AUSL 2019 Pre Week Notes Criminal Law FINAL

REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK ONE
1. Distinguish crimes Mala in Se from Mala Prohibita.
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita

As to Nature Wrong by its very nature, or Wrong because there is a law prohibiting the act.
inherently evil.
Laws Violated Generally, punishable under the Generally, punishable under Special Laws.
RPC.
Basis of Criminal Offender’s moral trait. Offender’s voluntariness.
Liability
Good Faith or Lack Good faith or lack of criminal Good faith or lack of criminal intent is NOT
of Criminal Intent intent is a defense. accepted as a defense, UNLESS this is an element
as a Defense of the crime such as in Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019
[evident bad faith].
Modifying These circumstances are taken These circumstances are not considered because
Circumstances as into account in imposing the the law intends to discourage the commission of
consideration penalty of the offender precisely the act specially prohibited.
because his moral trait is the
basis of the crime.
Degree of This determines the penalty This does not affect their liability, hence, the
Participation imposable so that it is computed penalty on all of them is the same whether they
on the basis of whether he is are principals or merely accomplices or
principal offender, or merely an accessories.
accomplice or accessory.
Stage of This affects the penalty imposed, This is considered only when the crime is
Accomplishment thus, the penalty depends on accomplished or consummated. There is no
whether the crime is attempted or frustrated stage because it is the
consummated, frustrated, or commission of the act itself that is prohibited and
attempted. also since intent, which is inherent in attempted
or frustrated stage, is not an element. Thus, just
like felonies by culpa, mala prohibita is always
consummated.
Involvement of Generally, crimes mala in se Generally, crimes mala prohibita do not involve
Moral Turpitude involve moral turpitude. moral turpitude.
As to Division of Penalties may be divided into There is no such division of penalties.
Penalties degrees and periods.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 18th Edition, 2016).
2. What are the Characteristics of Criminal law? Explain each.
Criminal law is General, Territorial and Prosepective in character. Generality means that Penal laws and
those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in the Philippine
territory. Territoriality means that penal laws of the Philippines have force and effect only within its
territory. Prospectivity means that Criminal law cannot penalize an act that was not punishable at the
time of its commission.
2019 CRIMINAL LAW|1

Pre-week Notes
3. What are the exceptions to the Generality Principle of Criminal Law?
a. Treaty stipulations and international agreements;

b. Law of preferential application; and
c. Principles of Public International Law.(Reyes, Book 1, p. 10)
4. Exemptions to the Territoriality Principle:
The provisions of RPC shall be enforced within the Philippine territory. The exceptions are against who:
a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number;
d. While being public offices or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of the functions; or
e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of the RPC. (Art. 2 RPC)
5. Differentiate English Rule from French Rule.
English Rule French Rule

Crimes committed aboard foreign merchant Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that
vessels are triable in that country, unless they country, unless their commission affects the peace
merely affect things within the vessel or they and security of the territory or the safety of the state
refer to the internal management thereof. In is endangered.
the Philippines, we observe the English Rule.
6. Mimi and Pedro are married with three kids. Pedro went to Singapore where he worked
as an engineer. He failed to send financial support to his family in the Philippines and
started to have an affair with a Singaporean woman. Mimi with their kids visited Pedro in
Singapore where they had a violent altercation. Mimi went back to the Philippines,
suffered psychological violence and filed violation of RA 9262 against Pedro. Will the case
prosper?
Yes. If the psychological violence consisting of marital infidelity punishable under RA No. 9262 is
committed in a foreign land but the psychological effect occurred in the
Philippines since the wife and the children of the respondent, who suffered mental anguish, are
residing in the Philippines, our court can assume jurisdiction. Even if the alleged extra- marital
affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same
does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine
courts (AAA vs BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018). However if the commission of the
criminal act consummates the crime and the effect thereof is not an element of the crime, the
place of occurrence of the effect shall not be considered for purpose of venue and territoriality
rule. Bigamy committed in a foreign land is beyond the jurisdiction of our court although the
offended spouse is residing in the Philippines since the psychological effect of bigamy to him/her
is not an element thereof (Supplied by Judge Campanilla).
2|CLEAR
BarOps
7. What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo?
In dubio pro reo means “when in doubt, for the accused.” Intimately related to the in dubio pro
reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible
interpretation of a penal statute – one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is
favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the
accused. (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs. People, GR No. 181409, February 11, 2010)
FELONIES
8. What are the elements of a felony?
The elements of a felony are the following:

a. That there must be an act or omission
b. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code
c. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. (Art.3, RPC)
9. How is criminal liability incurred?
Art. 4 of the RPC provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037; People vs. Valdez 41 Phil 497; People vs. Pugay, G.R.
No. 74324, November 1988).
Note: Par. 2 of Art. 4 is also referred to as “Impossible Crime”.
10. Distinguish grave, less grave and light felonies from one another.
Grave Felonies Less Grave Felonies Light Felonies

Those which the law Those which the law punishes with Those infractions of law for the commission
attaches the capital penalties, which in their maximum of which the penalty of arresto menor or a
punishment or penalties, period are correctional, in fine not exceeding 200.00 pesos, or both, is
which in any of their accordance with above–mentioned provided. However, as amended byRA
periods are afflictive, in article. 10951, the amount of 200.00 has been
accordance with Article 25 increased to 40,000.
of the RPC.
2019 CRIMINAL LAW|3

Pre-week Notes
11. Distinguish Error in Personae, Aberratio Ictus and PraeterIntentionem.
Error in Personae Aberratio Ictus PraeterIntentionem.

Mistake of Identity Mistake in the Blow Greater Injury Results
There is only one (1) The offender intends to inflict It is when the injury is on the intended
offended party but the injury on one (1) person but the victim but the resulting wrong is graver than
offender committed a harm fell on another, which may that intended.
mistake in ascertaining the be in addition to the injury on the
identity of the victim. originally intended victim.
There are two (2) persons There are three (3) persons There are two (2) persons who are present:
who are present: the present: the offender, the the offender and the actual victim.
offender and the actual intended victim and the actual
victim. victim.
12. What is motive? Distinguish “motive” from “intent.” May a crime be committed without
criminal intent?
Motive is the moving power that impels a person to act for a definite result. It is not considered as an
element of the crime. It is essential only when the identity of the offender is in doubt. On the other hand,
intent is the purpose for using a particular means to achieve a desired result. It is an ingredient of dolo
or malice, thus it is an element of deliberate felonies.
Intent Motive
The purpose to use a particular means to effect such The moving power which impels one to action for a
result. definite result.
An element of the crime, except in unintentional NOT an element of the crime.
felonies
Essential in intentional felonies Essential only when the identity of the perpetrator is in
doubt
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in the following instances:

1. If such is a culpable felony;
2. In crimes which are mala prohibita in nature.
13. When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established?
Explain.
Motive is relevant to a case when:
1. The identity of the offender is in doubt;

2. When the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is a need to determine which crime
should be properly imputed to the offender;
3. When the evidence is merely circumstantial;
4. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of
persons;
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing; and
6. When the act is alleged to be committed in defense of a stranger because it must not be induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
4|CLEAR
BarOps
Motive is not necessary to be established in the following instances:
1. When there is a witness positively identifying the accused;

2. In commission of crimes which are mala prohibita in nature; and
3. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.
14. Denz saw Gio and Angelo eating in front of a sari-sari store. Denz had a grudge against
Gio for suspecting that he threw stones at his house on a previous night so he punched
him. Seeking to protect Gio and to stop Denz, Angelo picked a stone, as big as a man’s
fist and hitting Denz at the left side of his back not noticing that Gio was already able to
ran away. Denz complained of backache and stomachache and shortly thereafter, he
died. Hence, Dr. Mendez confirmed the possibility that Denz was stoned to death by
Angelo. Did Angelo commit intentional felony?
No. There is no malicious intent on the part of Angelo to injure, much less to kill Denz. It should
be remembered that the meeting was a chance encounter. While a running grudge existed
between Denz and Gio, there was none between victim Denz and Angelo. Reckless imprudence
consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing
or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.(Calimutan vs. People, G.R. No. 152133, February 9, 2006)
15. What is an impossible crime?
An act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.(Art. 4(2), RPC)
16. Javi an employee of GDL Company, had free access inside the establishment of his
employer. While in there, he took, steal, and intended to deposit to his own bank
account a check amounting to P10,000. Such check was supposed to be the payment
made by Juan, GDL Company’s client, to the company. However, when Javi presented
the check to the bank, the bank dishonored the same due to the insufficiency of funds of
the maker. Javi turned to Juan and asked the latter to pay the amount in cash. It was
then that Javi was apprehended and caught. What crime/crimes did Javi commit, if
any?
Javi committed an impossible crime of qualified theft. There is factual impossibility when
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. Qualified theft is a crime against property. The mere act of
unlawfully taking the check meant for GDL Company showed his intent to gain. Were it not for
the fact that the check bounced, he would have received the face value thereof, which was not
rightfully his. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being
unfunded, a fact unknown to him at the time, that prevented the crime from being
produced. The thing unlawfully taken by Javi turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the
check was eventually dishonored (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009).
2019 CRIMINAL LAW|5

Pre-week Notes
17. Compare and distinguish Frustrated Felony from Attempted and Impossible Crime.
FRUSTRATED FELONY ATTEMPTED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Accomplishment
Criminal Purpose not accomplished Criminal Purpose not accomplished Criminal Purpose not
accomplished
Acts of Execution
The offender has performed all the The offender merely commences The offender has performed all
acts of execution which would produce the commission of a felony directly the acts of execution which
the felony as a consequence. by overt acts and does not perform would produce the felony as a
all the acts of execution. consequence.
Reason for non-accomplishment
Causes independent of the will of the Some cause or accident other than Inherent impossibility of its
perpetrator. his own spontaneous desistance. accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
18. What are the crimes which have no frustrated stage?
a. Rape (People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 192433, March 30, 2000).
b. Robbery/Theft (Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007).
c. Libel (Disini vs. SOJ, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014).
19. Taylor, a physician, wanted to kill his wife. He gave her food with poison. After eating
the food, the wife became unconscious. Bothered by his own conscience, Taylor gave her
medicine to counteract the effects of the poison and his wife was saved. Taylor is
prosecuted for frustrated parricide. Is Taylor guilty?
No. Taylor is not guilty of frustrated parricide. Although he has already performed all the acts of
execution to kill his wife, because she ate the food with poison, she however, did not die due to
the medicine which he administered. The death of the wife, therefore did not result due to a
cause which was voluntarily done by Taylor. In a frustrated felony, the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, do
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (Art. 6(2), RPC).
6|CLEAR
BarOps
COMPLEX CRIMES
20. What are the kinds of Complex Crimes?
Complex Crime Special Real or Material

Compound Crime Continued Crime
Proper Complex Crime Plurality
Compound crime Complex Crime Composite Continued Crime There is a series of
(delitocompuesto) Proper Crime or (delitocontinuado) acts performed by the
- a single act (delitocomplejo) – Special – There should be: offender.
constitute two or when an offense is a complex Crime 1. Plurality of acts
more grave or less necessary means of – refers to two performed
grave felonies. Its committing another. or more crimes separately during a Each act performed by
requisites are: Its requisite are: where the law period of time; the offender
prescribes a constitutes a separate
1. That only 1. That at least single penalty 2.Unity of criminal
one single two offenses intent or purpose; crime, each act is
act is are generated by a
performed committed; 3.Unity of penal criminal impulse.
by the 2. That one or provision infringed
offender: some of the upon or
and offenses violated.(Santiago
2. That the must be vs. Garchitorena
single act necessary G.R. No. 109266
produces to commit Dec. 2, 1993)
(a) two or the other,
more and
grave or 3. That both or
less grave all the
felonies. crimes must
Light felonies be punished
produced by the under the
same act should be Revised
treated and Penal Code
punished as
separate offenses
or may be
absorbed by the
grave felony.
21. What is the Doctrine of Common Elements?
Under this doctrine, an element used to complete one crime cannot be legally re-used to
complete the requisites of a subsequent crime. For instance, the common element of estafa or
malversation and falsification of private document is damage to the complainant. Thus,
falsification of private document and estafa cannot co-exist. The use of damage as an element
of falsification of private document precludes the reuse thereof to complete the elements of
estafa, and vice-versa. (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006).
2019 CRIMINAL LAW|7

Pre-week Notes
22. Manny shot Ronaldo with an unlicensed firearm. The fiscal filed a criminal complaint for
the complex crime of Murder with Illegal Possession of Firearms. The defense counsel
contended that murder cannot be complexed with Illegal Possession of Firearms. Is the
defense counsel correct?
Yes. A complex crime only applies to felonies. Murder is a felony under the RPC while the Illegal
Possession of Firearms is an offense under a special law. Under Section 1 of RA 8294, "[i]f
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance." At best, the possession
of an unlicensed firearm can be treated as aggravating circumstance but it cannot be complexed
with Murder. (Ramos vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218466, January, 23, 2017, J.
PERLAS-BERNABE)
23. Ricci barged inside a conference room. With the use of a high-powered firearm, he
pressed the gun and several bullets came out resulting to the death of four people. What
crime or crimes is/are committed by Ricci?
Ricci is liable for four counts of murder. The single act of pressing the trigger of high powered
firearm is treated as several acts as many as there are bullets fired from the gun. Because of
special mechanism of this firearm, the single act of pressing its trigger will cause the
continuous firing of bullets. Thus, the accused is liable for as many homicides as there are
victims (People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August, 27, 1999; People vs. Tabaco, G.R. Nos.
100382-100385, March 19, 1997).
24. Anderson poked Din, a house help, with a gun at her throat while the latter was buying
pandesal and later forced her into the backseat of a parked car. Anderson along with
two other men, Rayver and Calix, blindfolded her while in transit. When they reached
their destination, Anderson undressed her and began kissing her body from the neck
downwards and thereafter raped her. Rayver and Calix also took turns in raping her. All
three men are charged for forcible abduction with rape. Is this correct?
No. The rape absorbed the forcible abduction. The principal objective of the three men in
abducting was to rape and ravish her. This became evident when after reaching their
destination, Anderson immediately undressed her and kissed her body from the neck down.
They cannot be held liable for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape when the
objective of the abduction was to commit the rape. (People vs. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924,
March 14, 2012)
25. Mayor Jose together with his security escorts composed of some members of Philippine
Army, PNP and civilian aides traveled from Tubod, Lanao Del Norte and went home to
Salvador, Lanao Del Norte on board a yellow pick-up service vehicle. At around 3:00 PM
of the same day, the group of Pedro surreptitiously waited for the vehicle of Mayor Jose.
As soon as their lookout saw the yellow pick-up service vehicle, the group opened fired
and rained bullets on the vehicle using high-powered firearms. Two security escorts of
Mayor Jose died while others suffered injuries. Are Pedro and his other co-accused guilty
of the said complex crime?
8|CLEAR
BarOps
NO. The killing and wounding of the victims were not the result of a single discharge of firearms
by Pedro and his co-accused. To note, Pedro and his co-accused opened fire and rained bullets
on the vehicle boarded by Mayor Jose and his group. As a result, two security escorts died while
five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in different
parts of their bodies. Therefrom, it cannot be gainsaid that more than one bullet had hit the
victims. Moreover, more than one gunman fired at the vehicle of the victims. As held in People v.
Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999), each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective
firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual
acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500 September
11, 2012).
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
26. Distinguish justifying circumstances from exempting circumstances
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12)

(Art. 11)
No criminal liability. No criminal liability.

Pertains to the act complained of. Pertains to the actor. The act is not justified but the actor is
The act is justified. exempt from criminal liability.
Because the act is justified, it is The act is unjustified. Although the actor is exempt from criminal
non-felonious. The non-criminal liability, the exemption does NOT extend to CIVIL LIABILITY
character of the act would make the arising from a crime.
actor exempt not only from
CRIMINAL LIABILITY but also CIVIL
LIABILITY. A non-felonious act EXCEPTION: Art. 12(4) or accident, and, 12(7) or lawful
could not be a source of civil and insuperable cause, do NOT incur civil liability.
obligation arising from a crime.
EXCEPTION: Art. 11(4), or

avoidance of greater evil or
injury, still incurs civil liability.
(Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. I, Campanilla, 2018 Edition, Page 141).
27. Gabriel, together with his friends were sitting outside his house. Eugene, together with
his friend Rudy arrived and without warning, shot Gabriel in the chest. Gabriel fled but
Eugene chased him. Rudy heard another gunshot. Moments later, Gabriel was found
dead and according to the post-mortem report, Gabriel died due to massive bleeding of a
laceration on his right shoulder and a gunshot wound on his chest. Eugene was charged
with homicide. In his defense, Eugene admitted to shooting Gabriel but invoked self-
dense. Should Eugene’s defense be appreciated?
No. The existence of unlawful aggression is the basic requirement in a plea of self-defense,
either to justify the commission of a crime or to mitigate the imposable penalty. It is settled that
without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. For
unlawful aggression to justify or mitigate a crime, the same must be an actual, sudden,
2019 CRIMINAL LAW|9

Pre-week Notes
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely threatening and intimidating
attitude, towards the one claiming self-defense.
Here, there was no unlawful aggression. On this score, Eugene's plea of self-defense - whether
as a justifying or as a mitigating circumstance - should fail. (People vs. Samuya, G.R. No.
213214, April 20, 2015, J.Perlas-Bernabe)
28. Nika and Kenneth have been married for 10 years. One night, Kenneth came home
drunk. Finding no food on the table, Kenneth started hitting Nika only to apologize the
following day. A week later, the same episode occurred – Kenneth came home drunk and
started hitting Nika. Fearing for her life, Nika left and stayed with her sister. To woo
Nika back, Kenneth sent floral arrangements of lilies and tulips. Two days later, Nika
returned home and decided to give Kenneth another chance. After several days,
however, Kenneth again came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Nika
was charged with parricide but raised the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome.
a. What are the three phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome? Identify the
phases in the case at hand.
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which
has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and
(3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. In invoking BWS, there must be
at least two battering episodes.
In this case, the tension-building phase happened when BBB started beating her
because there was no food on the table. The acute battering phase happened when BBB
continues to beat his wife AAA. The tranquil/loving phase occurred when BBB sent
flowers to AAA as an apology to what he did.(People vs. Genosa, G.R No. 135981,
January 15, 2004).
b. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for
the justifying circumstance of self-defense under the RPC?
Yes. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code. (Sec. 26, RA 9262)
29. Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances.
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

If penalty is divisible, apply the penalty in Lower the penalty by degree/s.
its minimum period.
If penalty is indivisible, apply the lesser

penalty.
10|CLEAR
BarOps
Can be offset by a generic aggravating Cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance.
circumstance.
Not considered when what is prescribed Always considered, whether the prescribed penalty is divisible
is single indivisible penalty. or indivisible.
30. Name the five (5) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the
penalty of crimes and nature thereof.
Kind Nature/Effect Example

ORDINARY Those that require the application of dwelling, nighttime, recidivism
the penalty in its maximum period if
AGGRAVATING prescribed penalty is divisible; or the
greater penalty if the prescribed
penalty is indivisible; and can be
offset by mitigating circumstances.
SPECIFIC Those that require the application of ignominy – chastity
the penalty in its maximum period.
AGGRAVATING
SPECIAL Those which arise under special Article 63. Advantage be taken by the
conditions to increase the penalty for offender of his public position
AGGRAVATING the offense to its maximum period, (People vs. De Leon, G.R. 179943, June
but the same cannot increase the 26, 2009)
penalty to the next higher degree;
cannot be offset by ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of the treachery/evident premeditation –
CIRCUMSTANCES crime to a graver one, or brings about murder
a penalty next higher in degree, and
cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances.
INHERENT Those that essentially accompany the evident premeditation – robbery, theft,
AGGRAVATING commission of the crime and do not estafa
affect the penalty for the crime.
31. What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression?
ACTUAL OR MATERIAL UNLAWFUL

IMMINENT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
AGGRESSION
An attack with physical force or with a An attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it
weapon, an offensive act that positively must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
determines the intent of the aggressor to merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong
cause the injury. (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or
opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack).
(Rustia vs. People, G.R. No. 208351, Must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
October 5, 2016) pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was
holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming
to throw a pot.
2019 CRIMINAL LAW|11

Pre-week Notes
32. What are Alternative Circumstances?
Those cirscumstances which must be considered as aggravating or mitigating according to the

nature and effects of the crime and other condition attending its commission. They are
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. (Art. 15,
RPC)
33. What are Absolutory Causes?
Where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no
penalty imposed. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Book One, 18th Edition, 2012).
34. Give some examples of Absolutory Causes.
1. Article 6 (3) – spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage unless the overt act
committed already constitutes a crime other than that intended
2. Article 7 – attempted/frustrated light felonies except those against persons or property
3. Article 16 – accessories in light felonies
4. Article 20 – certain relatives who are accessories subject to the requisites provided therein:
upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
5. Article 247 – death and physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances: any
legally married person
6. Article 332 – certain relatives in theft, estafa, and malicious mischief: committed or caused
mutually by the following persons: (a) spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
affinity in the same line; (b) the widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of
another; and (c) brothers and sisters and brother-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together
7. Article 124, last paragraph – the commission of a crime, or violent insanity of any other
ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall br
considered legal grounds for the detention of any person
8. Battered woman syndrome – Section 26, R.A. 9262
9. Status offenses in Sections 57 and 58, R.A 9344
10. Article 280 – paragraph 3 – the provisions of this Article (On trespass to dwelling) shall not
be applicable to any person who shall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing
some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be
applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
services to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other
public houses, while the same are open
11. Somnambulism
12. Article 344, paragraph 4 – In cases of seduction, abduction, acts, of lasciviousness and rape,
the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or
remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-
mentioned crimes
13. Mistakes of fact.
14. Repeal of a penal law, either absolute or modification of the penalty when favorable to the
offender.
12|CLEAR
BarOps
15. Instigation by reason of public policy.
35. Sato, by deceit, intentionally defrauded his mother-in-law. Sato presented a document
to his mother-in-law Manolita (who was already blind at that time) and induced her to
sign and thumbmark the same. He made Manolita believe that the said document was in
connection with her taxes when it was in fact a special power of attorney (SPA)
authorizing his minor daughter Wendy to sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of
Manolita’s properties in Tagaytay City.
A simple crime of estafa was filed against Sato.
a) May Sato be held criminally liable?
No. Sato is exempt from criminal liability. Article 332 of the RPC provides that there can be no
criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or
malicious mischief committed by spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in
the same line. Here, Sato committed a crime of estafa against his mother-in-law, a relative by
affinity within the same line. Therefore, such exempting circumstance is applicable herein.
b) Will your answer be the same even if the wife of Sato already died considering that
death of one spouse extinguishes the marriage?
Yes. Sato may still avail of the exemption under Art. 332 of the RPC. While it is true that death
of one spouse extinguishes the marriage, it does not erase the fact that Sato and Manolita are
still son-in-law and mother-in-law and they remain to be so even beyond the death of Manolita’s
daughter. Article 332 of the RPC does not distinguish therefore, we must not distinguish. The
relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a
result of the death of one of the parties to the said marriage. Sato is still related to Manolita by
affinity even if his wife already died. Therefore, Sato is still exempted under Art. 332 of the RPC.
(Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda De Carungcong vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
181409, February 11, 2010)
c) A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that Sato is being charged
not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public documents. Can he still avail of the absolutory cause under Art 332 of the
RPC?
No. Sato cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of the RPC. Art
332 is meant to address specific crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not
affected by the absolutory cause provided by the said provision.
The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. When estafa is
committed through falsification of a public document, however, the matter acquires a very
serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members
among themselves. Therefore, Sato can no longer be exempted under Article 332 of the RPC.
181409, February 11, 2010)

Pre-week Notes
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION
36. Distinguish an Accomplice from an Accessory.
ACCOMPLICE ACCESSORY
Participates before or during Takes part subsequent to the commission of the offense.
the commission of the offense.
Knows of and concurs with the Knows the commission of the offense.
criminal design of the principal.
Provides material or moral aid in Acts in the three specific ways in Article 19.
an efficacious way but not in a
manner indispensable to the
offense.
No exemption from liability. May be exempted from liability. Art. 20 states that the
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed
upon the offended party’s spouses, ascendants,
descendants, brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees. An exception thereto is when
the offender profits from the effects of the crime.
The penalty is one degree lower The penalty is two degrees lower than the principal’s.
than the principal’s.
37. Distinguish an Accomplice from a Conspirator.
Accomplices Conspirator
Knowledge They know and concur with They agree and decide to commit the crime.
of the the criminal design of the
criminal principals after the latter
design of have reached the decision
the and only then do former
perpetrator agree to cooperate in its
execution.
Accomplices are mere Conspirators are the authors of the crime.
instruments who perform They are liable as principals regardless of
Extent of acts not indispensable to whether or not their participations are
Participation the commission of the indispensable to the commission of the
crime. crime. Extent of their participation is not
important.
One degree lower than the Same with the penalty of the principal.
Penalty
penalty of the principal.
14|CLEAR
BarOps
The performance of Performance of a previous, simultaneous or
Time of
previous or simultaneous subsequent act in furtherance of conspiracy.
participation
acts. Time of participation is not important.
38. Ton, Bravo and Olen who were drinking decided to buy cigarettes. On their way to the
store, Bravo noticed Elmer standing in a corner near the store and staring at them. Then
Elmer walked away and disappeared. Later, he reappeared, accompanied by Elmo and
Farlin, and followed Ton and his group into the store. When Elmer and his companions
were already in front of Ton, Elmo stabbed Ton twice with an icepick. As Ton was being
stabbed, Elmer pointed at Ton’s group and left. After the stabbing, Ton fell on the
ground and was rushed to the hospital where he died. Was there conspiracy on the part
of Elmer in the crime committed?
No. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation and
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to establish conspiracy. Even if Elmer was present and
agreed to cooperate with the main perpetrators of the crime, his presence does not make him
party to it, absent any active participation in the furtherance of the common design or purpose.
Likewise, where the only act attributable to the others is an apparent readiness to provide
assistance, but with no certainty as to its ripening into an overt act, there is no conspiracy.
(People vs. Jesalva, G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017)
39. What then is Elmer liable for and his degree of participation in the crime?
In the absence of conspiracy, Elmer is responsible only for the consequences of his own acts. In
this case, all that Elmer did was to stare and point at the victim and his companions. These,
however, are not crimes. Neither can Elmer be considered a principal by indispensable
cooperation nor an accomplice in the crime of murder. The cooperation that the law punishes is
the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered which cannot exist without previous
cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. Thus, to be liable either as a principal by
indispensable cooperation or an accomplice, the accused must unite with the criminal design of
the principal by direct participation. In this case, nothing in the record shows that Elmer knew
Elmo was going to stab Ton, thus creating a doubt as to Elmer’s criminal intent. (People v.
Jesalva, G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017)
40. Mr. Stone, by a promise of 1 million pesos, induced Bong to kill Cardo and Alyanna. Mr.
Nice, who knew about the plan, offered Bong her “habal-habal” motor service which is
the only mode of transportation to the far-flung barangay where Cardo lives. When Bong
found Cardo and Alyanna, he killed them. What are the criminal liabilities of Mr. Stone,
Bong, and Mr. Nice?
They are all liable as principals. Although Mr. Stone did not actually participate in the killing of
Cardo, he is liable as a principal, because he directly induced Bong to kill Cardo (principal by
induction). Bong is also a principal, because he took direct part in the execution of the felony by
personally killing Cardo (principal by direct participation). Mr. Nice is also a principal, because he
cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act (transporting Bong to the far-flung

Pre-week Notes
barangay) without which the commission of the offense would not have been accomplished
(principal by indispensable cooperation). (Art. 19, RPC)
41. Suppose Bong blindfolded and handcuffed Cardo and Alyanna first and asked the help of
Toto and Dodong to guard Cardo and Alyanna as he urgently needed to take care of
another important matter which Toto and Dodong agreed to do. When Bong got back, he
then killed Cardo and Alyanna. May Toto and Dodong also be considered as principal?
No, Toto and Dodong would be merely accomplices. Cardo and Alyanna were already rendered
immobile, their eyes are blindfolded and hands handcuffed. They could not have gone elsewhere
and escaped. It is clear that Dodong and Toto were merely guarding the house for purpose of
either helping the other accused in facilitating the successful accomplishment of the crime or
repelling any attempt to rescue the victims. Thus, they cooperated in the execution of the
offense by previous and/or simultaneous acts by means of which they aided or facilitated the
execution of the crime but without indispensable act for its accomplishment. (People vs. Roland
Garcia, G.R. No. 133489, January 15, 2002)
42. Can conspiracy be implied?
Yes. Conspiracy is implied when two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts,
though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. It may be
deduced from the acts of the malefactors before, during and after the commission of the crime.
(People vs. Allawan, G.R. No. 149887, February 13, 2004)
43. Can there be conspiracy in violating a special law, such as BP 22?
Yes. B.P. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the RPC. Thus, RPC may
apply. (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005) Also, the principle of
conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC was applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the
express provision of Sec. 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general
provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. (Go-Tan vs. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
44. Jo, Mazell, Anne and Joyce went to the house of Kenneth. Jo pretended to be from the
POEA and distracted Kenneth, while Mazell, Anne and Joyce took away valuables from
the house. Jo, Mazell, Anne and Joyce were charged with robbery. Kenneth testified as
to the acts of Jo, Mazell, Anne and Joyce. Mazell claims that common design to commit a
crime was not proved and so conspiracy was not proved. Is she correct?
Yes. It is not always required to establish that two or more persons meet and explicitly enter
into the agreement to commit the crime by laying down the details of how their unlawful scheme
or objective would be carried out. Conspiracy can also be deduced from the mode and manner
in which the offense is perpetrated, or can be inferred from the acts of the several accused
16|CLEAR
BarOps
evincing their joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
(Fransdilla vs. People, G.R. No. 197562, April 20, 2015).
PENALTIES
45. Distinguish Recidivism, Reiteracion, Habitual Delinquency and Quasi-Recidivism.
Reiteracion/ Habitual
Recidivism Quasi-Recidivism
Habituality Delinquency
Art. 14(9) Art. 14(10) Art. 160 Art. 62
Generic Aggravating Generic Aggravating Extraordinary Extraordinary

Aggravating Aggravating
Enough that a final Necessary that offender After having been Necessary that the
judgment has been had served out of his convicted by final person had been
rendered in the first sentence judgment, before convicted and was
offense beginning to serve released
such sentence, or while
serving the same
Offenses must be Previous and subsequent nd
2 Offense committed Previous conviction
included in the same offenses must not be must be a felony; 1st ONLY of either of the
title of the code. embraced in the same offense need not be a following: [FERTS]
title of the code felony; the 2 offenses Falsification, Estafa,
may or may not be of Robbery Theft, Serious
different character Physical Injury
At least 2 convictions; At least 2 convictions; it At least 2 convictions; it At least 3 convictions,
it does not matter does not matter when does not matter when the last one committed
when the last one was the last one was the last one was within 10 years
committed committed committed
Punishment is the Punishment is the greater Punishment is the Punishment varies
greater or the or the maximum penalty, maximum period of the depending on the no.
maximum penalty, subject to the rules for penalty prescribed by law of conviction (see Art.
subject to the rules for the application of for the new penalty 62[5] previously cited).
the application of penalties (Art. 63-65)
penalties (Art. 63-65)
46. What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?
The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment or destierro and:
a. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
b. Perpetual special disqualification;
c. Temporary absolute disqualification;
d. Temporary special disqualification;
e. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a profession
or calling;

Pre-week Notes
f. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
47. Differentiate Pardon by the President and Pardon by the Offended Party.
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY

(Article. 36) (Article. 23)
As to the crime covered
Private pardon as bar from criminal prosecution
applies only to such as acts of lasciviousness,
Executive pardon Can extend to any crime
seduction and abduction
Except election offense unless there is a
favoarable recommendation from the Comelec Private pardon by marriage as a mode of criminal
and impeachable offense extinction applies to acts of lasciviouness, seduction,
abduction andrape
At to the effect on civil liability
Cannot affect the civil liability ex delicto of the The offended party can waive the civil liability
offender
As to extinguishment of criminal liability
Private pardon Does NOT extinguish criminal liability
although it may constitute a bar to the prosecution of
Executive pardon Extinguishes criminal liability the offender in seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness and in adultery and concubinage
However, pardon by marriage in rape, acts of

lasciviousness, abduction and seduction, and
forgiveness in marital rape extinguishes criminal
liability
When granted
Executive pardon can be extended only after Private pardon as a bar from criminal prosecution Can
conviction by final judgment of the accused be validly granted only before the institution of the
criminal action
Pardon by marriageas a mode of criminal extinction in

crime against chastity and forgiveness in marital
rapeas a mode of extinguishing criminal liability can
be made anytime
To whom granted
In seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness,
To any or all of the accused pardon as a bar for criminal prosecution or pardon by
marriage as a mode of criminal extintion benefits the
co–principals, accomplices and accessories.
In rape, pardon by marriage and in marital rape

forgiveness as a mode of criminal extinction will not
18|CLEAR
BarOps
benefit co-principal, accomplice and accessories.
In adultery and concubinage, pardon to the spouse

as a bar for criminal proecution will benefit her
paramour or concubine, and vice versa.
As to whether it can be conditional
May be absolute or conditional Cannot validly be made if subject to a condition
48. Provide the penalties provided under the RPC and their corresponding duration.
PENALTY DURATION
Reclusion Perpetua 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
Reclusion Temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Prision Mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, except when disqualification
is accessory penalty, in which case its duration is that of the
principal penalty
Temporary
Disqualification
Prision Correccional 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Suspension Note: When suspension is an accessory penalty, its duration

is the same as that of the principal penalty.
Destierro
Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Arresto menor 1 month to 30 days
Bond to keep the The period during which the bond shall be effective is
peace discretionary on the court.
49. What are the rules for the application of divisible penalties vis-a-vis the presence of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances?
No AC 1 MC and 1 AC and Multiple MC 2 or more MC

and no No AC no MC and AC and no AC
MC
Medium Minimum Maximum To offset each One degree lower (effect is
Period period period other according similar to privileged
to relative mitigating).
weight .
(Article 64, RPC).

Pre-week Notes
Note:
a) If there are 3 mitigating circumstances, the 2 mitigating circumstances shall be considered in
lowering the penalty prescribed by law by one degree and 1 mitigating circumstance shall be
taken to apply the reduced penalty in its minimum period (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 107838, December 7, 1994; People vs. Castuera, G.R. No. L-62607, December 15, 1982).
b) If there are 4 mitigating circumstances and 1 aggravating circumstances, applying the offset
rule, there are 3 remaining mitigating circumstances. Special mitigating circumstance will not be
appreciated because of the presence of aggravating circumstance (Criminal Law Review Vol. I,
Campanilla, p.305).
50. How would you get the three (3) periods (Minimum, Medium and Maximum) of a
penalty? Illustrate using prision mayor which has a duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12
years.
Subtract the minimum (disregarding the 1 day) 12 years – 6 years = 6 years

from the maximum.
Divide the difference by 3. 6 years / 3 = 2 years
Use the minimum of 6 years and 1 day of Range of the MINIMUM PERIOD = 6 years
prision mayor as minimum of the MINIMUM and 1 day to 8 years
PERIOD. Then add 2 years to the minimum
(disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of
the MINIMUM PERIOD.
Use the maximum of the minimum period as Range of the MEDIUM PERIOD = 8 years
minimum of the MEDIUM PERIOD, and add 1 and 1 day to 10 years
day to distinguish it from the maximum of the
minimum period. Then add 2 years to the
minimum of the medium period (disregarding
the 1 day) to get the maximum of the MEDIUM
PERIOD.
Use the maximum of the medium period as Range of the MAXIMUM PERIOD = 10
minimum of the MAXIMUM PERIOD, and add 1 years and 1 day to 12 years.
day to distinguish it from the maximum of the
medium period. Then add 2 years to the (Art. 65, RPC).
minimum of the maximum period (disregarding
the 1 day) to get the maximum of the
MAXIMUM PERIOD.
Yes. Sato may still avail of the exemption under Art. 332 of the RPC. While it is true that death
of one spouse extinguishes the marriage, it does not erase the fact that Sato and Manolita are
still son-in-law and mother-in-law and they remain to be so even beyond the death of Manolita’s
daughter. Article 332 of the RPC does not distinguish therefore, we must not distinguish. The
relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a
result of the death of one of the parties to the said marriage. Sato is still related to Manolita by
affinity even if his wife already died. Therefore, Sato is still exempted under Art. 332 of the RPC.
20|CLEAR
BarOps
181409, February 11, 2010)
d) A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that Sato is being charged
not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public documents. Can he still avail of the absolutory cause under Art 332 of the
RPC?
No. Sato cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of the RPC. Art
332 is meant to address specific crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not
affected by the absolutory cause provided by the said provision.
The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. When estafa is
committed through falsification of a public document, however, the matter acquires a very
serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members
among themselves. Therefore, Sato can no longer be exempted under Article 332 of the RPC.
181409, February 11, 2010)
51. Wacoy and Quibac were involved in a mauling incident. While Aro, the victim, was
sprawled on the ground, Wacoy kicked his stomach twice, and as he tried to stand up,
Quibac punched him on the stomach, causing him to collapse and cry in pain. Aro was
rushed to the hospital and was set for operation. However, he suffered cardiac arrest
during the operation, and while he was revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation,
he lapsed into a coma after the operation and eventually died. Wacoy and Quibac was
then charged with Homicide. Wacoy contended that in view of their intent only to inflict
slight physical injuries on Aro, they should only be meted the corresponding penalty
therefor in its maximum period pursuant to Art. 49 of the RPC.
a. Is Wacoy correct?
No. Art. 49 should only apply where the crime committed is different from that intended
and where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in personae); and not
to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his
felonious act (praeterintentionem), as in this case. If the victim dies because of a
deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such case,
even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because with respect to crimes of
personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the
unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
(Wacoy vs. People, G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
b. What should be the proper penalty in this case?
The penalty for the crime of Homicide must be imposed in its minimum period due to
the presence of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong under Article 13 (3) of the RPC in favor of Wacoy and Quibac. In determining the
presence of this circumstance, it must be considered that since intention is a mental
Pre-week Notes
process and is an internal state of mind, the accused's intention must be judged by his
conduct and external overt acts. In this case, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance is
available to Wacoy and Quibac, given the absence of evidence showing that, apart from
kicking and punching Aro on the stomach, something else had been done; thus, evincing
the purpose of merely maltreating or inflicting physical harm, and not to end the life of
Aro.
The proper penalty to be imposed on Wacoy and Quibac is imprisonment for an

indeterminate period of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years
and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, taking into consideration the provisions
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (Wacoy vs. People, G.R. No. 213792, June 22,
2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
52. The penalty in cases of theft is dependent on the value of stolen personal properties
proven during trial, and not merely on the Information or uncorroborated testimonies
presented by the prosecution. When prosecution is not able to provide evidence as to
the actual value of the stolen items in a case where the accused was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft, what penalty should be applied?
The minimum penalty under Article 309(6) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 81
of Republic Act No. 10951, which is arresto mayor, should be used. However, in view of Article
310 of the Revised Penal Code concerning qualified theft, the accused must be meted a penalty
two (2) degrees higher, i.e., prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum periods with a
range of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years.Also applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, where there are no modifying circumstances and the minimum of
the indeterminate penalty is computed from the full range of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum period and the maximum of the indeterminate
penalty is reckoned from the medium of prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum period,
the accused must only suffer a minimum indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1)
day of arresto mayor to a maximum of three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21)
days of prisioncorreccional. (People vs. Mejares, G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018).
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (Act 4103 as amended)
53. What is Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW)?
It is a law which modifies the imposition of penalties under the RPC and special laws. The courts are
mandated in imposing a sentence to fix a minimum and a maximum period of penalty. The minimum
sentence must be served and thereupon, the convict becomes eligible for parole. When released, he
is not actually discharged for the rest of his sentence is served out of prison under the supervision of
a parole officer. (Campanilla, 2018)
22|CLEAR
BarOps
54. Does Indeterminate Sentence Law apply to destierro?
No. Indeterminate Sentence Law is expressly granted to those who are sentenced to imprisonment
exceeding 1 year.
55. What are the crimes to which ISLAW is not applicable?
a. Treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or

sedition, espionage or piracy;
b. Habitual Delinquents;
c. Those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
d. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon;
e. Penalty of imprisonment, the maximum term of which does not exceed one year;
f. Death Penalty or life imprisonment (Section 2 of Act No. 4103); or Reclusion Perpetual
(R.A. No. 9346);
g. Use of trafficked victim. (Section 11 of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364).
56. What are the rules in computing the maximum and minimum periods under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law?
UNDER RPC UNDER SPECIAL LAW

Anywhere within the range imposed Should not exceed what is prescribed under
Maximum
by the RPC, considering all the special law.

attending/modifying circumstances
(mitigating and aggravating).
Within range of penalty, 1 degree Should not be less than the minimum
lower than that prescribed by RPC, prescribed by law.
without considering any ordinary
aggravating or mitigating
Minimum
circumstances. In the case of a

complex crime, DO NOT consider the
fact that the higher penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
Consider all others (i.e., special
aggravating, privileged mitigating,
etc.).
(Act No. 4103, Section 1, as amended).
57. Marta is charged with an offense punished by a special law. The penalty prescribed for
the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10)
years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty.
a. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied?

Pre-week Notes
Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW) should be applied because the minimum requirement for
the application of ISLAW is imprisonment for more than one (1) year. However, applying the Batistis
case, the Court may opt not to apply ISLAW by fixing the penalty at exactly 5 years of imprisonment
since this straight penalty is favorable to the accused. (Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571, December
16, 2009)
b. If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Marta?
I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty
fixed by law (not more than 10 years), and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty
prescribed (not less than 5 years). As a judge, I shall sentence the accused to suffer 5 years of
imprisonment as minimum penalty to 10 years as maximum penalty.
c. Assume that the crime charged was Frustrated Homicide with one mitigating
circumstance. Compute the penalty to be imposed on Marta.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Since the crime is at the frustrated stage, the penalty
shall be reduced to one degree lower, and that is prision mayor. Since one mitigating circumstance is
present, prision mayor shall be applied in its minimum period. Applying ISLAW, the maximum penalty
shall be fixed within the proper imposable period, and that is, minimum period of prision mayor, while
the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, and that is
prision correccional. Hence, if I were the judge, I will sentence the accused to suffer 6 months and 1 day
of prision correccional as minimum penalty to 8 years of prision mayor as maxium penalty.
58. Discuss the penalty to be imposed for the crime of direct assault with homicide.
The penalty of reclusion temporalfor homicide, which is the serious component of this complex crime,
shall be applied in its maxium period (Art. 48, RPC).
The minimum penalty shall be fixed anywhere within the full range of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day
to 12 years), which is the penalty next lower in degree.
The maximum penalty shall be fixed anywhere within the range of reclusion temporal in its maximum
period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years).
Hence, the court may sentence the accused to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision
mayoras minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum (People vs. Rillorta, G.R. 57415,
December 15, 1989; People vs. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001; Page 307, Criminal Law
Reviewer Vol 1 by Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
59. Mau, a national prisoner serving sentence by virtue of final judgments in thirteen
criminal cases for estafa, questioned his continued detention. Mau claimed that he had
already served the maximum penalty imposed upon him and because he is entitled to
the "simultaneous service" of all the sentences of imprisonment in the thirteen cases,
(invoking Art. 70 of the RPC) he should now be released.
24|CLEAR
BarOps
a. Explain the Three-Fold Rule in Criminal Law.
Under the three-fold rule, in serving multiple sentences, the period of imprisonment that a convict must
serve must not exceed three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him (Page 318, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. I by Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
b. Is Mau entitled under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code to the "simultaneous service"
of the various penalties of imprisonment imposed in the thirteen criminal cases?
No. Such a theory is inconsistent with the system of juridical accumulations of penalties provided in par.
4 of Article 70. Under this system the maximum duration of a culprit's confinement shall not exceed
three times the most serious of the penalties imposed upon him, but shall not in any case exceed forty
years. This rule applies although the penalties were imposed for different crimes or under separate
information or proceedings, because whether the culprit was tried and convicted in one or several
proceedings, the reasons for the legal precept are the same, namely, to avoid the absurdity of a man
being sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than his natural life. (Rodriguez vs. Director of
Prisons, G.R. No. L-35386 September 28, 1972).
60. Is imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for violation of BP 22 in contravention of

Section 20 of Article III of the Constitution which proscribes imprisonment as
punishment for not paying debt?
No. The enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. The gravamen of the offense punished
by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon
its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes.
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is
to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in
circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by
the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against
public order. (Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation, G.R. No.197582, June 29, 2015)
61. What is the basis for the term of subsidiary imprisonment?
It is based on the total amount of the fine or one day for each amount equivalent to the highest
minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of
conviction by the trial court provided that when the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted
for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. (Article 39
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 10159; Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation,
G.R. No.197582, June 29, 2015)

Pre-week Notes
62. What is the Rule as to Subsidiary Liability
Penalty imposed Subsidiary penalty

Prisioncorrecional or arresto AND fine Subsidiary imprisonment is not to exceed 1/3 of the
term of the sentence, and in no case to continue for
more than one year. Fraction or part of a day shall not
be counted.
Fine only Subsidiary imprisonment
a. Not to exceed 6 months – if the culprit is

prosecuted for grave or less grave felony; and
b. Not to exceed 15 days – if prosecuted for light

felony
Higher than prisioncorrecional No subsidiary imprisonment
If the penalty imposed is not to be Subsidiary penalty shall consist in the same
executed by confinement, but of fixed deprivations as those of the principal penalty, under
duration the same rules as nos. 1, 2, and 3 above
63. What is the rule for Graduation of Penalties?
The penalty prescribed by law for the felony shall be lowered by one or two degrees, as follows
(Arts.50-57, RPC):
a. For the principal in frustrated felony – one degree lower;

b. For the principal in attempted felony – two degrees lower;
c. For the accomplice in consummated felony – one degree lower;
d. For the accessory in consummated felony – two degrees lower.
Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principals 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4
The figure “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining a crime, which is to be
imposed on the principal in a consummated offense, in accordance with the provisions of Art.
46, RPC. The other figures represent the degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet
the different situations anticipated by law.
26|CLEAR
BarOps
64. What are the effects of Accessory penalties?
ACCESSORY
EFFECTS
PENALTY
Perpetual or Deprivation of any public office or employment of offender; deprivation of
Temporary the right to vote in any election or to be voted upon; Loss of rights to
Absolute retirement pay or pension.
Disqualification
Perpetual or For public office, profession or calling:
Temporary • Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling
Special affected;
Disqualification • Disqualification for holding similar offices or employments during
the period of disqualification;
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
• Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in an office;
• Cannot hold any public office during the period of disqualification.
Suspension from Disqualification from holding such office or the exercise of such profession
Public Office, the or right of suffrage during the term of the sentence; Cannot hold another
Right to Vote office having similar functions during the period of suspension.
and Be Voted for,
the Right to
Practice a
Profession or
Calling
Civil Interdiction Deprivation of the following rights:
• Parental authority
• Guardianship over the ward
• Marital authority
• Right to manage property and to dispose of the same by acts inter
vivos
Indemnification Forfeiture in favor of the Government of the proceeds of the crime and the
or Confiscation instruments or tools with which it was committed.
of Instruments
or Proceeds of
the Offense
Payment of If the accused be convicted, the costs may be charged against him; If he
Costs be acquitted, costs are de officio, i.e., each party will bear his/her own
expense.
PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. 10707)
65. Who are disqualified to avail the benefits of Probation?
a. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years
(Section 9 of P.D. No. 968), unless the crime involved is possession or use of dangerous
drugs committed by first time minor offender (Section 70 or R.A. No. 9165);
b. Those convicted of any crime against national security;

Pre-week Notes
c. (Note: R.A. 10707 has amended P.D. No. 968 by deleting the crime against public order
in Section 9 thereof. In sum, under the present law on probation, crimes against public
order, such as alarm and scandal and direct assault are now probationable)
d. (N.B. Rebellion is a crime against public order and not a crime against national security.
But it is not probationable since the penalty prescribed for it is higher than six years of
imprisonment)
e. Those who have been previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six months and one day and/or a fine of more than P1,000;
f. Those who have been once on probation;
g. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the
law became applicable (Section 9 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707); and
h. Those convicted of dangerous drug trafficking or pushing (Section 24 of R.A. No. 9165).
66. When should one apply for Probation?
After conviction and sentencing of a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application
within the period of perfecting an appeal, and if the defendant has perfected the appeal from
the judgment of conviction, no application for probation shall be entertained or granted(Sec. 4).
67. Arnel was found guilty by the trial court of frustrated homicide that imposed a penalty
beyond six (6) years, disqualifying him for probation. After his appeal, the court found
that he was only liable for attempted homicide with a penalty less than six (6) years. Is
Arnelnow entitled to apply for probation despite the fact that he has appealed?
Yes. Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for probation.
He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, "By
taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The stiff penalty that the trial court
imposed on him denied him that choice.Thefinding of attempted homicide is an original
conviction that for the first time imposes on Arnel a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done
Arnel right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense and imposed on
him the right penalty This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation (Colinares
vs. People, G.R. No. 182748,December 13, 2011).
68. Distinguish Probation and Intermediate Sentence Law
PROBATION ISLAW
Sentence must not be more than 6 years Maximum period of the sentence must be
more than 1 year
Penalty either imprisonment or fine Imprisonment only
Sentence is suspended Need for the minimum to be served
Appeal forecloses probation Appeal has no effect on the operation of
ISLAW
Available only once Every time as long as offender is not
disqualified
A privilege; convict must apply for it Mandatory; convict need not apply for it
28|CLEAR
BarOps
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (RA 9344, as amended)
69. Joshua was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable
by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and appropriately
charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006) was already in effect, Joshua moved to avail of the process of intervention or
diversion.
a. Distinguish intervention from diversion.
Intervention Diversion
Refers to a series of activities Refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
which are designed to address process of determining the responsibility
issues that caused the child to and treatment of a child conflict with the
commit an offense. It may take the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural,
form of an individualized treatment economic, psychological or educational
program which may include background without resorting to formal
counselling, skills training, court proceedings.
education, and other activities that
will enhance his/her psychological,
emotional and psycho-social well-
being.
This is available to a child 15 years This process governs when the child is over
old or less at the time of the 15 years old but below 18 at the time of
commission of the crime or the commission of the crime and he acted
although over 15 but below 18 with discernment.
years old at the time of commission
of the crime, the child acted
without discernment
b. Is Joshua entitled to intervention or diversion? Explain.
Yes. Joshua is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed the crime of
homicide, he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under R.A. 9344.
c. Suppose Joshua’s motion for intervention or diversion was denied, and he was convicted
two (2) years later when he was already 21 years old, should the judge apply the
suspension of sentence? Explain.
No. The Judge should not suspend the sentence anymore because he was already 21 years old and no
longer a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the
offender's age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his age when he
committed the crime. Suspension of sentence is availing under R.A. 9344 only until a child reaches the
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. (Sec. 40, R.A. 9344)

Pre-week Notes
c. Suppose Joshua was convicted of attempted murder with a special aggravating
circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence, would he be eligible for
probation under P.D. 968, considering that the reclusion perpetua to death penalty is
imposable for the consummated felony? Explain.
Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on him will not exceed 6 years
imprisonment. Since the murder is at the attempted stage, reclusion perpetua to death shall be reduced
to two degrees lower, and that is, prision mayor. Since the accused is a minor, which is a privileged
mitigating circumstance, prision mayor shall be reduced to prisioncorreccional. Since the range of
prisioncorreccional is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, Joshua is entitled to apply for probation
(Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
70. What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility? (Sec. 6, R.A. 9344).
AGE CRIMINAL LIABILITY CIVIL LIABILITY

15 years of age or Exempt Subject to civil liability
under at the time of
the commission of
the offense
Above 15 years but Exempt Subject to civil liability
below 18 years of
age without
discernment
Above 15 years but Subject to criminal Subject to civil liability
below 18 years of liability but shall undergo
age with diversion program
discernment
Note: Between the ages of above 15 but below 18, a rebuttable presumption operates to deem a child
incapable of committing a criminal act.
The age of doliincapax (criminal incapacity) is 15 years old or below since the accused in such age is
exempt from criminal liability regardless of whether or not he discerned the consequence of his criminal
act. As far as the law is concerned, he cannot do evil, and lack of discernment is conclusively presumed.
71. How can criminal liability be totally extinguished?
a. By death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
b. By service of the sentence;
c. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
d. By absolute pardon;
e. By prescription of the crime;
f. By prescription of the penalty;
g. By the marriage of the offended woman in acts of lasciviousness, abduction and seduction as
provided in Article 344 of this Code (Art. 89, RPC).
30|CLEAR
BarOps
h. By marriage of the offended party in rape and forgiveness of the husband by the wife in marital
rape (Article 266-C);
i. By discharge of a person under probation (PD No. 968 as amended by RA No. 10707).
72. How can criminal liability be partially extinguished?
Criminal liability can be partially extinguished:

a. By conditional pardon;
b. By commutation of the sentence;
c. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive
imprisonment or serving his sentence (Art. 94, RPC).
73. Discuss Prescription of Crime and Prescription of Penalty.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
As to Nature Forfeiture or the loss of the Forfeiture or the loss of the right of
right of the State to the government to punish the
prosecute the offender fixed offender after the lapse of a certain
by law time fixed by law
As to Commencement From the date of discovery by From the date of evasion of service
Period the offended party, of sentence by the accused
authorities, and their agents
As to Penalty Prescribed penalty under the Penalty actually imposed by final
Contemplated law judgment
74. Roel was convicted by the RTC of murder and sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetuawithout eligibility for parole. He was ordered to pay the family of the victim,
Roberto, civil indemnity, and moral, actual, exemplary, and temperate damages. Roel
decided to appeal before the Court of Appeals but later on withdrew by filing a Motion to
Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment. In a
Resolution dated September 21, 2018, the Court of Appeals granted Roel’s motion.
Thereafter, an Entry of Judgment was issued. On February 23, 2019, the Court of
Appeals received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections informing that Roel died on
August 23, 2018. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case declaring that Roel’s criminal
and civil liability ex delicto were extinguished by his death. Was the resolution of the
Court of Appeals proper?
Yes. It is settled that the death of offender before final judgment extinguishes his criminal
liability, including the civil liability arising from the crime. In this case, Roel’s death occurred
before the finality of judgment of his conviction. Hence, the Court of Appeals properly resolved
to dismiss the case and declare the extinguishment of Roel’s criminal liability and civil liability ex
delicto. (People vs. Dimaala, G.R. No. 225054, July 17, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)

Pre-week Notes
75. Suppose Roel died on January 1, 2019, would your answer still be the same?
No. When the death of the offender occurs after final judgment, only his criminal liability is
extinguished. His civil liability is not affected by his death. In this case, Roel’s death on January
1, 2019 already occurred after the finality of the judgment of his conviction. Hence, while his
criminal liability was extinguished, Roel’s civil liability was not extinguished.
76. Nikki and Kai entered into an agreement involving pieces of jewelry valued at P10
million to be sold on commission. Kai shall remit the proceeds of the sale and return the
unsold merchandise to Nikki. Kai remitted to Nikki the amounts of P1 million and P3
million. Despite repeated demands, Nikki failed to recover the remainder of the value of
the items. Thus, a criminal case was filed against Kai for estafa under Art. 315 paragraph
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Kai sought the dismissal of the case on the ground that
his criminal liability was extinguished by novation. The payments made by Kai to Nikki,
in effect, novated the contract of agency to loan. Hence, his criminal liability was
converted to civil. Is Kai correct?
No. Jurisprudence provides that novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal liability. A criminal offense is committed against
the People and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law
imposes for the commission of the offense. The criminal liability for estafa already committed is
not affected by the subsequent novation of the contract. (Degaños vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013)
77. Dollie was the former Chief of the Employment Services Regulation Division (ESRD) of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). He was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor to two (2) years of prisioncorreccional and the penalty of temporary
special disqualification from public office. He applied for and was granted probationand
continued to serve as the Chief of POEA ESRD while on probation. The Commission on
Audit (COA) thereafter disallowed the salaries and benefits paid to GGG during his
probation. COA posits that probation did not serve to obliterate the crime for which
Dollie was convicted, including the penalty of dismissal from service. Is the contention
of COA correct?
Yes. The grant of probation does not justify a public employee’s retention in the government
service. Unlike pardon, probation does not obliterate the crime for which the person under
probation has been convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his
retention in the government service. He may seek to re-enter government service, but only
after he has shown that he is fit to serve once again. It cannot be repeated too often that a
public office is a public trust, which demands of those in its service the highest degree of
morality. Hence, the COA properly disallowed GGG’s salaries and benefits. (Dimapilis-Baldoz vs.
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
32|CLEAR
BarOps
78. During the subsistence of his marriage with Simonette, Rafael married Joyce in 2000
and registered the same with the Office of the Civil Registrar in the same year.
Sometime in 2018, Simonette discovered the marriage of Rafael with Joyce. In 2019, a
case for bigamy was filed against Rafael. In his defense, Rafael contends that his
criminal liability for bigamy has already been extinguished by prescription. Following the
constructive notice rule, the prescriptive period within which to file a case for bigamy
should be reckoned from the date of registration of the bigamous marriage in 2000.
Decide.
Rafael’s criminal liability has not yet prescribed. The rule on constructive notice cannot apply in
the crime of bigamy. The law on registration of document involving real property explicitly
provides for the rule on constructive notice. On the other hand, there is no counterpart provision
in the law governing the Civil Registry nor in the Family Code. Hence, there is no legal basis for
applying the constructive notice rule to the documents registered in the Civil Registry.
Accordingly, the rule applicable in this case is that which provides that the period of prescription
shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party.
Here, the period of prescription commenced in 2018, which is the year Simonette discovered the
bigamous marriage, and was interrupted by the filing of the case on 2019. Bigamy prescribes in
fifteen (15) years. Hence, Rafael’s criminal liability was not yet extinguished by prescription.
(Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994)
79. How can civil liability be extinguished?
Civil liability is extinguished
1. By payment or performance;
2. By condonation or remission of the debt;
3. By confusion or merger of the rights of the creditor or debtor;
4. By compensation;
5. By novation;
6. Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a
resolutory condition, and prescription (Art. 112, RPC)

Pre-week Notes
REVISED PENAL CODE – BOOK TWO
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
80. Distinguish Espionage from Treason.
ESPIONAGE TREASON
Both are crimes not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender
Committed both in time of war and peace Only in time of war
Committed in many ways. Committed in two ways: levying war; and
adhering to the enemy, giving him aid or

comfort.
81. Distinguish Piracy from Mutiny.
PIRACY MUTINY
As to place of commission
Either in Philippine waters or on the high seas
As to the person of the offenders
The person who attack a vessel or seize its Committed by members of the crew or passengers
cargo are strangers to the vessels. However,
piracy under PD 532 can be committed by
member of the crew and passengers.
As to intention
Intent to gain is essential The offenders may only intend to ignore the ship’s
officers or they may be prompted by a desire to
commit plunder
82. Distinguish Piracy and Robbery on High Seas.
PIRACY ROBBERY ON HIGH SEAS

The offender is an outsider The offenders are members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel
As to intention
In both, there is intent to gain and the manner of committing the crime is the same
34|CLEAR
BarOps
83. Difference of Piracy under RPC and P.D. 532, Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
Law of 1974.
PIRACY ANTI-PIRACY UNDER PD 532
As to where it is committed:
Both may be committed within Philippine waters
Offender is an outsider Offender is a crew or passenger
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE
84. What are the differences between illegal detention, unlawful arrest and arbitrary
detention?
ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL ARBITRARY

DETENTION ARREST DETENTION
(Art. 267) (Art. 269) (Art. 124)
As to offender Public officer or Public officer or Public officer
private individual private individual
As to nature Crime against Crime against Crime against
personal liberty personal liberty fundamental law
and security and security of the land
As to purpose To deprive the To deliver the In pursuit of his
of arrest victim of his victim to the authority or duty
and/or liberty proper judicial to arrest
detention authority
85. When shall a public officer be held liable for Delay in the Delivery of a Detained Person
to the Proper Judicial Authorities under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code?
A public officer shall be held liable for delay in the delivery of a detained person to the proper
judicial authorities under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code when he fails to deliver a person
detained for some legal ground to the proper judicial authorities within the following periods: (a)
12 hours for light penalty; (b) 18 hours for correctional penalty; or (c) 36 hours for afflictive
penalty or capital punishment.
It must be noted that the means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and other
circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make
the investigation and file in time the necessary information, must be taken into consideration. An
election day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the 12-18-36
periods for the filing of complaint or information in courts in cases of warrantless arrests, it being
a “no-office day.” (Soria vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 123524-25, January 31, 2005) (Campanilla,
2018)

Pre-week Notes
86. In celebration of the second anniversary of the May They Be One Campaign (MTBC) and
the launching of the Hand Written Bible which coincided with the feast of Saint Jerome,
a throng of people composed mainly of catholic dignitaries intermixed with those
different religions such as members of the military, police, media, non-catholics,
students, representatives of various religious organizations gathered around the Manila
Cathedral in one afternoon. While a passage from the Bible was being read, Carlos
entered the Manila Cathedral clad in a black suit and a hat and went to the center of the
aisle, in front of the altar and suddenly brought out a placard emblazoned with the word
“DAMASO.” Commotion ensued when Carlos started shouting while inside the church
saying “Bishops, stop involving yourself in politics,” disrupting and showing disrespect
to an otherwise solemn celebration. What is the crime committed, if any?
Carlos committed the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Art. 133 of the Revised Penal
Code. It is committed by anyone who performs acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
faithful in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious
ceremony. Here, the acts of Carlos were meant to mock, insult, and ridicule those clergy whose
beliefs and principles were diametrically opposed to his own. (Celdran vs. People, G.R. No.
220127, March 21, 2018)
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
87. Distinguish Treason from Rebellion, Coup d’etat, and Sedition.
TREASON (114) REBELLION COUP D’ETAT SEDITION (139)

(134) (134-A)
Nature National Security Public Order Public Order Public Order

of
Crime
Overt Levying war Public uprising; Attack against Rising publicly and
acts against the AND authorities, tumultuously (more than
government; OR military camp, 3 men who are armed or
Taking up arms networks or provided with means of
Adherence and against the public utilities or violence)
giving aid or government.
other facilities for
comfort to
power.
enemies.
Purpose Deliver the Removing Seizing or Violation of the public
government to territory, or diminishing state peace or at least such a
the enemy during body of armed power. course of measures as
war. forces, or evidently engenders it.
depriving the
Chief Executive
or Legislature.
36|CLEAR
BarOps
88. Distinguish direct assault, indirect assault and resistance or disobedience to a person in
authority.
RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE
TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY
DIRECT ASSAULT (148) INDIRECT ASSAULT (149)
(PIA) OR AGENTS OF SUCH
PERSON (151)
PIA or his agent (APA) must An agent of a PIA* must be PIA or his agent must be in the
be engaged in the engaged in the performance actual performance of his duties
performance of official of official duties and that he
duties or that he is is assaulted by reason
assaulted by reason thereof thereof
Direct assault is committed Committed by using force or Committed by resisting or
in 4 ways: by attacking, intimidation against a seriously disobeying a PIA or his
employing force, seriously person who comes to the agent.
intimidating, and seriously aid of the agent of a PIA
resisting a PIA or agent. who is being assaulted.
Use of force against an Use of force must be Simple disobedience – force
agent of PIA must be committed to a person against an agent of PIA is not so
serious and deliberate. aiding an agent of a PIA; to serious; No manifest intention to
be an indirect assault, a defy the law and officers
direct assault against an enforcing it.
agent of the PIA must also
be committed.
89. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority?
The following are persons in authority:

a. Any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some
court or governmental corporation, board, or commission;
b. In applying the provisions of Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, teachers, professors and persons
charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and
universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion on such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority (Art. 152 of RPC).
The following are agents of persons in authority:

a. Any person who by law, election, or appointment is charged with the maintenance of public
order and protection and security of life and property. (Sec. 388, LGC)
b. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

Pre-week Notes
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
90. What are the kinds of documents?
a. Public document – one that has been notarized, one that is part of public record, any
instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official, with the solemnities
(Cacnio vs. Baens, G.R. No. 2116, March 16, 1906);
b. Official document – the execution of which a public official takes part, a documents which
is issued by a public official in the exercise of the functions of his office;
c. Commercial document – prepared in accordance with mercantile law, any document
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or any other commercial laws; and
d. Private document – the execution of which only private individuals take part, a deed or
instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary public or other
person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced or set forth (US vs. Orera, G.R. No. 3810, October 18, 1907).
e.
91. Dino tried to register a Deed of Absolute Sale with the Registry of Deeds allegedly
executed between him as the buyer and Joseph as the seller. However, it turned out that
Joseph was already dead and his heirs opposed the registration of the Deed on the
ground that the signature of Joseph in the Deed was forged.The heirs wanting to file a
complaint for falsification against Dino went to the Registry of Deeds but they were
informed that Dino had withdrawn all the papers. They then proceeded to the Notarial
Section of Manila to get a certified true copy of the subject deed but were given a mere
photocopy thereof, since the original was no longer on file. They submitted the
photocopy of the deed to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for
examination. Upon examination, the document examiner confirmed that the signature of
Joseph was forged. Can Dino be convicted for the crime of falsification of public
document
No. In the crime of falsification of public document, the prosecution must establish the fact of
falsification or forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, as the same is never
presumed. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged
forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is
theorized to have been forged. Since mere photocopies of the subject deed were used to
examine the questioned and standard signatures of Joseph, no valid comparison can be had
between them, thereby rendering the examiner’s declaration inconclusive to support a finding of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Dino. (Lamsen vs. People, G.R. No. 227069, November
22, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
38|CLEAR
BarOps
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
92. What are the elements of Grave Scandal?
a. That the offender performs an act or acts

b. Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against decency and good customs
c. That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of the Revised
Penal Code
-Grave scandal is a crime of last resort because you only file a complaint for grave scandal when
the said act is not punishable under any other article in the RPC.
d. The act or act complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or
view.
-If the highly scandalous act is committed in a public place the crime of grave scandal will
immediately arise. The place being public, the law presumes that someone may have witnessed
the commission of the highly scandalous act. However, if the highly scandalous act is committed
in a private place, for the crime of grave scandal to arise, it is necessary that it must be
witnessed by one or more persons to be said that it is within the public knowledge or public
view. (Supplied by Prosec. Garcia, 2018)
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
93. What is Misfeasance, Malfeasance and Nonfeasance?
MISFEASANCE MALFEASANCE NON-FEASANCE

A public officer performs an A public officer performs in A public officer knowingly,
official act in a manner not his public office an act willfully refuses or refrains
in accordance with what prohibited by law from doing an act which is
the law provides his official duty to do.
94. Atty. Jun Manzo, the branch clerk of RTC Branch 15 of Muntinlupa, refused to obey a
writ of execution issued by RTC Branch 15 in relation to Civil Case No. 18756. Because
of his refusal, he was charged with the crime of Open Disobedience under Art. 231 of the
RPC. In his defense, Manzo claims that his refusal is justified because the Supreme
Court, in another case entitled Reyes vs. Baldes, an offshoot of Civil Case No. 18756,
held that the RTC Branch 15 of Muntinlupa has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 18756.
Should Manzo be convicted of the crime of Open Disobedience under Art. 231 of the
RPC?
No. The following are the elements of Open Disobedience under Art. 231 of the RPC: (1) the
offender is a judicial or executive officer; (2) there is a judgment, decision, or order of a superior
authority made within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities; and (3)
that the offender, without any legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said judgment,
decision, or order, which he is duty bound to obey.Here, the second element is lacking. Due to
Branch 15’s lack of jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 18756, all the proceedings in said case have
been regarded as null and void. Indubitably, without any jurisdiction, there would be no legal
Pre-week Notes
order for Manzo to implement or, conversely, disobey.(The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and
Aseoche vs. Fria, G.R. No. 183014, August 7, 2013,J. Perlas-Bernabe)
95. Differentiate Direct from Indirect Bribery.
DIRECT BRIBERY INDIRECT BRIBERY
The public officer receives a gift. The public officer receives a gift.
The act desired by the briber to be done Gifts are offered and received by reason of the office.
by the public officer is in connection with
the performance of the latter’s official
duties.
Mere promise of a gift is sufficient It is necessary that the public officer actually receives
the gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
There is an agreement between the officer Usually, no agreement exists.

and the giver.
The offender agrees to perform an act or It is not necessary that the officer should do any
refrain from doing something, because of particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is
the gift or promise. enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason
of his office.
96. Speaking to police officials and personnel gathered for the celebration of the police
service anniversary at Camp Crame, President Dutwenty explained that he does not
consider “as bribery” the act of giving monetary reward or gifts to public servants,
including policemen. He believes police officers should accept gifts if these are given out
of gratitude or generosity. If you were the Chief Legal Counsel of the President, what
would you advise him?
Public officers, specifically policemen are prohibited to accept gifts under the following laws:
a. Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes Direct Bribery when the public officer
commits any of the following acts: (1) by agreeing to perform or by performing in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present – an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duties; (2) by accepting a gift in
consideration of the execution of an act – which does not constitute a crime but is unjust
in connection with the performance of his official duty; or (3) by agreeing to refrain, or by
refraining from doing something which is his official duty to do in consideration of a gift or
promise;
b. Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes Indirect Bribery whereby it prohibits a
public officer from accepting gifts offered to him by reason of his office;
c. RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
states that they must not solicit or accept any “gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or
anything of monetary value” in the course of their duties;
40|CLEAR
BarOps
d. Presidential Decree 46 of 1972 explicitly states that public officials must not receive gifts
on any occasion, regardless of whether or not the giver expects better treatment from the
concerned official in return; and
e. The National Police Commission’s Memorandum Circular 2016-002 explicitly prohibits
policemen from receiving fees, gifts and other valuable things, as well as solicit any “gift,
gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value.”
97. Distinguish Malversation from Technical Malversation
MALVERSATION (ART. 217) TECHNICAL MALVERSATION (ART. 220)

Funds or property usually public Funds or property are always public
Offender is usually a public officer who is Offender is always a public officer to whom such
accountable for he public funds or property public funds or property is under his
administration
Crime is committed by appropriating, Crime is committed by applying public funds or
taking or misappropriating or consenting or property, appropriated by a law or ordinance for
through abandonment or negligence, specific use, to a public use other than for which
permitting any other person to take the such fund or property has been appropriated
public the public funds or property
Malum in se Malum prohibitum
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
98. When is physical injury considered as serious, less serious, and slight?
SERIOUS LESS SERIOUS

PHYSICAL PHYSICAL SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES (Art. INJURIES (Art. INJURIES (Art. 266)
263) 265)
As to days of More than 30 days For 10 days or For 1 to 9 days
incapacity for or for more than more but not more
labor or illness 90 days than 30 days
As to suffering Insanity, Incapacity for Incapacity for labor or
imbecility, labor or illness illness for 1 to 9 days, or
impotency, requiring medical there is no incapacity or
blindness, loss of attendance for 10 illness.
faculty for speech, days or more but
hearing or not more than 30
smelling, loss of days.
any part of the
body or use
thereof, deformity,
incapacity for
habitual work,
permanently or for

Pre-week Notes
more than 90
days, or incapacity
or illness for more
than 30 days.
99. Manuel arrived home in Tacloban City from Manila. But before Manuel could reach the
bedroom, he was warned by Arvin, his brother-in-law, not to go inside the bedroom
where his wife, Auria, was with a man, for he might be killed. Ignoring Arvin's
admonition, Manuel kicked the door open, and saw his wife Auria and a man seated
beside each other conversing. Furious by what he had seen, Manuel went out of the
room, got a knife and delivered a stab blow towards the man but the latter was
shielded by Auria. In the process, the stab blow landed on Auria. After Auria was
accidentally stabbed, the man ran outside and fled. Out of frustration for not killing
the man, Manuel wounded himself on the chest. He then left the house and went to
the hospital for medical treatment. Auria died of stab wounds, and thereafter Manuel
was charged for the crime of parricide. In his defense, Manuel sought the application
of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e. death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances, in order to exonerate him of criminal liability. Is Manuel
correct?
No. For Article 247 of Revised Penal Code to apply, the defense must prove the concurrence of
the following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) that he kills any of them or both of them
in the act or immediately thereafter; and (3) that he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse. Among the three elements, the most vital is that the accused must prove to the
court that he killed his wife and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately
thereafter. Here, when Manuel saw Auria with a man, the two were just seated beside each
other and were simply conversing. Hence, Article 247 is not applicable in the present case.
(People vs. Macal, G.R. No. 211062, January 13, 2016)
100. Provide the distinctions for Rape, Seduction, Acts of Lasciviousness, and Abduction.
ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
RAPE(Art. SEDUCTION(Art. and CONSENTED ABDUCTION(Art.
266-A) 338) ACTS OF 342, 343)
LASCIVIOUNESS(Art.
336)
1. By using Qualified Acts of lasciviousness: Forcible abduction:
force or Seduction: 1. By using force or Female was
intimidation, or 1. abuse of intimidation, or abducted against
Circumstances
authority; her will
Present
2. When the 2. abuse of 2. When the woman is
woman is confidence; or deprived of reason or Victim is under 12
deprived of 3. relationship otherwise unconscious, years of age
42|CLEAR
BarOps
reason or Simple Seduction: or
otherwise by means of deceit Consented
unconscious, or 3. When the woman is Abduction: Female
under 12 years of age was abducted with
3. By means of her consent but
fraudulent Consented acts of only after
machination or lasciviousness: solicitation or
grave abuse of 1. Abuse of authority cajolery from the
authority, or 2. Abuse of confidence offender
3. Relationship
4. When the 4. By means of deceit
woman is
under 12 years
of age or
demented.
Qualified Seduction Acts of lasciviousness: Forcible abduction:
with the age except in statutory If it is committed
Age except in circumstance of rape and reputation of against the will,
statutory rape relationship the victim is not age and reputation
and reputation material is not material.
of the victim is Age and reputation If committed with
not material of the victim is not Consented acts of consent, the age
material lasciviousness:same as of the victim must
seduction under 12 years of
Qualified age
circumstance with
the circumstance Consented
of abuse of Abduction:
confidence or Reputation of the
authority victim is material.
Her age must be
Age and
1. The victim must 12 years or above
Reputation
be a virgin, or butunder 18 years
Material
must have a good of age
reputation
2. The age of the

victim must 12
years of age or
above but under
18 years of age
Simple Seduction:
Reputation of the
victim is material.
Her age must be
12 years or above
but under 18 years
of age

Pre-week Notes
101. Ken, a witness, saw Jim kicked Jack on the stomach twice while the latter was
sprawled on the ground. As Jack stood up, Javi punched him in the stomach causing
Jack to collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, Jack was taken to the hospital, however,
Jack died the following day. Jim andJavi was charged with the crime of Death Caused
in a Tumultuous Affray. Was the crime charged correct?
No. Jurisprudence provides that a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between
severalpersons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which
some person iskilled or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. Here, there was
no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of which Jack died because there
were only two persons, Jim and Javi, who attacked Jack. There was no confusion and
tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression inthat fateful incident.
Hence, Jim and Javishould be charged with Homicide. (Wacoy vs. People, G.R. No. 213792, June
22, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
102. What is the effect of the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime
of murder?
The accused shall be held guilty for the crime of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm.
Under Section 1 of RA No. 8294, “if homicide or murder is committed with the use of
anunlicensedfirearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravatingcircumstance.” There are two (2) requisites to establish such circumstance, namely:
(a) the existence ofthe subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or
possessed the gun did not have thecorresponding license or permit to carry it outside his
residence. Where such circumstances were not proven during the course of the trial, the use of
unlicensed firearm shall not be considered as an aggravating circumstance, thereby, rendering
the accused guilty of simple murder only. (Salonga vs. People, G.R. No. 218466, January 23,
103. Cadano asked Nena, an 8 year-old girl,to go with him to clean their house as it was
flooded. When they arrived at their house, Cadano asked Nena to lie down in the
room. He removed her shorts and underwear, asked her to spread her legs, and
thereafter inserted her penis into her vagina. She felt pain and exclaimed “Aray!” After
he was finished, he brandished a knife and threatened her not to tell her mother. Nena
told her mother what Cadano did to her. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed
against Cadano for statutory rape.
a. What constitutes the crime of Statutory Rape?
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or
consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the
absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At
that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of
44|CLEAR
BarOps
giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.(People vs. Cadano, G.R. No. 207819, March 12,
b. Is Cadano guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape?
Yes. Here, all the elements of statutory rape are present because when the crime happened
Nena was 8 years old, being a minor whose age is below 12 years old regardless of her
consent to the sexual act is guilty of statutory rape. Thus, Cadano is guilty of statutory rape
under RPC. (People vs. Cadano, G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
104. On her way home from school, Marie was threatened by Ricky and Wilson with a
bladed weapon and dragged her to a cottage at a nearby beach resort, and bound her
hands and feet. Thereafter, Ricky removed her clothes and inserted his penis into her
vagina, then after him, Wilson took over and raped her. Thereafter, they left Marie at
the cottage. The next day, Marie’s father found her crying. A criminal complaint of
Rape was filed against Ricky and Wilson. Ricky and Wilson objected on the ground
that there was no force and intimidation, thus, no rape happened. Is the objection
tenable?
No. Jurisprudence holds that force or intimidation, as an element of rape, need not be
irresistible; as long as the assailant's objective is accomplished, any question of whether the
force employed was irresistible or not becomes irrelevant. Here, the act of holding a bladed
instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the
victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into submission. (People vs. Arguta, G.R. No.
213216, April 20, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
105. Does sexual intercourse with a woman whose actual age is 30 years old but who is
suffering from mental retardation with a mental age of a 9-year constitute the crime
of Statutory Rape?
Yes. Sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate, with a mental age below 12
years old, constitutes statutory rape. In determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of
age", the interpretation should be in accordance with either the chronological age of the child if
he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or the mental age if intellectual disability is
established.(People vs. Nierbes, G.R. No. 230975, December 4, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
106. Mohamad, Rocky and Ali went to the house of Michelle and forcefully took her.The
next day, a phone call was received by the family of Michelle asking them for a P30
million ransom for her freedom. After two days, she was rescued by the operatives of
the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force after the payment of P4.83
million.What was the crime committed, if any?
The crime committed was Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Art. 267 of the RPC.
Its elements are as follows: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains
another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or
kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense any of the following

Pre-week Notes
circumstances is present: i) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; ii) it is
committed by simulating public authority; iii) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or iv) the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. The duration of detention is immaterial if the
victim is a minor, or if the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort ransom. (People vs. Lidasan,
G.R. No. 227425, September 4, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
107. Ben, a 19-year old teenager had just finished visiting his detained brother at the police
station when he snapped a selfie with police officers at the background and with his
dirty finger up. He even said “f*ck the police.” A police officer, witnessed what Ben did
and immediately apprehended him. What was the crime committed by Ben, if any?
Ben committed the crime of unjust vexation. Jurisprudence provides that unjust vexation is a
form of light coercion which is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritated an innocent
person. The offender’s act must have caused annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the person whom it is directed. Here, the conduct of Ben caused
annoyance or irritation among the police officers, hence should be held liable for unjust
vexation. (Baleros Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007)
108. Carl was on board his owner-type jeepney with his wife, Joyce, and daughter, Anj.
While the vehicle was on a stop position,Chester and Allan suddenly appeared on both
sides of the jeepney, with Chester poking a gun at the side of Carl, and Allan grabbing
his mobile phone. Chester, then shot Carl and the latter reacted by drawing his own
firearm but was unable to fire at the assailants as he fell to the ground which resulted
to his death. What was the crime committed, if any?
The crime committed wasa special complex crime of robbery with homicide. To sustain a
conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the
taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery,
the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires
certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and the objective of the malefactor and the
killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human
life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.Homicide is said to have been
committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to facilitate the
robbery or the escape of the culprit. Here, Chester poked his gun at Carl, took the latter’s mobile
phone, and thereafter, shot him, resulting to his death. All the elements of special complex crime
of robbery with homicide are present. (People v. Balute, G.R. No. 212932, January 21, 2015, J.
Perlas-Bernabe)
46|CLEAR
BarOps
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
109. Distinguish Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Detention, and Unlawful Arrest.
SERIOUS SLIGHT UNLAWFUL ARBITRARY

ILLEGAL DETENTION ILLEGAL DETENTION ARREST DETENTION
Offender
Any private person Any private person Any private person or Any public officer
any public officer not vested with authority
vested with authority to detain or order the
to detain or order the detention of another
detention of another
Necessity of specific purpose
Intent to deprive liberty Intent to deprive Intent to deliver the Intent to disregard
liberty victim to the proper the constitutional
authorities right against
unreasonable seizure
Is period of detention an element?
More than 3 days unless Not more than 3 days No Yes, penalty is
the circumstance of dependent on the
simulation of authority, length of detention
serious physical injuiries,
threat to kill, minority or
the offended party is a
female or public officer is
present
110. Distinguish Grave Threats, Light Threats and Other Light Threats.
GRAVE THREATS LIGHT THREATS OTHER LIGHT THREATS
The wrong threatened The wrong threatened does The wrong threatened
amounts to a crime which may not amount to a crime but is does not amount to a
or may not be accompanied by always accompanied by a crime and there is no
a condition. condition. condition.

Pre-week Notes
111. Distinguish Kidnapping with Rape from Forcible Abduction with Rape
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE RAPE THROUGH FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

The crime is composite (or special complex crime) The crime is complex (under Article 48) since
if the woman kidnapped is also raped. forcible abduction is a necessary means to commit
rape.
There is no lewd design at the time of abduction There is lewd design at the time of abduction
Regardless of the number of rapes, there is only If there are multiple rapes, only the first rape shall
one special complex crime of kidnapping with be complexed with forcible abduction, subsequent
rape rapes will be treated as separate crimes.
If rape was merely attempted, kidnapping and If rape was merely attempted, the crime
serious illegal detention and attempted rape will committed is only forcible abduction. Attempted
be treated as separate crimes. rape for being a mere manifestation of lewd
design, which is an element of forcible abduction
is absorbed
112. Distinguish grave coercion from light coercion.
GRAVE COERCION LIGHT COERCION
(Art. 286) (Art. 287)
As to purpose of To prevent another from To apply the proceeds of

commission doing something not seized property for the
prohibited by law, or to payment of the debt.
compel him to do
something against his
will, whether right or
wrong.
As to manner of By means of violence, By means of violence.
commission threats or intimidation,
and without authority of
law.
As to the offender Any person. A creditor.
As to the offended Any person. A debtor.
party
48|CLEAR
BarOps
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
113. Distinguish Robbery and Theft
ROBBERY THEFT
Both involve unlawful taking as element.
Both involve personal property belonging to another.
There is intent to gain.
The taking is done with the use of violence There is no employment of violence or
or intimidation of persons or by using force intimidation of persons or using force upon
upon thing. thing.
114. Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery
committed on a highway.
Highway Robbery (PD No. 532) Robbery Committed on a Highway
The robbery is committed The robbery is committed only against

indiscriminately against persons who predetermined victim; under the
commute in such highways, regardless Revised Penal Code when the
of the potentiality they offer; when the commission thereof in a public highway
offender is a brigand or one who roams is only incidental and the offender is not
in public highways and carries out his a brigand, only occasional against a
robbery in public highways as venue, predetermined victim, without frequency
whenever the opportunity to do so in public highways.
arises. There is frequency in the
commission of the robbery in public
highways and against persons travelling
thereat.
115. Compare and distinguish Estafa under par. 2(D), Art. 315 of the RPC from violation of
B.P. 22.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BP 22) ESTAFA (ARTICLE 315, 2[D])
Endorser is not liable. Endorser may be liable if he acted with

deceit knowing that the check is
worthless.
Check is issued for the purpose of applying Check is issued to obtain valuable
on account or for value. consideration from the payee.
Covers even payment of pre-existing In payment of an obligation contracted at

obligation. the time of the issuance and delivery of
the check.

Pre-week Notes
Deceit and damage is not an essential Deceit and damage is an essential
element. element.
Knowledge of insufficiency or lack of funds Knowledge of insufficiency or lack of

is required. funds is NOT required.
The drawer is given 5 banking days after The drawer is given 3 calendar days
receiving notice of dishonour within which after receiving notice of dishonour within
to pay . which to pay.
Crime against public interest. Crime against property.
Malum prohibitum Malum in se
116. Liam borrowed P500,000 from his brother CJ. To pay the loan, Liam issued a post-
dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days
before maturity, Liam called CJ telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that
the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, CJ deposited the check and it was
dishonored. When Liam failed to pay despite demand, CJ filed a complaint against him
for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Was the charge brought against Liam correct?
Yes, the charges brought against Liam is correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum prohibitum which is
committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check was
issued on account or for value, the purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and
conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this
reason, the request of Liam to defer the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not
militate against his prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Liam can still be charged. Moreover, if
what is charged is Estafa, Liam being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held criminally
liable under Article 332, RPC. (BP 22: Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, February 14, 2001)
117. Jam was the Loans Bookkeeper of River Bank and was authorized to collect and/or
accept loan payments of River Bank’s clients and issue provisional receipts therefor,
accomplish a cash transfer slip and remit such payments to Jen, her supervisor. River
Bank conducted an audit investigation of its loan transactions and discovered the non-
remittance of some loan payments received from its clients.RiverBank filed a criminal
case for estafa through misappropriationunder Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code against Jam. Jam argued that the first element of estafa through
misappropriation has not been established, insisting that her possession of the
collected loan payments was merely material and not juridical; therefore, she cannot
be convicted of the said crime. Decide.
Jam should not be held guilty of estafa. Under the first element of estafa through
misappropriation, when the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the
offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the
offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing
received.Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the
thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. It bears to stress that a sum of
money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the
50|CLEAR
BarOps
material possession of the employee. The material possession of an employee is adjunct, by
reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. So long
as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee-perpetrator,
the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise. Hence, conversion of personal
property in the case of an employee having mere material possession of the said property
constitutes theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom both material and juridical
possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the same property constitutes estafa.
Here, Jam was merely a collector of loan payments from River Bank’s clients. As such, the
money merely passes into her hands and she takes custody thereof only for the duration of the
banking day. Being a mere custodian of the missing funds and not, in any manner, an agent
who could have asserted a right against River Bank over the same, Jam had only acquired
material and not juridical possession of such funds and consequently, cannot be convicted of the
crime of estafaas charged. (Benabaye vs. People G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015, J.
Perlas-Bernabe)
118. Payaman Corporation ordered 14,000 liters of diesel fuel from Unioil, a company
owned by Arturito. Berlin, a truck driver employed by Arturito, was dispatched to
deliver the diesel fuel in Sto. Domingo, Quezon City. However, Payaman Corporation
informed Arturito that it had not yet received its order. Upon inquiry,
Arturitodiscovered that Berlin, with his helper left the company premises in the
afternoon of the same day on board a truck to deliverPayaman Corporation’s diesel
fuel order. When Arturitocalled them on his mobile phone, he did not receive any
response.Arturito reported the incident to Camp Crame and days later, NBI agents
found the abandoned truck emptied of the diesel fuel. Arturito then filed a complaint
for Qualified Theft against Berlin. Will the criminal complaint for qualified theft
prosper?
Yes. The elements of Qualified Theft, under Art. 310 in relation to Art. 309of the RPC are as
follows:(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 Art. 310 of the RPC,
i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.Here, there is a confluence of all the foregoing elements.
The diesel fuel was loaded into the lorry truck driven by Berlin for delivery to Payaman
Corporation was taken by him, without the authority and consent of Arturito, the owner of the
diesel fuel, and that Berlin abused the confidence reposed upon him by his employer.
(Candelaria vs. People, G.R No. 209386, December 8, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
119. Ernesto Delos Santos undertook the construction of the CTTL Building, adjacent to the
Benguet Pines Tourist Inn (BPTI) which is a business establishment owned and
operated by the University of Manila (UM). His father, Virgilio, who was the President
and Chairman of the Board of Trustees (BOT) of UM, allegedly ordered the employees
of BPTI to assist Ernesto in all his needs in the construction. Ernesto was permitted to
tap into BPTI's electricity and water supply. When Virgilio died and was succeeded by
Emily De Leonas President of UM; UM, represented by De Leon, filed a criminal
complaint against Ernesto for qualified theft of the electricity and water supply of

Pre-week Notes
BPTI for the construction of the CTTL Building. Will the complaint for qualified theft
prosper?
No. The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Art.310, in relation to Arts.308 and 309, of
the RPC are as follows: (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. The elements of lack of owner's consent
and intent to gain are absent in this case.
Here, Ernesto was permitted by Virgilio to tap into BPTI's electricity and water supply. As such,
Ernesto had no criminal intent - as he, in fact, acted on the faith of his father's authority, on
behalf of UM - to appropriate said personal property. Where one, in good faith, takes another’s
property under claim of title in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile
or mistaken the claim may in fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of
another, believed to be the true owner. The gist of the offense is the intent to deprive another
of his property in a chattel, either for gain or out of wantonness or malice to deprive another of
his right in the thing taken. This cannot be where the taker honestly believes the property is his
own or that of another, and that he has a right to take possession of it for himself or for
another, as in this case. (People vs. De Los Santos, G.R. No. 220685, November 29, 2017, J.
Perlas-Bernabe)
120. Mia, Val, Jam and Vic were enticed to invest in TGICI an open-end investment
company, due to the offer of high interest rates, as well as the assurance that they will
recover their investments. After giving their money to TGICI, they received a
Certificate of Share and post-dated checks, representing the amount of the principal
investment and the monthly interest earnings, respectively.Upon encashment, the
checks were dishonored,as the account was already closed, prompting them to bring
the bounced checks to the TGICI office to demand payment. At the office, the TGICI
employees took the said checks, gave them acknowledgement receipts, and reassured
that their investments, as well as the interests, would be paid. However, the TGICI
office closed down without Mia, Val, Jam and Vic having been paid and, thus, they
were constrained to file criminal complaints of multiple criminal cases for
Syndicated Estafa against the incorporators and directors of TGICI. Will the criminal
complaints prosper?
Yes. The elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in
Arts. 315 and 316 of the RPC is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a
syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of
moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative,
“samahangnayon(s),” or farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations
from the general public. In this case, all the elements of Syndicated Estafa, committed through a
Ponzi scheme are present considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of TGICI made false
pretenses and representations to the investing public regarding a supposed lucrative investment
opportunity with TGICI in order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and
representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on
52|CLEAR
BarOps
the same, Mia, Val, Jam and Vic invested their hard earned money into TGICI; and (d) the
incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up running away with Mia, Val, Jam and
Vic’sinvestments, obviously to the latter’s prejudice. (People vs. Tibayan, G.R. Nos. 209655-60,
January 14, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
121. As agreed upon, Sue delivered pieces of jewelry to Kee, which the latter will sell on
commission basis. After a month of each delivery, Kee is obliged to either remit the
proceeds of the sold jewelry or return the unsold jewelry to Sue. Thereafter, Sue
delivered various sets of jewelry to Kee amounting to P200,000, P250,00 and
P300,000. Upon delivery of the last batch of jewelry, Kee issued a check worth
P250,000 as full security for the first 2 deliveries. However, the check was dishonored
due to insufficient funds. Sue demanded payment from Kee, but the latter refused to
pay and denied having received any jewelry from Sue nor having signed any contract
of sale of jewelry with her. Kee was charged with 3 counts of estafa under Art.315
(1)(b) of the RPC. In her defense, Kee claimed that the transaction between them is
not an agency on commission basis, but a plain sale of jewelry. Will the case of
estafaprosper?
Yes. The elements of Estafa under this provision are as follows: (1) the offender's receipt of
money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same; (2)
misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property received, or denial of
receipt of the money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money
or property received. In this case, the elements of estafa, as defined and penalized under Art.
315 (1)(b) of the RPCare present, considering that: (a) Sue delivered the jewelry to Kee for the
purpose of selling them on commission basis; (b) Kee was required to either remit the proceeds
of the sale or to return the jewelry after one month from delivery; (c) Kee failed to do what was
required of her despite the lapse of the aforesaid period; (d) Sue attempted to encash the check
given by Kee as security, but such check was dishonored twice for being drawn against
insufficient funds and against a closed account; (e) Sue demanded that Kee comply with her
undertaking, but the latter disregarded such demand; (f) Kee's acts clearly prejudiced Sue who
lost the jewelry and/or its value.(Cheng vs. People, G.R. No. 174113, January 13, 2016, J.
Perlas-Bernabe)
122. Wilma received from Victoria several pieces of jewelry amounting to Php 106,000.00 as
evidenced by a trust receipt. Several weeks passed, Victoria alleged that she made
several verbal demands to Wilma to return the pieces of jewelry, but to no avail. Thus,
a criminal complaint for estafa was filed by Victoria against Wilma. Wilma, in her
defense, alleged that she entrusted the pieces of jewelry to Bisquera who issued
Security Bank Checks as payment., and claimed that Victoria knew that she was
planning to sell the pieces of jewelry to Bisquera. Will the charge prosper?
No. The essence of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) is the appropriation or conversion of
money orproperty received to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and
"misappropriate" connotean act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s
own, or of devoting it to apurpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for
one’s own use includes notonly conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt

Pre-week Notes
to dispose of the property ofanother without right.Here, although it cannot be denied that Wilma
received the pieces of jewelry from Victoria, she did not misappropriate or convert the amount of
the pieces of jewelry for her own personal use. Hence, Wilma cannot be criminally held liable for
estafa. (Tabaniag vs. People, G.R. No. 165411, June 18, 2009).
123. Bea, a 14-year old minor, was a third year high school student. Manny was her teacher
and Citizen Army Training (CAT) Commandant. One morning, while the CAT trainees
were having their activity, Manny called Bea and told her that if she is decided on
becoming a CAT officer, Bea should come with him to his house for her initiation. Upon
arrival, Manny pulled Bea to his lap and asked her to kiss him. Thinking it was part of
the initiation, Bea obeyed. Thereafter, Manny kissed her on her lips. Bea started
crying. But Manny went on to lay her on the sofa, lifted her shirt and sucked her
breast. Bea was frightened and could not complain. As Manny tried to unzip her pants,
Bea pleaded for him not to do so as she had her menstrual period. He told Bea to stop
crying and not to report the incident to anyone if she truly wanted to be an officer.
However, Bea confessed to her mother that she was molested by Manny. A case was
filed against Manny. After trial, the trial courtheld him guilty of acts of lasciviousness
under Art. 336 of the RPC. Was the trial court correct? If no, what should be the
proper crime charged?
No. The proper charge should be that of "lascivious conduct'' under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610,
considering that the victim was 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. RA
7610 finds application when the victims of abuse, exploitation or discrimination are children or
those "persons below 18 years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition.” (Orsos v. People, G.R. No. 214673,
November 20, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
124. During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old public utility
vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio, each armed with
guns, hailed several MMDA buses then providing free transport to the stranded public
to stop them from plying their routes. They later on commandeered one of the buses
without allowing any of the passengers to alight, and told the driver to bring the bus
to Tanay, Rizal.
Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio forcibly
divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They ordered the passengers to
leave thereafter. Then, they burned the bus. When a tanod of the barangay of the
area came around to Intervene, Pater fired at him, instantly killing him.
After Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio were arrested, the police authorities
recommended them to be charged with the following crimes, to wit: (1) carnapping;
(2) robbery, (3) direct assault with homicide; (4) kidnapping; and (5) arson.
State your legal opinion on the recommendation of the police authorities on the
criminal liabilities incurred by Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio.
54|CLEAR
BarOps
Because Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio commandeered the bus for the purpose of robbing the
passengers, the crime committed is robbery (People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 94755, April 10,
1992). Since the taking of the victims was merely to commit robbery and not to transport them
to another place for purpose of detention, the crime committed is not kidnapping but robbery
[(People vs. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993);Criminal Law Conspectus by Florenz
Regalado]. Intent to deprive liberty is not present since deprivation of liberty is just incidental to
the commission of robbery.
Since death results by reason or on occasion of robbery, the crime committed is a special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. This composite crime is committed even though the
victim of homicide is a responding Barangay Tanod(People vs. Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, May
24, 1967). Even though only Pater killed the Tanod, Percy, Pablo, and Sencio are also liable for
robbery with homicide since they failed to attempt to prevent the same [(People vs. Dela Cruz,
G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008); People vs. Castro, G.R. No. 187073, March 14, 2012];
Since the crime committed is robbery with homicide, all other felonies such as arson and direct
assault committed by reason or on occasion of homicide (People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124,
Apr. 5, 2016). Arson shall not be considered as a separate crime but as a mere aggravating
circumstance of commission of the felony by means of fire (U.S. vs. Bulfa, G.R. No. 8468, August
20, 1913).
The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to
another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to
gain (People vs. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004).
In this case, the accused unlawfully took an MMDA bus without the consent of the owner, which
gives rise to the presumption of their intent to gain. Considering that all the elements of
carnapping are present, the accused shall be liable therefor.
Since carnapping is punishable under a special law, it shall be considered as a crime separate
from robbery with homicide (People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009; People
vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010).
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
125. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction? Give an
example of each.
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public authority, guardian, teacher or a person
who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced.
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Examples: priest, house servant, domestics.
3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother who seduced his sister; ascendant who
seduced his descendant (Art. 337, RPC).

Pre-week Notes
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
126. Compare and distinguish bigamy from illegal marriage.
BIGAMY (Art. 349) ILLEGAL MARRIAGE (Art. 350)
Subsequent marriage must be Subsequent marriage is annullable or

perfectly valid except that it is void even if there is no 1st marriage.
bigamous.
Refers only to contracting of a 2nd Covers all marriages which are

marriage before the former marriage otherwise voidable or null and void
has been legally dissolved or before other than bigamous marriage.
the absent spouse has been
declared presumptively dead.
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
127. How is Libel committed?
a. Article 353 states that “A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one
who is dead.”
b. Article 355 states that Libel is committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.
c. Under R.A. No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cyber libel as defined in Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, may be committed through a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the future.
128. Where is the venue of libel cases?
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or
separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and
first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense (Article 360 as amended by R.A. 4363, An Act Further Amend).
129. Marissa was tending her garden when Anita passed by. She then talked to Anita and
started blaming her for the garbage Anita’s children are apparently throwing into her
garden. This prompted a quarrel between the two. In the course of which, Anita
uttered to Marissa, “You are a prostitute, an illiterate, a bitch!” Aggrieved, Marissa
filed a criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation against Anita. Can Anita be convicted
of the crime?
No. Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only
upon the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special
circumstances of the case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended party.
56|CLEAR
BarOps
The gravity depends upon: (1) the expressions used; (2) the personal relations of the
accused and the offended party; and (3) the special circumstances of the case, the
antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which may tend to
prove the intention of the offender at the time. In particular, it is a rule that uttering
defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended
party constitutes only a light felony.Here, although Anita said defamatory words against
Marissa, the utterances were made in the heat of anger and were with some sort of
provocation on the part of Marissa, hence only constitutes slight oral defamation. (Ramos vs.
People, G.R. No. 226454, November 20, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
QUASI-OFFENSES
130. Victor was driving his motorcycle to bring his two minor sons to school. While they
were moving towards the curving road on their proper lane, a land cruiser driven by
Jerry was swiftly moving the same lane from the opposite direction. Victor blew the
horn of his motorcycle to signal the land cruiser to return to its proper lane, but it
remained there. To avoid collision, Victor swerved to the left, but the land cruiser also
suddenly swerved towards the same direction and collided head-on with the
motorcycle. As a result, Victor’s sons were thrown over the land cruiser and fell on the
road causing them injuries. Victor was pinned beneath the land cruiser and eventually
died. Jerry was thereafter charged for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
with Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property. Will the case prosper?
Yes. Jurisprudence provides thatin order to establish a motorist’s liability for the negligent
operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such
negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. To constitute the offense of reckless
driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor
vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. In this case, Jerry’s act
of driving very fast on the wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of the collision,
resulting to the death of Victor and serious physical injuries to his sons. (Gonzaga vs. People,
G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe)

Pre-week Notes
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. 1613)
131. Where both burning and death occurred at the same occasion, what crime/crimes
was/were committed?
DEATH
CRIME OCCURRED AT MAIN OBJECTIVE
THE SAME
OCCASION?
Arson (Simple or No Burning of the building or edifice
Destructive as
the case may
be)
Special complex Yes Burning of the building or edifice
crime of arson
with homicide
Murder Yes Kill a particular person who may be in a building or
edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal
Two separate Yes Kill a particular person and in fact the offender has
and distinct already done so, but fire is resorted as a means to
crimes – cover up the killing
homicide/murder
and arson
(People vs. Baluntong, 615 SCRA 455, G.R. 182061, March 15, 2010; People vs. Villacorta, G.R.
No. 172468, October 15, 2008).
ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF 2009
132. Who is a child under RA 9775?
A child refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or over, but is unable to fully take
care of himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition. It also refers to:
a. a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined
herein; and
b. computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is
represented or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein. (Sec. 3(a), RA
9775)
58|CLEAR
BarOps
133. What are the sexual activities as to form in this Act?
Explicit Sexual Activity includes actual or simulated –
• As to form: sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, but not limited to, contact involving genital
to genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or oral to anal, whether between persons of the same or
opposite sex;
• bestiality;
• masturbation;
• sadistic or masochistic abuse;
• lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts, pubic area and/or anus; or use of any object
or instrument for lascivious acts (Sec. 3 [c], R.A. 9775).
134. LandieKoh operated a social networking site where patrons are linked to her cybersex
den, where she keeps fifteen-year old women and have them perform sexual acts for
the patrons. May LandieKoh be charged under RA 9775, also known as the Anti-Child
Pornography Act?
Yes. The facts state that she employs persons below eighteen years of age to perform sexual
acts for customers, and that she has a cybersex den, constitute acts punishable under Sec. 4 of
RA 9775.
135. May she also be charged under RA 10175, also known as Cybercrime Prevention Act?
No. An offender cannot be charged with both Cybercrime Law and Anti-Child Pornography Act
for committing child pornography. Cybercrime Law merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. ACPA’s
definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital,
optical, magnetic or any other means.” Thus, charging the offender under both Cybercrime Law
and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against
double jeopardy (Disini, Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014).
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 (PD 1612)
136. Distinguish Fencing from an Accessory to Theft or Robbery.
Fencing Accessory to theft or Robbery

A fence is punished as a As a general rule, an accessory to robbery or theft under the
principal under PD 1612 and RPC is punished two degrees lower than the principal.
the penalty is higher.
Fencing is a Malum Prohibitum In accessory to the crime of robbery or theft under RPC, intent
and therefore there is no need is an element of the crime therefore good faith is a proper
to prove criminal intent of the defense.
accused. Good Faith is not a
defense.

Pre-week Notes
All the acts of one who is an The accessory in crimes of robbery and theft could be
accessory to the crime of prosecuted as such under the RPC or as a fence under PD
robbery and theft are included 1612.
in the acts defined as fencing.
(Festin, 2013, Special Penal Laws Criminal Reviewer, Volume II)
137. Juan employed Pedro to take care of his hardware store when the former’s wife was
about to give birth. After coming back, Juan noticed an unusual amount of
screwdrivers missing from the inventory. Pedro claimed that someone put in a huge
order for screwdrivers, and he forgot to record such, as he was so surprised. Pedro
asked for forgiveness and said that his wife was about to give birth soon as well. Juan
forgave him and never reported the incident to the police, but dismissed Pedro from
work. Later on, Juan saw Maria selling screwdrivers in front of the latter’s house.
When confronted, Maria said that she bought them from Pedro, who needed the
money for the hospital bills of his wife. Juan filed a complaint against Maria under PD
1612, also known as the Anti-Fencing Law.Was the crime of fencing committed?
Discuss why or why not.
No. The following are the elements of fencing:

a. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
b. The accused, who is not a principal or 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 said crime;
c. The accused knows 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
d. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Here, Since Juan reported no loss and did not prosecute Pedro, it is uncertain whether a crime
of theft was indeed committed. The first element of the crime of fencing is absent, that is, a
crime of robbery of theft has been committed. Thus, Maria cannot be held liable for fencing.
Also, there was no showing at all that Maria knew or should have known that the very stolen
articles were the ones sold to her.Without Maria knowing that she acquired stolen articles, she
cannot be guilty of "fencing." (Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999)
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
138. What are the punishable acts under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practives Act?
a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constitutibf a

violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in
connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced to
commit such violation or offense;
b. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
60|CLEAR
BarOps
c. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner
or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section Thirteen of this Act;
d. Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination;
e. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative
or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions;
f. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within
a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of
or discriminating against any other interested party;
g. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby;
h. Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in
which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest;
i. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel, or group of which he is a member,
and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
j. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled;
k. Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance
of its authorized release date (Sec. 3, RA 3019).
139. Overjoyed by the award to his firm of a multi-billion government contract for the
development of an economic and tourism hub in the Provinice of Blank, Mr. Gangnam
allotted the amount of P100 Million to serve as gifts for certain persons intrsumental
in his firm’s winning the award. He gave 50% of that amount to Governor Datu, the
official who had signed the contract with the proper authorization from the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan; 25% to Bokal Diva, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
member who had lobbied for the award of the project in the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan; 25% to Mayor Dolor of the Municipality where the project would be
implemented. Governor Datu received his share through his wife, Provincial First Lady
Dee, who then deposited the amount in her personal bank account.
Previously, upon falcification by the Bokal Diva, Mr. Gangnam concluded an agreement
with Mayor Dolor for the consturction of the Blank Sports Arena worth P800 Million.
The project was highly overpriced because it could be undertaken and completed for
not more than P400 Million. For this project, Mayor Dolor received from Mr. Gangnam
a gift of P10 Million, while Bokal Diva got P25 Million.
Pre-week Notes
In both instances, Bokal Diva had her gifts depostied in the name of her secretary,
Terry, who personally maintained a bank account for Bokal Diva’s share in government
projects.
a) May each of the above-named individuals be held liable for plunder? Explain.
The act of receiving P50 Million by Gov. Datukickback in connection with any government contract or
project for the development of any economic and tourism hub is a predicate crime of plunder. He is not
liable, however, for plunder. To be held liable for plunder, the public officer must amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. The word
“combination” means at least two different predicate crimesl while the term “sries” means at least two
predicate crimes of the same kind(Ejercito vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294-95, November 30,
2006). 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 aalready 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).
The series acts of receiving by Mayor Dolorkickback or gift in the amount of P25 Million and P10 million
in connection with any government contract or project for the development of an economic and tourism
hub and for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena, respectively, are predicate crimes of plunder.
However, the aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired is less than P50 million. Hence, plunder is
not committed since element that the aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth is at least P50 million is not
present.
Bokal Diva is liable for plunder because he acquired ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P50
million through a series of predicate crimes consisting of receipts of kickbacks or gift in the amount of
P25 million and P25 million in connection with any government contract or project for the development
of an economic and tourism hub and for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena, respectively. Mr.
Gangnam, for giving kickbacks to Bokal diva, and Terry for depositing the money in his account for Bokal
iva are also liable for plunder. Under RA No. 7080, any person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for
such offense.
b) What provisions of RA 3019 if any, where violated by any of the above-named

individuals, specifying the persons liable therefore? Explain.
Governor Datu, Mayor Dolor and Bokal diva are liable for violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 for
receiving money in connection with government contract or transaction for the development of an
economic and tourism hub where they have the right to intervene under the law. Mr. Gangnam for
giving money to the said public officers and Dee, who received the kickbacks for her husband, Governor
Dato, are also liable for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA No. 9019 on the basis of conspiracy (Go vs The Fifth
Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007).
Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva are liable for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 for receiving money in
connection with govrnment contract or transaction for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena; or
violation of Sec. 3 (e) for giving Mr. Gangnam, a private party, unwarranted benefits, advantage or
62|CLEAR
BarOps
preference through manifest partiality and evident bad faith by entering an agreement for such
construction, whish is highly overpriced; or vioaltion of Sec. 3(g) for entering, on behlad of the
Government, into any contract or transaction for suck construction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same. Mr. Gangnam for giving money to the said public officers or for entering
such contract is liable for violation of Sec. 3 of RA 9019 on the basis of conspiracy (Go vs The Fifth
Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007).
c) What crimes under the Revised Penal Code, if any, were committed, specifying the
persons liable therefor. Explain.
Governor Datu, Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva are liable for indirect bribery under Art. 211, RPC for
receiving money from Mr. Gangnam offered to change by reason of their position as public officers while
the letter is liable for corruption of public officer. Direct bribery is not committed since there is no
showing that they received the money by virtue of any agreement to commt a crime or unjust act in
connection with the development of an economic and tourism hub and construction of the Balck Sports
Arena. The facts given aboce merely showed receipt of gifts. Meanwhile, Mr. Gangnam is liable for
corruption of public officer under Article 212 of the RPC because of his act of gicing gifts to the public
officer.
ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018 (RA 8049 as amended by RA 11053)
140. What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed?
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation rites may be
performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall be given seven (7) days before
the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate: (a) the period of the initiation activities, not
exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an
undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.
141. Cris was among the freshmen law students who wished to join the ABC Fraternity. He,
along with his fellow neophytes, were informed that they were required to undergo
the initiation rites, and that such rites would include physical beatings. On the first
day of the initiation rites, they were subjected to traditional forms of ABC Fraternity
initiation rites. On the second day, they were likewise subjected to similar rites and
beatings. The rites for the second day initially ended, however, due to the insistence of
Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck, alumni fraternity members, they were re-opened once
again that night. The neophytes were subjected to additional beatings. Later that
night, Cris started shivering and mumbling incoherently. He was rushed to the hospital
wherein she was found dead on arrival. May Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck and his co-
accused be found liable for an intentional crime in this case?
They are liable for hazing. Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership In a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish
and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

Pre-week Notes
In this case, the initiation is a prerequisite for admission into the Eagles Fraternity. During the hazing,
they inflicted physical injury as a consequence, the victim died (Supplied by Judge Marlo Campanilla).
ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (R.A. 6235)
142. When is an aircraft in flight?
An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until
any of such doors is opened for disembarkation (Sec. 1,R.A. 6235)
143. What are the punishable acts under RA 6235?
a. Compel a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to

seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight.
b. Compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp
the control thereof while it is within the said territory (Sec. 1, R.A. 6235).
c. Ship, load or carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within the
Philippines, and explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material (Sec.
3, R.A. 6235).
d. Shipping, loading or carrying of any substance or material mentioned in the preceding
section in any cargo aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines not
in accordance with regulations issued by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (Sec. 4,
R.A. 6345).
ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009 (R.A. 9995)
144. What is the meaning of “Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy”?
A person believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or
a private area of the person has being captures; or circumstances in which a reasonable person
would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of
whether that person is in a public or private area (Sec. 3 (f), RA 9995).
145. What are the prohibited acts under R.A. 9995?
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or
any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the
person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or

recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
64|CLEAR
BarOps
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast

media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any
similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.
(Sec. 4, R.A. 9995)
ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
146. Who is the offender under Anti-Plunder Act?
a. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through acombination or series
of overt criminal acts as described in Sec. 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or
total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00); or
b. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an
offense (Sec 2, R.A. 7080, as amended by Sec. 12, R.A. 7659).
147. City Engr. Celso, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards
Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an
ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for the construction of a road leading
to the poblacion. City Engr. Celso instead, diverted the construction of the road
leading to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in the
amount of P10 million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually lost in
the bidding.Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million
could not be accounted for although reports showed that these were lent to City Engr.
Celso’s authorized drivers but the same were never returned. Further, there were
funds under City Engr. Celso’s custody amounting to P10 million which were found to
be missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was instrumental in
awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building costing P10 million
to a close relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed
that City Engr. Celso has a net worth of more than P50 million, which was way beyond
his legitimate income.
a. What offense did City Engr. Celso commit?
City Engr. Celso committed a violation of R.A. 7080, as amended by R.A. 7659, or the Anti-
Plunder Act. The three elements are present in this case: 1) That the offender is a public officer
who acts by himself or in connivance with other persons, acquires, accumulates, or amasses ill-
gotten wealth; 2) The offender amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill- gotten wealth through a
combination of overt or criminal acts of misuse, misappropriation, conversion or malversation of
public funds, receiving kickbacks from persons in connection with a government contract or
project by reason of his office or position and illegally or fraudulently conveying or disposing of

Pre-week Notes
assets belonging to the national government or any of its subdivisions; and, 3) The aggregate
amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated, or acquired is at least
P50M(Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001; Criminal Law
Reviewer Vol. II, Campanilla, 2018 Edition,Page 214).
b. Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. Celso is less than P50 million, will
your answer still be the same?
No.In this case, there is no showing that Eng. Celso acquired, amassed and accumulated ill-
gotten wealth in the amount of P50,000.00. Although the amount of public money misused is
more than P50 million, there is no plunder. To determine whether the P50 million threshold was
reached in this crime, what is important is not the amount of money misused but the amount of
ill-gotten wealth acquired, amassed or accumulated by the public officer. For example, the
amount to P100 million, which is the construction value of the road shall not be considered to
determine if plunder is committed since the road is not part of the wealth of City Engineer Celso.
However, City. Engr. Celso may still be convicted for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for causing damage to the government through evident bad
faith and manifest partiality by diverting the construction of road leading to his farm, and for
giving unwarranted preference, advantage, and benefit through evident bad faith and manifest
partiality by awarding the project to the wrong bidders (Page 214, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. II
by Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition).
148. Distinguish series from combination under the Anti-Plunder Act.
"Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1 (d) of
the R.A. 7080; While, "combination" contemplates the commission of at least any two
different predicate acts in any of said items (Estrada vs.Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001).
149. May a private person be held guilty of the crime of plunder?
Yes. If a public officer committed plunder in connivance with other persons, the “other persons”
or the participants are also liable on the basis of conspiracy.Their liabilities are subject to single
or multiple conspiracies (Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. II by Judge Marlo Campanilla, 2018 Edition,
Page 216).
In single conspiracy, the public officer conspired with a single individual or group in
committing the plunder. The principal in this case must be a public officer, but the participants
can be public officers or private individuals (Enrile vs. People, G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and
chain conspiracy. Under the wheel or circle conspiracy, there is a single person or group
(hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (spokes) (Fernan, Jr. vs.
People, G.R. No 145927, August 24, 2007). In plunder, the principal is the hub, while the
66|CLEAR
BarOps
participants are the spokes (Page 216, Criminal Law Reviewer Vol. II by Judge Marlo Campanilla,
2018 Edition). Under the chain conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or
other contraband, there is successive communication and cooperation in such the same way as
with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and
retailer, and then retailer and consumer (Fernan, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No 145927, August 24,
2007).
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
150. Differentiate RA 7877 from RA 7610 and Article 336 of the RPC.
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ANTI-CHILD ABUSE

LAW (ART. 336) LAW
(RA 7610)
(RA 7877)
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Art. 336 of the RPC: Acts of Sec. 2 (h)“Lascivious
Training-related, Sexual lasciviousness. – Any person who conduct” means the
Harassmentiscommitted by an shall commit any act of intentional touching, either
employer, employee, manager, lasciviousness upon other persons directly or through
supervisor, agent of the employer, of either sex, under any of the clothing, of the genitalia,
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, circumstances mentioned on the anus, groin, breast, inner
trainor or any other person who, preceding article, shall be punished thigh, or buttocks, or the
HAVING AUTHORITY, INFLUENCE, by prisioncorreccional. introduction of any object
or MORAL ASCENDANCY OVER into the genitalia, anus or
ANOTHER in a work or training or mouth, of any person,
education environment, demands, (Art. 339. Acts of lasciviousness whether of the same or
requests or otherwise requires any with the consent of the offended opposite sex, with an
sexual favor from the other, party. – The penalty of arresto intent to abuse, humiliate,
regardless of whether the demand, mayor shall be imposed to same harass, degrade, or arouse
request or requirement for persons and the same or gratify the sexual desire
submission is accepted by the object circumstances as those provided in of any person, bestiality,
of said Act. Article 337 and 338) masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals
or pubic area of a person;
Not absorbed by Article 336 of the In order to be guilty of this crime,
RPC because it can be committed by the acts of lasciviousness must be
words alone committed under any of the
circumstances that had there been
sexual intercourse, the crime would
have been Rape.

Pre-week Notes
ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009
151. AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary
confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of detention. During the
period of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him physically
discomfort. What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the solitary
confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (2012)
The crime of torture and maltreatment of prisoner is committed. Food deprivation and confinement in
solitary cell are considered as physical and psychological torture under Sec. 4(2) of the Anti-Torture Act
of 2009 or R.A. 9745. “Torture” refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third
person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act which he/she or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or
for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent of acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority (Sec 3, R.A. 9745)
152. Can a war be a justification for torture?
NO. Punishable acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state of war or a threat of war, internal political
instability, or any other public emergency, or a document or any determination comprising an "order of
battle" shall not and can never be invoked as a justification for torture and other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment (Sec. 6, R.A. 9745).
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2003
153. What is Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208?
It refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining,
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across
national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over
another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or
the removal or sale of organs.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall
also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the
preceding paragraph. (Sec. 3[a], R.A. 9208)
68|CLEAR
BarOps
154. When the adoption of a child is effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for the
purpose of prostitution, what is the proper charge against the offender who is a public
officer in relation to the exploitative purpose?
The proper charge is qualified trafficking in persons. Adoption or facilitating the adoption of child for the
purpose of prostitution constitutes trafficking in person (Section 4 [f] of RA No. 9208). The means to
commit trafficking in person such as taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim, fraud etc. can be
dispensed with since the trafficking is qualified when trafficked person is a child or when the adoption is
effected through Inter-Country Adoption Act of and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution
(Section 6 [a] and [b]).
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 R.A. 9262
155. What are the elements of Violence against Women and Their Children Act (VAW-C)
through harassment?
The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are:
a. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
b. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of
harassment against the woman; and
c. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to
her (Pascua vs. CA, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010).
d.
156. Karlo was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 for inflicting physical
injuries against Mika, his girlfriend. She narrated that when she sought payment of the
money she had lent to Karlo, the latter could not pay. She then inquired from Karlo if
he was responsible for spreading rumors about her which he admitted. Thereupon,
Karlo slapped Mika causing the latter to inflict on her physical injuries. Mika also
admitted that her relationship with Kalo had ended prior to the subject incident. Karlo
filed a Motion to Quash averring that at the time of the alleged incident, he was no
longer in a dating relationship with Mika; hence, RA 9262 was inapplicable. He further
claims that the offense committed was only slight physical injuries under RPC because
its proximate cause was not their dating relationship. Is Karlo liable under RA 9262?
Yes, all the elements of violation of Sec. 5(a) of RA9262 are present. 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. Nowhere in the law can
such limitation be inferred. Hence, applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not
distinguish, neither should the courts, then, clearly, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence
against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. It is immaterial
whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or
present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was
committed (San Diego vs. Quiambao, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe).

Pre-week Notes
157. Chona had a romantic relationship with Celso, which resulted in the birth of Camille,an
illegitimate child. Celso freely acknowledged the his paternity with Camille. However,
Chona's relationship with Celso turned sour as the latter had an affair with a younger
woman. When Camille was just about one year old, Celso stopped giving support,
prompting Chona to file a case for support, which was eventually granted. This
notwithstanding, Celso still refused to give support for her and Camille. As such, Chona
charged Celso with violation of Section 5 of RA 9262 (for economic abuse). Is Celso
liable?
Yes, all the elements of violation of Sec 5(e) of RA9262 are present. "Economic abuse" may include the
deprivation of support of a common child of the man accused and the woman-victim, whether such
common child is legitimate or not. The deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered
an act of violence against women and children.
158. What is the effect of the Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense?
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. In the determination of the state of
mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists (Sec. 26,
R.A. 9262).
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BP 22)
159. Who are the persons liable under B.P. 22?
1. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment; or
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check
if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.
160. What is the importance of the 5-, 90-, and 180-day Periods in BP 22?
a. 5 days – the maker or owner must make arrangements to make good the value of
the check to escape criminal liability (Sec. 5, BP 22);
b. 90 days – he must maintain sufficient funds within this period of time to destroy the
prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to backup the check
(Sec. 2, BP 22);
70|CLEAR
BarOps
c. 180days – failure of the payee to depositor encash the check within the 180-day
period will make the check stale, and hence, no criminal action may arise therefrom.
(Sec. 2, BP 22).
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
161. What are the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under
R.A. 9165?
Illegal Sale Illegal Possession

1. Proof that the transaction or sale 1. The accused was in possession of an item or
took place; and an object identified to be a prohibited or
2. The presentation in court of the regulated drug;
corpus delicti or the illicit drug as 2. Such possession is not authorized by law, and
evidence 3. The accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of the drug.
162. What must be proven in order to establish the “chain of custody” in buy-bust
operations as enunciated in Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165?
The different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody
in the buy-bust operations, namely:
a. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
b. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
c. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and
d. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court (People vs. Quesido, G.R. No. 189351, April 10, 2013; People vs.
Hermentiza, G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017)
163. Bimby was charged for violation of Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2004) before the Regional Trial
Court presided by Judge James. Bimby filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter
into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and,
instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Judge James, however, denied Bimby’s motion on the ground that Section 23 of R.A.
No. 9165 prohibits plea bargaining to any person charge under any provisions of R.A.
9165 regardless of the imposable penalty. Was Judge James correct?
No. The prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases under Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 has
been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (Estipona vs. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679,
August 15, 2017).

Pre-week Notes
164. Leo was bound for Davao when 3 plastic sachets of alleged shabu were found in his
white rubber shoes while being physically searched by Marquez in the initial check-in
area of Manila Domestic Airport. Marquezcalled the attention of PO2 Kabatay who
apprehended Leo. Leo was brought to their office and investigated by PO2 Kabatay,
who thereafter indorsed Leo, together with the confiscated plastic sachets, to PDEA
agents who had eventually arrived at the scene. On the same day, the PDEA requested
that a laboratory examination on the 3 plastic sachets be conducted. Upon qualitative
examination by forensic chemist, the same tested positive for 196.63 grams of shabu,
a dangerous drug. Is Leo liable for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165?
Yes, Leo is liable. While it may be argued that Leo was yet to board the aircraft or travel some
distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the
airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous
drugs from one place to another. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined
to mean "to carry or convey from one place to another." The essential element of the charge is
the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. It may be reasonably inferred
from the deliberations of Congress that if a person is found to have more than five (5) grams of
shabu in his possession, then his purpose in carrying them is to dispose, traffic, or sell it (People
vs Laba, G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe).
165. A buy-bust operation was conducted which resulted in Jerome’s arrest, as well as the
seizure of two plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance from
Jerome. PO3 Nathaniel had custody of the seized items from the time of seizure until
their arrival at the police station. Thereupon, PO3 Nathaniel marked the seized items
and, subsequently, turned them over to SPO2 Gonzales. The items were then delivered
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for a confirmatory test on their contents. An examination
of the records, however, reveals that as indicated in the PNP Crime Laboratory's
receiving stamp on the request for laboratory examination, it was SPO3 Valdez - and
not SPO2 Gonzales - who delivered such request and presumably, the seized plastic
sachets as well, to Forensic Chemical Officer PI Mariano. Is Jerome liable under Sec. 5,
Article 2 of RA 9165?
No. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides for a "chain of custody rule," or a standard protocol
which the police officers must adhere to in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized contraband. While strict adherence to the said rule is desired, any deviation from
the same is acceptable so long as there is ample justification for the same and that the
evidentiary value of the seized contraband is preserved. There is a failure to establish the identity
of the substance allegedly confiscated from Jerome due to unjustified gaps in the chain of
custody, thus, militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Absent any adequate
explanation on the matter, there arises a substantial gap in the chain of custody of the plastic
sachets seized from Jerome. Undoubtedly, this compromises the integrity and evidentiary value
of the corpus delicti of the crime charged. It is settled that in criminal prosecutions involving
illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls
for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized items (People vs.
Lintag, G.R. No, 219855, September 6, 2016, J. Perlas Bernabe).
72|CLEAR
BarOps
166. P02 Luneta was designated as the poseur-buyer for the entrapment operation and was
provided with marked money. P02 Luneta met with Ivan, who handed him a sachet
containing a shanu in exchange for the buy-bust money. With the sale consummated,
Ivan was arrested and the seized drugs were transported to the police station for
investigation. P02 Luneta turned over the seized items to the investigator who, in turn,
handed them over to the PDEA Provincial Office. The records failed to show who
handled the seized items after P02 Luneta took hold of them, how their custody was
transferred to another, who marked the seized sachets of drugs, and when and how
they were marked. Is Ivan guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?
No. In order to fulfill the chain of custody requirement, the prosecution must identify the persons
who handled the seized items from seizure until their presentation in court as evidence. To do so,
the prosecution must present testimonies about every link in the chain, in such a way that every
person who touched the illegal drugs would describe how and from whom they were received,
where they were and what happened to them while in his or her possession, the condition in
which he or she received them, and their condition upon delivery. The witnesses must describe
the precautions taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the illegal drugs
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possessed the said items. In this
instance, there is a failure to show who handled the seized items after P02 Luneta took hold of
them, how their custody was transferred to another, who marked the seized sachets of drugs,
and when and how they were marked. Verily, marking the drugs or other related items
immediately upon seizure from the accused is crucial in proving the chain of custody as it is the
starting point in the custodial link. The marking upon seizure serves a twin purpose, first is to
give the succeeding handlers of the specimen a reference, and second to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the moment of seizure until
their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby obviating switching, "planting", or
contamination of evidence. The police officers’ failure to mark the seized items may lead to the
acquittal of the accused based on reasonable doubt.
167. What are the four mandatory policies to be observed in drug cases, in relation to the
“chain of custody rule” as held by the Supreme Court in People vs. Romy Lim, G.R. No.
231989, September 4, 2018?
The following are the mandatory policies to be observed in drug cases:

a. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and
its IRR;
b. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state
the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items;
c. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or
affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court.
Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to
determine the (non) existence of probable cause.;
d. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its
discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss

Pre-week Notes
the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112,
Rules of Court.(People vs. Romy Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018)
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT (R.A. 10591)
168. Roberto Salonga and Servillano Nacional were having an altercation with the Rolando
Necesito. From his vantage point, Reynaldo heard Ramos yell, "Okinampatayanka!"
(Son of a bitch! I will kill you!) and saw Manny, Roberto and Servillano chase and
eventually surround Rolando at an area around seven (7) meters away from where
Reynaldo was hiding. Reynaldo then heard four (4) successive gunshots, making him
hide under the trunk of a tree. It was on the sound of the fourth shot when Reynaldo
witnessed Rolando fall face down on the ground. To ensure Rolando's demise, Ramos
approached Rolando and shot him again. Thereafter, the assailants fled the scene. The
next day, Rolando's body was found near the tree. Are the accused guilty of Murder
aggravated with the use of unlicensed firearm?
No. Under Section 1 of RA 8294, "[i]f homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance." There are two (2) requisites to establish such circumstance, namely: (a) the
existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the
gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus
probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution.
Here, while it is undisputed that Rolando sustained five (5) gunshot wounds which led to his
demise, it is unclear from the records: (a) whether or not the police officers were able to recover
the firearm used as a murder weapon; and (b) assuming arguendo that such firearm was
recovered, whether or not such firearm was licensed. Having failed in this respect, the Court
cannot simply appreciate the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.
(Ramos vs. People, G.R. No. 218466, January 23, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe)
74|CLEAR
BarOps
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012 (RA 10175)
169. Kate posted on her Facebook account that Helen is the mistress of Matthew without
actual proof for such. Helen is the husband of Ronald. Kate is the neighbor of Helen
and the officemate of Ronald. Later, the post of Kate garnered so much likes and
shares that it reached Helen’s relatives and officemates causing Helen to be alienated
from social events causing problems in her personal and work life. Helen then learned
of Kate’s post as the cause of the alienation. Helen then confronted Kate and was told
by Kate that it was because she does not like Helen. A case against Kate was then filed
and the other persons who liked and shared Kate’s post for libel and violation of R.A.
10175.
a.Can the case prosper against AA? Why?

b.What is the penalty to be imposed?
c.Can the persons who liked and shared Kate’s post be held liable?
a. Yes. The case against Kate can prosper because all the elements of libel has been present in this case.
The following elements constitute libel: (i) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (ii)
publication of the imputation; (iii) identity of the person defamed; and (iv) existence of malice. Here,
Kate imputed that Helen is a mistress of Matthew through a Facebook post that reached persons who can
easily identify that it was Helen whom Kate is talking about; and that Kate has done this to damage
Helen’s reputation. Thus, Kate can be held liable.
b. The penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be when the crimes defined and penalized by the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, is committed by, through and with the use of
information and communications technologies (Sec. 6 of R.A. 10175).
c. No. Persons who liked and share the libelous post of Kate cannot be held liable because of its
questionable effect on the freedom of expression of the people concerned.
The provisions of the Anti - Cybercrime Law on the Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission of
Cybercrimes provisions are unconstitutional because Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of
internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the
crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. Thus, the case
against the persons who liked and shared AA’s post cannot prosper (Disni et.al. v Secreteary of Justice
et.al G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014).
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (RA 9372)
170. What is terrorism under the Human Security Act of 2007?
Terrorism = Predicate Crime + Wide spread Terror + Unlawful demand to government
171. What are the predicate crimes under the Human Security Act of 2007?
Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
Pre-week Notes
Article 134-a (Coup d'état), including acts committed by private persons;
Article 248 (Murder);
Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction, or under
Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)
(Source: Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 2016 (RA 10883)
172. What is carnapping under the New Anti-Carnapping Act.
Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 10883).
173. When may the penalty for carnapping increase?
The penalty for carnapping may increase if committed:
a. With violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things; or

b. When the owner or driver or occupant of carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the
commission of carnapping(Sec. 3 [par. 2], R.A. 10883).
174. Maria, after her over time at work at around 9 in the evening, was walking towards
her car, when a man named Carlo, armed with a caliber pistol, suddenly walked
beside her, pointing his gun at her side. Maria panicked and hurriedly gave the car
key to Carlo. Fortunately, police officers PO1 Mark and Alan, who were patrolling
noticed the incident and hurriedly went to the vehicle to arrest Carlo but the latter,
using the car of Maria suddenly drove away. Eventually when Carlo was cornered,
he fired at the vehicle of the police and shot PO1 Mark in the chest which caused
the latter's death. The prosecution charged Carlo with the crime of Carnapping with
Homicide. Will the case prosper?
No. Section 2, Paragraph 2 of R.A. 10883 or the New Anti-carnapping Act of 2016 provides that :
xxx The penalty of life imprisonment shall be imposed when the owner, driver, or occupant of
the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the commission of the carnapping.×××
Applying the said provision, the law specifically provided that carnapping with homicide occurs
only when the victim killed was the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped car. Thus,
considering the essential element is lacking, the special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide is not applicable.
76|CLEAR
BarOps
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LAW (PD 1829)
175. May the accused be separately tried for different acts constituting violations of PD
1829 (Obstruction of Justice Law) allegedly committed during the pendency of a
single proceeding?
No. Even if the acts constituting violations of PD 1829 were done days apart and in different
locations, the accused should only be charged and held liable for a single violation of PD 1829.
This is because the alleged acts, albeit separate, were motivated by a single criminal impulse.
Such conclusion is premised on the principle of delitocontinuado. For delitocontinuado to exist,
there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision
violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the
same penal provisions are united in one and the same intent or resolution leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim (Navaja vs. Borje, G.R. No. 180969, September
11, 2017, J. Perlas-Bernabe).
176. Ria and Rio were walking along the streets of Manila when Loonie, a police officer
suddenly is trying to arrest Rio for a supposed robbery that happened an hour ago in
the area. Ria knowing that Rio was innocent tries to prevent Loonie from arresting Rio.
May Ria be held liable for obstruction of justice?
No. Ria cannot be held liable for the violation of PD 1829 because third persons have a right to prevent
the arrest of suspects where such arrest is illegal, and the same cannot be construed as a violation of
P.D. No. 1829 (Posadas v Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000).
SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND

DISCRIMINATION ACT (RA 7610)
177. Who are “children” under RA 7610?
Children refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take
care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition (Section 3[a], RA 7610).
178. Kholyn, then 17 years old, met Patrick, then 23 years old. After spending time
together, they eventually became sweethearts. A few months after, Patrick persuaded
Kholyn to have sexual intercourse with him upon giving promises of marriage and the
assurance that he would not get her pregnant. Caballo was charged with violation of
RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law). Can the sweetheart defense be validly raised by
Patrick?
No. Kholyn, being 17 years old, is considered a child under the law. A child exploited in prostitution
or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another
person. Jurisprudence settles that consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Sec. 5, Art.
3 of RA 7610. Thus, the sweetheart defense cannot be validly raised (Caballo vs. People, G.R. No.
198732, June 10, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe).

Pre-week Notes
179. Jayson, a minor, passed in front of George’s house. George’s minor daughter told him
that Jayson threw stones at her and burnt her hair. George then called Jayson’s names
like “stranger” and “animal” and struck him at the back with his hand and slapped him
on the face. Upon undergoing medical treatment, the doctor attested that Jayson
suffered 3 contusions. George was charged with violation of RA 7610 (Anti-Child
Abuse Law). Is George liable for the crime charged?
No. It appears that the laying of hands on Jayson had been done at the spur of the moment and in
anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his
own minor daughter who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson. With the loss of his self-
control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse (Bongalon vs. People,
G.R. No. 169533, March 20,2013).
180. Lovie, a minor, was on her way to the vegetable stall when, all of a sudden, Matias
pulled her towards a house that was under construction. There, he forced her to lie on
a "papag ", removed her shorts and underwear, and inserted first, his finger, and then
his penis into her vagina. Matias threatened to kill her if she should report the incident
to anyone. When AAA arrived home, she narrated to her mother and aunt what Matias
did to her. RTC convicted Matias for rape under Sec. 5(b), Art. 3 of RA 7610 and CA
affirmed.Is Matias liable under Sec. 5 (b), Art. 3 of RA 7610?
Yes. Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse
is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory
rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of RPC and penalized with reclusion perpetua . On the other hand, if
the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7610 penalized or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of RPC.
However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against
double jeopardy will be prejudiced. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section
5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of RPC (on complex crimes), a felony under the RPC (such as
rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. Thus, Matias can be
prosecuted and convicted either under Sec. 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 for sexual abuse, or under
Article 266-A of the RPC, except for rape under paragraph 1(d). It bears pointing out that the
penalties under these two laws differ: the penalty for sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b), Article III of RA
7610 is reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua , while rape under Article 266-A of the RPC
is penalized with reclusion perpetua. RTC concluded that AAA was the "victim of sexual abuse
labeled 'rape'," considering the established fact that there was sexual intercourse between him and
Lovie. Thus, Matias’ conviction was clearly under Sec. 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 or sexual abuse
and not for rape under Article 266-A of the RPC(People vs. Matias, G.R.No. 186469, June 13, 2012,
J. Perlas-Bernabe).
HAIL TO THE CHIEFS!
78|CLEAR
BarOps

AUSL 2019 Pre Week Notes Criminal Law FINAL

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AUSL 2019 Pre Week Notes Criminal Law FINAL

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

REVISED PENAL CODE - BOOK ONE

1. Distinguish crimes Mala in Se from Mala Prohibita.

Mala in Se Mala Prohibita

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|1

a. Treaty stipulations and international agreements;

4. Exemptions to the Territoriality Principle:

5. Differentiate English Rule from French Rule.

English Rule French Rule

8. What are the elements of a felony?

The elements of a felony are the following:

9. How is criminal liability incurred?

Grave Felonies Less Grave Felonies Light Felonies

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|3

Error in Personae Aberratio Ictus PraeterIntentionem.

A crime may be committed without criminal intent in the following instances:

Motive is relevant to a case when:

1. The identity of the offender is in doubt;

1. When there is a witness positively identifying the accused;

15. What is an impossible crime?

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|5

FRUSTRATED FELONY ATTEMPTED FELONY IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

18. What are the crimes which have no frustrated stage?

20. What are the kinds of Complex Crimes?

Complex Crime Special Real or Material

21. What is the Doctrine of Common Elements?

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|7

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

26. Distinguish justifying circumstances from exempting circumstances

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12)

No criminal liability. No criminal liability.

EXCEPTION: Art. 11(4), or

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|9

29. Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances.

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

If penalty is indivisible, apply the lesser

Kind Nature/Effect Example

31. What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression?

ACTUAL OR MATERIAL UNLAWFUL

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|11

Those cirscumstances which must be considered as aggravating or mitigating according to the

33. What are Absolutory Causes?

34. Give some examples of Absolutory Causes.

A simple crime of estafa was filed against Sato.

a) May Sato be held criminally liable?

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|13

36. Distinguish an Accomplice from an Accessory.

37. Distinguish an Accomplice from a Conspirator.

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|15

42. Can conspiracy be implied?

43. Can there be conspiracy in violating a special law, such as BP 22?

45. Distinguish Recidivism, Reiteracion, Habitual Delinquency and Quasi-Recidivism.

Generic Aggravating Generic Aggravating Extraordinary Extraordinary

46. What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|17

PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE PARDON BY OFFENDED PARTY

However, pardon by marriage in rape, acts of

Pardon by marriageas a mode of criminal extinction in

In rape, pardon by marriage and in marital rape

In adultery and concubinage, pardon to the spouse

Suspension Note: When suspension is an accessory penalty, its duration

No AC 1 MC and 1 AC and Multiple MC 2 or more MC

2019 CRIMINAL LAW|19

Subtract the minimum (disregarding the 1 day) 12 years – 6 years = 6 years