Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS PRE-WEEK

COMPANION
A foresight to the bar exam

By: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
Professor of Law, SSC-R

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL

1. PROBATION LAW- Presidential Decree No.
968

2. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW- Act No.
4103 as amended

3. THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT- Republic Act No. 3019

4. THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002- Republic Act No. 9165

5. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ANDTHEIR
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004- Republic Act No.
9262

6. BOUNCING CHECKS LAW- Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22

7. THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979-
Presidential Decree No. 1612

8. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM- PD 1866
as amended by R.A. 8294

9. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001-
R.A. NO. 9160 as amended by R.A. 9194,
R.A. 10167, R.A. 10168 and R.A. 10365, also
known as An Act Further Strengthening The
Anti-Money Laundering Law

10. THE ANTI- HAZING LAW

11. HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (THE ANTI-
TERRORISM LAW) - Republic Act No. 9372

12. THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW Republic Act
No. 7610

13. THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT-Republic Act No.
9745

14. THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF
1995- Republic Act No. 7877

15. THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF
2003- Republic Act No. 9208

16. PLUNDER as amended

17. THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT- Republic Act
No. 4200

18. THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF
2009- Republic Act No. 9775

19. THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM
ACT OF 2009- Republic Act No. 9995

20. THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW- Republic Act
No. 9346

21. JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF
2006 - Republic Act No. 9344

22. HEINOUS CRIME LAW

23. THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY
ROBBERY LAW OF 1974- Presidential Decree
No. 532

24. THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972-
Republic Act No. 6539

25. THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW- Republic Act No.
6235

26. (Amending) THE LAW ON ARSON -
Presidential Decree No. 1613

27. THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW- Republic Act No. 6085

28. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE- Presidential
Decree No. 1829

____________________________________________
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS IN GENERAL
____________________________________________

1. When the crime is punished by a special law, as a
rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.

In intent to commit the crime, there must be
criminal intent; in intent to perpetrate the act, it is
enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously. (Elenita C. Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No.
190889, January 10, 2011)

2. Although Republic Act No. 7610 is a special law, the
rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating
penalties by degrees or determining the proper period
should be applied. The penalty for Other Acts of Child
Abuse is prision mayor in its minimum period.
Although R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in
the Revised Penal Code for graduating penalties by
degrees or determining the proper period should be
applied.
3. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA.
a. In mala in se, the act
committed in inherently wrong or
immoral; in mala prohibita, the
act is merely prohibited by law;
b. In mala in se, good faith is a
proper defense; in mala prohibita,
good faith is not a defense;
c. In mala in se, the stages of
execution under Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code is considered
in arriving at the proper penalty
to be imposed; in mala prohibita,
they are not;
d. In mala in se, the degree of
participation of the offenders
under Title Two of the Revised
Penal Code is taken into
consideration on the imposition
of penalty; in mala prohibita, it is
not;
e. In mala in se, the modifying
circumstances are appreciated in
determining the penalty
imposable; in mala prohibita,
they are not;
f. In mala in se, generally, the
crimes are punished under the
Revised Penal Code; in mala
prohibita, generally, the crimes
are punished under special penal
laws.
4. Special laws which are intended merely as
amendments to certain provisions of the Revised
Penal Code are mala in se and still subject to its
provision.
5. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of
criminal intent as held in the case of Estrada v
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001.
Hence, the application of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecute
under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly
that mens rea is an element of plunder since the
degree of responsibility of the offender is determined
by his criminal intent. x x x

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, ACT NO. 4103
as amended

[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1999,
1994, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988]

-If a special law adopted penalties from the
RPC, ISLAW will apply just as it would in
felonies.

ex. RA 7610 although a special law, adopted the
penalty defined in RPC.

-When ISLAW is not applicable?
1. Offenses punishable by death or life
imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Habitual delinquents.
6. Those who escaped from confinement or
those who evaded sentence.
7. Those granted with conditional pardon
and who violated the terms of the same.
8. Those whose maximum period of
imprisonment does not exceed one year.
9. Those already serving final judgment upon
the approval of this Act.

-The imposition of indeterminate sentence is
mandatory in criminal cases.

-The law is not applicable if the penalty is destierro.
Why? It does not involve imprisonment.

Rules:
SPL RPC
Maximum
term
-shall not
exceed the
max. fixed by
law
-That, in view of
the attending
circumstances,
could be properly
imposed under
the rules of the
said Code
Minimum
term
-shall not be
less than
minimum fixed
by law
with the range
of the penalty
next lower to
that prescribed
by the Code.

*NOTE:
-Rules of offsetting are not applicable in crimes
punished under a special law. The presence of any
generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating
circumstances will not affect the proper imposition of
the penalty.

-If the maximum term arrived and it does not exceed 1
year, ISLAW will not apply.
-If the sentence is imprisonment of 12 years and I day
in violation of Comprehensive Drugs Act, the same is
not correct as ISLAW mandates the Court to set the
minimum and maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence.

May the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority be appreciated in fixing the penalty
that should be imposed even if the penalty
imposed is originally an indivisible penalty?
Yes. The ISLAW is applicable because the
penalty which has been originally an indivisible
penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is
inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion
temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority. (People vs.
Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227: July 20,
2011)

_____________________________________________
PROBATION LAW
[BAR Q. 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002,
2001, 1997, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1990, 1986]
_____________________________________________
[BAR Q.1986,1989] The purposes of probation are as
follows:
(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation
of an offender by providing him with individualized
treatment; b) provide an opportunity for the
reformation of a penitent offender which might be
less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence;
and (c) prevent the commission of offenses.
CONSEQUENCE IF THE PROBATIONER VIOLATES ANY
OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION (SEC. 15)
The court may order the arrest of the
probationer, hold an informal summary hearing and
may revoke his probation. In which case, he has to
serve the sentence originally imposed.
-Who are disqualified to avail of the benefits of
Probation?

1. sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years.
2. convicted of any crime against National Security
or the Public Order.
3. Who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than two
hundred pesos.
4. Who have been once on probation under the
provisions of this Decree.
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time
the substantive provisions of this Decree
became applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof.
6. Who has perfected an appeal from the judgment
of conviction. (Sec. 4)
7. Any person convicted of drug trafficking or
pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by
the Court. (Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9165)

-If the convict had already perfected an appeal, an
application for probation cannot be granted.

No application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction

-By perfecting an appeal, petitioners ipso facto
relinquished the alternative remedy of probation.
-Under Sec.4, the filing of the application for
probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal.

-A waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of
conviction is NOT a waiver of the civil liability ex
delicto.

-Probation may be granted whether the sentence
imposed a term of imprisonment or a fine only (Sec.
4).

-An order granting or denying probation shall not be
appealable.

-Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation
as mutually exclusive because the law is unmistakable
about it and, therefore, petitioner cannot avail herself
of both.

What is the legal effect of probation?
-A conviction becomes final when the accused applies
for probation.

REMINDERS ON DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1. Sentenced to serve more than 6 years
Exceptions:
a. Under violation of Section 11 of RA 9165,
accused FIRST-TIME OFFENDER may avail of
suspended sentence. If there is a violation of
any conditions, the court shall pronounce
judgment of conviction. The court, however,
may in its discretion:

place the accused on probation (even if the
sentence provided for under this Act is higher
than that provided under existing law on
probation.

b. Principle in PP vs. Arnel Colinares

-Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that
would have allowed him to apply fro
probation. He did not have a choice
between appeal and probation.

-The Court, however, convicted Arnel of the
wrong crime, frustrated homicide that
carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. How
can the Court expect him to feel penitent
over a crime, which as the Court now finds,
he did not commit? He only committed
attempted homicide with its maximum
penalty of 2 years and 4 months.

-At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC
done what was right and imposed on Arnel
the correct penalty of two (2) years and four
(4) months maximum, he would have had
the right to apply for probation.

2. National Security and Public Order-

Probation is not applicable when the accused is
convicted of INDIRECT ASSAULT (It is a crime against
PUBLIC ORDER).

3. Previous Conviction of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than two hundred
pesos.

Ex. A person convicted for another crime with a
penalty of 30 days imprisonment or not exceeding 1
month does not disqualify him from applying for
probation

-What is the period of probation?

a. sentenced to a term of 1 year shall not exceed 2
years
b. sentenced to a term of more than 1 year
imprisonment shall not exceed 6 years

_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Republic Act No. 3019

[BAR Q. 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2003, 2000, 1999,
1997, 1991, 1990, 1988, 1985]

Who may be liable under Sec.3 of R.A. No. 3019?
a. The law punishes not only public officers who
commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3,
but also those who induce or cause the public
official to commit those offenses.
b. Private persons found acting in conspiracy with
public officers may be held liable for the applicable
offenses found in Sec. 3 of the law

Sec. 3(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

Elements under Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019
To be convicted of violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No.
3019, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
following elements:

1. the offender is a public officer;
2. who requested or received a gift, a present, a share,
a percentage, or benefit;
3. on behalf of the offender or any other person;
4 in connection with a contract or transaction with the
government;
5. in which the public officer, in an official capacity
under the law, has the right to intervene. (Cadiao-
Palacios v. People, 582 SCRA 713, March 31, 2009)

-An accused may be charged for both offenses of
direct bribery and violation of Sec.3(b) of R.A. No.
3019 because they have different elements.

Sec.3(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.

In order to hold a person liable under Sec. 3 (e) of
R.A. No. 3019, the following elements must concur:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the act was done in the discharge of the public
officers official, administrative or judicial functions;
3. the act was done through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence;
and
4. the public officer caused any undue injury to any
party, including the Government, or gave any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
(Sison v. People, 614 SCRA 670, March 9, 2010)

-Proof of any of these three (manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence) in
connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict a
person with violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
(Sison v. People, March 9, 2010)

-Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites
a disposition to see and report matters as they are
wished for rather than as they are. (Sison v. People,
March 9, 2010)

-Manifest Partiality exists when the accused has a
clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to
favor one side or one person rather than another. It is
synonymous with bias, which excites a disposition to
see and report matters as they are wished for rather
than as they are. (Reyes v. People, August 4, 2010)

-Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate
intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or to
cause damage. It contemplates a breach of sworn duty
through some perverse motive or ill will. (Reyes v.
People, August 4, 2010)

Gross inexcusable negligence does not signify mere
omission of duties nor plainly the exercise of less than
the standard degree of prudence it refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even the
slightest case, acting or omitting to act in a situation
where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference
to consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected. (Sistoza v. Desierto, 388 SCRA 307)

There are two ways by which Sec.3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
may be violated
a. the first mode: by causing undue injury to any
party, including the government, or
b. the second mode: by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference

In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it
suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or
benefit to another, in the exercise of his official,
administrative or judicial functions.

Ex. The private suppliers, which were all
personally chosen by respondent, were able to
profit from the transactions without showing proof
that their prices were the most beneficial to the
government.

To hold a person liable under this section, the
concurrence of the following elements must be
established, viz:
1. that the accused is a public officer or a private
person charged in conspiracy with the former;
2. that said public officer commits the prohibited acts
during the performance of his or her official duties
or in relation to his or her public positions;
3. that he or she causes undue injury to any party,
whether the government or a private party; and
4. that the public officer has acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.

Sec. 3(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.

Elements under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019:
To be indicted of the offense under Sec. 3(g) of
R.A. No. 3019, the following elements must be
present:
a. that the accused is a public officer;
b. that he entered into a contract or transaction on
behalf of the government; and
c. that such contract or transaction is grossly and
manifestly disadvantageous to the government (Guy
v. People, 582 SCRA 108, March 20. 2009)

A private person shall be held liable together with the
public officer if there is an allegation of conspiracy.

The lack of public bidding alone does not
automatically equate to a manifest and gross
disadvantage to the government.

Sec. 3 (h). Directly or directly 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.

The essential elements of the violation of said
provision are as follows:
1. That the accused is a public officer;
2. That he has a direct or indirect financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction. He either:
a. intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in
connection with such interest; or
b. is prohibited from having such interest by the
Constitution or by law. (Teves v. The Commission on
Elections, 587 SCRA 1, April 28, 2009)

_____________________________________________

THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002
Republic Act No. 9165
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002,
2000, 1998, 1996, 1992]
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS (SEC. 5)
The presentation in evidence of the buy-bust
money is not indispensable for the conviction of
an accused provided that the sale of marijuana is
adequately proven by the prosecution. (People
vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393)
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal
sale of drugs are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof.

-What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
(People vs. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19,
2009)

DIFFERENTIATE PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE
FROM PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must first be
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

In a prosecution for illegal possession of a
dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused
was in possession of an item or an object identified to
be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession
is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was
freely and consciously aware of being in possession of
the drug. People vs. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January
30, 2009

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.
(SEC.11)
R.A. No. 6425 does not prescribe a single
punishment for illegal possession of shabu and
marijuana committed at the same time and in the
same place. The prosecution would be correct in
filing two separate Informations for the crimes of
illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of
marijuana.
a. The elements of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs are as follow:
(a) the accused was in possession of the
regulated drugs;
(b) the accused was fully and consciously
aware of being in possession of the
regulated drug; and
(c) the accused had no legal authority to
possess the regulated drug. Possession
may actual or constructive. (People vs.
Eliza Buan, G.R. No. 168773, OCT. 27,
2006)
b. What is the concept of POSSESSION?
1. Since the crime charged is mala
prohibita, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove
that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs.
2. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive
possession.
3. Constructive possession exists when the
drug is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is
found. Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary.
Mere possession of a regulated drug per se
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused
absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession-
the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain
the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
(People vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010)

In order to establish constructive
possession, the People must prove that petitioner
has dominion or control on either the substance or
the premises where found. The burden of evidence
is shifted to petitioner to explain the absence of
animus possidendi. (People vs .Buan, G.R. No.
168773, OCT. 27, 2006)
Illustrative case:
BAR Q. [2002] B is not criminally liable. The facts
clearly show the absence of animus possidendi or
intent to possess which is an element of the crime of
illegal possession of drugs. The accused was not fully
and consciously aware of being in possession of the
dangerous drug.
ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. (Sec.15)
-Section 15 of R.A. 9165 expressly excludes penalties
for the use of dangerous drugs when the person is
found to have in his possession quantity of any
dangerous drug under Section 11. It states:
That this Section shall not be applicable where the
person tested is also found to have in his/her
possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case
the provisions stated therein shall apply.
BAR Q. [2005] The charge of possession of shabu
under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is proper. The
entrapment operation yielded the discovery of 100
grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession.
However, the charge of use of marijuana is not proper.
Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is explicit. It excludes
penalties for use of dangerous drugs when the person
tested is also found to have in possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug provided in Section
11 of such Act.
What does CHAIN OF CUSTODY mean?
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person
who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were
made in the course of safekeeping and used in court
as evidence, and the final disposition. (People vs. Ruiz
Garcia, G.R. No.173480 February 25, 2009)
c. Is strict compliance with the prescribed procedure
essential?

Strict compliance with the prescribed
procedure is required. The Court recognized the
following links that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation:

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;

second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized
by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;

third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and

fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court. People vs. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198,
January 19, 2010

Mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a
seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items can be shown to have been preserved.
However, the failure to follow the procedure
mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be
adequately explained. The justifiable ground for
non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The
court cannot presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist. (People vs. De Guzman, G.R.
No. 186498, March 26, 2010)
The presumption of regular performance of duty is
not conclusive in chain of custody cases and
cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence.

Any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be
allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
BAR Q. [2005]
A person convicted of either drug trafficking or
pushing cannot avail of the benefits of probation.
If a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs is
found in the commission of a crime (Sec. 25), it shall
constitute as a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the commission of the crime.
BAR Q. [2005] Candido is guilty of homicide only. The
act of stabbing was not consciously adopted but only
accidental and therefore, negates treachery. However,
since the crime was committed when he was under the
influence of dangerous drugs, such act becomes a
qualifying circumstance pursuant to Section 25, R.A.
9165.
__________________________________________
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ANDTHEIR
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Republic Act No. 9262

[BAR 2011, 2010]
_____________________________________________

DEFINE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN.
It refers to any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his
wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom
the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship,
or with whom he has a common child, 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. Section 3 of R.A. 9262
Section 3 states that violence against women and
children includes, but is not limited to, the following
acts: a) Physical Violence b) Sexual violence c)
Psychological violence d) Economic abuse.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN?
The elements of the crime of violence against
women through harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another,
commits an act or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her.
(Rustan Ang Y Pascua vs. Sagud, G.R. No.
182835, April 20, 2010)
A TPO cannot be issued in favor of a man against his
wife under R.A. No. 9292, known as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. In one
case, the judge was found guilty of gross ignorance of
the law for issuing a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO) in favor of a male petitioner.
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF A BATTERED WOMAN
SYNDROME?
It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
IS BATTERED WOMEN SYNDROME A PROPER
DEFENSE? Section 26 of R.A. 9262 is explicit:
Victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome
do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements
for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS. GENOSA
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

RULING:
More graphically, the battered woman
syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of
violence, which has three phases: (1) the tension-
building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and
(3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.

During the tension-building phase, minor
battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight physical
abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The
woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a
show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying
out of his way. What actually happens is that she
allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are
comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the
escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer.

The acute battering incident is said to be
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,
sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During
this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may
put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are
his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually
realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that
resistance would only exacerbate her condition.

The final phase of the cycle of violence
begins when the acute battering incident ends.
During this tranquil period, the couple experience
profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may
show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his
partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel
and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness
and promising never to beat her again. On the other
hand, the battered woman also tries to convince
herself that the battery will never happen again; that
her partner will change for the better; and that this
good, gentle and caring man is the real person
whom she loves.

A battered woman usually believes that she
is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the
batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels
responsible for his well-being.

Illustrative Cases:
BAR Q. [2010]
A. Define Battered Woman Syndrome. It refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse.
B. What are the three phases of the Battered Woman
Syndrome?
The three phases are the following: a) tension-building
phase b) acute battering incident c) tranquil and
loving phase.
C. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code?
Yes, R.A. 9262 expressly states that victim-
survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
ABUSES may BE COMMITTED BY ANOTHER THRU
CONSPIRACY. (SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN vs. SPOUSES
TAN, G.R. No. 168852: September 30, 2008).
THE CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
CHILDREN is considered as a public offense which may
be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any
citizen having personal knowledge of the
circumstances involving the commission of the crime.
Under express provision of Section 27 thereof, being
under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any
other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense
under this Act.
II. PROTECTION ORDERS
A protection order is an order issued under
this Act for the purpose of preventing further acts of
violence against a woman or her child specified in
Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary
relief. The protection orders that may be issued are
the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary
protection order (TPO) and permanent protection
order (PPO).
_____________________________________________

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

[BAR 2010 03,02. 96, 1990, 88,86]
___________________________________________
BP.22 DOES NOT COVER MANAGERS CHECK AND
CASHIERS CHECK. It is as good as the money it
represents and is therefore deemed as cash.
BP.22 COVERS ACCOMODATION OR GUARANTEE
CHECK.
BP.22 COVERS CROSSED CHECK since it is a negotiable
instrument. It falls within the coverage of BP. 22.
The Supreme Court ruled that BP. 22 considers the
mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense
not only against property but also against public order
to stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to
the community. (Mitra vs. People, July 05, 2010)
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER THE REVISED
PENAL CODE IS APPLICABLE IN BP.22 WHICH IS A
SPECIAL LAW.
A. WAYS BY WHICH VIOLATION OF BP. 22 ARE
COMMITTED.

The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 is the act of making or issuing
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon
its presentation for payment It is not the
nonpayment of the obligation which the law punishes.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check whether
as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as evidence of
pre-existing debt is malum prohibitum.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
1 OF BP.22 ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The accused makes, draws or issues any
check to apply to account or for value;
2. The accused knows at the time of the
issuance that he or she does not have
sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee
bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment .
There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds when the check was presented
within 90 days from the date appearing on the check
and was dishonored unless:
a. such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the
amount due thereon within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not been paid
by the drawee , or

b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within (5) banking days after
receiving notice of non-payment.

Is the 90 day-period to deposit the check an element of
BP 22?

No. That the check must be deposited within
ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the
prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds
to arise, but it is not an element of the offense, and
neither does it discharge the accused from his duty to
maintain sufficient funds in the account within a
reasonable time thereof. (Nagrarnpa vs. People, 386
SCRA 412).
The notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the
drawer or maker, by the drawee bank, the holder of
the check, or the offended party. (Ambito vs. People,
579 SCRA 68, February 13, 2009)
ELEMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION
1 OF BP.22.
This way of violating B.P.22 suggests that at
the time the check was issued, the issuer had
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank.
However, the check was dishonored when presented
for payment within 90 days from its date for failure to
maintain sufficient funds or credit to cover the
amount.

The elements are as follows:

a) any person, makes or draws and issues a check;

b) such person has sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank;

c) failure 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;

d) for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee
bank.
COMPARISON OF VIOLATION OF BP 22 FROM ESTAFA
UNDER PAR. 2 [D], ARTICLE 315, OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE.
First, the elements of estafa under paragraph
2(d), Article 315 of the RPC are (1) the postdating or
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack
of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3)
damage to the payee. (Cajigas vs. People, 580 SCRA
54, February 23, 2009)
For violation of the Bouncing Check Law,
deceit and damage are not essential or required. The
essential element of the offense is knowledge on the
part of the maker or drawer of the check of the
insufficiency of his funds. The gravamen of the offense
is the issuance of a bad check, not the non-payment of
an obligation.

Second, Article 315, Par.2 (d) is a crime
against property because the issuance of the check is
used as a means to obtain a valuable consideration
from the payee.

On the other hand, in BP. 22, the mere act of
issuing an unfunded check is an offense against public
order to stem the harm caused by these bouncing
checks to the community. (Mitra vs. People, July 05,
2010).

Third, in estafa, the failure of the drawer to
deposit the amount necessary to secure payment of
the check within 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
is prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.

In B.P. 22, the failure of the drawer to pay in
full the payee or holder within 5 banking days after
receiving notice that the check has been rejected by
the drawee bank gives rise to presumption of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit.

Fourth, in estafa, the check is issued in
payment of a simultaneous obligation to defraud the
creditor.

In B.P. 22, the check is issued in payment of a
pre-existing obligation.

Fifth, in estafa, an endorser who is with
knowledge that the check is worthless and had acted
with deceit is liable.

In B.P. 22, the persons liable are the maker,
drawer and the issuer but not an endorser.

Lastly, since estafa is mala in se, good faith is
a proper defense.

B.P. 22 is mala prohibitum, it is punished by
a special law and therefore, good faith is not a
defense.

SIMULTANEOUS OBLIGATION FROM PRE-
EXISTING OBLIGATION.

Simultaneous obligation as an element of
estafa connotes that the issuance of a check is used as
a means to obtain valuable consideration from the
payee. Deceit is the efficient cause for defraudation.
To defraud is to deprive some right, interest, or
property by deceitful devise. (People vs.Quesada, 60
Phil. 515)

In the issuance of a check in payment of a
pre-existing obligation, the drawer derives no
material benefit in return as its consideration had long
been delivered to him before the check was issued.
Since an obligation has already been contracted, the
accused in this case obtain nothing when he issued
the check, his debt for the payment thereof had been
contracted prior to its issuance.

There is deceit when one is misled -- by guile,
trickery or by other means - to believe as true what is
really false. (Dy vs. People, 571 SCRA 59, November 14,
2008)

Damage as an element of estafa may consist
in (1) the offended party being deprived of his money
or property as a result of the defraudation; (2)
disturbance in property right; or (3) temporary
prejudice. (Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412).


To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or
issuing a check in payment of obligation must be the
efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should
be either prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of
fraud. (Nagrampa vs. People, 386 SCRA 412)
A PERSON MAY BE BOTH LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF
B.P. 22 AND ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
The filing of a criminal case under B.P. 22
shall not prejudice any liability arising from a felony
committed under the Revised Penal Code.
B. DEFENSES IN BP. 22
3. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN B.P. 22?
a. The presentation of the registry card, with an
unauthorized signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioner received such noticed, especially
considering that he denied receiving it. (Suarez v.
People 555, SCRA 238, June 19, 2008)

b. Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds is not conclusive as it may be rebutted by
full payment. (Tan vs. Philippine Commercial
International Bank 552 SCRA 532, April 23, 2008)

c. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not
only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored. It must also establish
that the accused was actually notified that the
check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within five (5) banking days from receipt of the
notice, to pay the holder of the check the amount
due thereon or to make arrangement for its
payment.

d. Prescription is a proper defense. The prescriptive
period is 4 years reckoned from the lapse of the
five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor
within which to make good the check.

e. Forgery of the signature appearing on the check
(Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 89)

An agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored
checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (Dreamwork Construction,
Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30, 2009)
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A PROPER
DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B.P. 22. (Dreamwork
Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,
2009)

NOVATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.

IS STOP PAYMENT A PROPER DEFENSE IN BP. 22?

It depends. Although the drawer ordered a STOP
PAYMENT or countermand, yet if it was clear from
the statement of account that the check bounced due
to insufficiency of funds, the drawer of the check is
still liable.Chang vs. IAC, 146 SCRA 46 BAR Q.[2002]

C. CORPORATION IN RELATION TO BP. 22
Section 1 of the law provides: Where the check is
drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person
or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of
such drawer shall be liable
The officer who is accused of signing the check must
receive the notice of dishonor. Constructive notice to
the corporation, who has a separate personality from
its officer, is not enough.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 12-2000 refers to the
imposition of penalties for violation of B.P. 22. It
provides:
Court has not decriminalized B.P. 22
violations, nor have removed imprisonment as an
alternative penalty.
Needless to say, the determination of whether
the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine
alone rests solely upon the judge. Should the judge
decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate
penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not
to be deemed a hindrance. (Lunaria vs. People, 5701
SCRA 572, November 11, 2008).
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13-2001 is a circular
addressed to all judges which clarifies Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 on the penalty for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. It provides:
The clear tenor and intention of
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay
down a rule of preference in the application of the
penalties provided for in B.P. Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not
foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violations
of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative
intent behind the law.
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000
establishes a rule of preference in the application of
the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where
the circumstances of both the offense and the offender
clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact
without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine
alone should be considered as the more appropriate
penalty.
It is, therefore, understood that:
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not
remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for
violations of B.P. Blg. 22;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
sound discretion, and taking into consideration the
peculiar circumstances of each case, determine
whether the imposition of a fine alone would best
serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing
to impose imprisonment would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense, work violence on the
social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused
be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle
to the application of the Revised Penal Code
provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
Presidential Decree No. 1612

[BAR 2010, 2009, 95, 1993, 1990, 1987, 1985]
WHAT IS THE CRIME OF "FENCING". (Sec. 2)
Section 2 of this Act defines fencing as:
It 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.
BAR Q. [1995] The elements of
fencing are:
(a) a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed;
(b) accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possess,
keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes or buys and
sells or in any manner deals in any article, item object
or anything of value, which has been derived from
the proceeds of said crime;
(c) the accused knows or should have
known that said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and
(d) there is, on the part of the accused,
intent to gain for himself or for another.
Illustrative Case:
BAR Q. [2010]. Yes, she is liable provided the
prosecution can prove that Arlene knew or should
have known that said item had been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
DIFFERENTIATE A FENCE FROM AN ACCESSORY TO
THEFT OR ROBBERY.
a. A fence is punished as a principal under
P.D. No 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an
accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal
Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal
as a general rule.
b. Fencing is a malum prohibitum and
therefore, there is no need to prove criminal intent of
the accused. Good faith is not a defense. In accessory
to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code,
intent is an element of the crime and therefore, good
faith is a proper defense.
c. All the acts of one who is an accessory to
the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts
defined as fencing. Corollarily, the accessory in the
crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such
under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under PD
No. 1612.
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.
WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF FENCING? (SEC. 5)
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
Section 6 underscores the importance of securing a
clearance or permit in dealing with the buy and sell
activities. It thus mandates:
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
_____________________________________________

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM
PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294

[BAR Q. 2011, 2002, 2000, 1998]
______________________________________________

In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the twin
elements of:
(1) the existence of the subject firearm and
ammunition, and
(2) the fact that the accused who possessed or
owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it. (Valeroso vs.
People, 546 SCRA 450, February 22, 2008)
Ownership is not an essential element of illegal
possession of firearm. What the law requires is merely
possession which includes not only physical
possession but also constructive possession or the
subjection of the thing to ones control and
management. (People vs.De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716)
The kind of possession punishable under PD 1866 is
one where the accused possessed a firearm either
physically or constructively with animus possidendi or
intention to possess. (People vs. Dela Rosa, 90 SCAD
143)
ASIDE FROM A FIREARM WITHOUT A LICENSE, WHAT
DOES UNLICENSED FIREARM INCLUDE?
The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
1) firearms with expired license; or
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in
the commission of the crime.
Unlicensed firearm no longer simply means a firearm
without a license duly issued by lawful authority. The
scope of the term has been expanded in Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 8294 as: (1) firearm with expired
license, or (2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in
the commission of the crime. (People vs. Molina, 292
SCRA 742)
It is settled that the lack or absence of a license is an
essential ingredient of the crime of illegal possession
of firearm. (Sasot vs. Yuson, 592 SCRA 368, July 13,
2009)
To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the
burden of proving that the firearm exists and that the
accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess or carry
the same. (Sayco vs. People, 547 SRA 368, March 3,
2008)
THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE SUBJECT FIREARM is
not FATAL TO THE PROSECUTIONS CAUSE because the
existence of the firearm can be established by
testimony even without the presentation of the said
firearm. (People vs. Narvasa, 100 SCAD 745)
Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an
obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been
lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms,
registered firearms in the possession of an individual
other than the licensee and those with revoked
licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations.
(R.A. No. 10591)
USE OF LOOSE FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME (Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 10591)
The use of loose firearm, when inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. Provided that:
-If the crime committed with the use of a loose
firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is lower than that prescribed in Sec. 28
of R.A. No. 10591, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the
crime charged.
-If the crime committed with the use of loose firearm
is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which
is equal to that imposed under Sec. 28 of R.A. No.
10591, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for
the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
_____________________________________________
ANTI- MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001
R.A. No. 9160 as amended by R.A. 9194, R.A. 10167,
R.A. 10168 and R.A. 10365, also known as An Act
Further Strengthening The Anti-Money Laundering
Law

[BAR 2010, 2009, 2005]

BAR Q. [2010] DEFINE MONEY LAUNDERING. (Sec. 4)
It is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby
making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources.

AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10365, WHAT ARE THE
WAYS OF COMMITTING MONEY LAUNDERING?
Section 4 of R.A. 10365 provides the ways by
which money laundering is committed:
Money laundering is committed by any
person who, knowing that any monetary instrument
or property represents, involves, or relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity:

(a) transacts said monetary
instrument or property;
(b) converts, transfers, disposes
of, moves, acquires, possesses or
uses said monetary instrument
or property;
(c) conceals or disguises the true
nature, source, location,
disposition, movement or
ownership of or rights with
respect to said monetary
instrument or property;
(d) attempts or conspires to
commit money laundering
offenses referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
(e) aids, abets, assists in or
counsels the commission of the
money laundering offenses
referred to in paragraphs (a), (b)
or (c) above; and
(f) performs or fails to perform
any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money
laundering referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.
IS MONEY LAUNDERING COMMITTED WHEN THERE IS
FAILURE TO REPORT A COVERED OR SUSPICIOUS
TRANSACTION?
Yes, money laundering is also committed by
any covered person who, knowing that a covered or
suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), fails to do so.
MAY A PERSON BE CHARGED OF BOTH THE OFFENSE
OF MONEY LAUNDERING AND THE UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY?
Yes. As amended by RA 10365, Section 6(a)
provides that any person may be charged with and
convicted of both the offense of money laundering
and the unlawful activity as herein defined. In fact,
under par (b), it is stated that the prosecution of any
offense or violation under this Act shall proceed
independently of any proceeding relating to the
unlawful activity.

AS AMENDED BY RA 10167, HOW IS THE FREEZE
ORDER OF MONETARY INSTRUMENT OR PROPERTY
RELATED TO UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY MADE? (SEC. 10)
Previously, RA 9194 amended Section 10 of
RA 9160 to read as follows:
SEC.10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or
Property. The Court of Appeals, upon application ex
parte by the AMLC and after determination that
probable cause exists that any monetary instrument
or property is in any way related to an unlawful
activity as defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, may issue a
freeze order which shall be effective immediately.
The freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20)
days unless extended by the court.
R.A. No. 10167 further amended Section 10
to read as follows:
Upon a verified ex parte petition by the
AMLC and after determination that probable cause
exists that any monetary instrument or property is in
any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in
Section 3(i) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a
freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and
which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon
the circumstances of the case: Provided, That if there
is no case filed against a person whose account has
been frozen within the period determined by the court,
the freeze order shall be deemed ipso
facto lifted: Provided, further, That this new rule shall
not apply to pending cases in the courts. In any case,
the court should act on the petition to freeze within
twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If
the application is filed a day before a nonworking day,
the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period
shall exclude the nonworking days.

-Pursuant to RA 9160 as amended, it is solely the
Court of Appeals which has the authority to issue a
freeze order. BAR Q. [2010] .
-No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or
a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except
the Supreme Court.
IS AMLC AUTHORIZED TO INQUIRE INTO BANK
DEPOSITS? (SEC. 11)
Yes, under Sec.11, the AMLC may inquire into
or examine any particular deposit or investment with
any banking institution or non-bank financial
institution.
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS AMLC AUTHORIZED
TO INQUIRE INTO BANK DEPOSITS?
Only upon order of any competent court in
cases of violation of this Act, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the
deposits or investments are related to an unlawful
activities as defined in Section 3(I) hereof or a money
laundering offense under Section 4 hereof except:
That no court order shall be required in cases
involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(I) 1,
(2) and (12).
DOES SECTION 11 AUTHORIZE AN EX-PARTE ISSUANCE
OF A BANK INQUIRY ORDER?
No. In instances where a court order is
required for the issuance of the bank inquiry order,
nothing in Section 11 specifically authorizes that such
order may be issued ex parte. Republic vs. Eugenio, Jr.,
545 SCRA 384(2008)
DIFFERENTIATE SECTION 10 FROM SECTION 11.

Although oriented towards different
purposes, the freeze order under Section 10 and the
bank inquiry order under Section 11 are similar in
that they are extraordinary provisional reliefs which
the AMLC may avail of to effectively combat and
prosecute money laundering offenses. Crucially,
Section 10 uses specific language to authorize an ex
parte application for the provisional relief therein, a
circumstance absent in Section 11. If indeed the
legislature had intended to authorize ex parte
proceedings for the issuance of the bank inquiry
order, then it could have easily expressed such intent
in the law, as it did with the freeze order under
Section 10.
With respect to freeze orders under Section
10, the implementing rules do expressly provide that
the applications for freeze orders be filed ex parte
but no similar clearance is granted in the case of
inquiry orders under Section 11. Republic vs. Eugenio,
Jr., 545 SCRA 384(2008)
A criminal conviction for an unlawful activity
is not a prerequisite for the institution of a civil
forfeiture proceeding. Stated otherwise, a finding of
guilt for an unlawful activity is not an essential
element of civil forfeiture. (Republic v. Glasgow Credit
and Collection Services, Inc., 542 SCRA 95, January 18,
2008).
WHAT ARE THE TWO CONDITIONS WHEN APPLYING
FOR CIVIL FORFEITURE?
R.A. 9160, as amended, and its
implementing rules and regulations lay down two
conditions when applying for civil forfeiture: (1) when
there is a suspicious transaction report or a covered
transaction report deemed suspicious after
investigation by the AMLC and (2) the court has, in a
petition filed for the purpose, ordered the seizure of
any monetary instrument or property, in whole or in
part, directly or indirectly, related to said report. It is
the preliminary seizure of the property in question
which brings it within the reach of the judicial
process. (Republic v. Glasgow Credit and Collection
Services, Inc. , 542 SCRA 95, January 18, 2008)
WHAT ARE THE NEW PROVISIONS INTRODUCED
UNDER THE AMENDMENTS?
1. The non-intervention of the AMLC in the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
operations.

The authority to inquire into or examine
the main account and the related
accounts shall comply with the
requirements of Article III, Sections 2
and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which
are hereby incorporated by reference.
Likewise, the constitutional injunction
against ex post facto laws and bills of
attainder shall be respected in the
implementation of this Act.

2. Under the new law, pre-need
companies, money changers, real estate
agents, and dealers of precious stones
and metal are required to report
financial transactions to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC).

Before, only banks, insurance companies
and securities dealers were obliged to
submit covered and suspicious
transaction reports to AMLC.
_____________________________________________
ANTI-HAZING LAW

[BAR Q. 2002]
____________________________________________

DEFINE HAZING (Sec.1)/BAR Q. [2002] What is
hazing as defined by law?
Section 1 defines hazing as follows: It is 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.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES BEFORE HAZING OR
INITIATION RITES SHALL BE ALLOWED? (Sec.2)
A prior written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization must be given
seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation.
Section 2 of the law specifically provides for
the requisites:
There must be a prior written notice to the
school authorities or head of organization seven (7)
days before the conduct of such initiation.
The written notice shall indicate:
1. the period of the initiation
activities which shall not exceed
three ( 3) days,
2. shall include the names of those to
be subjected to such activities, and
3. shall further contain an
undertaking that no physical
violence be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites.
Under Section 3, when there is initiation rites:
The head of the school or organization or
their representatives must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or organization, as the
case may be, to be present during the initiation.
It is the duty of such representative to see
to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be
inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant.
THE OWNER OF THE PLACE IS LIABLE AS AN
ACCOMPLICE (Sec.4) b when he has actual knowledge
of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring.
Parents may be liable as principals if:
a. The hazing is held in the home of one of
the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or
organization;
b. The parents have actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring.
School authorities and faculty members may be held
liable as accomplices when:
a. they consent to the hazing or who have
actual knowledge thereof;
b. they failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring.
-Section 4 clearly states when the prima facie evidence
of participation as principal arise. It states:
The presence of any person during the hazing is
prima facie evidence of participation therein as
principal unless he prevented the commission of the
acts punishable herein.
MAY A PERSON CHARGED UNDER THIS PROVISION BE
ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF NO
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG? (Sec.4)
No. The express provision of the law under Section 4 is
explicit in the inapplicability of the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong to a person charged under this provision.
_____________________________________________

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
(THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAW) Republic Act No. 9372
_____________________________________________
1. UNDER SECTION 3 THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF
TERRORISM ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. First, 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)
2. Second, the commission of the predicate
crime sows and creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace.
3. Third, the purpose is in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Any person guilty of the crime of terrorism shall suffer
the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment,
without the benefit of parole as provided for under
Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.
From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the
earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372, the following
elements may be culled:

(1) the offender commits an act punishable
under any of the cited provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, or under any of the
enumerated special penal laws;

(2) the commission of the predicate crime
sows and creates a condition of widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace; and

(3) the offender is actuated by the desire to
coerce the government to give in to
an unlawful demand.

-Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under R.A.
9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually
committed to trigger the operation of the key
qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime,
including the coercion of the government to accede to
an unlawful demand. (Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council
G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010).
-Utterances not elemental but inevitably incidental to
the doing of the criminal conduct alter neither the
intent of the law to punish socially harmful conduct
nor the essence of the whole act as conduct and not
speech. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network,
Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010).
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of the
crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 of R.A.9372
and decide to commit the same.
Under Section 4 thereof, mere conspiracy to commit
terrorism is punishable.
Upon a written order of the Court of Appeals,
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND INTERCEPTION AND
RECORDING OF COMMUNICATIONS ARE ALLOWED.
(Section 7)
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER
SUSPECT TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
WITHIN THREE DAYS? (Section 20)
Any police or law enforcement personnel
who has apprehended or arrested, detained and taken
custody of a person charged with or suspected of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
and fails to deliver such charged or suspected person
to the proper judicial authority within the period of
three (3) days shall be criminally liable.
DOES PROSECUTION UNDER THIS ACT BAR ANOTHER
PROSECUTION UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE OR
ANY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS?
Yes, the acquittal of the accused shall be a
bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony
which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
(Sec.49)
CAN AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON, ALTHOUGH
PHYSICALLY OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE PHILIPPINES BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
ACTS OF TERRORISM?
Yes, the law has extra-territorial application.
Section 58 constitute as an exception to the
territoriality rule. It provides:
Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to
the provision of an existing treaty of which the
Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary
provision of any law of preferential application, the
provisions of this Act shall apply:
(1) to individual persons who commit any of the
crimes defined and punished in this Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone,
and airspace of the Philippines;
(2) to individual persons who, although physically
outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes
defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial
limits of the Philippines;
(3) to individual persons who, although physically
outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine
ship or Philippine airship;
(4) to individual persons who commit any of said
crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic
premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine
government in an official capacity;
(5) to individual persons who, although physically
outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or
persons of Philippines descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of the crime; and
(6) to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes directly
against the Philippine government.
_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
Republic Act No. 7610
_____________________________________________
DEFINE CHILD ABUSE
Child abuse is defined under Section 3 (b) of
R. A. 7610 as:
"Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment,
whether habitual or not, of the child which includes
any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty,
sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for
survival, such as food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to
an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
- It is inconsequential that the sexual abuse occurred
only once.
-Child abuse includes physical abuse of the child,
whether the same is habitual or not. (588 SCRA 747,
June 5, 200)9
DEFINE CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL
ABUSE.
Article III Section 5 defines Child Prostitution
and Other Sexual Abuse as:
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.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 5 (a) of
R.Aa 7610?
The elements of paragraph 5 (a) of R.A. 7610 are the
following:
1. The accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or
induces child prostitution;
2. The act is done through, but not limited to, the
following means:
a. acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; b.
inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by
means of written or oral advertisements or other
similar means; c. taking advantage of influence or
relationship to procure a child as a prostitute; d.
threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or e. giving monetary
consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a
child with intent to engage such child in prostitution;
3. The child is exploited or intended to be exploited in
prostitution; and
4. The child, whether male or female, is below 18
years of age. People vs. Dulay, 681 SCRA 638(2012)
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE DEFINED
UNDER SECTION 5(B) OF THIS LAW?
The Court in Navarete v. People, 513 SCRA 509 (2007)
held that sexual abuse under Section 5(b) has three
elements:
(1) the accused commits an act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is
below 18 years old.
-THE LAW USES THE TERM A CHILD SUBJECT TO
SEXUAL ABUSE. WHEN IS A CHILD DEEMED
SUBJECTED TO OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE?
1. A child is deemed subjected to other
sexual abuse when the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult. R.A. 7610 covers
not only child prostitution but also other
forms of sexual abuse. Olivarez vs. Court
of Appeals, 465 SCRA 465(2005)
2. In lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult, there must be
some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free
exercise of the offended partys free
will. Jojit Garingarao vs. People, G.R. No.
192760, July 20, 2011
-Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act
with a child under the circumstances mentioned in
Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160 is a separate and distinct
offense. Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321
[2001]
-WHAT MUST BE PRESENT FOR CONSENSUAL SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE OR LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT WITH A
MINOR, WHO IS NOT EXPLOITED IN PROSTITUTION,
TO FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 5(B) OF
R.A. NO. 7610?
In People v. Court of Appeals, 562 SCRA 619,
August 20, 2008, the Supreme Court held:
For consensual sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct
with a minor, who is not exploited
in prostitution, to thus fall within
the purview of Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610, persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion of the
child must be present.
CAN A PERSON BE CHARGED OF COMMITTING AN ACT
PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 5(B) AND RAPE AT THE
SAME TIME?
Under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act
(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. People vs. Abay, 580 SCRA
235(2009)
CAN RAPE INSTEAD BE COMPLEXED WITH A
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B) OF RA 7610?
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. (People v. Abay 580 SCRA 235, February 24,
2009).
CAN AN ACCUSED BE CONVICTED OF ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE
INSTEAD OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (B) OF R.A.
7610?
Yes. The special circumstance that the child is
subjected to other sexual abuse is not an element in
the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the Revised Penal Code.
ARE THE RULES OF OFFSETTING THE MODIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE IN R.A. 7610, IT BEING A
SPECIAL LAW?
Notwithstanding that R.A. 7610 is a special
law, appellant may enjoy the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Since the penalty
provided in R.A. 7610 is taken from the range of
penalties in the Revised Penal Code, it is covered by
the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINE.
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides: The Court
ruled that a child is deemed subject to other sexual
abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any
adult. In lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult, there must be some form of
compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues
the free exercise of the offended partys free will. In
this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into submitting to
his lascivious acts by pretending that he was
examining her. (GARINGARAO vs. PEOPLE , G.R. No.
192760: July 20, 2011)

For consensual sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a minor, who is not exploited in
prostitution, to thus fall within the purview of Section
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, "persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion" of the child must be present.
(PEOPLE vs. COURT OF APPEALS and OLAYON, G.R.
No. 171863, August 20, 2008)
_______________________________________

THE ANTI- TORTURE ACT
Republic Act 9745
_____________________________________________

WHO ARE THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 13?

The law adopted the classification of persons
criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
principals, accomplices and accessories. BAR Q. [2011]

CAN TORTURE AS A CRIME ABSORB OR BE ABSORBED
BY ANY OTHER CRIME?

No. Torture should be treated as a separate
and independent crime under the law. (Sec.15)

WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF ANY OF THE CRIMES
AGAINST PERSONS OR AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY IF ATTENDED BY TORTURE AND
SIMILAR ACTS?

The penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum period.

MAY A PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE
COMMITTED THE CRIME OF TORTURE BE BENEFITED
FROM ANY SUBSEQUENT SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW?

No. They are excluded from the coverage of
special amnesty law. (Sec. 16)

_______________________________________

THE ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
Republic Act No. 7877

WHO MAY COMMIT SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
It is committed by an 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 accepted by the object
of said act (Sec.3).
WHO ELSE MAY BE LIABLE?
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
(Sec.3).
HOW IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN A
WORK-RELATED OR EMPLOYMENT ENVIRONMENT?
It 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.
HOW IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITTED IN AN
EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT?
It 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 (Sec.3).
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN vs. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN
G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008

Doctrine: 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.

2TERESITA G. NARVASA vs. BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR.
G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010
Doctrine: Assuming arguendo that respondent never
intended to violate RA 7877, his attempt to kiss
petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary
rule that had existed since time immemorial that
intimate physical contact between individuals must be
consensual. Respondents defiance of custom and lack
of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling
because he was a married man. Respondents act
showed a low regard for women and disrespect for
petitioners honor and dignity.
SHARON S. ALEGRIA vs. JUDGE MANUEL N. DUQUE
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2019, 04 April 2007

Doctrine: Sexual harassment in the workplace is not
about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason
of sexual desire it is about power being exercised by
a superior over his women subordinates. That power
emanates from the fact that he can remove them if
they refuse his amorous advances.


_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003
Republic Act No. 9208
_____________________________________________
WHAT ACTS CONSTITUTE QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING?
The following are considered as qualified 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;
BAR Q. [2012] When the adoption of a child is
effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for
the purpose of prostitution, what is the proper
charge against the offender who is a public officer in
relation to the exploitative purpose?
a. acts that promote trafficking in
persons;
b. trafficking in persons;
c. qualified trafficking in persons;
d. use of trafficked person.
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale.
c.1 When is Trafficking deemed committed
by a syndicate?
If it carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another.
c.2 When is Trafficking deemed committed in
large scale?
If it 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).(Sec.6).
BAR Q.[2012] CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FELONY IS
PUNISHABLE ONLY IN CASES IN WHICH THE LAW
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR.
UNDER WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES ARE
THE CONSPIRATORS NOT LIABLE?
a. Conspiracy to commit arson.
b. Conspiracy to commit terrorism.
c. Conspiracy to commit child pornography.
d. Conspiracy to commit trafficking in
persons.
_____________________________________________
ANTI-PLUNDER LAW
Republic Act No. 7080
_______________________________________
DEFINE THE CRIME OF PLUNDER. (Section 2)
Section 12 of R.A. 7659 amended Section 2
of R.A. 7080 to read as follows:
"Sec.2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder -
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 criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)
hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be
guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who
participated with the said public officer in the
commission of an offense contributing to the crime of
plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In
the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the
Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the
court.
STATE THE RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER.
Section 4 of R.A. 7080 provides: For
purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall
not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act
done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or
conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy. BAR Q. [2011]
_____________________________________________

THE ANTI WIRE-TAPPING ACT
Republic Act No. 4200
_____________________________________________
WHAT ARE THE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER THIS ACT?
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he
a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the
next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any
tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other
such record, or copies thereof, of any communication
or spoken word secured either before or after the
effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by
this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof,
either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to
any other person: Provided, That the use of such
record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this
prohibition (Sec. 1).
WHEN IS THE COMMISSION OF SUCH ACTS DEEMED
LAWFUL?
It is deemed lawful when committed by any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of
the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases
involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking
war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the
high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national security
(Sec.3).
The period of the authorization. The
authorization shall be effective for the period
specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60)
days from the date of issuance of the order, unless
extended or renewed by the court upon being
satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the
public interest (Sec.3).

THE ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009
Republic Act No. 9775
_______________________________________
WHAT ARE THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS
ENUMERATED UNDER THE LAW?
The following are the unlawful or prohibited
acts:
(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
(Sec.4).
BAR Q. [2011] Mr. P owns a boarding house where he
knowingly allowed children to be videotaped while
simulating explicit sexual activities. What is Mr. P's
criminal liability, if any?

A. Corruption of minors under the Penal Code
B. Violation of the Child Pornography Act
C. Violation of the Child Abuse Law
D. None
_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT
OF 2009
Republic Act No. 9995


PROHIBITED ACTS ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 4.
It is prohibited and declared unlawful for any
person:
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) 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
(d) 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.
IS CONSENT TO RECORD OR TAKE PHOTO OR VIDEO
COVERAGE CONSTITUTES AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE
PROHIBITION UNDER PARAGRAPHS (B), (C) AND (D)?
No. The prohibition shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo
or video coverage of the same was given by such
person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall
be liable (Sec.4).
BAR Q. [2010] SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the acts
committed by Canuto do not fall under the definition
of voyeurism nor under the prohibited acts
enumerated under Section 4 of the Anti- Photo and
Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. There was no taking
photo or video coverage of a person performing
sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an
image of the private area of a person under
circumstances in which such person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, nor there was an act of selling,
copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing
or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or
recordings of sexual act or similar activity through
internet, cellular phones and similar means or device.
If at all, he committed acts of lasciviousness, as
obviously, the element of lewdness is present in this
case.
_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW
Republic Act No. 9346
_____________________________________________
The imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.
IN LIEU OF THE DEATH PENALTY, WHAT SHOULD BE
IMPOSED?
The following shall be imposed in lieu of the
death penalty-
(a) the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, when the law violated makes use
of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment,
when the law violated does not make use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code.(Secs. 1 and 2)
Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended. (Sec.3)
_____________________________________________
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006,
Republic Act No. 9344
____________________________________________
WHAT IS A DIVERSION PROGRAM? BAR Q.[2009]
It refers to the program that the child in
conflict with the law is required to undergo after
he/she is found responsible for an offense without
resorting to formal court proceedings.
WHAT IS INTERVENTION? BAR Q.[2009]
It refers to a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the child to
commit an offense. It may take the form of an
individualized treatment program which may include
counseling, skills training, education, and other
activities that will enhance his/her psychological,
emotional and psycho-social well-being.
WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER R.A. 9334? (Sec.6)/ BAR Q.
[2012]
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child
shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein
established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws.
-Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to
fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts
and circumstances afforded by the records in each
case. The surrounding circumstances must
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing
and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the
gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning
and shrewdness.
-Discernment is again shown in the case of Robert
Remiendo vs. People, G.R. No. 184874, 09 October
2009. In this case, his act of waiting for the victims
parents to leave the house before defiling the latter
and threatening to kick her if she should shout prove
that petitioner can differentiate what is right and
wrong.

WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF
MINORITY?
The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority. He shall enjoy all the rights
of a child in conflict with the law until he is proven to
be eighteen (18) years old or older. BAR Q. [2011]
In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
resolved in his favor.
WHEN IS AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
APPLICABLE? (Sec.38)
The court shall place the child under suspended
sentence instead of pronouncement of judgment of
conviction under the following circumstances:
Once the child who is under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the
court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
which may have resulted from the offense
committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application.
That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even
if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her
guilt.(Sec. 38)
WHEN MAY THE CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
BE RETURNED TO THE COURT? (Sec. 40)
The law expressly provides:
If the court finds that the objective of the
disposition measures imposed upon the child in
conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to
comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the
law shall be brought before the court for execution of
judgment.
MAY A PERSON, THEREFORE, WHO IS NOW BEYOND
THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS, STILL AVAIL OF
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 38 AND 40 OF RA 9344
AS TO HIS SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE? BAR Q. [2012]
No. A person who is now beyond the age of
twenty-one (21) years cannot avail of the provisions of
Sections 38 and 40 of R .A. 9344 as to his suspension
of sentence. Section 38 states:

However, while Section 38 of RA 9344
provides that suspension of sentence can still be
applied even if the child in conflict with the law is
already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time
of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of
the same law limits the said suspension of sentence
until the child reaches the maximum age of 21.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that
the appellant shall be entitled to appropriate
disposition under Section 51 of RA No. 9344, which
provides for the confinement of convicted children as
follows:
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted
Children in Agricultural Camps and other
Training Facilities.A child in conflict with
the law may, after conviction and upon
order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities that may be
established, maintained, supervised and
controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination
with the DSWD.

BAR Q. [2009] Suppose Joes motion for intervention
or diversion was denied, and he was convicted two
(2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old,
should the judge apply the suspension of sentence?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A person who is beyond the
age of twenty-one (21) years cannot avail of the
provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of R .A. 9344 on his
suspension of sentence.
MAY THE CHILD IN CONFLICT OF THE LAW BE INSTEAD
PLACED ON PROBATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
IMPRISONMENT? (Sec.42)
Yes. The court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the
law, and upon application at any time, place the child
on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence
taking into account the best interest of the child. For
this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968,
otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is
hereby amended accordingly.
EXEMPTING PROVISIONS
CAN A MINOR BE REQUIRED TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE
IN AGRICULTURAL CAMPS AND OTHER TRAINING
FACILITIES? (Sec. 51)
Yes, R.A. 9344 is explicit:
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children
in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. - A
child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and
upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in
cooperation with the DSWD.

ARE THE BENEFITS UNDER THIS PROVISION
APPLICABLE WHEN THE MINOR HAD ALREADY
REACHED 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER AT THE TIME OF
HIS CONVICTION?

Yes. In PEOPLE vs. URBAN SALCEDO
ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA, G.R. No. 186523,
June 22, 2011,the Supreme Court reiterated , that if
indeed, an accused was under eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of the commission of the crime, such
offenders, even if already over twenty-one (21) years
old at the time of conviction, may still avail of the
benefits accorded by Section 51 of R.A. No. 9344.

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF STATUS OFFENSES?

(Sec. 57) Any conduct not considered an offense or
not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be punished if
committed by a child.
WHAT CRIMINAL OFFENSES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO
MINORS? (Sec. 58)
Persons below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from prosecution for the following
crimes:
a) vagrancy and prostitution under Section
202 of the Revised Penal Code;
b) mendicancy under Presidential Decree
No. 1563; and
c) sniffing of rugby under Presidential
Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being
inconsistent with the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child:
Provided, that said persons shall undergo
appropriate counseling and treatment program.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FEATURES:
a. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20
of the Act.
b. A child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which
case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with
this Act.
c. The age of a child may be determined from
the childs birth certificate, baptismal
certificate or any other pertinent documents.
In the absence of these documents, age may
be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other
persons, the physical appearance of the child
and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt
as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved
in his/her favor
d. Reduction of the criminal liability by virtue of
RA 9344 does not extend to the civil liability.
The civil liability is not affected by the same.

e. If the court finds that the objective of the
disposition measures imposed upon the child
in conflict with the law have not been
fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law
has willfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his/her disposition or
rehabilitation program, the child in conflict
with the law shall be brought before the
court for execution of judgment.

f. Once the child who is under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of
the offense is found guilty of the offense
charged, the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have
resulted from the offense committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place
the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of
application. Provided, however, That
suspension of sentence shall still be applied
even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18)
years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.

g. A child in conflict with the law may, after
conviction and upon order of the court, be
made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of
confinement in a regular penal institution, in
an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the
Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR), in
coordination with the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD).
h. If said child in conflict with the law has
reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall
determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with this Act, to order, execution
of sentence, or to extend the suspended
sentence for a certain specified period or
until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years.

-The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority. (People vs. Salvador Atizado
and Salvador Monreal, G.R. No. 173822, October 13,
2010)
-The reckoning point in considering minority is the
time of the commission of the crime. (Valcesar Estioca
vs. People, G.R. 173876, 27 June 2008)
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW
PD No. 532
_____________________________________________


WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFY THE PENALTY?
The law provides a higher penalty if the
following circumstances attended the commission of
the crime,
a. In Piracy-
1; If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as
a result or on the occasion thereof. 2. If rape, murder
or homicide is committed as a result or on the
occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned
the victims without means of saving themselves, or
when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or
boarding a vessel.BAR Q. [2008]
b. In Highway Robbery/ Brigandage
1. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed
during or on the occasion of the commission of
robbery or brigandage. 2. If kidnapping for ransom or
extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is
committed as a result or on the occasion thereof.
Ruling: This case falls squarely within the purview of
piracy and not grave coercion. While it may be true
that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go
elsewhere other than their place of destination, such
compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing
their boat. The testimony of Eugene, one of the
victims, shows that the appellant actually seized the
vessel through force and intimidation. (People vs.
Emiliano Catantan Y TayongG.R No. 118075,
September 5, 1997)

BAR Q. [2012] A postal van containing mail matters,
including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked
along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of
whom were armed. They used force, violence and
intimidation against three (3) postal employees who
were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful
taking and asportation of the entire van and its
contents.
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would
you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked
the postal van with violation of Presidential
Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the
Anti-Piracy and Anti -Highway Robbery Law
of 1974? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Yes. There was indeed taking
away of the property of another person by
means of violence against or intimidation of
persons committed on a Philippine Highway
for as long as I can prove, further, the
element of indiscriminate highway robbery.
The fact that there were only two
(2) persons who were armed is of no
moment. There is no requirement under PD
532 that there should be at least four armed
persons forming a band of robbers as the
number of perpetrators is not an essential
element of the crime. (People of the
Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs.Romeo
Mendoza Y Reyes And Jaime Rejali Y
Lina, Defendants-Appellants. G.R. No.
104461, February 23, 1996).
b. If you were the defense counsel, what are
the elements of the crime of highway
robbery that the prosecution should prove to
sustain a conviction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER To obtain a
conviction for highway robbery, the
prosecution should prove the
following:
1. There is taking away of the
property of another; 2. There is violence
against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things or other unlawful means; 3.
The act is committed on any Philippine
Highway.; 4. All the accused, in the instant
case, were organized for the purpose of
committing robbery indiscriminately.
Evidence of any previous attempts at
similar robberies by the accused must be
presented to show the "indiscriminate"
commission thereof and not acts of
robbery committed against only a
predetermined or particular victim,. People
Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Vs.Romeo Mendoza Y Reyes And Jaime
Rejali Y Lina, Defendants-Appellants. G.R.
No. 104461, February 23, 1996.
_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW
Republic Act No. 6235
_____________________________________________
WHAT ARE THE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER THE LAW?
It shall be unlawful for any person 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.
It shall likewise be unlawful for any person 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 (Sec.1).
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.
WHAT ARE THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF
HIJACKING?
A higher penalty is imposed if hijacking is
committed 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; 3. Whenever the
crime is accompanied by murder, homicide,
serious physical injuries or rape (Sec.2).
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT
Republic Act No. 6539
_____________________________________________
DEFINE "CARNAPPING"
It 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.
-The elements of carnapping are as follows:
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; 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. People Vs.
Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No.
138470, April 1, 2003. BAR Q. [2008]
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; it is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has
no opportunity to dispose of the same. (People Vs.
Artemio Garcia Y Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 138470, April
1, 2003.)
DOES THE ELEMENT OF TAKING ABSORB THE LOSS OF
CASH OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY?
No. Although carnapping and robbery have
the same element of taking with intent to gain, the
former specifically refers to the unlawful taking of a
motor vehicle only. (People vs. Dela Cruz, GR No.
174658,February 24, 2009).
DOES THE THIRD ELEMENT REQUIRE THE
PERSON DIVESTED OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BE THE
OWBER THEREOF?

No. What is simply required is that the
property taken does not belong to the offender.
Actual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed suffices. (People Vs. Artemio Garcia Y
Cruz, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003).

BAR QUESTION [2012] What should be the proper
charge against an offender who unlawfully took and
carried away a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, killing the driver in the
process?
a. The proper charge against the offender
should be murder with the use of motor
vehicle.

b. The proper charge against the offender
should be qualified carnapping or
carnapping in an aggravated form. (*The
driver was killed during the commission
of carnapping..A higher penalty is thus
to be imposed).

c. The proper charge against the offender
should be carnapping and homicide.

d. The proper charge against the offender
should be robbery with homicide.
_____________________________________________
THE LAW ON ARSON AS AMENDED
Presidential Decree No. 1613


WHAT IS ARSON?

It is a crime committed by any person who
burns or sets fire to the property of another or when a
person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or
property of another. (Sec.1)
The following are the special aggravating
circumstances in Arson: (Sec.4)
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. (Sec.4)
- If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, a higher penalty shall be imposed.
- Mere conspiracy to commit arson is punishable.
- PRINCIPLES TO CONSIDER:
1. Suppose the offender set the house of the victim
on fire by way of revenge against the latter. He
was not aware that the victim was inside and
consequently, the latter died because of the fire.
What crime was committed?

The crime is mere arson. There is no
complex crime of arson with homicide. The crime
of homicide is absorbed. The consequence, if by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, is the imposition of a higher penalty.

2. Suppose the offender knew that the victim was
inside the house before the house was set on
fire, what crime was committed?
If the offender knew that the victim was in
the house when it was set on fire, the crime
committed, instead of arson, would be murder.
The fire constitutes as a qualifying circumstance.

3. Suppose before setting the house on fire, the
offender entered in and killed the victim, then he
set it on fire to conceal the body of the latter,
what crime was committed? BAR Q. [2012]

If the offender killed the victim before the
house was set on fire, two crimes are committed,
murder and arson. The burning of the house to
hide the killing is a separate crime. Arson was
committed to conceal the crime of murder.

BAR QUESTION [2011] Dagami concealed Bugnas
body and the fact that he killed him by setting Bugnas
house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami
commit?

A. Murder, the arson being absorbed already
B. Separate crimes of murder and arson
C. Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
D. Arson with murder as a compound crime

- Under R.A. No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human
Security Act of 2007, a person who commits an act
punishable under Art. 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction) and thereby sowing and creating
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be
guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment without
the benefit of parole.

_____________________________________________

THE ANTI-ALIAS LAW
Republic 4ct No. 6085

[BAR 2006]
_____________________________________________

The law provides that no persons shall use
any name different from the one with which he was
registered at birth in the office of the local civil
registry, or with which he was baptized for the first
time, or, in case of an alien, with which he was
registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or
such substitute name as may have been authorized by
a competent court. (Sec.1)

The use of alias is allowed as a pseudonym
solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other
entertainment purposes and in athletic events where
the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice.
(Sec.1) BAR Q.[2006]

Any person desiring to use an alias shall
apply for authority in proceedings like those legally
provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of
name, and no person shall be allowed to secure such
judicial authority for more than one alias. (sec.2)


_____________________________________________
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Presidential Decree No. 1829 [BAR 2010, 2005]
_____________________________________________
WHO MAY BE LIABLE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
( SEC.1)
Any person who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases.
BAR Q. [2005] Suggested Answer: Patrick is liable for
obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of PD 1829
because he destroyed the evidence intended to be
used in in the criminal proceeding.
Even if a person is found not criminally liable
as an accessory under Article 20 of the Revised Penal
Code, he may, however, be liable for acts punished
under P.D. 1829.
DIFFERENTIATE AN ACCESSORY FROM A PRINCIPAL IN
P.D. 1829.
An accessory under Article 20 of the Revised
Penal Code is exempt from criminal liability when the
principal is his a) spouse b) ascendant c) descendant d)
legitimate, natural or adopted brother sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree. These
benefits are not available in PD 1829.
-oooOOOooo-