Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Q.
Q.
Mala Prohibita
As to Nature
Wrong from its very
Wrong because it is
nature
prohibited by law
As to Use of Good Faith as a Defense
Good faith is a valid
Good faith is NOT a
defense; unless the
defense.
crime is a result of
culpa.
As to Use of Intent as an Element
Intent is an element.
Criminal Intent is
NOT required. Only
intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by
law will suffice.
As to Degree of Accomplishment of the Crime
The degree of
The act gives rise to a
accomplishment of
crime only when it is
the crime is taken into
consummated.
account in punishing
the offender.
As to Mitigating and Aggravating
Circumstances
Mitigating and
Mitigating and
aggravating
aggravating
circumstances are
circumstances are
taken into account in
generally NOT taken
imposing the penalty.
into account.
As to Degree of Participation
When there is more
Degree of
than one offender,
participation is
the degree of
generally NOT taken
participation of each
into account. Al who
in the commission of
participated in the act
the crime is taken into
are punished to the
account.
same extent.
As to Persons Criminally liable
Penalty is computed
The penalty on the
on the basis of
offenders is the same,
whether there is a
whether they are
principal offender, or merely accomplices or
merely an accomplice
accessories.
or accessory.
As to what Laws are Violated
Revised Penal Code
Special Penal Laws
As to Stages of Execution
There are three stages:
No such stages of
attempted, frustrated,
execution.
consummated.
As to Persons Criminally Liable
There are three
Generally, only the
persons criminally
principal is liable.
liable: principal,
accomplice, and
accessory.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Page 1 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Extra
Q.
Q.
Page 2 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q.
or
Non-imposition of cruel
punishment or excessive fines
Due Process
Q.
unusual
The
employment
of
physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with
by law. (Section 19, Article III, 1987
Constitution)
Q.
Equal Protection
Q.
Q.
and
Q.
Page 3 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Bill of Attainder
Q.
Q.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Article 3 classifies felonies according to the
means or manner by which they are
committed:
(a) Intentional felonies those committed
with deliberate intent; and
(b) Culpable felonies those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
Q.
Q.
FELONIES
Q.
Page 4 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
property
without
CRIMINAL INTENT
MOTIVE
Page 5 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
employment
of
ineffectual means.
Q.
inadequate
or
Q.
Q.
Page 6 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q.
Evident premeditation
In case of aberratio ictus and error in
personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim,
who was actually killed, is not
contemplated in the premeditation of
the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R.
Mitigating circumstance
Treachery
If accused employed means to render
the victim defenseless, treachery shall
be appreciated even if the killing is doe
Page 7 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Conspiracy
Conspirators, who conspired to kill a
particular parson, are equally liable for
the killing of another person due to
error in personae (People vs. Pinto, Jr.
elements
of
an
Intod principle
Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103119, October 21, 1992 - Outside the house
of the victim, accused with intent to kill fired
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Q.
Page 8 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 9 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
ARSON
Page 10 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
ADULTERY
contact
PHYSICAL INJURIES
THEFT
Page 11 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
to
Page 12 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
Q.
Who is a recidivist?
Q.
Q.
Q.
(c) Reiteracion
is
not
always
an
aggravating
circumstance
while
recidivism is always to be taken into
consideration in fixing the penalty to
be imposed upon the accused.
Q.
When is
habituality?
accused
there
applied
for
reiteracion
or
Q.
A quasi-recidivist, as provided by
Article 160 of the RPC, is a person who
commits a felony after having been convicted
by final judgment, before beginning to serve
such sentence, or while serving the same.
Quasi-recidivism is the special aggravating
circumstance which imposes the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
new felony.
Q.
Page 13 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q.
Q.
Q.
HABITUAL
RECIDIVISM
DELINQUENCY
As to Crime Committed
The crimes are
It is sufficient that the
specified.
accused on the date
of the trial shall have
been previously
convicted by final
judgment of another
crime embraced in the
same title of the RPC.
As to the period of time the crimes are
committed
The offender is found
No period of time
guilty within ten years
between the former
from his last release
conviction and the
or last conviction.
last conviction.
As to the number of crimes committed
The accused must be
The second offense is
found guilty the third
for an offense found
time or oftener of the
in the same title of
crime specified.
the RPC.
As to their effect
An additional penalty
If not offset by a
is also imposed.
mitigating
circumstance, it serves
to increase the
penalty only to the
maximum.
CONTINUING CRIMES
Q.
Q.
Page 14 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 15 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Self-Defense
Q.
(b)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q.
Q.
(1) Self-defense
(2) Defense of relatives
(3) Defense of strangers
(4) Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
(5) Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of
right of office
(6) Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose.
Narvaez)
Q.
Page 16 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 17 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Defense of Relatives
Elements:
(1) Unlawful aggression
(a) Unlawful aggression may not exist
as a matter of fact; it can be made
to depend upon the honest belief
of the one making the defense.
(b) Reason: The law acknowledges
the possibility that a relative, by
virtue of blood, will instinctively
come to the aid of their relatives.
(2) Reasonable
necessity
of
means
employed to prevent or repel it
Q.
Defense of Strangers
Q.
Page 18 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q.
Q.
in
the
Q.
Page 19 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Characterized
by
brutality,
destructiveness, and sometimes death.
Q.
Exempting
Circumstance
No crime
No criminal liability
No civil liability
(except Art. 11, par. 4
where there is civil
liability)
There is a crime
No criminal liability
There is civil liability
(except Art. 12, par. 4
and 7, where there is
no civil liability)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q.
exempting
Imbecility/Insanity
Minority
Accident
Compulsion of irresistible force
Page 20 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Insanity or Imbecility
Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age,
has a mental development comparable to that
of a child between 2 and 7 years of age.
Exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
Page 21 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Q.
Information
from
the
child
himself/herself,
Testimonies of other persons,
The physical appearance of the child,
and
Other relevant evidence.
In case of doubt as to the childs age, it shall be
resolved in his/her favor.
Exemption from criminal liability
Page 22 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 23 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Accident
Something that happens outside the
sway of our will and, although coming about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by
mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Uncontrollable Fear
Elements:
1.
Irresistible Force
Elements:
1.
Page 24 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Q.
mitigating
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
In order that voluntary surrender is
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the
following requisites must concur:
a. the accused has not been actually
arrested;
b. the accused surrenders himself to a
person in authority or the latter's
agent; and
c. surrender is voluntary (People vs. Del
VINDICATION
Page 25 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
PASSION
The following essential requirements
must be present:
(1) There was an act that was both
unlawful and sufficient to produce
such
condition
(passion
or
obfuscation) of the mind; and
(2) That such act was not far removed
from the commission of the crime
by a considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator might
have
recovered
his
normal
equanimity (People vs. Comiiio,
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating Circumstances are those
circumstances which raise the penalty for a
crime in its maximum period provided by law
applicable to that crime or change the nature
of the crime.
Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has
expressly required that qualifying and
aggravating circumstances be specifically
alleged in the information. Due to such
requirement being pro reo, the Court has
authorized its retroactive application in favor
of even those charged with felonies committed
prior to December 1, 2000, which is the date
of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied the
requirement (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No.
172321, February 9, 2011).
Page 26 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
IGNOMINY
After killing the victim, the accused
severed his sexual organ. Should ignominy be
appreciated? No. For ignominy to be
appreciated, it is required that the offense be
committed in a manner that tends to make its
effect more humiliating, thus adding to the
victim's moral suffering. Where the victim was
already dead when his body or a part thereof
was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken
against the accused (People vs. Cachola, G.R.
DISGUISE
If the accused covers his face with a
handkerchief when he treacherously killed the
victim, the crime committed is murder
qualified by treachery and aggravated by
disguise (People vs. Firing, G.R. No. 45053,
October 19, 1936).
NIGHTTIME
Thus, treachery absorbs nighttime
where had it not been at night the offender,
with his cohorts, would not have been able to
approach the deceased without the latter's
becoming aware of his presence and guessing
his intention; If they were able to catch victim
completely unawares, it was due to the
darkness of the night which covered them
(People vs. Gumarang, GR N. 46413, October
6, 1939).
As a general rule, nighttime is
aggravating because the darkness of the night
facilitated the commission of the crime or
insured impunity. Thus, nighttime cannot
aggravate the crime if it is committed in a
lighted place although at the wee hours of the
night (People vs. Clarifto, G.R. NO. 134634,
Page 27 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 28 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
G.R.
Nos.
137370-71,
September 29, 2003, En Banc)
and
(2)
DISREGARD OF SEX:
Robbery with homicide is essentially a
felony against property. The aggravating
circumstance of disregard of the victim's age is
applied only to crimes against persons and
honor. Moreover, the bare fact that the victim
is a woman does not per se constitute
disregard of sex. For this circumstance to be
properly considered, the prosecution must
adduce evidence that in the commission of the
crime, the accused had particularly intended to
insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the
victim, in this case, the appellant killed the
victim because the latter started to shout.
There was no intent to insult nor commit
disrespect to the victim on account of the
latter's sex (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119,
April 13, 2004).
The circumstances of disregard of sex,
age or rank should be taken singly or together.
But the circumstance of dwelling should be
considered
independently
from
the
circumstance of disregard of age, sex and rank
since these circumstances signify different
concepts. In the latter, the disrespect shown by
offender pertains to the person of the
offended due to her rank, age and sex. In the
former, the disrespect pertains to the dwelling
of the offended party due to the sanctity of
privacy which the law accords it. (People vs.
Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29,1981, En
Banc)
Disregard of rank and dwelling were
appreciated independently. In robbery with
violence and intimidation against persons,
dwelling is aggravating because in this class of
robbery, the crime may be committed without
the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house(People vs. Evangelio,
G.R. No. . 181902, August 31,2011).
CRUELTY
Page 29 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Q.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
Q.
Define
absolutory
cause.
examples of absolutory causes.
Give
Q.
Distinguish
entrapment
instigation
from
commission of the offense and becomes a coprincipal; while in entrapment, ways and
means are resorted for the purpose of trapping
and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution
of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar to
prosecution and conviction of the law breaker
but in the case of instigation, the accused must
be acquitted.
Criminal participator - Criminal
participator is the offender who participated in
committing a crime by indispensable or
dispensable act. He performed an act, which is
not constitutive of felony but intended to give
moral or material aid to the chief actor.
With conspiracy - If there is conspiracy,
the criminal participator or cooperator is a
principal by direct participation. The act of the
chief actor is considered the act of the criminal
participator.
Instigation means luring the accused
into a crime that he, otherwise, had no
intention to commit, in order to prosecute
him. It differs from entrapment which is the
employment of ways and means In order to
trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the
criminal intent to commit an offense originates
from the inducer and not from the accused
who had no intention to commit and would
not have committed it were it not for the
prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the
criminal intent or design originates from the
accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate
the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses
and schemes.45 Instigation results in the
acquittal of the accused, while entrapment
may lead to prosecution and conviction
(People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 180919, January
9, 2013).
A police officer's act of soliciting drugs
from appellant during the buy-bust operation,
or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is
not prohibited by law and does not invalidate
the buy-bust operation (People vs. Espiritu,
supra).
Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor is
the person who actually committed the crime.
He is the one who committed or omitted the
act, which causes the criminal result. HeIt is
immaterial whether appellant acted as a
principal or as an accomplice because the
Page 30 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Must
be
PRODUCTIVE
OF
SUFFERING, without affecting the
integrity of the human personality.
Must be COMMENSURATE to the
offense different crimes must be
punished with different penalties.
Must be PERSONAL no one should
be punished for the crime of another.
Must be LEGAL it is the consequence
of a judgment according to law.
Must be CERTAIN no one may
escape its effects.
Must be EQUAL for all.
Must be CORRECTIONAL.
PURPOSES
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
(1) RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the
penalty is commensurate with the gravity
of the offense. It permits society to exact
proportionate revenge, and the offender
to atone for his wrongs.
(2) CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as
shown by the rules which regulate the
execution of the penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty.
(3) SOCIAL DEFENSE shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual
delinquents.
CLASSIFICATIONS
MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
(a) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES those expressly
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
(b) ACCESSORY PENALTIES those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalties.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES those imposed in
lieu of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment in
case of inability to pay the fine.
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE
IMPRISONMENT
Page 31 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 32 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
to
of
at
to
in
doubt;
non-identification
presentation of the weapon.
and
non-
Page 33 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
doubt;
non-identification
presentation of the weapon.
and
non-
Page 34 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Topic:
rape.
of sexual assault.
People of the Philippines v.
Manolito Lucena y Velasquez,
G.R. No. 190632, February 26, 2014
Page 35 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 36 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
====
REVISED PENAL CODE
2010 - 2013 Cases
Topic: Self-defense.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Vergara & Inocencio,
G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013
Anent accused-appellant Vergaras claim of
self-defense, the following essential elements
had to be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel
such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the art of the person resorting
to self-defense. However, the most important
of all the elements is unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression
must be proved first in order for self-defense
to be successfully pleaded, whether complete
or incomplete.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical
assault, or at least a threat to inflict real
imminent injury, upon a person. In case of
threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent dangernot merely
threatening and intimidating action. It is
present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to ones life. In the
present case, the element of unlawful
aggression is absent. By the testimonies of all
the witnesses, the victims actuations did not
constitute unlawful aggression to warrant the
use of forces employed by accuse-appellant
Vergara. The records reveal that the victim had
been walking home albeit drunk when he
passed by accused-appellants. However, there
is no indication of any untoward action from
him to warrant the treatment that he had by
accused-appellant Vergaras hands.
1.
Page 37 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 38 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
maximum
perpetua.
period
to
reclusion
Page 39 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Topic: Rape
People of the Philippines Vs.
Jojie Suansing,
G.R. No. 189822, September 2, 2013
Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from
mental retardation is rape since she is
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act.
Under these circumstances, all that needs to be
proved for a successful prosecution are the
facts of sexual congress between the rapist and
his victim, and the latters mental retardation.
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as
amended by RA 8353 states that:
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How
Committed. - Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
a)
Through
force,
threat,
or
intimidation;
b) When the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be
present.
For the charge of rape to prosper, the
prosecution must prove that (1) the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2)
through force or intimidation, or when she
was deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or when she was under 12 years
of age or was demented. From these requisites,
it can thus be deduced that rape is committed
the moment the offender has sexual
intercourse with a person suffering from
mental retardation. Carnal knowledge of a
woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A
mental condition of retardation deprives the
complainant of that natural instinct to resist a
bestial assault on her chastity and
womanhood. For this reason, sexual
intercourse with one who is intellectually weak
to the extent that she is incapable of giving
consent to the carnal act already constitutes
Page 40 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 41 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 42 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
xxxx
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation
when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of
notice from the bank and/or the payee
or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
In order to constitute estafa under this
statutory provision, the act of postdating or
issuing a check in payment of an obligation
must be the efficient cause of the defraudation.
This means that the offender must be able to
obtain money or property from the offended
party by reason of the issuance of the check,
whether dated or postdated. In other words,
the Prosecution must show that the person to
whom the check was delivered would not
have parted with his money or property were
it not for the issuance of the check by the
offender.
The essential elements of the crime charged are
that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in
payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the check is issued; (b) lack or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(c) damage to the payee thereof. It is the
criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a
check that is punishable, not the non-payment
of a debt. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists
by law upon proof that the drawer of the
check failed to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor.
It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty
of estafa as charged, must have used the check
in order to defraud the complainant. What the
law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the
mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas
could not be held guilty of estafa simply
because he had issued the check used to
defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still
clearly show that it had been Wagas as the
drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means
of the check.
Page 43 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Topic: Estafa.
Fernando M. Espino Vs.
People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013
The crime charged was estafa under Article
315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Its elements are as follows: (1) that money,
goods, or other personal properties are
received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2)
that there is a misappropriation or conversion
of such money or property by the offender or
a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to
the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the
offender. However, the crime the accused was
convicted of was estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are
as follows: (1) that there is a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means is made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (3) that the offended party relies on the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he is induced to part with his
money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
Page 44 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 45 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
marriage
Cenon R. Teves v.
People of the Philippines and Danilo R.
Bongalon
G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011
from homicide/murder.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Ferdinand T. Baluntong,
G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010
In cases where both burning and death occur,
in order to determine what crime/crimes
was/were perpetrated whether arson,
murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de
rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the
burning of the building or edifice, but death
results by reason or on the occasion of arson,
the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other
hand, the main objective is to kill a particular
person who may be in a building or edifice,
when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is
murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is,
likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact
the offender has already done so, but fire is
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing,
then there are two separate and distinct crimes
committed homicide/murder and arson.
Topic: Batas Pambansa Bilang 22; elements.
Eumelia R. Mitra vs.
People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S.
Tarcelo
Page 46 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
pending appeal
People of the Philippines v.
Saturnino Dela Cruz, et al.,
G.R. No. 190610, April 25, 2012.
On 29 July 2009, a Notice of Appeal was filed
by Brillantes through counsel before the
Supreme Court. While this case is pending
appeal, the Prisons and Security Division
Officer-in-Charge informed the Court that
accused-appellant
Brillantes
died
while
committed at the Bureau of Corrections on 3
January 2012 as evidenced by a copy of death
report signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospitals
Medical. Hence, the issue here is the effect of
death pending appeal of the conviction of
accused-appellant Brillantes with regard to his
criminal and pecuniary liabilities.
The Revised Penal Code is instructive on the
matter. It provides in Article 89(1) that
criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefor is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final
judgment. It is plain that both the personal
penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary
penalty of fine of Brillantes were extinguished
upon his death pending appeal of his
conviction by the lower courts. There is no
civil liability involved in violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
No private offended party is involved as there
Page 47 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
liability.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs.
Rogelio Reynaldo and Jose C. Adrandea
G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010
It is best to emphasize that novation is not
one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal
liability. In a catena of cases, it was ruled that
criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a
compromise or novation of contract. In Firaza
v. People and Recuerdo v. People, the
Supreme Court ruled that in the crime of
estafa, reimbursement or belated payment to
Page 48 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 49 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 50 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
=======
SPECIAL LAW
Topic: Accused; effects of escape of accused.
People of the Philippines v.
Asia Musa y Pinasilo, AraMonongan y Papao,
FaisahAbasy Mama, and Mike Solalo y Mlok
G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012
A review of the evidence on record shows that
the chain of custody rule was sufficiently
observed by the apprehending officers. Thru
the testimonies of the PO1 Memoracion and
PO1 Arago, the prosecution was able to prove
that the shabu seized from accused Musa was
the very same shabu presented in evidence as
part of the corpus delicti. Hence, the fact that
the PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago did not
make an inventory of the seized items or that
they did not take photographs of them is not
fatal considering that the prosecution was able
to establish with moral certainty that the
identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the
shabu was not jeopardized from the time of its
seizure until the time it was presented in court.
Topic: Alibi; physical impossibility must be
proved
People of the Philippines v.
Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz
G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013.
For Jaymarts alibi to prosper, he must prove
that not only was he somewhere else when
Emmanuel was killed, but also that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at
the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility
refers to the distance between the place where
the appellant was when the rime transpired
and the place where it was committed, as well
as the facility of access between the two
places. Where there is the least chance for the
accused to be present at the crime scene, the
defense of alibi must fail. Although Jaymart
claimed that he was in Divisoria from 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on October 10, 2005,
Jaymart himself admitted that it would only
take a five-minute tricycle ride to get from
Divisoria to Parola, where Emmanuel was
shot.
Page 51 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Topic: BP 33
Arnel U. Ty, et al vs.
National Bureau of Investigation Supervising
Agent Marvin E. De Jemil,et al
G.R. No. 182147, December 15, 2010
A single underfilling constitutes an offense
under BP 33, as amended by PD 1865, which
clearly criminalizes these offenses. B.P. Blg. 33,
as amended, criminalizes illegal trading,
adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and
overpricing of petroleum products. Under this
general description of what constitutes criminal
acts involving petroleum products, the DOE
Circular No. 2000-06-010 merely lists the
various modes by which the said criminal acts
may be perpetrated, namely: no price display
board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or
incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized
LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG
cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing
color, no embossed identifying markings on
cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering
LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of
LPG cylinders. These specific acts and omissions
are obviously within the contemplation of the
law, which seeks to curb the pernicious
practices of some petroleum merchants. The
Court made it clear that a violation, like
underfilling, on a per cylinder basis falls within
the phrase of any act as mandated under Sec. 4
of BP 33, as amended. Ineluctably, the
underfilling of one LPG cylinder constitutes a
clear violation of BP 33, as amended. The
finding of underfilling by LPG Inspector Navio
of the LPGIA, as aptly noted by Manila
Assistant City Prosecutor Catalo who
conducted the preliminary investigation, was
indeed not controverted by petitioners.
Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal possession
of drugs.
People of the Philippines vs.
Mario Miguel y Bernabe, et al.,
G.R. No. 180505, June 29, 2010
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
Topic:
Instigation
entrapment.
distinguished
from
Page 52 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 53 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
child abuse
People of the Philippines v.
Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran,
G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in
relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual
abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender
should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but
for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of
the Revised Penal Code and penalized with
reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the
victim is 12 years or older, the offender should
be charged with either sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act
because his right against double jeopardy will
be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected
twice to criminal liability for a single criminal
act.
Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a
violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under
Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the Revised
Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
complexed with an offense penalized by a
special law.
Topic: Act of lasciviousness against a minor
Page 54 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 55 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 56 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
CRIMINAL LAW
BAR EXAM PRE-WEEK HANDOUT
Prepared by Justice Mario V. Lopez
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS RULE
The overbreadth and vagueness
doctrines do not justify a facial review of the
validity of penal statutes. A facial challenge
against a criminal statute is allowed only as
applied to a particular defendant which
considers extant facts affecting real litigants or
on the basis of its actual operation to the
parties. Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of
criminal statutes would result in a mass
acquittal of parties whose cases may not have
even reached the courts. Such invalidation
would constitute a departure from the usual
requirement of "actual case and controversy"
and permit decisions to be made in a sterile
abstract
context
having
no
factual
concreteness. (See Romualdez v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 167011, December 11, 2008; and
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network
vs. Anti-terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010)
When a penal statute encroaches upon
the freedom of speech, a facial challenge
grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine
is acceptable. The inapplicability of the
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal
statutes are appropriate only insofar as these
doctrines are used to mount facial challenges
to penal statutes not involving free speech.
(Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R.
No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
There is no double jeopardy in the following:
(1) Estafa through falsification of a
public document under the RPC and violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section
3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: Section 3. Corrupt
practices of public officers.In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful: x xx It is clear then that one may
be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in
addition to a felony under the Revised Penal
Code for the same delictual act, that is, either
concurrently or subsequent to being charged
Page 57 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 58 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
SELF-DEFENSE
Accused-appellants' flight from the
neighborhood where the crimes were
committed, their concealing of the weapons
used in the commission of the crimes, their
non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and
their failure to surrender themselves to the
police authorities fully warranted the RTCs
rejection of their claim of self-defense and
defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al.,
G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012)
The primordial element of self-defense
is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an
actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In
case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to
cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No.
195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future
injury is not enough. The compulsion must be
of such a character as to leave no opportunity
for the accused for escape or self-defense in
Page 59 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
calculation,
reflection
or
persistent
attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731,
July 18, 2013)
TREACHERY
The idea of treachery does not apply
when the killing is not premeditated or when
the accused did not deliberately choose the
means he employed for committing the crime.
(People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2,
2011)
The situation of the victim when
found shows without doubt that he was killed
while tied and blindfolded; hence, the
qualifying
aggravating
circumstance of
treachery was present in the commission of
the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No.
178771, June 8, 2011)
Treachery
may
be
properly
considered, even when the victim of the
attack was not the one whom the defendant
intended to kill, if it appears from the
evidence that neither of the two persons
could in any manner put up defense against
the attack or become aware of it. (People v.
Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011)
Treachery applies to robbery with
homicide
as
a
generic
aggravating
circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme
Court of Spain interpreting and construing the
penal code, which are accorded respect and
persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have
consistently applied treachery as a generic
aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide. It does not lose its classification as a
crime against property or as a special complex
crime because treachery is applied to the
constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
constituent crime of "robbery". (People v.
Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)
Treachery is not present when the
killing is not premeditated, or where the
sudden attack is not preconceived and
deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a
sudden infuriation on the part of the accused
as a result of a provocative act of the victim,
or when the killing is done at the spur of the
moment. (People v. Caaveras, G.R. No.
193839, December 27, 2013)
ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE
Page 60 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
MALVERSATION
Page 61 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 62 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
BIGAMY
Page 63 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
LIBEL
Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if
the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of
his official duties and functions and the truth
of the allegations is shown, the accused will be
entitled to an acquittal even though he does
not prove that the imputation was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
(Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February
14, 2011)
Page 64 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 65 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
DANGEROUS
DRUGS
obviating
switching,
"planting"
or
contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People,
G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014)When
there is a search warrant, marking and
inventory shall be at the place where the
search was conducted. In a buy-bust
operation, the marking and inventory may be
done immediately or at the nearest police
station.
Non-compliance with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where
the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited
justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
established that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized had been
preserved. (Id.)
[N.B. Non-compliance with the chain
of custody rule affects the credibility of the
evidence and will not invalidate arrest or
render inadmissible the items seized.]
It is settled that Section 86 of Republic
Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations
on account of the law enforcer's failure to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA.
(People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11,
2012)
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST
THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)
WOMEN
&
Page 66 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club
Page 67 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015