Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of foreign
merchant vessel passing through the territorial sea of another state has
jurisdiction over crimes committed therein. However, a coastal state such as
the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction over any crime committed on board
such ship in the following cases: (1) if its consequences extend to the coastal
State; (2) if it disturbs the peace of the country or the good order of the
territorial sea; (3) if the ship master or a diplomatic or consular officer of the
flag State requested assistance from the local authorities; or (4) if it is for the
suppression of traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
1|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Murder or serious physical injuries committed in a foreign vessel
anchored in a Philippine port against a passenger thereof is within the
jurisdiction of the Philippine court since this crime disturb the peace of the
country.
Under the principle of territoriality, the court has also jurisdiction over
crime committed in Kalayaan Islands or Scarboruogh Shoal because the
Baseline Law (RA No. 9522) declares that the Philippines exercise sovereignty
and jurisdiction over it.
2|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
born within the period of 301 days after the dissolution of the marriage, is not
anymore necessary since paternity and filiation can now be easily determined
through modern technology.
6. Repeal –RA No. 10655 has repealed Article 351 of RPC on premature
marriage without reenactment. This is a total repeal in which the intention of
the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law. Atotal repeal
deprives the courts of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of
the old penal law prior to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil. 1000). RA
8353 expressly repealed Article 336 of RPC on rape but re-enacted it redefining
this crimeunder Article 266-A. This is a partial repealin which the intention of
the new law is not to decriminalize an act punishable of old law but to
introduce changes. The effect of the new law is amendatory. This partial repeal
of Article 336 does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try and punish
offender for rape committed prior to RA No. 8353 (U.S. vs. Cana, 12 Phil. 241).
RA No. 8353 shall be given prospective effect since it is not favorable to the
accused.
The accused shot with a firearm and killed by mistake a thief in the
toilet, who turned out to be his girlfriend. Invasion of property is considered as
unlawful aggression under Article 12 of the RPC because of the self-help
doctrine under the Civil Code (People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April
20, 1983). Even though there is no actual invasion of property, unlawful
aggression as an element of defense of property will be considered as present
because of the mistake of fact principle. However, the means employed by him
firing shots through the toilet door is not reasonable; and hence, he is only
entitled to privilege migrating circumstance of incomplete defense of property
(US vs. Apego, G.R. No. L-7929, November 18, 1912).
3|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
putting a robber snake inside the bag of the victim) is unjust vexation, which is
a felony within the contemplation of Article 4. The accused is liable for homicide
if the victim died due to heart attack caused by seeing a snake in his bag.
In case of aberatiu ictus and error in personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not
contemplated in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R.
NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967). However,
praeter intentionem and evident premeditation can be independently
appreciated. there is no incompatibility between evident premeditation and no
intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is based on the state of
mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the crime (Reyes;
People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).
4|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
abduction against a person, who is gay). Despite the impossibility of its
commission, the accused is not liable for impossible crime. To be held liable for
impossible crime, the act which is impossible to commit must constitutes
crime against person or property.However, abduction is a crime against
chastity. But the accused may be held liable for illegal detention.
A person, who has sexual intercourse with a woman not knowing that
she was already dead,is liable for impossible crime since rape is now a crime
against person. However, if he is aware that the woman is already dead, he is
not liable for impossible crime since criminal intent or propensity to rape,
which is the basis of penalizing impossible crime, is wanting.
“A” discharged shotgun at “B” from a distance of 300 yards; but because
of the limited range of the firepower of the shotgun, it would be impossible for
“A” to harm “B”. “A” is liable of discharge of firearm and not impossible crime.
Where the offender unlawful entered the house and took a watch that turned
out to be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling and not impossible crime
(Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). If the accused
administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend whom he believed to be
pregnant, which turned out not to be true, but the woman became ill for more
than 30 days, the accused will be liable for serious physical injuries and not
impossible crime of abortion (Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).
5|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
to have sex is not clear. He is only liable for acts of lasciviousness (Cruz vs.
People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014).
The three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-
building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving or
non-violent phase (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). The
basis of the irresistible impulse to make a defense against the batterer is the
woman’s experiencing two battering episodes.
13. Insanity - The presumption, under Article 800 of the Civil Code, is
that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of
insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence
(People vs. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010, Justice Velasco). There are
6|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
two tests (People vs. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950) to
determine whether the mental condition of the accused is exempting or
mitigating:
14. Child in conflict with the law -The rights and privileges of a child
in conflict with the law are as follows:
7|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
previously subjected to a intervention program and his best interest requires
involuntarily commitment.
3.If the child is found guilty, the court shall place him under suspended
sentence, without need of application instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction (Section 38 of RA 9344). The law makes no distinction as to the
nature of offense by the child. The Senate debate discloses that the suspension
is applicable to heinous crime (People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16,
2011; People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015).
4. The child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order
of the court, be made to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities in
accordance with Section 51 of RA No. 9344 (People vs. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563,
December 14, 2011; People vs. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015).
8|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
9|Page Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
22. Conspiracy - It is immaterial whether appellant acted as a principal
or as an accomplice because the conspiracy and his participation therein have
been established. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and the
conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime (People vs. Siongco, G.R.
No. 186472, July 5, 2010).
Conspirators are all liable for robbery although not all profited and
gained from the robbery. When a conspirator committed homicide by reason of
or on the occasion of the robbery, his co-conspirators are liable for special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless they endeavored to prevent the
killing (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People vs. De
Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449, April 03,
2013) or they cannot prevent the killing since they are not aware thereof (People
vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997). This rule is applicable to special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape (People vs. Anticamaray, GR No.
178771, June 08, 2011) or robbery with rape (People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191,
August 16, 2006; People v. Canturia, G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995).
10 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
evident bad faith in violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. The private
individual, who was overpaid, is also liable on the basis of conspiracy and Go
vs. Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan (Santillano vs. People, G.R. Nos.
175045-46, March 03, 2010, Justice Velasco; Uyboco vs. People, G.R. No.
211703, December 10, 2014,Justice Velasco).
The criminal actor, who threwthe body of murdered victim into the river
to destroy the corpus delicti, is liable for murder qualified by the circumstance
of employment of means to afford impunity.The one who assisted in in throwing
the body is liable as an accessory to murder for destroying the body of the crime
to prevent its discovery (People vs. Devaras, G.R. Nos. 100938-39, December
15, 1993)or a principal in the crime of obstruction of justice for destroying it to
impair its availability as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
11 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
other law prescribed a higher penalty. Thus, the offender may be prosecuted for
murder as accessory with the penalty of prision mayor or for obstruction of
justice as principal also with the penalty of prision mayor, since this penalty is
higher than that prescribed under PD No. 1829. The intention of the law in
prescribing a fixed penalty or that provided by other law such as RPC,
whichever is higher, is not to prosecute the offender for obstruction of justice
and for other crime arising from the same act such as destroying the body of
the crime.
12 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
There is no credit if the accused is recidivist; has been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime; or has failed to surrender
voluntarily before a court of law upon being summoned for the execution of his
sentence (Article 29 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592).
If the offender is a child, the applicable rule for crediting the period of
commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344,
which provides that the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of
juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.
28. Special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) –If detention prisoner or
convicted prisoner escapes during the calamity, and subsequently surrenders
within 48 hours from the time the President announces the passing away of
such calamity, he is entitled to 1/5 special time allowance for loyalty (STAL)
under Article 98 of RPC as amended by RA No. 10592; if the convicted prisoner
did not surrender within the period, he is liable for evasion of sentence under
Article 158 of RPC punishable by penalty equivalent to one-fifth of the time still
remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall
exceed six months; if the detention prisoner did not surrender within the period,
he is not liable for evasion of sentence. Only convicted prisoner can commit
evasion of service of sentence because a detention prisoner is not serving
sentence, which he can evade.
13 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
homicide is not committed because of lack of intent to deprive liberty (People
vs. Estacio Jr., G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009).
The phrase “by reason of the rape” obviously conveys the notion that the
killing is due to the rape, which is the crime the offender originally designed to
commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. In contrast, the
phrase “on the occasion of the rape” as shown by Senate deliberations refers to a
killing that occurs immediately before or after,or during the commission itself of
the rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape
victim (People vs. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012; People vs. Laog,
G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011).
14 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
connection between the two crimes was “not a direct connection" (People vs.
Quemeggen, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009).
30. Compound crime - The single act of rolling the hand grenade on the
floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the death of victims constituted a
compound crime of multiple murders (People vs. Mores, GR No. 189846, June
26, 2013). Wherethe use of grenade render the victim defenseless, “use of
explosives” shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance because this is the
principal mode of attack. Thus, treachery will be relegated merely as a generic
aggravating circumstance (People vs. Comadre, et al., G.R. No. 153559, June 8,
15 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
2004). The single act of running over the victims with a van constitutes
compound crime of multiple murders (People vs. Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No.
199892, December 10, 2012).
The “single criminal impulse rule” under the Lawas doctrine is more of an
exception than the general rule (People vs. Remollino, G.R. No. L-14008,
September 30, 1960). Article 48 on compound crime speaks of single act, but
not single criminal impulse (People vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-26222, July 21,
1967). In Lawas case, the SC was merely forced to apply Article 48 because of
the impossibility of ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused
(People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500. September 11, 2012). Thus, the Lawas
doctrine should not be applied if there is conspiracy since the number of
victims actually killed by each conspirator is not anymore material if there is
conspiracy (People vs. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010, Justice
Velasco).
The “single criminal purpose rule” under the Abella case was adopted in
consideration of the plight of the prisoners; hence, it is only applicable if killings
were commit by prisoners against their fellow prisoners (People vs. Pincalin,
G.R. No. L-38755, January 22, 1981; People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No.
184500, September 11, 2012
31. Complex crime proper - Stabbing after the rape is a separate crime
of frustrated homicide. This is not a complex crime proper since the latter is not
necessary to commit the former (People vs. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21,
2012).
If the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim, the crime
committed is rape. Forcible abduction (People vs. Mejoraday, G.R. No. 102705,
July 30, 1993; People vs. Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002) or illegal
detention (People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004), which is
incidental to the commission of rape, is absorbed. The doctrine of absorption
16 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
rather than Article 48 of RPC is applicable since forcible abduction or illegal
detention is an indispensable means to commit rape.
If the accused abducted the victim without clear showing of lewd design,
the crime committed is kidnapping since it will appear that the intention of the
accused is to deprive victim of his liberty. If as a consequence of illegal
detention, the victim was rape, the crime committed is a special complex crime
of kidnapping with rape. This is the crime committed regardless of the number
of rapes. Multiple rapes will be considered as a component of this special
complex crime (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011;
People vs. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011). If as a consequence of
illegal detention, the victim was rape and then killed, the crime committed is a
special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide. Rape will be considered as
a component of this special complex crime (People vs. Larranaga, 138874-75,
February 3, 2004, En Banc).
17 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
RA No. 6968 eliminated the phrases "engaging in war against the forces
of the government", "committing serious violence" and “destroying property” in
Article 135 of RPC. These modes of committing rebellion deleted by RA No.
6968 were used by the SC in justifying the doctrine of absorption. The
amendment of Article 135 does not affect the accepted concept of rebellion and
these “overt acts of violence” are deemed “subsumed” in the provision on public
and armed uprising, which is an element of rebellion in Article 134 (Regalado).
Hence, the doctrine of absorption is still good. The incidents in Lovedioro case,
and Solongan case happened after RA No. 6968, and yet, the SC is still
applying the doctrine of absorption.
If the principal intention of the offenders is to rob the victims, and the
deprivation of their liberty is just incidental to the prevention of the responding
police officers from arresting them, the crime committed is robbery, which
absorbed kidnapping and serious illegal detention (People vs. Astor, G.R. Nos.
L-71765-66, 29 April 1987).If the accused committed robbery, but thereafter,
they detained the victims to demand additional money, and later forestall their
capture by the police, the crime committed is complex crime of robbery through
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The detention was availed of as a
means of insuring the consummation of the robbery. The detention was not
merely a matter of restraint to enable the malefactors to escape, but deliberate
as a means of extortion for an additional amount. Hence, the Astor principle is
not applicable (People vs. Salvilla, G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990). If the
accused committed robbery by band, but thereafter, they took one of the
victims and detained him for seven days in another place for purpose of
demanding ransom, they are liable of separate crimes of robbery by band and
kidnapping for ransom (People vs. Basao, G.R. No. 189820, October 10, 2012).
33. Delito continuado - In order that continuous crime may exist, there
should be: (1) plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; (2)
unity of criminal intent and purpose and (3) unity of penal provision infringed
upon or violated (Santiago vs. Garchitorena , GR NO. 109266, December 2,
1993). The following are delito continuado: (1) several acts of taking roasters
owned by different owner under a single criminal impulse to take them all in
violation of a single penal provision, and that is Article 308 of RPC (Note: This is
also called single larceny rule; People vs. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547, February
22, 1974); and (2)several acts of taking away by force the valuables of the
employees working in Energex gasoline station committed under a single
criminal intent to commit robbery in that place in violation of a single penal
provision, and that is Article 294 of RPC (People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943,
June 26, 2009).
18 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Accused inserted his penis thrice into the private part of victim for
purpose of changing position. The three penetrations motivated by a single
criminal intent to satisfy his lust in violation of single penal provision (Article
266-A of RPC) constitute a continued crime of rape (People vs. Aaron, G.R. Nos.
136300-02, September 24, 2002). Accused inserted his penis thrice into the
private part of victim for purpose of resting for five minutes. He satisfied his lust
every time he would withdraw his penis to rest. Since the three penetrations
were motivated by separate three criminal impulse to satisfy his lust, three
separate crimes of rape are committed (People vs. Lucena, GR No. 190632,
February 26, 2014).
34. Penalty - Two degrees higher than reclusion temporal prescribed for
qualified theft shall be death penalty. Since death penalty was not specifically
prescribed for qualified theft, the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the
accessory penalties for death shall be imposed pursuant to Article 74 of RPC.
However, the period of imprisonment should be fixed at forty (40) years
of reclusion perpetua. Otherwise, there would be no difference at all
between reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty next higher in degree
and reclusion perpetua imposed as the penalty fixed by law (Celestial vs.
People, G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015, Justice Velasco).
19 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Under Section 98 of RA No. 9165, the provisions of RPC shall not apply
except in the case of minor offenders. Hence, if the accused is a minor, privilege
mitigating circumstance of minority (People vs. Montalaba, G.R. No. 186227,
July 20, 2011; People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012Asiatico vs.
People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, Justice Velasco), confession or
quasi-recidivisim(People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) shall
be considered in crime involving dangerous drugs. In this case, life
imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. If the accused is an
adult, these circumstances shall not be appreciated.
If the special law (such as RA No. 6235 on hijacking and RA No. 3019
on corruption) did not adopt the technical nomenclature of penalties in RPC,
the latter shall not apply. Mitigating circumstance of confession shall not be
appreciated since the penalty not borrowed from RPC cannot be applied in its
minimum period. The crime has not attempted or frustrated stage since penalty
not borrowed from RPC cannot be graduated one or two degrees lower.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at
20 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court (Article 39
of RPC as amended by RA No. 10159).
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could
serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine, prision correccional and perpetual
absolute disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction. In sum,
while lingering in prison, convict could pay fine, return the property
confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or to act function as a public officer.
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
successively if the nature of the penalties will not permit simultaneous service.
Convict must serve multiple penalties successively: (1) where the penalties to be
served are destierro and imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to be served
are imprisonment. However, the successive service of sentences is subject to
the three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule.
The three fold rule is to be taken into account not in the imposition of
the penalty but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed (People
vs. Escares, G.R. No. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957; Mejorada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-51065-72, June 30, 1987). Thus, the court cannot
dismiss criminal cases in excess of three on the basis of three-fold rule.
21 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Novation cannot be used as a defense in case where the existence of
contract is not an element. In theft case, there was no contractual relationship
or bilateral agreement which can be modified or altered by the parties (People
vs. Tanjutco, G.R. No. L-23924, April 29, 1968, En Banc).In estafa through
falsification of public documents, the liability of the offender cannot be
extinguished by mere novation (Milla vs. People, G.R. No. 188726, January 25,
2012).
The State and private complainant should not be blame for failure to
institute the case immediately after the commission of the crime if they are
ignorant or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of a crime.
Under "blameless ignorance" doctrine (Section 2 of Act 3326 and Article 91 of
RPC), the prescription runs only upon discovery of the crime by offended party
or State through a person in authority or his agent. Considering that during
the Marcos regime, no person would have dared to assail the legality of the
transactions involving cronies such as behest loan, it would be unreasonable to
expect that the discovery of the unlawful transactions was possible prior to
1986 (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and 174764-65,
September 11, 2013). Hence, the prescriptive period for violation of RA No. 3019
commenced from the date of its discovery in 1992 after the Committee made an
exhaustive investigation (Presidential Ad hoc fact-finding committee vs. Hon.
Desierto, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011).
22 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
discovery of the bigamous marriage and not from the registration of bigamous
marriage in the Office of the Civil Registrar. The law on Civil Registry and the
Family Code, which governed registration of marriage, do not provide a rule on
constructive notice (Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14,
1994).
If the crime is punishable bythe Revised Penal Code or a special law, the
institution of judicial proceeding(e.g. filing of complaint or information in court)
or executive proceeding (e.g. filing of complaint for preliminary investigation)
interrupts the running of prescription such as the filing of complaint: (1) for
violation of BP Blg. 22 in the prosecutor’s office - People vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No.
152662, June 13, 2012;Panaguiton vs. Department of Justice, G.R. No.
167571, November 25, 2008; (2) for violation of Revised Securities Act in
Securities and Exchange Commission - SEC vs. Interport Resources
Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008; or (3) violation of RA No. 3019
in the Ombudsman - Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24 and
174764-65, September 11, 2013.
23 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final. This
notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek
a review of the modified decision which already imposes a probationable
penalty (Section 4 of PD 968 as amended by RA No. 10707). In Colinares vs.
People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011, the accused, who was convicted
by the lower court of a non-probationable offense of frustrated homicide, but
on appeal was found guilty of a probationable offense of attempted homicide,
may apply for probation. In Villareal vs. People, G.R. No. 151258, December 1,
2014, accused was convicted of homicide, a non-probationable crime, by the
trial court. However, the SC found them liable for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide, which is a probationable crime, because of lack of dolo.
They can still apply for probation.
Under PD No. 968 as amended, crimes against public disorder are non-
probationable. However, under RA No. 10707, crimes against public disorder
such as alarm and scandal and direct assault are now probationable.
The phrase "on occasion of such performance" used in Article 148 of RPC
means "by reasonof the past performance of official duty because the purpose of
the law is to allow them to discharge their duties without fear of being assaulted
by reason thereof (People vs. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974).
Attacking a judge on the street by reason of past performance of duty (such as
citing the accused in contempt) constitutes qualified direct assault (U.S. vs. vs.
Garcia, G.R. No. 6820, October 16, 1911). But attacking a retired judge by
reason of past performance of duty is not direct assault since he is not anymore
24 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
a person in authority at the time of the assault. Note: The mandatory retirement
age of a judge is 70 year.
40. Abortion and infanticide – If the fetus is killed inside the womb of
his mother, the crime is abortion regardless of whether he is viable or not
(People vs. Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People vs. Salufrania,
G.R. No. L-50884, March 30, 1988). If the victim is killed outside the womb of
the mother, the crime is: (1) abortion if the victim is not viable e.g. intrauterine
life is only 6 months (People vs. Detablan, 40 O.G. No. 9, p. 30; People vs.
Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008); or (2) infanticide, if the victim is
25 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
viable e.g. his intrauterine life is more than 6 months and his life is less than 3
day old; or (3) murder if the victim is viable and his life is 3 day old or more.
If the accused maltreated his wife and as a consequence, his wife and
unborn child died, the crime committed is compound crime of parricide and
unintentional abortion (People vs. Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002;
People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851, March 01, 1995). If the accused
maltreated his pregnant wife and as a consequence, his wife died, and his child
was expelled, and died thereafter within 3 days, the crime committed is
compound crime of parricide and infanticide. If the accused maltreated his
pregnant wife and as a consequence, his wife died, and his child was expelled,
and died thereafter on the third day, the crime committed is compound crime of
double parricides.
Killing his wife after surprising her in the act of committing homosexual
intercourse with another woman is not death under exceptional circumstance.
“Sexual intercourse” mentioned in Article 247 is different from homosexual
intercourse. Killing his mistress after surprising in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with a man is not death under exceptional circumstance(U.S. vs.
Versola, G.R. No. 10759, January 25, 1916). The offender in Article 247 must
be a “legally married person.” Killing his wife under the circumstance indicating
that she had just finished having sexual intercourse with another man is not
death under exceptional circumstance. He did not catch his wife in the very act
of sexual intercourse, but after such act (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310,
October 31, 1939).
26 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
someone was killed in the course of the affray; (e) that it cannot be ascertained
who actually killed the deceased (Not: If the killers are identified, this element is
not present; since they are identified, they are liable for homicide or murder;
Wacoy vs. People, G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2015); and (f) that the person or
persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.
44. Rape - If the relationship between the accused and the victim of rape
is uncle and niece, the Information must alleged that the offender is “a relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree” because there are
niece-uncle relationships which are beyond the third civil degree. However, a
sister-brother relationship is obviously in the second civil
degree. Consequently, it is not necessary that the Information should
specifically state that the accused is a relative by consanguinity within the third
civil degree of the victim (People vs. Ceredon, G.R. No. 167179, January 28,
2008,Justice Velasco).
Husband can be held liable for marital rape. Article 266-A of RPC uses
the term “man” in defining rape without regard to the rapist’s legal relationship
with his victim. Under Article 266-C of RPC, in case it is the legal husband who
is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action. RA No. 8353 has eradicated the archaic
notion that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute
27 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
proprietary rights over his wife’s body and thus her consent to every act of
sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed (People vs.
Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014),
28 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
2009, Tanenggee vs. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013) or theft (People
vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001), the crime committed is complex
crime proper under Article 48 of RPC.
48. Estafa –In offenses against property (theft or estafa), if the subject
matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable (e.g. money), an error in the
designation of the offended party is fatal. However, if the subject matter of the
offense is specific and identifiable (e.g. check or jewelry), an error in the
designation of the offended party is immaterial (Senador vs. People, G.R. No.
201620, March 06, 2013, Justice Velasco). In oral defamation, a crime against
honor, the identity of the person against whom the defamatory words were
directed is a material element. Thus, an erroneous designation of the person
injured is material (People vs. Uba, 106 Phil. 332).
29 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
G.R. No. 157433, July 24, 2007, Justice Velasco). On the other hand, demand
is not necessary where there is direct evidence of misappropriation (People vs.
Arambulo, G.R. No. 186597, June 17, 2015). This rule on demand is applicable
to malversation (Munib vs. People, G.R. Nos. 163957-58, April 07, 2009,
Justice Velasco).
Where the borrower is importers acquiring goods for resale, goods sold in
retail are often within his custody until they are purchased. This is covered by
trust receipt agreement. Failure to return the unsold good or deliver the
proceeds of sale to the bank is estafa in relation to PD No. 115 (Trust Receipt
Law). Where the borrower is engaged in construction, the materials are often
placed under custody of his clients, who can only be compelled to return the
materials if they fail to pay. Since the bank and the contractor know that the
return of the materials is not possible, this is not covered by trust receipt
agreement. This transaction becomes a mere loan, where the borrower is
obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods. The
accused is not liable for estafa because of the constitutional provision of non-
imprisonment for nonpayment of debts (Yang vs. People, G.R. No. 195117,
August 14, 2013, Justice Velasco).
To be guilty of this crime the accused must have used the check in order
to defraud the complainant. However, prima facie evidence of deceit exists by
law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor (People vs. Reyes, supra). But receipt of notice of dishonor is not an
element of this crime.
In other forms of swindling under Article 316, (1) and (2) of RPC, offender
made false representation involving real property and act of ownership such as
selling it, which causes damage to third person. In paragraph 1, the accused
represents that he owned the property, while in paragraph 2, he expressly
represents in the deed of conveyance that the property is “free from
encumbrance” (Estrellado-Mainar vs. People, G.R. No. 184320, July 29, 2015) or
"comolibre". These words "comolibre" in the Spanish Penal Code are deemed
incorporated in the RPC (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No. 146770, February 27, 2003).
To "take" under theft the Revised Penal Code does not require
asportation or carrying away (Medina vs. People, G.R. No. 182648, June 17,
2015). It is not an indispensable requisite of theft that a pickpocket should
carry, more or less far away, a wallet taken from its owner (People vs. Mercado,
G.R. Nos. L-45471 and L-45472, June 15, 1938).
30 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
providing telecommunication and the telephone service is a personal property
(Laurel vs. Abrogar, G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009). Since asportation is
not an element of theft, a personal property can to be the object of theft as
along as it is capable of appropriation although it is not capable of "asportation"
(Medina vs. People, G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015). Intangible property is not
capable of asportation, and yet, it can be an object of theft since is capable of
asportation.
If the bulky goods are taken by the accused inside a compound (such as
SM), theft is consummated even if the accused failed to bring out the stolen
goods from the compound, which makes him unable to freely dispose it.
Inability to dispose the stolen property is not an element of theft. Unlawful
taking is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage.
Without unlawful taking, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all.
Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage (Valenzuela vs. People, G. R. No.
160188, June 21, 2007). If the accused is charged with frustrated theft, he
could not be convicted of the crime charged because theft has no frustrated
stage. Neither could he be convicted of consummated theft since it was not
alleged in the information. But he could be convicted of attempted theft because
this is a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the charge of frustrated
theft (Canceran vs. People, G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015).
If the accused received the car from the owner for repair the possession
is physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is carnapping (Santos vs.
People, G.R. No. 77429 January 29, 1990).If the accused received the property
to bring it to a goldsmith for examination and to immediately return it back to
the owner, his possession is physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is
theft (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. L-16961, September 19, 1921). If the accused
received the property with authority to sell it (Guzman vs. CA, 99 Phil. 703), or
money with authority to use it to buy palays (Carganillo vs. People, G.R. No.
182424, September 22, 2014), or with full freedom and discretion on how to
use it to facilitate its remittance to BIR as payment of tax and reduce the
amount due (Velayo vs. People, G.R. No. 204025, November 26, 2014), his
possession is juridical. Thus, failure of the agent to return it is estafa (Guzman
v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703; Tria vs. People, G.R. No. 204755, September
17, 2014).
A franchise holder must personally operate the motor vehicle. That is the
reason why government regulation prohibits operator of motor vehicle from
leasing it. In the eye of the law the driver of taxi or passenger jeepneyunder
boundary arrangement was only an employee of the owner rather than a lessee.
For being an employee, his possession of the jeepney is physical (People v. Isaac
31 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
G.R. No. L-7561, April 30, 1955), and thus, misappropriation thereof is
carnapping (People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004)
Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same
to the local authorities or to its owner, is liable for theft. If the finder surrenders
the property found to a policeman, who fails to deliver it the owner, the
policeman is liable for theft. He acquired the position occupied by the actual
finder. Appropriating the property is of the same character of that made by one
who originally found the same (People vs. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March 31,
1923).
If the main objective is to kill the victim in a building, and fire is resorted
to as the means to accomplish such goal, the crime committed is murder only.
Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs arson since the latter is an inherent
means to commit the former (People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27,
1994). Single act of burning the building to kill two persons constitutes
compound crime of double murders (People vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050,
September 19, 2008).
32 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
If the main objective is to burn the building, but death results by reason
or on the occasion of arson, the crime is arson with homicide, and the resulting
homicide is absorbed (People vs. Villacorta, 172468, October 15, 2008).
If the objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already done so, and
arson is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, the offender may be
convicted of two separate crimes of either homicide or murder, and arson
(People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994).
51. Bigamy –X contracted three marriages. His first wife is already dead
when X contracted his third marriage. X is liable for bigamy involving the
second marriage on the basis of his first marriage. X is not liable for bigamy
involving the third marriage on the basis of the first marriage since the first has
already been extinguished by reason of death of the first wife when he
contracted the third. He is not liable for bigamy involving the third marriage on
the basis of the second marriage since the latter is null and void for being a
bigamous marriage.
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the
offended parties depending on the circumstances. But if the second spouse had
knowledge of the previous marriage of the accused, the former is liable as an
accomplice (Santiago vs. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015).
33 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004; Walter vs. People, GR No. 183805, July
03, 2013).
53. Libel - Under Article 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and editor of
newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the
same extent as if he were the author thereof. The publisher and editors cannot
disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply
saying they had no participation in the preparation of the same. They cannot
say that Tulfo was all alone in the publication of Remate, on which the
defamatory articles appeared. It is not a matter of whether or not they
conspired in preparing and publishing the subject articles, because the law
simply so states that they are liable as if they were the author (Tulfo vs. People,
G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008, Justice Velasco).
The place where libelous article was accessed by the offended party in
the internet is not equivalent to the place where the libelous article is “printed
and first published”. To rule otherwise is to allow the evil sought to be
prevented by the amendment to Article 360, and that was the indiscriminate
laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas, to
harass an accused. At any rate, Article 360 still allow offended party to file the
civil or criminal complaint for internet libel in their respective places of
residence (Bonifacio vs. RTC, Makati, Branch 149, G.R. No. 184800, May 5,
2010).
34 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
under RA 9165 for the dangerous drug, PD 1866 as amended by RA 9516 for
the explosive and RA No. 10591 for loose firearm.
55. BP 22 - Demand letter was given with the security guard without
proof that it reached accused and through registered mail which was returned
with the notation "N/S Party Out 12/12/05". Since there is proof that accused
received the notice of dishonor, he was acquitted However, he is still civilly
liable (San Mateo vs. People, G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013).
35 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
accused has no obligation to fund the check and the complainant has no right
to present it for payment (Gidwani vs. People, GR No. 195064, January 15,
2014).Suspension of payment order issued by SEC after three months from
receipt of notice of dishonor is not a defense in BP Blg. 22. The accused has the
obligation to make good of the check after he received the letter prior to the
issuance of suspension order (Rosario vs. Co, G.R. No. 133608, August 26,
2008).
56. RA No. 7610 - The Family Code prohibits the infliction of corporal
punishment by teacher. A schoolteacher in employing unnecessary violence on
her minor student, who even fainted, is liable for child abuse under RA No.
7610 (Rosaldes vs. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014). Accused saw
the victim and his companions hurting his minor daughters. Angered, accused
struck minor-victim at the back with his hand and slapped his face. Since the
accused committed the act at the spur of the moment, they are perpetrated
without intent to debase his "intrinsic worth and dignity" as a human being, or
to humiliate or embarrass him. Without such intent, the crime committed is not
child abuse under RA 7610 but merely slight physical injuries (Bongalon vs.
People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013).
If the child is 12 years old and above, and the acts of the accused
constitute sexual abuse under RA No. 7610 and rape through sexual assault or
acts of lasciviousness, he shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610 since this law
prescribed a grave penalty (Dimakuta vs. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20,
2015). However, if the acts constitute sexual abuse and rape through sexual
intercourse, he shall be prosecuted under RPC since this law prescribed a
graver penalty. He cannot be prosecuted for compound crime of rape and sexual
abuse because the latter is punishable under special law. He cannot be
prosecuted for both rape and sexual abuse because of the rule on double
jeopardy (People v. Matias, G.R. No. 186469, June 13, 2012 and Alberto vs.
Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013).
If the child is under 12 years old, and the acts of the accused constitute
sexual abuse and rape or acts of lasciviousness, the latter shall be prosecuted
penalized as follows: (1) rape through sexual intercourse; (2) acts of
lasciviousness with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
(Section 5 of RA No. 7610).Prior to RA No. 8353 (Rape Law), inserting finger into
genital orifice is acts of lasciviousness. Hence, reclusion temporal in its medium
period under RA No. 7610 should be imposed. Under RA No. 8353, inserting
finger into genital orifice is rape through sexual assault where the penalty is
prision mayor. To impose the lighter penalty under RPC as amended by RA
8353 is unfair to the victim. It is not the intention of RA No. 8353 to disallow
the imposition of penalty under RA No. 7610 if the victim is child subjected to
sexual abuse, who isunder 12 years of age (People vs. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323,
March 16, 2011). If the crime is qualified rape through sexual assault, the
36 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Chingcase is not applicable since RA No. 8353 prescribed a grave penalty of
reclusion temporal for it (People vs. Bonaagua, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011).
37 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Possession of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a single occasion
constitutes a single offense of possession of dangerous drugs (David vs. People,
G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011).
Poseur-buyer showed shabu for sale to poseur buyer. The sale was
aborted when the police officers immediately placed accused under arrest. The
crime committed is attempted sale (People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April
11, 2012).
61. RA No. 3019 - To apply the Arias rule for purposes of exonerating an
accused or respondent, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the
public officer in approving the release of public fund must be relying to a
reasonable extent on his subordinates (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No. 166967,
January 28, 2013); (2) that the documents involving the release of funds must
be so voluminous so as to preclude him from studying each one carefully
(Santillano vs. People, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 03, 2010); (3) that the
public officer has no foreknowledge of existing anomaly (Escara vs. People, G.R.
No. 164921, July 8, 2005); and that there is not deviation from ordinary
procedure in the release of fund, which necessitate further investigation (Cruz
vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 134493, August 16, 2005; Rivera vs.
People, G.R. No. 156577, December 03, 2014).
City treasurer, city accountant and city administrator allowed the release
of cash advance in favor of a paymaster despite the fact that she has previous
unliquidated cash advances. They are liable because of conspiracy of silence or
inaction. Public officers’ omissions to question irregularities indicate a common
understanding and concurrence of sentiments respecting the commission of the
38 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
offense of causing undue injury to the government through gross inexcusable
negligence. This is called conspiracy by silence (Jaca vs. People, G.R. No.
166967, January 28, 2013).
39 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
First - That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other persons; (Note: Senator Pogi can be
held liable for plunder even if the principal offender, who masterminded the
plunder of pork barrel, is a private individual, the Pork-barrel Queen. What is
important is that Senator Pogi in connivance with Pork-barrel Queen acquired
ill-gotten wealth). On the other hand, Pork-barrel Queen can be held liable for
plunder on the basis of conspiracy.
40 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
Thus, a single predicate crime amounting to 50 million pesos is not plunder.
The intention of the lawmakers is that if there is only one predicate crime, the
offender has to be prosecuted under the particular crime, which is already
covered by existing laws. What is punishable under the law is "acts of plunder",
which means that there should be at least, two or more, predicate crimes (See
deliberation of the Bicameral Committee on Justice, May 7, 1991).
Third - That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth
amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00 (Joseph Ejercito
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001).
The damages suffered by the government in diverting the road from the
poblacion to the farm of the accused shall not be considered in determining if
plunder is committed. What is important is the amount of ill-gotten wealth
acquired by the public officer and not the amount of damage suffered by the
government.
In People vs. Joseph Estrada, Criminal Case No. 26558, September 12,
2007 -One of the predicate crimes alleged in the information is
misappropriation of the excise tax share of Ilocos Sur. This was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. However, the following predicate crimes were alleged
and proven by evidence (1) series of acts of receiving collections from "jueteng"
in the aggregate amount of P545,291,000.00; and (2) series consisting of two
acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS to purchase shares of stock of Belle
Corporation and collecting or receiving commission from the sales of Belle
Shares in the amount of P189,700,000.00. This pattern of criminal acts
indicates an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass ill-gotten wealth in
the amount of more than P50 million. Estrada was convicted of plunder.
41 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.
PRE-WEEK REVIEWER (NOVEMBER, 2016)
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B.
CAMPANILLA
parties contravenes the provisions of RA No. 4200. The law covers even those
recorded by persons privy to the private communications. The law is applicable
even if the conversation being recorder pertains to criminal extortion (Mamba
vs. Garcia, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1110, June 25, 2001). Passenger is criminally
liable for violating law. On the other hand, MMDA officer is liable for attempted
robbery. However, in proving attempted robbery, the driver cannot use the
recording since the same is not admissible in evidence.
65. Hazing - The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following
essential elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing
or humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or
injury; and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person’s
admission or entry into an organization (People vs. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222,
February 18, 2015).
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no
direct participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices
if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by the above elements, occurred; (2)
the accused are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they consented
to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual knowledge
thereof (People vs. Bayabos).
42 | P a g e Warning: This is the intellectual property of Judge Campanilla. Copying any parts of this work in writing materials or
book for publication without proper attribution is prohibited by law.