6,000.

JURISPRUDENCE
In Posadas vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000), certain officials of
the University of the Philippines (UP) were charged for violating PD 1829 (paragraph c).
The UP officers objected to the warrantless arrest of certain students by the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme Court, the police had no ground
for the warrantless arrest. The UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent the arrest of
the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The “need to enforce
the law cannot be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.”

POSADAS, ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

FACTS:
Venturina a member of Sigma Rho of UP was killed in a fight between Sigma Rho and
Scintilla Juris. Posadas (Chancellor of UP) asked the Director of NBI to assist in
determining the offender. Pursuant to the request Dizon (Chief of Special Operations)
and his men went to UP and on the basis of 2 positive identification by 2 alleged
eyewitness. Dizon attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag but was not able to do so due
to the Objection of Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu, Bentain, and Atty. Villamor on the
ground that the NBI did not have any warrant of arrests. Dizon filed a complaint in the
Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) against Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu, Bentain,
and Atty. Villamor for violation of PD 1829 for unlawfully obstructing the apprehension
and prosecution of Taparan and Narag. OSP recommended the dismissal of the case but
the Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special prosecutor to proceed. Posadas
contends not liable under PD 1829 since he claims that it does not cover a warrantless
arrest on mere suspicion.

ISSUE:
W/N there was probable cause for prosecuting Posadas for violation of PD 1829. – NO

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Ombudsman and his agents are hereby
prohibited from prosecuting petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829 §1(c) as a result of
the incident complained of in Criminal Case No. 22801 and the Sandiganbayan is
ORDERED to dismiss the information in Criminal Case No. 22801 against petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:
In order for a person to be liable for violation of PD 1829 there must be either a warrant
of arrest or there is a valid warrantless arrest. The absence of an arrest warrant, the
absence of knowledge or reasonable ground on the part of Posadas to believe that the
students had committed a crime, the absence of any law punishing refusal to attend an
investigation at the NBI, all show that there is no sufficient ground to charge the accused
with Obstruction of Justice.

That Posadas had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag because their
attempted arrest was illegal.
 Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act

(Secs. 3 (a), 5, and 10, RA 7610)

An act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse,
exploitation and discrimination, and for other purposes.

Definition of Terms

a. "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are
unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;

ACTS PUNISHED; PENALTIES

Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who
for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any
adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed
to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:

(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which
include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;

(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written
or oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a
prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a
child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when
the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators 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: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner
of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which
engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been
issued to said establishment.

Other Acts of Abuse

Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions

Prejudicial to the Child's Development. –

a. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation
or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered
by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years
or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place,
hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage
parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who
is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social,
moral or legal duty.

(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited by
this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding
paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine
of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That should
the perpetrator be an ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty
to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority over the minor.

(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public
or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or
otherwise, including residential places, who allows any person to take along with
him to such place or places any minor herein described shall be imposed a penalty
of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate such a place or
establishment.

(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other
child to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles
248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and
serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is
under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under
Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for
the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree
higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under twelve (12) years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the care of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Jurisprudence
In Amployo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005, the three
elements of RA 7610 are present.

AMPLOYO v. PEOPLE

FACTS

Alvin Amployo was charged with violation of RA 7610 for touching, mashing and playing
the breasts of Kristine Joy Mosguera, an 8 year old Grade 3 pupil without her consent.
Amployo contends that the element of lewd design was not established since:

(1) the incident happened at 7am, in a street near the school with people around;
(2) the breast of an 8 year old is still very much underdeveloped; and
(3) suppose he intentionally touched her breast, it was merely to satisfy a silly whim.
He also argues that the resultant crime is only acts of lasciviousness under Art 336 RPC
and not child abuse under RA 7610 as the elements thereof had not been proved.

ISSUES

WON Amployo violated RA 7610. – YES

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals modifying

the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-petitioner ALVIN
AMPLOYO y EBALADA alias 'TIKBOY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Republic Act No. 7610, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and
twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION.

PRINCIPLES

Before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor
below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of Rep.
Act No. 7610.The first element is lewd design.

The term ‘lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene;[12] it is

characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is
entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of
which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention,i.e., by conduct that can
only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is
inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.
What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a
precise definition.

Lewd design was established. Amployo cannot take refuge in his version of the story as
he has conveniently left out details which indubitably prove the presence of lewd
design. It would have been easy to entertain the possibility that what happened was
merely an accident if it only happened once. Such is not the case, however, as the very
same petitioner did the very same act to the very same victim in the past.

The first element of RA 7610 obtains. Petitioner’s act of purposely touching Kristine Joy’s
breasts (sometimes under her shirt) amounts to lascivious conduct.

The second element is likewise present. As we observed in People v. Larin,[24] Section

5 of Rep. Act No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit,
but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or
intimidation. As case law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. As to
the third element, there is no dispute that Kristine Joy is a minor, as she was only eight
years old at the time of the incident in question.