POINTERS IN CRIMINAL LAW

2016 BAR EXAMINATIONS

ATTY. VICTORIA V. LOANZON
PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF
ATTY. JULIUS ABRAHAM FERRER

PART A: THE VELASCO CASES

FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
Question: AQ, together with OQ had an encounter with B. The
latter hacked AQ and OQ. AQ found out that OQ was dead. B claimed
that he tried to get away with the AQ and OQ but the latter chased
him and engaged him into a fight. Seeing AQ was about to stab him,
B grabbed a bolo and used it to strike at AQ, injuring his left hand.
AQs knife fell and when he bent to pick it up, B again hacked at him
with his bolo. What crimes did B commit?

Answer: Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The offender is said to

have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the
victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without
medical intervention or attendance. (People v. Badriago)

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

Question: Aminola and Maitimbang were accused of the crime of
robbery with homicide for robbing one Nestor Gabuya of his personal
properties and for killing the latter with the use of an unlicensed
firearm. The eyewitness Jesus Oliva identified the two accused to
have perpetrated the same. The RTC convicted Maitimbang of the
crime charged. Is the conviction for a special complex crime proper?
Answer. Yes. Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is
proof of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery
and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former
or whether both crimes are committed at the same time. (People v.
Aminola)

COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

Question: One evening, Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias, both
members of the CAFGU, requested Saturnina that supper be
prepared for them. While Segundina and Rosemarie were preparing
1 | Page
in the kitchen, Elarcosa and Orias fired their guns at Jose and Jorge
Cruz. Segundina ran towards his son while Rosemarie hid in the
shrubs. Rosemarie heard her mother crying loudly and after a series
of gunshots, silence ensued. The following morning, Rosemarie
returned to their house where she found the dead bodies of her
parents and her brother. The amount of P40,000 and a certificate of
registration of large cattle were also gone. Elarcosa and Orias were
thereafter charged with robbery with multiple homicide. RTC
convicted the accused of the offense as charged. The CA, however,
changed the conviction to multiple murder, ratiocinating that robbery
was not proved and that the killing was qualified by treachery. How
many crimes were committed? What are those crimes if any?
Answer: Only Robbery with Homicide. In a complex crime, although
two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one
crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the offender
x x x when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes. (People v. Elarcosa)

ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES

MINORITY AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Taguig police
organized a buy-bust operation upon a tip from an informant that
Musa et. al. were selling drugs. Monongan, a minor, accepted the
marked money while Musa gave a sachet of shabu to the poseur-
buyer. The RTC found all of the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the
RPC, it imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The
RTC also found that the offense was committed by an
organized/syndicated crime group and imposed a fine of P10 million.
However, the RTC lowered the penalty of Monongan who was only 17,
a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, to an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA affirmed
the decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life
imprisonment. Is the imposition of penalty against accused
Manongan correct?

2 | Page
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can
be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed in the
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. (People v.
Musa)

MINORITY AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Taguig police
organized a buy-bust operation upon a tip from an informant that
Musa et. al. were selling drugs. Monongan, a minor, accepted the
marked money while Musa gave a sachet of shabu to the poseur-
buyer. The RTC found all of the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the
RPC, it imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The
RTC also found that the offense was committed by an
organized/syndicated crime group and imposed a fine of P10 million.
However, the RTC lowered the penalty of Monongan who was only 17,
a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, to an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA affirmed
the decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life
imprisonment. Is the imposition of penalty against accused
Manongan correct?
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can
be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed in the
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. (People v.
Musa)

CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
Question: Reynaldo Capalad was charged with violation of Secs. 5
and 11 of the R.A. 9165. At the trial, the prosecution presented PO3
Fernando Moran, PO1 Jeffred Pacis, and PO1 Victor Manansala as
witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused and
his son, Reymel Capalad. After the trial, he was convicted by the
RTC of both charges. On appeal, he questioned the legality of his
arrest. He disputed the prosecution witnesses claim that an
entrapment operation took place. He also argued that the testimony
of his son, Reymel, should have been given more weight. The CA,
however, still affirmed the lower courts judgment. The accused

3 | Page
contends before the Court among others that the principle that a
child is the best witness should have been applied to his case giving
emphasis on his son's testimony corroborating his version of events.
Should the SC give credence to his allegations?
Answer. No. Findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature
and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect
when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or
speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered
from such findings. (People v. Capalad)

CONSPIRACY
Question: Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot
Estrella twice, while Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the
road, and Doctor positioned himself at the back of Damiana and
Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas
fired three more gunshots at the former when she was already down
on the ground. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and
Gatchalian of the offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance
of treachery and conspiracy. Is the conviction appreciating conspiracy
correct?
Answer: No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to
commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before,
during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common
design or purpose. (People v. Tomas)

CONSPIRACY
Question Petitioners Yongco and Laojan, as security guards in the
premises of the City Engineers Office (CEO), and Tangian as
garbage truck driver of the City Government of Iligan were charged
for allegedly stealing one unit transmission of Tamaraw and l-beam
of Nissan with a total value of P40, 000.00. RTC held petitioners
liable for qualified theft with the attending circumstance of
conspiracy.
Tangian claimed that he should not be considered as a conspirator
since he merely innocently obeyed Laojans instructions on the
assumption that the latter was his superior. Yongco, in his defense,
argued that Tangian and his two other helpers asked for his

4 | Page
assistance which he extended in good faith, in view of Laojans
statement earlier that day that the office garage has to be cleared.
Laojan, on the other hand, insisted that he cannot be considered as
a conspirator since he was not present at the time of taking, and that
the mere giving of a thumbs-up sign to Tangian when the latter
delivered the materials to the junk shop does not amount to
conspiracy. Is there conspiracy?
Answer: It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy
conspirators may act separately or together in different manners but
always leading to the same unlawful result. The character and effect
of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing
its separate parts but only by looking at it as a wholeacts done to
give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts. (Yongco
v. People).

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Question:The victim, Marlon, stood up and greeted the accused, who
happened to be his brother-in-law, "good evening." He stated that the
accused kept quiet and suddenly raised the right hand of Marlon and
stabbed him by the armpit with a knife that he was carrying. Marlon
shouted because of the pain, which caused the people in the
neighborhood to come out.
After his arrest, David Maningding pleaded not guilty of the murder
charged against him. The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found
that treachery attended the stabbing of the victim, being sudden and
unexpected. Is the altercation that ensued leading to the stabbing
justified as self-defense?

Answer: No. Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical

assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a
person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively
showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual,
sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and

TREACHERY
Question: Two criminal informations were filed against Roel Ruel
Sally for the murder of Edwin Lucas and Jose Bersero. According to
the prosecution witness Roger Lara, he saw the accused hit the
victims with a piece of pipe while sleeping. The RTC found Sally

5 | Page
guilty of murder. In his appeal to the CA, Sally questioned the
finding that treachery attended the killings, qualifying the crime to
murder, instead of homicide. He pointed out that the prosecution
failed to prove that an iron pipe was used in the killing of the victims
as the weapon was not retrieved or presented in evidence, nor was
the medico-legal officer certain if an iron pipe would cause the
injuries suffered by the victims. However, the CA upheld the decision
of the RTC. Hence, this petition. Is the conviction to murder and not
homicide correct?
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the the
slightest provocation on the part of the victims. The kind of weapon
used is immaterial. (People v. Sally)
intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to ones life. (People v. Maningding)

PROVOCATION AS A DEFENSE
Question: Brothers Nahom and Nemrod went to the house of Serafin
to kill him but he was not there. Upon being informed of this, Serafin
went to Nahoms house. Nemrod advised Serafin to go home, but he
refused to leave. Instead, Serafin attempted to hack Nemrod and
tried to enter the gate of Nahoms house. Thereafter, Nahom struck
Serafin on the head with a bolo. Meanwhile, Nemrod went to his
brothers house to look for a bolo. After being hit, Serafin ran away.
Nemrod, however, pursued him, and hit him several times on the
back and arm. He eventually died from the wounds he sustained. The
two brothers were charged with homicide. Nemrod voluntarily
surrendered to the authorities. The trial court ruled that they were
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. But for
Nemrod a mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation and
voluntary surrender was credited. However, he appealed to the CA
and ruled that he has failed to prove satisfactorily the elements of
self defense and that unlawful aggression did not exist. If you were
the judge, will you appreciate the mitigating circumstance of
provocation?
Answer: Yes. In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for
the purpose of mitigating a crime, one must look into the act

6 | Page
constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person
provoked, and the place and time when the provocation is made. In
the present case, a finding that the act of the victim did not constitute
unlawful aggression does not automatically negate the attendant
circumstance of sufficient provocation. (Gotis v. People)

TREACHERY
Question:Ramil while he was attending a wake with his brother
Cristopher was sitting nearby on a parked motorcycle talking to
someone when Prince appeared from behind and started stabbing
Ramil using a knife until he died. Prince was charged with murder.
Prince his assault resulted to the death of Ramil but he argued that
the offense was only homicide and not murder because there was no
treachery. RTC convicted Prince with murder which was later on
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prince argues that the attack was
not from behind but frontal thereby treachery was not present. Is
there trachery?
Answer: Yes. Treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is
sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or
defend himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution
of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. (People v. Francisco)

TREACHERY AND PREMEDITATION

Question:On July 1, 1996, accused Paling, accompanied by Vilbar,
allegedly killed Walter Nolasco in Roxas, Cotabato. When arraigned,
they both pleaded not guilty. One of the witnesses for the
prosecution, Richard, said that he saw Paling and Ernie stabbing
Walter while Vilbar held him. After killing Walter, the accused
warned Richard not to speak about what he saw otherwise, they
would also kill him. The RTC convicted Paling and Vilbar of the
crime of murder with a qualifying circumstance of treachery and
evident premeditation which decision was affirmed by the CA. Is the
RTC correct in convicting the accused for murder?
Answer: Yes. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggressors that is plainly and
obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or

7 | Page
taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. (People v.
Paling)

DEFENSE OF INSANITY
Question: AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. Paul, an
acquaintance, raped AAA inside his bedroom. Before finally letting
the crying AAA go, however, Paul threatened her with death should
she disclose to anybody what had just happened between them.
Psychiatric evaluation revealed that AAA, although 42 years old at
that time, had the mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10
year-old child. Accused-appellant maintains that the trial court erred
in giving full credence to and reliance on AAAs inculpatory
statements.
In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused-appellant invokes
insanity. He contends that the psychiatrist who examined him
consistently testified that there was a high possibility that he was
suffering from schizo affective disorder when the alleged rape
incident happened. Rule on the invocation of defense of insanity.
Answer: Paul is sane. The moral and legal presumption is always in
favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute
the normal condition of a person. It is improper to assume the
contrary. (People v. Alipio)

SELF-DEFENSE
Question: Ruperto Arbalate and his sons Roel and Ramil Arbalate
were charged with murder for killing Selemen. Roel and Ramil were
able to evade arrest and remained at large. Hence, only Ruperto
faced trial. During the arraignment, Ruperto pleaded not guilty. In
his defense, Ruperto invoked self-defense. Moreover, he argued that
there was no abuse of superior strength. Without clear proof of this
qualifying circumstance, Ruperto insisted that he must be convicted
of homicide only. Should self-defense be appreciated?
Answer: No. To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the
killing of the victim be simultaneous with the attack on the accused,
or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval
of time. (People v. Arbalate)

CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE

8 | Page
Question: Upon seeing Anabel Bautista and Reynaldo Juguilon,
Manulit stood up and successively shot Reynaldo at the back,
resulting in the latters death. He then tucked the gun in his waist,
raised his hands, and shouted, O, wala akong ginawang kasalanan
at wala kayong nakita.
In his defense, Manulit offered a story of self-defense. While he and
his cousin, Marvin, were drinking, victim Reynaldo barged in holding
a gun with both his hands. He appeared not to be his normal self
with reddish eyes, as if high on drugs.
Despite his claim of self defense, RTC convicted him for murder. Is
the conviction proper despite allegations of self-defense?
Answer: Yes. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or
at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case
of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the
wrongful intent to cause injury. It is present only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to ones life. (People v.
Manulit).
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to
life or personal safety. There must be an actual, sudden, and
unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening
or intimidating attitude. (People v. Satonero)

ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
Question:Accused Juanito Apattad was charged in four separate
informations with the crime of rape against his 12-year old daughter.
The child, AAA, testified her father repeatedly raped her since 2001.
The accused threatened to kill her if she will report the incident to
her mother and she eventually informed her of the rape. A defense
witness claimed that on the date of the incident, the accused stayed
in the formers house, which was only three kilometers away from the
house of the accused. The RTC found him guilty of three counts of
rape. Is the RTC correct?
Answer. Yes. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of
the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Apattad)

ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
Question: SPO1 Loreto Nerpio held a childrens birthday party for
his son at his residence. Mario Salazar joined the drinking session

9 | Page
and later on left the house of Nerpio. Thereafter, Nelly Villanueva,
who was then waiting for a friend, saw Salazar walking along the
street. Villanueva saw a man poked a gun at the right side of
Salazars neck, and fired it. He identified Nerpio as the malefactor.
Nerpio was charged with homicide but he said he was busy at his
childs birthday party when the crime happened. Rule on the defense
of alibi raised by the accused.
Answer: It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not
enough to prove that the accused was at some other place when the
crime was committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that
the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the
crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission. (Nerpio v.
People)

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Question: Accused Mayor Ambagan Jr. was charged and convicted
by the Sandiganbayan with two counts of homicide as principal by
inducement. The prosecution presented statements from two persons
who was said to be directly present during the shooting. The first
witness (Bawalan) said that shooting started after he heard the
mayor said GE, IYAN PALA ANG GUSTO MO, MGA KASAMA
BANATAN NYO NA YAN. However, the second witness contradicts
this when he said that he instead pushed the mayor out of the road
where the shooting incident occurred and that he did not hear the
mayor saying those words which could have provoked and initiate the
shooting of the victims. Further, evidence provides that Rene Amparo
(one of Mayor Ambagans men) has negative paraffin test which
would lead to the fact that it is not the Mayors men who initiated the
shooting but rather from the deceased Rey Santos. The
Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of the crime of double homicide.
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the aforequoted
ruling. Is the conviction as principal by inducement correct?
Answer: No. The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement
requires (1) that the inducement be made with the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) that such inducement
be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
(Ambagan Jr. v. People)

COMPUTATION OF IMPOSABLE PENALTY

10 | P a g e
Question: Celestial was convicted of six counts of qualified theft
through falsification of commercial document. The issue of conviction
has attained finality after the failure of Celestials counsel to file her
appellant brief. The court now only delves on the issue of the
imposition of proper penalty. How is the penalty computed?
Answer: Applying Article 70 of the RPC, such maximum period
shall in no case exceed forty years. Therefore, in spite of the six (6)
penalties of forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, petitioner shall only
suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years. (Celestial v.
People)

PRESCRIPTION OF A CRIME
Question: By virtue of Administrative Order No. 13 issued by then
President Fidel V. Ramos creating a Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-
Finding Committee on Behest Loans, a report dated January 4, 1993
identified the accounts of Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC) as behest
in character. Later the Republic of the Philippines, represented by
the PCGG, filed an Affidavit-Complaint on January 6, 2003 with the
Office of the Ombudsman, against respondent directors and officers
of RHC and the directors of DBP for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3
(g) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti- Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. However the Ombudsman dismissed petitioners
Affidavit - Complaint on grounds of prescription. Hence, this petition.
Has the crime prescribed?
Answer: Yes. When date of the violation was committed be not
known, then it shall begin to run from the discovery of said violation
and the institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and
punishment.

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF DISCHARGE OF

DUTIES
Question:The prosecution alleged that four police officers, manning
a legal checkpoint, spotted a swerving vehicle, driven by Sydeco who
was under the influence of liquor. The police officers flagged the
vehicle down and asked Sydeco to alight from the vehicle for a body
and vehicle search. He refused and insisted on a plain view search
only. By this remark, the policemen told him that he was drunk,
boxed him, and poked a gun at his head. The officers pulled Sydeco
out of the vehicle and brought him to the hospital where they
11 | P a g e
succeeded in securing a medical certificate depicting Sydeco as
positive of alcohol breath.
Sydeco was charged for violation of Section 56(f) of RA 4136 or the
Land Transportation Code and another for violation of Article 151 of
the RPC. Sydeco then filed a complaint-affidavit against the police
officers. MeTC found Sydeco guilty as charged. The RTC affirmed
Sydecos conviction. This was affirmed by the CA and upheld the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police
officers. Is appreciation of the presumption of regularity correct?
Answer: No. The presumption of regularity in the conduct of police
duty is disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by
the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. The absence of
conclusive proof being under the influence of liquor while driving
coupled with the forceful manner the police yanked petitioner out of
his vehicle argues against or at least cast doubt on the finding of guilt
for drunken driving and resisting arrest. (People v. Sydeco)

BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Question: Acting upon confidential information, the District Anti-
Illegal Drugs (DAID) of Quezon City formed a team to conduct a buy-
bust operation to apprehend a certain Myrna who was allegedly
conducting illegal drug activities. According to the prosecution, the
DAID recovered the marked 500-peso bill used by the team from
"Myrna," as well as two plastic sachets, at the time of arrest of both
"Myrna" and her companion, Saguera. "Myrna," who was later
identified as Nene Quiamanlon, and Samula, as well as the recovered
articles were brought to the station for proper investigation and
disposition.
RTC convicted Quiamanlon of violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act, specifically Sections 5 and 11 of Article II.
Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Quiamanlon claimed that the police officers who conducted the buy-
bust operation failed to observe the rules on chain of custody.
Quiamanlon insisted that any apprehending team having initial
control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after
seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or
his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the

12 | P a g e
inventory and be given a copy thereof. Rule on the merits of defense
of violation of chain of custody.
Answer: The IRR of RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain
rule is not to be rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team." Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill
will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Evidently, the
prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the
seized drugs. (People v. Quiamanlon)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question: A confidential informant reported to the Drug
Enforcement Unit (DEU) of Makati City that a certain "Vangie" was
engaged in drug pushing activities. Hence, a buy-bust operation was
planned by the DEU. Vangie arranged to meet at Starbucks Caf on
Rockwell Drive, Makati City. SPO1 Fulleros acceded to her request
and headed to the coffee shop. He gave Vangie the boodle money after
examining the plastic bags. Afterwards, he gave the pre-arranged
signal to alert his team that the transaction had been consummated.
The back-up operatives arrived while he was introducing himself to
Vangie as a DEU operative. She was placed under arrest and later
identified as Sobangee.
RTC and CA found Sobangee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
having violated Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for
selling methylamphetamine Sec. 5, Art. II of RA No. 9165 or the
hydrochloride. Sobangee claimed that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses suffered from major inconsistencies, such as:
(1) the date the alleged informant came to the DEU office; (2) the
time the buy-bust team left the office to conduct its operation; (3) the
place that the team first went to before going to the buy-bust at
Rockwell Center, Makati City; (4) the location of the operatives
during the buy-bust operation; (5) the site where the illegal
substances seized were marked; (6) the amount involved in the buy-
bust; (7) the officer who informed Sobangee of her constitutional
rights; and (8) the identity of the informant. Is the conviction correct?
Answer. Yes. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal
sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following
elements: 1) Identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the

13 | P a g e
consideration, 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
(People v. Sabongee)

BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question:An informant arrived at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs at
the Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig and reported
that a certain Paks was pushing shabu on P. Mariano St., Taguig. A
team was dispatched to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Boiser
and PO2 Lagos walked with the informant to meet Paks. Paks,
satisfied that PO2 Boise, was indeed a drug user, agreed to sell
P500.00 worth of shabu. He reached from his camouflage shorts a
plastic sachet and handed it to PO2 Boiser. After receiving the plastic
sachet from Paks, PO2 Boiser examined it under the light of a
lamppost. Seeing the pre-arranged signal acted out by PO2 Boiser,
PO2 Lagos went to the scene and introduced himself as a police
officer to Paks. The buy-bust money was then seized from Paks.
RTC found Paks Vicente, Jr. guilty of the crime charged. On appeal,
Vicente, Jr. argued that Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 were not complied with, since the buy-
bust team failed to present a pre-operation report and photographs of
the seized items. With this argument, he said that the seized items
are now polluted evidence. As an appellate judge, will you uphold the
RTC ruling?
Answer: Yes. Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact
science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
It is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody
of drugs in a buy-bust operation. What is essential is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused. (People v. Vicente)

BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question: In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon
Abetong, was caught selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC
rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to

14 | P a g e
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date
and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days
have passed since the items were confiscated before they were
brought to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an
inventory nor a photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. Was the
prosecution able to establish the guilt of the accused based on the
allegation of violation of the chain of custody?
Answer: No. In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon
Abetong, was caught selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC
rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date
and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days
have passed since the items were confiscated before they were brought
to the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an inventory
nor a photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. He likewise hinged
his appeal on the fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to
the evidence locker, did not testify during trial. (Peopl v. Abetong)

BUY-BUST OPERATION; ALIBI

Question: The Taguig police formed a buy-bust team upon receipt of
a report of illegal activities of Pagkalinawan. He was arrested after
sachets of shabu were recovered from him. Pagkalinawan, interposed
the defense of alibi. He said that armed men barged into his house
and pointed a gun at him. He was brought to the police station when
the police could not find any prohibited drugs.
Pagkalinawan insists that what actually happened was an
instigation and not a buy-bust operation. Was there a valid
entrapment in the form of buy-bust operation?
Answer: Yes. A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the
accused during a buy-bust operation or what is known as a decoy
solicitation, is not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust
operation invalid. (People v. Pagkalinawan)

15 | P a g e
BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: As a result of a buy-bust operation, Dela Cruz was
charged with and convicted of the crime of drug pushing. In his
defense, the accused denied selling shabu to PO2 Ibasco. In short, the
accused used the defense of denial and alleged a frame-up by the
arresting officers. On appeal, he imputed material irregularities on
the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Rule on the irregularities on
the chain of custody raised by the accused.
Answer: The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to
establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody. The failure of the
police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs
raises doubt as to its origins and also negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. (People v. Dela
Cruz)

TEST-BUY
Question: SPO1 Dela Cruz was part of a team that conducted a test-
buy on to verify a report of Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug
activities. When this was confirmed, a buy-bust operation ensued.
SPO1 Dela Cruz subsequently marked the sachet that was sold to
him as MDC-1 and the sachet found on the person of Elizabeth as
MDC-2. The chemistry report confirmed that the subject drugs were
positive for shabu. RTC convicted the accused.
Elizabeth imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz
observed the requirements of RA 9165 on inventory and
photographing of the illegal substance, arguing that said police
officer did not state where and when he marked the sachets of shabu.
Will you uphold the conviction?
Answer: I will uphold the RTC decision. Non-compliance with the
provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous
drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case. The conviction
can be sustained if there are other independent evidence to establish
the guilt of the accused. (People v. Marcelino).

BUY-BUST OPERATIONS
Question: The Regional Special Operations Group IV (RSOG-IV)
received a tip about a group of drug traffickers led by Isidro Arguson
16 | P a g e
operating in Cavite. SPO2 Geronimo Pastrana, PO3 Ramos, and PO2
Emerson Balosbalos the operation in front of the McDonalds branch
in P. Ocampo St., Pasay City. The sale was then consummated and
PO3 Ramos gave his signal and arrested them. The accused, by way
of defense, alleged that she just finished her laundry when she took
her child to McDonalds when she saw a commotion. She then saw a
woman who alighted from a van and pointed at her to her
companions and boarded her inside the van causing her to lose hold
of her child. The RTC and the CA ruled against the accused. Hence,
the case. Is the conviction proper?
Answer: No. As embodied in Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, i.e., the
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drug shall immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the [drug] in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof. (People v. Cervantes)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: Manuel Ressurreccion was convicted of illegal sale of
shabu. On appeal to the Supreme Court he broaches the view that
SA Isidoros failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after
seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drugs identity. Accused-
appellant Resurreccion now points to the failure of the buy-bust team
to immediately mark the seized drugs as a cause to doubt the
identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him. Was there a
violation of the chain of custody rule?
Answer: No. Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately
mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain
of custody. It is essential for the prosecution to introduce other
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. (People v. Resureccion)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: An informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias
"Boy Bicol" was at his Nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. When
the team reached the said Nipa Hut, Dela Cruz was seen holding a

17 | P a g e
shotgun but he later on dropped his shotgun when a police officer
pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the premises and saw a
plastic bag of shabu and drug paraphernalia. Dela Cruz was
subsequently arrested and was separately indicted for violation of RA
9165 and for illegal possession of firearm. The RTC acquitted
accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. The accused-
appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision on the ground
that the prosecution his arrest was patently illegal and the
prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the illegal drug
allegedly in his possession. The CA sustained accused-appellant's
conviction. Was the prosecution able to establish possession of illegal
drugs?
Answer: No. An accused can be held to be in constructive possession
of illegal drugs if it shown that they enjoy dominion and control over
the premises where these drugs were found. (People v. Dela Cruz)

MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Question: The COA Special Audit Report stated that there were
anomalies in the payment of salary differentials, allowances, and
benefits, among others. Pursuant to such findings, three informations
were filed by the Ombudsman against Munib Estino, then Acting
Governor, and Ernesto Pescadera, the Provincial Treasurer during
Estinos stint. The said charges involve malversation of public funds
under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code and two violations of Sec. 3
(e) of R.A. 3019. The Sandiganbayan, in the consolidated criminal
cases, convicted both Estino and Pescadera for violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. 3019 for failure to pay the Representation and
Transportation Allowance (RATA) of the provincial government
employees of Sulu but acquitted them as to the other charge for the
same violation. As to the charge of malversation of public funds, the
Sandiganbayan exonerated Estino but convicted Pescadera for failure
to remit the GSIS contributions of the provincial government
employees. Is the accused guilty of the crime charged?
Answer: No. There is no proof that Pescadera misappropriated the
said amount for his personal use. While demand is not an element of
the crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the application of the
presumption. Without this presumption, the accused may still be

18 | P a g e
proved guilty under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation.
(Pescadera v. People)

LIABILITY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER ANTI-GRAFT

AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Question: Petitioner Uyboco, a private individual, and his co-
accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner
asserts that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the existence of a
conspiracy and in convicting him in the absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt of such conspiracy. May Uyboco be held liable for
violation of RA 3019?
Answer: Yes. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public
officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the
pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019. (Uyboco v. People)

TREACHERY
Question: One evening, Estrella Doctor Casco along with her mother
named Damiana and two care- takers Liezl and Angelita, were
walking home from Damianas medical check-up when Estrellas
cousins Tony Tomas and Benedicto Doctor, together with Nestor
Gatchalian, suddenly came out from the side of the road. Without
uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while
Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor
positioned himself at the back of Damiana and Angelina and poked a
gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas fired three more gunshots
at the former when she was already down on the ground. After
which, the three accused fled from the scene of the crime. The RTC
convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of the offense of
Murder and appreciated the attendance of treachery and conspiracy
which the CA affirmed with modification. Hence, this petition was
filed. Is the CA correct in affirming the RTC decision appreciating
the aggravating circumstance of treachery?
Answer: Yes. For alevosiato qualify the crime to murder, it must be
shown that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or
manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive
or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and
manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery
19 | P a g e
to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at
the inception of the attack. (People v. Tomas)

INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES
Question: Anthony was charged with murder and frustrated
murder. The trial found him guilty of the offenses charged. On
appeal, aside from reiterating his alibi, he also pointed out the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The CA
found no merit in Anthonys contentions. In reviewing the
testimonies of the witnesses, the appellate court found no
inconsistencies that would question their credibility. Hence, this
petition. Rule on accuseds contentions of inconsistencies.
Answer: It is elementary that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses
testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and
collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration,
their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. (People v. Domingo)
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES, POSITIVE
IDENTIFICATION
Question: Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke
Restaurant in Quezon City, noticed that Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc,
were beating Jaime. As a result of the beating died. Roda went to
Camp Karingal in Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. The
police then filed an investigation report which became the basis for
the filing of Information against Amodia et al. RTC ruled that
Amodia et al. were guilty of Murder. CA affirmed the RTC decision.
CA gave credence to the positive testimony of the prosecution
eyewitness who, was not actuated by improper motive to testify
against accused-appellants. The CA, moreover, held that the killing
was qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Amodia et al. contends that conviction is anchored on the positive
testimony of the prosecution eyewitness which was full of
inconsistencies. They allege that it was unbelievable that a person
who had witnessed a crime should simply go home without
immediately reporting the matter to the authorities. Were the
accused positively identified enough to convict them?
Answer: Yes. Positive identification of the accused, when categorical
and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of an
eye witness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial of [the]

20 | P a g e
accused, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
is negative and self serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.
(People v. Amodia)

DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL

Question: On November 20, 2001 in a forested area nearby the place
and house of the accused Didong and company, Didong hit with his
piece of wood the nape of Ahladdin (the victim who was also drunk at
the time) then held by the hand by Nante. When Nante released his
hold, Didong again hit Ahladdin on the back of the knees. After
Boyet, Nante and Didong stabbed Ahladdin, Fred Gongon shot him
saying Siguraduhin niyo patay na yan. The following morning the
dead body of Ahladdin was discovered. Consequently, based on these
established facts Didong and company were charged of murder
qualified by treachery. On this charge Didong merely provided the
defense of alibi and denial. Was there treachery?
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter
of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to the aggressors, and without the slightest
provocation on the victims part.

RAPE AND DEFENSE OF ALIBI

Question: The accused was charged of the crime rape of certain
AAA. The prosecution presented the fact that the victim together
with her friends, went to a dance event but later on as she noticed
that her friends were no longer at the dance floor, she decided to go
home to her grandmothers house when on her way home, Alverio
suddenly appeared and raped her. During the incident, Alverio was
armed with a knife which he used to poke the victim and threatened
her that he would kill her if she told anyone of what he has done. On
the other hand, the accused denied all the accusations against him
with an alibi. The RTC convicted Alverio which decision was affirmed
by the CA. Was the conviction correct?
Answer: Yes. In cases involving the prosecution for rape,
corroboration of the victims testimony is not a necessary condition to
a conviction for rape where the victims testimony is credible, or clear

21 | P a g e
and convincing or sufficient to prove the elements of the offense beyond
a reasonable doubt. (People v. Alverio)

STATUTORY RAPE
Question: AAA, the private complainant, was 11 years old while
Lindo was their neighbor. While AAA was sleeping, Lindo took her
away to a place near a creek. He tried inserting his penis into her
vagina but there was no complete penetration. Not achieving full
penile penetration, he then made her bend over, and inserted his
penis into her anus, causing her to cry out in pain. RTC found him
guilty of statutory rape under Art. 335 of the RPC in relation to R.A
No. 7610. The CA affirmed the judgment and awarded exemplary
damages. Was the conviction correct?
Answer: Yes. The mere introduction of the male organ in the labia
majora of the victims genitalia consummates the crime; the mere
touching of the labia by the penis was held to be sufficient. (People v.
Lindo)

RAPE
Question: AAA, then 15 years old, went to her grandmothers house
upon learning that her father and uncle were quarreling there. When
she cried for help, Elmer Barberos, a neighbor, went to her and told
her that he would protect her. Barberos brought AAA to his house
and raped her. AAA was able to escape by jumping out of the window
when someone knocked at the door. Both the RTC and CA convicted
Barberos of the crime of rape. Is total penetration necessary to
commit rape?
Answer: No. Full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is
not required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the
labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.
(People v. Barberos)
SWEETHEART THEORY IN RAPE
Question: Cias was charged with the crime of rape. In his defense,
he argued that he and the victim had been carrying an illicit affair
for about six months. He alleged that in all their previous
assignations, she submitted herself to him voluntarily and willingly
on each occasion that they had sexual intercourse. Is relationship a
defense in the crime of rape?
22 | P a g e
Answer: No. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not
have an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires
against her will. (People v. Cias)

RAPE AND SWEETHEART THEORY

Question: AAA was alone in her house and was taking a bath when
she noticed that the lights in the living room were turned off which
she thought was done by her live-in partner so she called his name.
However, upon opening of the bathroom door, she saw Rommel Belo
who was holding a bread knife and said "Sandali lang ito" and
pushed her inside the bathroom. Belo kissed and touched AAA's
private parts while pointing the knife at AAA and eventually he was
able to insert his penis into her vagina. Belo, in his defense, claims
that it was a consensual sex and that AAA was his girlfriend.
Further, he claims that the absence of bruises and contusions on
AAAs body, based on the medico- legal report, negates the crime of
rape. The RTC found Belo guilty of rape and was affirmed by the CA.
Is the conviction proper despite relationship with the victim?
Answer: Yes. Sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must
be established by convincing evidence -- some documentary and/or
other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the
like. (People v. Belo)

RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

Question: Four separate informations for rape and one for acts of
lasciviousness were filed against Araojo. The latter tags AAAs
account of the alleged rape incidents, which, for the most part,
consisted of the same details, as utterly incredulous. If, as AAA
alleged, she was raped, then the results of her medical examinations
would have yielded complete hymenal lacerations, considering AAAs
tender age and the manner of the sexual assault. Araojo theorizes
that, since AAA had been hired as a babysitter, it is possible that she
was exposed to various forms of exploitation. Is the victims
testimony sufficient to warrant conviction?
Answer: Yes. The credibility of the victim is always the single most
important issue in prosecution for rape. Withal, in passing upon the
credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be accorded
to the findings of the trial court. (People v. Araojo)

23 | P a g e
RAPE COMMITTED BY A FATHER
Question: On three different dates, Martinez allegedly raped his 13-
year old daughter, AAA, who was mentally retarded. Martinez
threatened to kill AAA if she would reveal the incident to her mother.
However, AAAs teacher noticed that she appeared to be unusually
weak. Aware of the faCt that Martinez had sired two children from
AAAs elder sister, the teacher asked AAA if her father had raped her,
to which AAA answered in the affirmative. The teacher reported the
same to the DSWD, and BBB, her mother learned the rape incident.
Martinez was then charged with three counts of qualified rape. In his
defense, Martinez raised denial and alibi. RTC found Martinez guilty
of three counts of rape under Art. 365 of the RPC. Convinced of
AAAs credibility, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Martinez argued
that AAAs testimony is not credible for she is mentally retarded. Is
mental retardation a ground to discredit the credibility of the
testimony of the witness?
Answer: No. Anyone who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
known such perception to others, may be a witness. Thus, mental
retardation does not disqualify a person from testifying. What is
essential is the quality of perception, and the manner in which this
perception is made known to the court. (People v. Martinez)

RAPE
Question: Adelado Anguac is the common-law spouse of BBB, the
mother of AAA. Sometime in 1998 while sleeping with her siblings in
a room in their residence, AAA who was then 17 years old, found
herself suddenly awakened by Anguac who raped her. The sexual
assault on AAA was repeated for five times. AAA subsequently
became pregnant. She disclosed the assaults to her Aunts. Two
separate informations were filed charging Anguac with rape and
violation of RA 7610. The RTC found Anguac guilty. CA affirmed the
RTCs ruling but treated the crime of rape charged in Criminal Case
No. RTC 2757-I as a violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 instead of Sec.
5(a) as found by the trial court. Anguac on the other hand, questioned
the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence. Was the CA correct in
convicting the accused for Sec.5(b) rather Sec. 5(a) as found by the
RTC?

24 | P a g e
Answer: Yes. The character of the crime is determined by the recital
of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information. The
testimonies of the victim and the witnesses which buttressed her claim
of the commission of the crime proved beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of Anguac. (People v. Anguac)

STATUTORY RAPE
Question: Cruz was charged with one count of rape committed
against AAA, 9 years old. Upon arraignment Cruz pleaded not guilty.
Medical examination result showed that AAA had two (2) hymenal
lacerations. For his part, Cruz claimed that it was impossible for him
to commit rape as he had been sexually impotent since 1995. This
was further corroborated by his wife by saying that they seldom had
sexual intercourse after 1995. In 2001, Cruz was diagnosed to be
suffering from erectile dysfunction.
The RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the ruling of RTC and ruled that his impotency was not
proven with certainty and that the medical finding of erectile
dysfunction was based on an examination more than three years
after the rape occurred; thus, no categorical conclusion could be made
that Cruz was impotent when the rape was committed. Was there
rape despite defense of impotency?
Answer: Yes. Impotency as a defense in rape cases must likewise be
proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency.

STATUTORY RAPE
Question: Ugos was charged with raping AAA, his 7-year old
stepdaughter. While they were looking for AAAs mother, Ugos
brought AAA to a creek and raped her. Ugos denied the allegations
and stated that the victim fell while looking for her mother because
the road was dark and slippery. The RTC found him guilty, which the
CA affirmed. Ugos contends that the testimonies of AAA and her
mother reveal only the commission of acts of lasciviousness and not
rape since he only inserted his finger into her sex organ. Is the use of
a finger sufficient to commit the crime of rape?

25 | P a g e
Answer: Yes. Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by
inserting "any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person." (People v. Ugos)

QUALIFIED THEFT
Question: Respondent Amelio Tria (Tria) is a former branch
manager of Philippine National Banks (PNB) MWSS branch. MWSS
opened an account in PNB-MWSS. On April 22, 2004, PNB-MWSS
received a letter from MWSS instructing the bank to issue a
managers check in the amount of P5, 200, 000.00 in favor of a
certain Atty. Rodrigo Reyes. The employees of PNB, after
authentication and verification approved the request for the issuance
of the managers check. On April 26, 2004, Tria accompanied Atty.
Reyes to PNB Quezon City branch since PNB-MWSS had insufficient
funds to pay the amount. He told the employee of PNB QC that Atty.
Reyes is their valued client. On February 2, 2005, Zaida Pulida
(Pulida), a MWSS employee handling the subject bank account
inquired to PNB about the P5, 200, 000.00 debited to the account.
Pulida notified PNB that MWSS did not apply for the issuance of the
said managers check. Furthermore, upon verification with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, it was confirmed that there was no
Rodrigo Reyes included in its roster. PNB conducted its own
investigation and held Tria liable for qualified theft. Tria denied the
allegation and contended other bank employees should be liable for
the loss. Is Tria guilty of qualified theft?
Answer: Yes. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to
gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without
the latters consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the
crime of theft becomes qualified. (PNB v. Tria)

ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC

DOCUMENTS
Question: Petitioners were officers of the Municipality of Paracelis,
Mountain Province. They issued a Certificate of Inspection and
Acceptance in relation to the completion of a road construction in the
said municipality. As a result, the Government subsequently issued a

26 | P a g e
check for PhP106,970 as payment for the project. After COA
investigation, petitioners were charged with Estafa thru Falsification
of Public Documents. It was alleged that petitioners made it appear
that they have personally inspected the construction project and
thereafter found the same to have been fully accomplished 100%,
when in truth and in fact, the work on the aforesaid project was not
yet finished. Is the conviction correct?
Answer: Yes. The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par.
2 of the RPC are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent
representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause
which induced the offended party to part with his money or property;
and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
(Manangey v. Sandiganbayan)

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT

Question: Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin was a former member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental. Mayor Fuentes
immediately approved and granted the request for financial
assistance for a sports activity. While the Mayor attended a
conference, Mario served as Officer-in Charge. Pactolin borrowed
Abastillas letter from the assistant treasurer and altered the same.
Afterwards, Pactolin filed a complaint against Mario with the
Ombudsman, alleging that Mario illegally disbursed public funds in
connivance with the then city accountant. Aggrieved, Mario
instituted a criminal complaint against Pactolin before the
Sandiganbayan. Pactolin was charged of falsification of public
document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. Is Pactolin
guilty of falsification?
Answer: Yes. The settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory
explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged
document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. (Pactolin v.
Sandiganbayan)
ESTAFA under ART.315(b), RPC

27 | P a g e
Question: Spouses Erlinda and Eliseo Asejo went to the house of
Vilma Castro to borrow PhP 100,000 to be shown to the bank (show
money) and make it appear that the Asejos were financially liquid.
The spouses went back to Castros house where she received the
amount and signed a Trust Undertaking. When the obligation
became due, Castro went to the spouses to demand payment but she
failed to collect the money. Spouses Asejo were charged with Estafa
under Art. 315 (b). They were found guilty as charged by the RTC.
The CA affirmed the judgment but modified the penalty. Is formal
demand required to convict the accused?
Answer: No. Demand under this kind of estafa [Art. 315 (b)] need not
be formal or written. It is sufficient that all the elements of the crime
are proved by the prosecution. (Asejo v. People)

PART B: CONCEPTS, GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND

LEADING CASES
I. Preliminaries

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

A. (1) Generality will apply to people who commit any criminal act
committed within the territory of the Philippines and will generally deal with
the characteristic of the person accused of committing the crime;
(2) Territoriality Philippines will have jurisdiction over crimes committed
inside its territory except as provided for in treaties and laws of preferential
application and will normally deal with the characteristic of the place where
the crime was committed; and
(3) Prospectivity based on Art.22 of RPC, the appreciation of the crime
committed must take into consideration the date of the passage of the law and
give it retroactive effect (a) if it is favorable to the accused; and (b) if the
accused is not a habitual delinquent.
Q. What provisions of the Bill of Rights are relevant to Criminal Law?
A. The Bill of Rights
Sec. 1: due process and equal protection clause;
Sec. 2: right against illegal arrest, illegal search and seizure (in relation to
admission in evidence of extrajudicial admissions, warrantless arrest,
warrantless search and seizure and planted evidence);
Sec. 3: privacy of communications (in relation to Wire Tapping Law);
Sec. 4 freedom of religion (in relation to crime offending a religion);
Sec. 6 liberty of abode (in relation to restraint of travel (issuance of Hold
Departure Order; illegal detention committed by a public officer or a private
individual);

28 | P a g e
Sec.11 free access to courts (in relation to right to appropriate legal
representation);
Sec. 12 (1) and (3) Miranda rights (in relation to extrajudicial confessions
and when one can become a state witness), (2) and (4) Rights while under
detention (in relation to Human Security Act of 2007 and Human Torture Act
of 2009);
Sec. 13 Right to bail (in relation to non-bailable offenses like Plunder,
Rebellion, etc.but pay attention to JPE v. Sandiganbayan decision which
introduced a new ground to grant bail which is not textually provided in the
Constitution);
Sec. 14 Presumption of innocence (in relation to degree of proof required to
convict);
Sec. 15 The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
Sec. 16 Right to speedy trial;
Sec.16 Nature of penalty of imprisonment (in relation to imposition of
penalties under RPC, Probation Law, Indeterminate Sentence Law, Diversion
and Rehabilitation);
Sec. 17 Nature fines and physical detention in case of conviction (in
relation to appreciation of attending circumstances in the commission of the
crime, suspension of death penalty);
Sec. 17 non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax;
Sec. 18 prohibition against double jeopardy; and
Sec. 22 prohibition against ex post fact law/ bill of attainder.

Q. What are the elements of double jeopardy?

A. Double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached; (2) it has
been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in
the first. A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has been acquitted or
convicted, or the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent, by a competent court in a valid indictment for which the
accused has entered a valid plea during arraignment. Saturnino C. Ocampo v.
Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014
Q. What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
A. The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. To give full
protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that
any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding. However, the interdiction against warrantless searches and
seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and seizures have long
been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search
of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver
or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (6)
search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search
and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an

29 | P a g e
arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the
Rules of Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest
in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped
prisoners. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February
19, 2014.
Q. Is a hearing necessary to determine probable cause in the issuance of a
warrant?
A. No. Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses, the Supreme Court has ruled that a hearing
is not necessary for the determination thereof. In fact, the judges personal
examination of the complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory and
indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest.
Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830,
February 11, 2014
Q. What is the rule on the admission of extrajudicial confession to appreciate
the element of conspiracy?
A. The exception provided under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to
the rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment
of the conspiracy by evidence other than the confession. The Supreme Court,
however, has previously stressed that mere association with the principals by
direct participation, without more, does not suffice. Relationship, association
and companionship do not prove conspiracy. It must be shown that the person
concerned has performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act,
without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove
conspiracy. Gerry A. Salapuddin v. The Court of Appeals, Gov. Jum Akbar, and
Nor-Rhama J. Indanan, G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.
Q. Cite the distinction between mala en se and mala prohibitum.
(1) mala en se by itself the act is inherently wrong (ex. killing another
person) while in mala prohibitum the act is merely prohibited by law (ex.
smoking or jay walking);
(2) good faith is a defense in mala en se but not in mala prohibitum;
(3) stages of commission under Art.6 of RPC is considered in mala en se but
not in mala prohibitum;
(4) degree of participation under Title II of RPC is considered in mala en se
but not in mala prohibitum;
(5) in mala en se, modifying circumstances are considered in determining
imposable penalty but not mala prohibitum; and
(6) in mala en se, generally, the crimes are punished under RPC while
generally, crimes considered mala prohibitum are punished under special
penal law.

II. Circumstances Affecting the Appreciation of Commission of a Crime

Attending circumstance in the commission of crimes: justifying, mitigating,
exempting and aggravating (generic and qualifying), alternative
circumstances ; appreciation of each circumstance will depend on the facts
surrounding the criminal act as it would affect the criminal liability and
30 | P a g e
extent of liability of the accused. MEMORIZE PERTINENT
PROVISIONS OF THE RPC.
Q. How will qualifying circumstance of treachery be appreciated?.
A. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. People of the
Philippines v. Wilfredo Gunda Alias Fred, G.R. No. 195525, February 5,
2014.
Q. How is intent to kill establish in the crime of murder?
A. The petitioners intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and
number of wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to prove intent to kill in
crimes against persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by
the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or
immediately after the killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number
of wounds sustained by the victim. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
Q. What is conspiracy?
A. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine
conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony. While direct
proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the
collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime which point to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community
of interests. People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No.
189833, February 5, 2014
Q. Is proof of previous agreement necessary to establish conspiracy?
A. No. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused
when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and
community of interests. Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit
the crime is not essential, but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison
pursuant to the same objective suffices. People of the Philippines v. John Alvin
Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013
Q. What are elements to establish self-defense?
A. By invoking self-defense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the
commission of the acts for which they were charged, albeit under circumstances
that, if proven, would have exculpated them by invoking the following
circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons
resorting to self-defense. Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most
important of all is the element of unlawful aggression. Rodolfo Guevarra and
Joey Guevarra v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014
31 | P a g e
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the
victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to
self-defense. Simon A. Flores v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181354,
February 27, 2013.
Q. What is alibi?
A. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly
unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear and convincing
evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the
crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Alibi cannot prevail over
and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness
that an accused perpetrated the crime. People of the Philippines v. Jonathan
Uto Veloso y Rama, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013
Q. When is alibi applicable as a defense?
A. It has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
prove the following: (i) that he was present at another place at the time of the
perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was physically impossible for him to be
at the scene of the crime during its commission. People of the Philippines v.
Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014
Q. What is the probative value of an affidavit if the affiant is not presented in
court?
A. An affidavit is hearsay unless affiant presented in court. It is settled that
while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer authorized to
administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless the affiants
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon and the adverse
party is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine them. With the prosecutions
failure to present the affiant to affirm his statement should be treated as hearsay
and, thus, inadmissible to establish the truth or falsity of the relevant claims.
Q. How is circumstantial evidence appreciated in establishing ones
culpability?
A. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on
reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo
A. Castro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014

Circumstantial evidence; when sufficient for conviction. Circumstantial

evidence is defined as that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established.
It is sufficient for conviction if: [a] there is more than one (1) circumstance; [b]
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and [c] the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is
essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The test to
32 | P a g e
determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to
convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be
consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be
consistent with the accusers guilt and inconsistent with the accusers
innocence. People of the Philippines v. P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, et al, G.R.
No. 198338, February 20, 2013.
Minority as a Mitigating Circumstance. To establish minority ones Certificate
of Birth may be introduced as evidence.
Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the offender is a
minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed
by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. The
rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because
of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment. This is
regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that
his birth certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration, since to rule
accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state, the victim and his
heirs. . People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013

PLEASE MEMORIZE all attending circumstances BECAUSE YOU

MIGHT BE FACED WITH QUESTIONS WHICH WILL CALL FOR
THE APPLICATION OF THESE DISTINCTIONS IN COMPUTATION
OF PENALTIES, ACTORS IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES,
STAGES OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, APPRECIATION
OF ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND AVAILMENT OF
PROBATION.

III. Felonies and other related matters

Classification of crimes; see your RPC on crimes against persons, national

security, committed by public officers etc. and those under Special Penal
Laws; concept of impossible crime and when one can be held liable for it;

Stages of commission of a crime and actors involved: attempted, frustrated

and consummated; Principal, accomplice and accessory. Please note the
stage and degree of participation will determine the penalties; actors may
also be multiple offenders and may be covered under any of the following -
recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habituality, habitual delinquency( nature of
crime, time element and nature of aggravating circumstances are factors
which are considered if the defendant is covered)

Conspiracy; liability of conspirators. Assuming that the prosecution witnesses

failed to identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on Joey during the
commotion, Erwins liability is not diminished since he and the others with him
acted with concert in beating up and ultimately killing Joey. Conspiracy makes
all the assailants equally liable as co-principals by direct participation. Since
about 15 men, including accused Erwin, pounced on their one helpless victim,
relentlessly bludgeoned him on the head, and stabbed him on the stomach until

33 | P a g e
he was dead; there is no question that the accused took advantage of their
superior strength. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the decision of the lower
courts finding accused Erwin guilty of murder. People of the Philippines v.
Erwin Tamayo y Bautisa, G.R. No. 196960, March 12, 2014.

Frustrated homicide; elements. The crime of frustrated homicide is committed

when: (1) an accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a
deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s
but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the
qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code is present. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014 Consummated homicide;
elements. The crime of homicide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2)
the accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) the
accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
parricide or infanticide. Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014

Distinguish compound crime (when a single act constitutes two or more

grave or less felonies); complex crime proper (when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other); composite crime (special
complex crime composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as single
indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal
impulse); continued crime (3 elements must concur: plurality of acts
performed separately during a period of time; unity of criminal intent and
purpose; and unity of penal provision violated).

IV. Penalties
General principles; purpose why penalty is imposed; classification of
penalties; duration and effect of penalties.
Under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if it was
of conviction, state: "(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the
acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances
which attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the
offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the
penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused
by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a
separate civil action has been reserved or waived."
A. Probation Law: nature and purpose of the law; when may defendant
avail of probation after conviction and no appeal is made during the
period perfecting an appeal; it is error on the part of the court to issue a

34 | P a g e
Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation because defendants
right to appeal has not yet prescribed; conversely, if defendant filed an
appeal, he can no longer avail of probation and if defendant files an
application for probation, he can no longer appeal; individuals found guilty
of drug trafficking cannot avail of probation; probation also applies even if
penalty is only a fine; probation shall not exceed six years; consequences
for violating the terms of probation; when probation is deemed terminated.

Probation; appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. Aside from
the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused, the rationale for
the treatment of appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies is that
they rest on diametrically opposed legal positions. An accused applying for
probation is deemed to have accepted the judgment. The application for
probation is an admission of guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which
led to the judgment of conviction. This was the reason why the Probation Law
was amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing from
judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable for the
purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the
accused fails in his bid. Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. People of the
Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014.

PLEASE READ SEC. 9 OF THE PROBATION LAW AS TO WHO

CANNOT AVAIL OF THE BENEFITS OF PROBATION.

B. Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw): purposes of the law; where a

special law adopted penalties from RPC, ISLaw will apply just as it would
in felonies. PLEASE READ SEC.2 OF ISLaw WHEN BENEFITS OF
ISLaw MAY NOT BE AVAILED OF BY THE DEFENDANT. For example,
a person convicted of plunder which is punishable by life imprisonment
cannot avail of ISLaw.

Persons not eligible for Parole. People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Gunda
Alias Fred,G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014. Under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
There being no other aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the proper
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the lower of the two indivisible
penalties. It must be emphasized, however, that appellant is not eligible for
parole pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. 9346 which states that persons convicted
of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentence will be
reduced to reclusion 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.
C. Graduation of Penalty: graduation of penalties may be appreciated as
follows stage of execution: for frustrated, 1 degree; for attempted stage, 2
degrees except: for frustrated homicide, parricide or murder, 1 to 2 degrees
35 | P a g e
and for attempted homicide, parricide or murder, 1 to 2 degrees; nature of
execution as an accomplice, 1 degree and as accessory, 2 degrees;
privileged mitigating circumstance for minority, 1 degree and incomplete
justification or exemption(except accident), 1 or 2 degrees.

Minority as mitigating circumstance. People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013.

The penalty imposed upon Franklin, being a minor, must be accordingly
modified. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. A degree lower
is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating and ordinary mitigating
circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on Franklin should be reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as maximum, which ranges from fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in
degree is prision mayor, the medium period of which ranges from eight (8)
years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Due to the seriousness of the crime and
the manner it was committed, the penalty must be imposed at its most severe
range.

Imposition of Two Indivisible Penalties: People v. Seraspe, January 9, 2013.

Under Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 20, Article IV, of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the unauthorized
sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The total weight of the shabu confiscated
in this case is 983.5 grams. Hence, the proper penalty should be reclusion
perpetua to death. But since the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death consists
of two indivisible penalties, appellant was correctly meted the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances
in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua, not composed of three periods.

Bacolod v. People, July 15, 2013. It is imperative that the courts prescribe the
proper penalties when convicting the accused, and determine the civil liability
to be imposed on the accused, unless there has been a reservation of the action
to recover civil liability or a waiver of its recovery. The information specifically
alleged that the house burned by the accused was an inhabited dwelling.
Pursuant to Section 3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613 (Amending the Law
on Arson), the penalty to be imposed if the property burned is an inhabited
house or dwelling is from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Not being
composed of three periods, however, such penalty should be divided into three
equal portions of time, and each portion forms one period of the penalty. Yet,
reclusion perpetua, being an indivisible penalty, immediately becomes the
maximum period, leaving reclusion temporal to be divided into two in order to
fix the medium and minimum periods of the penalty. The three periods of the
prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua are then as
follows:
Minimum period 12 years and 1 day to 16 years;

36 | P a g e
 Medium period 16 years and 1 day to 20 years;
Maximum period reclusion perpetua.
Accordingly, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty in this case should be
within the range of the medium period of the penalty, i.e., from 16 years and 1
day to 20 years, because neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance
attended the commission of the crime; and the minimum of the indeterminate
sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed for the crime, without regard to its periods.

Graduating Death Penalty Death penalty is still the penalty to be

reckoned with. With the suspension of death penalty, the next imposable
penalty shall apply.

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

(ex. imprisonment and fine) from successive rule (ex. where there is
multiple penalties of imprisonment); three-fold rule on maximum period of
imprisonment; and 40-year limitation rule.

E. Subsidiary Imprisonment: when defendant shall be subjected to

subsidiary imprisonment after final conviction; imposition of civil liability

F. Exemption from Criminal Liability under the Juvenile Justice and

Welfare Act: Distinguish between Diversion and Rehabilitation; how it can
be availed of;

G. Modes and Extinction of Criminal Liability: 1. from the Executive

Branch: acts of clemency by the President; 2. from the Legislative Branch:
amnesty; 3. Prescription of crimes; 4. Prescription of penalties; and 5.
pardon by offended party, where allowed.

General Rule: In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must be

considered, namely: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2)
the time when the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time when the
prescriptive period is interrupted.
V. The following are matters which are likely to be asked under Special
Penal Laws:

1. R.A. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: A public officer may
be charged both under this law and a provision of the RPC ex. when a
Mayor and the City Treasurer connive to use public funds not for the
purpose intended, they may also be held for malversation of funds under
the RPC; or when a Sheriff alters a date of execution of a court order, he
may also be charged with falsification of public documents under the RPC;
there is complex crime under R.A.3019 under both circumstances;
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A DISTICNTION IN PRESCRIPTION
OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER THE

37 | P a g e
RPC AND R.A.3019; review the participation of private individuals and
relatives under this law.

Elements of Corruption under Sec.4 (a) of R.A. 3019.. Disini v.

Sandiganbayan. The sufficiency of the allegations in the information charging
the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 is similarly upheld. The elements
of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 are: that the offender has
family or close personal relation with a public official; that he capitalizes or
exploits or takes advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly
or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift, material or pecuniary
advantage from any person having some business, transaction, application,
request, or contract with the government; that the public official with whom the
offender has family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business
transaction, application, request, or contract with the government.

Direct Bribery and Indirect Bribery, Disini, ibid., The elements of corruption
of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are: that the
offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer;
and that the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a
public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for
direct bribery or indirect bribery.

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; offenses under Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019. In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that there are two
(2) ways by which a public official violates section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in the
performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue injury to any party,
including the Government; or (2) by giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference. The accused may be charged under either
mode or under both. The disjunctive term or connotes that either act qualifies
as a violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.In other words, the presence of one
would suffice for conviction. To be found guilty under the second mode, it
suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the
exercise of his official, administrative and judicial functions. The element of
damage is not required for violation of section 3(e) under the second mode.
Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public
officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent
offenses under section 3 of R.A. 3019. Considering that all the elements of the
offense of violation of section 3(e) were alleged in the second information, the
SC found the same to be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction. Isabelo A. Braza v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (1st
Division), G.R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013.
Sandiganbayan; original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction over the claim against
Asian Bank, for the Supreme Court has ruled in Presidential Commission on
Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, that the Sandiganbayan has original and
exclusive jurisdiction not only over principal causes of action involving

38 | P a g e
recovery of ill-gotten wealth, but also over all incidents arising from, incidental
to, or related to such cases. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, as
successor-in-interest of Asian Bank Corporation v. Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval,
et al, G.R. No. 169677, February 18, 2013

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons acting in
conspiracy with public officers may be indicted. The only question that needs
to be settled in the present petition is whether herein respondent, a private
person, may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019
even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died
prior to the filing of the Information. Respondent contends that by reason of the
death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public officer who was charged in the
Information and, as such, prosecution against respondent may not prosper. The
Supreme Court was not persuaded and it said that the only thing extinguished
by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not
extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy
between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary
Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who allegedly violated
Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No.
168539, March 25, 2014.

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons acting in
conspiracy with public officers may be indicted. The requirement before a
private person may be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019,
among others, is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in
conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such
person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If
circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court,
as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private
person may be indicted alone. People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R.
No. 168539, March 25, 2014.

R.A. 3019; Section 3(e); proof of the extent of damage is not essential. The
third element of the offense that the act of the accused caused undue injury to
any party, including the Government, or gave any private party unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of the functions of the accused
was established here. Proof of the extent of damage is not essential, it being
sufficient that the injury suffered or the benefit received is perceived to be
substantial enough and not merely negligible. Danilo O. Garcia and Joven SD.
Brizuela v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197204,
March 26, 2014.
Liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Plameras v. People, September 4,
2013. The following elements must concur to be liable under Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019:
1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or
official functions;

2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
39 | P a g e
3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government,
or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his functions.

2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 (R.A. 9165) Review of the

concept of chain of custody as it relates to the evidence and eventual
prosecution of the case (Sec. 21); no mitigating and aggravating
circumstances will be appreciated under law because mere possession or
any other act under the law is considered mala prohibita but knowledge
must be established by the prosecution that the offender freely and
consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority (animus
possidendi).

Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule. There are links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buybust situation, namely: first, the
seizure and marking, if 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. In this case,
the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y Balverde, et
al, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.

Exception to the chain of custody rule: People v. Romeo Ong et. al., July 3,
2013. Prosecution should establish the following links in that chain of custody
of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the 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.
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first
required linkimmediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the
presence of the accused and othersnamely, that (a) there must be justifiable
grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of drugs; elements. With regard to

the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following
elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said

40 | P a g e
drug. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19,
2014

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. In a successful

prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following
elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. Place. People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y
Balverde, et al, G.R. No. 190621. February 10, 2014.

Dangerous Drugs Act; transport defined. Transport as used under the

Dangerous Drugs Act means to carry or convey from one place to another.
The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of
transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be
accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge. People of the
Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014

Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust operations; distinction between entrapment

and instigation. A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as
a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from instigation, in
that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is
enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal,
instigation is not. In entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a
buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is
accompanied to the target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an
informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a
prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the need to protect the
informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Only
when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in
obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security is
disregarded. People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No.
191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements. To establish

the crime of illegal sale of shabu as defined and punished under section 5,
Article II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
the following: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the
object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold
and of the payment for the thing. The commission of the offense of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation of the selling
transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the
seller. In short, the Prosecution must show that the transaction or sale actually
took place, and present in court the thing sold as evidence of the corpus
delicti. People of the Philippines v. Arnold Tapere y Polpol, G.R. No.
178065, February 20, 2013

41 | P a g e
3. Anti-violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 2562)
Nature of violence is not limited to physical but may cover economic and
psychological acts. Review S.C. ruling in People v. Genosa on battered
woman syndrome which consists of three phases: tension-building phase;
acute battering incident and tranquil, loving or non-violent phase. Battered
woman syndrome is a valid defense that will exonerate a woman from
killing her spouse/partner.

Dabalos v. RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, January 7, 2013. The Court will not read
into Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 a provision that would render it toothless in
the pursuit of the declared policy of the State to protect women and children
from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. The law is broad
in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to
be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm,
namely: 1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the
offenders wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating
relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it results in or is
likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably, while it is required that
the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended
woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of
violence be a consequence of such relationship.

4. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22): elements of the crime; an offender can
be charged both with estafa for each party offended and violation of B.P.22
for each count of checks dishonored covered by the prohibition (ex. A
pyramiding scam committed by Zebra was uncovered which victimized 200
vendors for which 6 posted dated checks were issued to each vendor to pay
interest on their capital investment. Zebra shall be held on 200 counts of
estafa under the RPC and as many counts of violation of B.P. for each
check dishonored upon presentment.); relate situation with definition of
continued crime or delito continuado.

Liability under B.P. 22. San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013. To be liable for
violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the
making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for
the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank
to stop payment. Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo actually
received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew of the
insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court cannot
convict her with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22

Estafa; syndicated estafa; elements. The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a)
estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the
42 | P a g e
Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a
syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural
banks, cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations or of funds
solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. Rafael H.
Galvez and Katherine L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v. Gilbert,
et al./Gilbert Guy, et al v. Asia Untied Bank ,G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No.
187979/G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013

Effect of Acquittal on Civil Liability. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe,

November 11, 2013.If acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, will not relieve
the accused of the corresponding civil liability.
5. Anti- Fencing Law: Being a crime considered as malum prohibitum, mere
possession of a stolen good gives rise to prima facie presumption of
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. A question involving sale of Ukay-ukay
items might be asked.

Elements of Fencing. Ong v. People, April 10, 2013. The essential elements of
the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice in the
commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have
known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived
from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there is, on the part
of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.hanr

6. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294):

elements of the crime; differentiate criminal intent from intent to possess;
how will a person be treated if found to have possessed an illegal firearm in
a COMELEC check point, will he be charged for violation of the Omnibus
Election Law or for illegal possession of firearm, or both; review concept of
absorption in criminal law and when it will and will not apply.
7. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001: define suspicious transactions,
covered transactions, covered institution, and covered persons; knowledge
of the culprits identity is not essential; effect of freeze order (only the
Court of Appeals may issue this order)

8. Anti-Hazing Law: definition of hazing; requisites under Sec. 2 of the law;

liability of persons under Sec.4 of the law who may held principals and
accomplices; Read the Lenny Villa case and latest decision penned by
Justice Mendoza on the fraternity rumble inside the U.P. campus resulting
to death of a U.P. student. See the dissenting opinion of Justice Peralta.

43 | P a g e
VI. Other possible matters which may be taken up in Criminal Law

1. On prescription of a crime: The reckoning date of crime if not known

right after its commission may be computed from the date of discovery.
Example: If a crime was committed 10 years from its commission on
October 17, 1993 was only reported by an eyewitness on October 17, 2003
and the culprit was arrested only on October 17, 2013, prescription will be
counted only from October 17, 2003 and not from October 17, 1993.

2. On criminal liability: If Tiger borrowed a gun from Lion to kill

Kangaroo but Tiger did not use Lions gun but he instead stabbed
Kangaroo. Will Tiger have any criminal liability? If Tiger agreed with the
plan of Lion, he can be held liable as an accomplice.

3. Kidnapping: If A, B and C stopped at gunpoint a van carrying a well-

known artist with her driver and personal assistant inside the van and
announced Kidnap ito. They forcibly took over the van, hit the drivers
head and left him along the road but they took the personal assistant with
them. They ordered the artist to call up her talent manager to ask for a
ransom of P5M. What crimes were committed by A, B and C
(a) As to the artist kidnapping and serious illegal detention
(b) As to the personal assistant serious illegal detention
(c) as to the driver- grave coercion and depending on injuries sustained,
serious or less serious physical injuries

People v. Betty Salvador, April 10, 2013. wIn order for the accused to be
convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (1) the offender is a private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the
latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is
present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is
committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made;
or (d) the person kidnapped and kept in detained is a minor, the duration of his
detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and illegally
detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention is
immaterial.

People v. Nocum, April 1, 2013. Section 2 of RA 6539 defines carnapping as

"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 crime of carnapping with homicide is

44 | P a g e
punishable under Section 14 of the said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA
7659. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there
must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it
was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated
"in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."
Thus, the prosecution in this case has the burden of proving that: (1) Mallari
took the Toyota FX taxi; (2) his original criminal design was carnapping; (3) he
killed the driver, Medel; and (4) the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."oblesvirtu

4. Crimes covered under Art. 365 In cases of criminal negligence, courts

may impose a penalty without considering any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. Thus, voluntary surrender will not be appreciated.
Negligence; Medical negligence; four elements the plaintiff must prove by
competent evidence. An action upon medical negligence whether criminal,
civil or administrative calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence
each of the following four elements, namely: (a) the duty owed by the physician
to the patient, as created by the physician-patient relationship, to act in
accordance with the specific norms or standards established by his profession;
(b) the breach of the duty by the physicians failing to act in accordance with
the applicable standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must be a
reasonably close and causal connection between the negligent act or omission
and the resulting injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient. Dr.

Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, March

10, 2014
Res ipsa loquitor; applicability in medical negligence cases. The applicability
of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases was
significantly and exhaustively explained in Ramos v. Court of Appeals, where
the Court saidMedical malpractice cases do not escape the application of this
doctrine. Thus, res ipsa loquitur has been applied when the circumstances
attendant upon the harm are themselves of such a character as to justify an
inference of negligence as the cause of that harm. The application of res ipsa
loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law since it is a
judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances does, as a
matter of law, permit a given inference. Resort to res ipsa loquitur is allowed
because there is no other way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which
the patient can obtain redress for injury suffered by him. Dr. Fernando P.
Solidum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014

5. Crime of Rape Complex crime of rape with homicide may result if

after the incident of rape, the victim was killed where there was no original

45 | P a g e
intent to kill her. Aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity
disguise and if alcohol was used to embolden the offender may be
appreciated by the court in imposing the penalty.

Rape; three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. The three guiding

principles in rape prosecutions are as follows: (1) an accusation of rape is easy
to make, and difficult to prove, but it is even more difficult to disprove; (2)
bearing in mind the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with utmost care and caution; and (3) the
evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; and cannot
draw strength from the weakness of the defense. People of the Philippines v.
Aurelio Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014.

Rape; elements. The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1)
the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) said act was
accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the
victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is
under 12 years of age or is demented. People of the Philippines v. Felimon
Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February 12, 2014

Rape; sweetheart theory. For the sweetheart theory to be believed when

invoked by the accused, convincing evidence to prove the existence of the
supposed relationship must be presented by the proponent of the theory. For the
[sweetheart] theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship
must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such
evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. People
of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.

Rape; elements of statutory rape; carnal knowledge of a female without her

consent is the essence of statutory rape. The elements of statutory rape are
that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented; and (b) the
offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Considering that the essence of
statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a female without her consent, neither the
use of force, threat or intimidation on the female, nor the females deprivation
of reason or being otherwise unconscious, nor the employment on the female of
fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit
statutory rape. People of the Philippines v. Tomas Teodoro y Angeles, G.R. No.
175876, February 20, 2013

6. Distinguish the crime of unjust vexation and acts of lasciviousness

7. Distinguish robbery, theft and qualified theft as general rule, when

crime of this nature is committed, intent to gain is an essential element; the
same principle applies in carnapping (Anti- Carnapping Act of 1972, as
amended)

46 | P a g e
Elements of Qualified Theft: Zapanta v. People, March 20, 2013. The elements
of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and
309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal property;
(b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent
to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished
without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things; and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article
310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.

Homicide on occasion of robbery, victim is immaterial. People v. Welvin Diu,

et al., April 3, 2013. When homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery
would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing,
unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the commission of
the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery with homicide. All
those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide are guilty as principals of
such crime, although not all profited and gained from the robbery. One who
joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators
and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of
robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the
escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c)
to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate
witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between
the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place
other than the situs of the robbery.
8. Distinguish libel, internet libel and oral defamation malice is an
essential element in libel and under Art. 361, RPC proof of truth shall be
admissible only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public
officer with respect to facts related/published.

Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No.
203335, February 11, 2014: The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a
discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. There is actual
malice or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement
with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of
awareness of probable falsity.

Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No.
203335, February 11, 2014.
Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article
355 of the Penal Code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c) (4) of R.A.
47 | P a g e
10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 merely affirms that online
defamation constitutes similar means for committing libel. But the Supreme
Courts acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes only
the author of the libelous statement or article.

9. Distinction between crime of rebellion and that of sedition who may

liable; elements of each crime; can crime be considered as complex with
robbery, complex with homicide, complex with damage to property?

Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830,

February 11, 2014.
Under the political offense doctrine, common crimes, perpetrated in
furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as common
offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they
are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a
graver penalty. Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion,
the killing is not homicide or murder but the killing assumes the political
complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and
punished as rebellion alone

10. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208) ; Anti-Child

Pornography Act of 2009 (R.A.9775), Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A. 7610, as
amended) acts punishable and who are liable; In case of aliens, violating
R.A. 9775, may they be subjected to both deportation proceedings and a
criminal action? YES; Read the conviction of Judge Adoracion Angeles
judge was not suspended from judicial duties while conviction was pending
appeal; issuance of Protection Order even at the barangay level

Balois Alberto et. al. v. C.A. et. al. As held in People v. Pangilinan: [I]f the
victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual
abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except
paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double
jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal
liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a
violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal
Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as
rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
Cabalo v. People, June 10, 2013. Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610
pertinently reads: SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be

48 | P a g e
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. As determined in
the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), the elements of the foregoing offense are
the following: (a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct; (b) The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) The child, whether male
or female, is below 18 years of age.

11. Murder and Homicide

Murder; elements. To hold the accused liable for murder, the prosecution must
prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor
infanticide. People of the Philippines v. Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz, G.R. No.
199713, February 20, 2013.
Homicide; intent to kill. The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide
at whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries.
The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter alia, the means used;
the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the
conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the
killing of the victim. Accuseds intent to kill was simultaneous with the
infliction of injuries. Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest. Despite a
bloodied right upper torso, the latter still managed to run towards his house to
ask for help. Nonetheless, accused continued to shoot at the victim three more
times, albeit unsuccessfully. These belie the absence of petitioners intent to kill
the victim. Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
188551, February 27, 2013.

12. Illegal Use of Alias

Illegal use of aliases. A person who uses various names and such contained his
true names, albeit at times joined with an erroneous middle or second name, or
a misspelled family name in one instance is not guilty of violating the Anti-
Alias Law when he was not also shown to have used the names for
unscrupulous purposes, or to deceive or confuse the public. The Court that the
dismissal of the charge against him was justified in fact and in law. Revelina
Limson v. Eugenio Juan Gonzalez, G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014.

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

Capili v. People, July 3, 2013. The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore,
are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not been
legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could
not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a
second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage
has all the essential requisites for validity. Jurisprudence is replete with cases
holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if
there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so long
as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage was
celebrated.

49 | P a g e
People v. Odtuhan, July 17, 2013. The Family Code has settled once and for all
the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity
of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground
for defense. It has been held in a number of cases that a judicial declaration of
nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else,
what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a
second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its
nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and
only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and
so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage
exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted
for bigamy.

14. On computation of penalties It is important to relate the felony

committed with the corresponding penalty prescribed for such felony, then
consider the attending circumstances which may shorten or lengthen the
service sentence and if ISLaw applies, then the corresponding adjustments
will have to be made.

50 | P a g e