SPECIAL PENAL LAWS 101

A BAR REVIEW GUIDE

IN
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
BOOK 2
List of Special Penal Laws
1. Carnapping RA No. 6539 as amended by RA No. 10883
2. The Crime of Plunder – RA No. 7080
3. RA No. 9745 – Anti- Torture Act
4. RA 7877 – Anti- Sexual Harassment Act
5. RA 9208 – Anti – Trafficking in Persons Act
6. PD No. 1602 as amended by RA No. 9287
7. RA No. 8049 – Anti- Hazing Law
CARNAPPING – R.A. NO. 6539 AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10883

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10883, July 17, 2016

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “New Anti-Carnapping Act of
2016”.

Sec. 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(a) Body building refers to a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its
entire body with a new body;cralawlawlibrary

(b) Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the altering, changing, erasing,
replacing or scratching of the original factory inscribed serial number on the motor
vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle.

Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its engine, engine
block or chassis which is different from that which is listed in the records of the Bureau
of Customs for motor vehicle imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be
considered to have a defaced or tampered serial number;cralawlawlibrary

(c) Dismantling refers to the tearing apart, piece-by-piece or part-by-part, of a motor

vehicle;cralawlawlibrary

(d) Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the engine number, chassis number,
body tag number, plate number, and any other identifying marks of a motor vehicle
declared as “total wreck" or is beyond economic repair by concerned car insurance
companies and/or law enforcement agencies after its involvement in a vehicular
accident or other incident and registers the same into another factory-made body or
vehicle unit, of the same classification, type, make or model;cralawlawlibrary

(e) Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
power using the public highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if
not used on public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or tracks; and tractors,
trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural
purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be
propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor
vehicle with no power rating;cralawlawlibrary

(f) Overhauling refers to the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle
by separating the motor engine and its parts from the body of the motor
vehicle;cralawlawlibrary

(g) Repainting refers to changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting.
There is painting whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color
registered in the Land Transportation Office (LTO);cralawlawlibrary

(h) Remodeling refers to the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the
body of the motor vehicle;cralawlawlibrary

(i) Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from a carnapped vehicle used in
assembling another vehicle;cralawlawlibrary

(j) Total wreck refers to the state or status of a motor vehicle after a vehicular accident
or other incident, so that it is rendered in operational and beyond economic repair due
to the extent of damage in its body, chassis and engine; and

(k) Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates refers to the use or transfer of a vehicle
plate issued by the LTO to a certain vehicle to another vehicle. It is presumed illegally
transferred when the motor vehicle plate does not correspond with that as appearing in
the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle to which it was issued.

Sec. 3. Carnapping; Penalties. – 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.

Any person who is found guilty of carnapping shall, regardless of the value of the motor
vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than twenty (20) years and one
(1) day but not more than thirty (30) years, when the carnapping is committed without
violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment
for not less than thirty (30) years and one (1) day but not more than forty (40) years,
when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or force upon things; and 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.

Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime of carnapping is committed by
criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any
person or persons or forced upon things; or when the owner, driver, passenger or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping shall
be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Sec. 4. Concealment of Carnapping. – Any person who conceals carnapping shall be

punished with imprisonment of six (6) years up to twelve (12) years and a fine equal to
the amount of the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any
other part involved in the violation: Provided, That if the person violating any provision
of this Act is a juridical person, the penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its
president, secretary, and/or members of the board of directors or any of its officers and
employees who may have directly participated in the violation.

Any public official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in this
Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of
any of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding
paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be
permanently disqualified from holding public office.

Sec. 5. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. – Any person seeking the original
registration of a motor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or
rebuilt or acquired from a registered owner, shall, within one (1) week after the
completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from the
registered owner, apply to the Philippine National Police (PNP) for the clearance of the
motor vehicle for registration with the LTO. The PNP shall, upon receipt of the
application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped
motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered
parts is not in the list, the PNP shall forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Upon
presentation of the certificate of clearance from the PNP and after verification of the
registration of the motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the permanent
registry of motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis, the LTO shall register the
motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations within twenty (20)
working days.

Sec. 6. Registration of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block and Chassis. –
Within one (1) year upon approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered
motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall register before the LTO the
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the name of the possessor or in the
name of the real owner who shall be readily available to answer any claim over the
registered motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the LTO shall be considered as a
carnapped vehicle, an untaxed importation or coming from illegal source and shall be
confiscated in favor of the government.

Sec. 7. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle, Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and
Chassis. – The LTO shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles, specifying therein their type,
make, serial numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of their present and
previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made there on shall be
furnished the PNP and all LTO regional, provincial and city branch offices; Provided, That
all LTO regional, provincial and city offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
registrations of motor vehicles to the main office and to the PNP: Provided, further, That
the original copy of the certificate of registration shall be given to the registered owner,
the second copy shall be retained with the LTO and the third copy shall be submitted to
the PNP. Moreover, it shall be unlawful for any person or employee who willfully
encodes in the registry of motor vehicles a non-existing vehicle or without history, new
identity of already existing vehicle or double/ multiple registration (“KAMBAL”) of
vehicle.

Sec. 8. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance of a Motor Vehicle, Substitution or

Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis. – Every sale, transfer,
conveyance of a motor vehicle, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine,
engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with the LTO within twenty
(20) working days upon purchase/acquisition of a motor vehicle and substitution or
replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. A motor vehicle, motor
vehicle engine, engine block or chassis not registered with the LTO shall be presumed as
a carnapped vehicle, an untaxed imported vehicle, or a vehicle proceeding from illegal
sources unless proven otherwise and shall be confiscated in favor of the government.

Sec. 9. Duty of Collector of Customs to Report. – Within seven (7) days after the arrival of
an imported vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body, the Collector
of Customs of a principal port of entry where the imported vehicle or parts enumerated
above are unloaded shall report the shipment to the LTO, specifying the make, type and
serial numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis
or body, and stating the names and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof. If the
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body does not bear any
serial number, the Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the motor vehicle, motor
vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or body until it is numbered by the
LTO: Provided, That a PNP clearance shall be required prior to engraving the engine or
chassis number.

Sec. 10. Duty of Importers, Distributors and Sellers of Motor Vehicles to Keep Record of
Stocks. – Any person engaged in the importation, distribution, and buying and selling of
motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or body shall keep a
permanent record of one’s stocks, stating therein their type, make and serial numbers,
and the names and addresses of the persons from whom they were acquired and the
names and addresses of the persons to whom they are sold, and shall render accurately
a monthly report of his/her transactions in motor vehicles to the LTO.

SEC.11. Duty of Manufacturers of Engine Blocks, Chassis or Body to Cause the

Numbering of Engine Blocks, Chassis or Body Manufactured. – Any person engaged in
the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body shall cause the numbering of every
engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and conspicuous part
thereof which the LTO may direct for the purpose of uniformity and identification of the
factory and shall submit to the LTO a monthly report of the manufacture and sale of
engine blocks, chassis or body.

Sec. 12. Clearance and Permit Required for Assembly or Rebuilding of Motor Vehicles. –
Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly or
rebuilding of a motor vehicle shall first secure a certificate of clearance from the
PNP: Provided, That no such permit shall be issued unless the applicant shall present a
statement under oath containing the type, make and serial numbers of the engine,
chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of the spare parts of the motor vehicle to
be assembled or rebuilt together with the names and addresses of the sources thereof.
In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats, motor bancas,
water crafts and other light water vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the
PNP, which office shall in turn furnish the LTO pertinent data concerning the motor
vehicle engines including their type, make and serial numbers.

Sec. 13. Clearance Required for Shipment of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Engines,
Engine Blocks, Chassis or Body. – The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a
report to the PNP within seven (7) days upon boarding all motor vehicles being boarded
the “RORO”, ferry, boat, vessel or ship for interisland and international shipment. The
PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles in all interisland and international
shipping vessels without a motor vehicle clearance from the PNP, except cargo trucks
and other trucks carrying goods. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
(LTFRB)-accredited public utility vehicles (PUV) and other motor vehicles carrying
foodstuff and dry goods.

Sec. 14. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine
Blocks and Chassis.– It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or otherwise tamper
with the original or registered serial number of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis.

Sec. 15. Identity Transfer. – It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to cause
and/or allow the sale, registration, and/or transfer into another name, the chassis
number, engine number and plate number of a motor vehicle declared as “total wreck”
or beyond economic repair by concerned insurance company, and/or law enforcement
agencies, due to its involvement in a vehicular accident or for some other causes. The
LTO shall cancel the registration of total wreck vehicle as reported by the PNP and/or as
declared by the Insurance Commission.

Sec. 16. Transfer of Vehicle Plate. – It shall be unlawful for any person, office or entity to
transfer or use a vehicle plate from one vehicle to another without securing the proper
authority from the LTO.

Sec. 17. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts. – It shall be unlawful for any person, office or
entity to buy and/or sell any second hand spare parts taken from a carnapped vehicle.

Sec. 18. Foreign Nationals. – Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions of this Act
shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by
the Bureau of Immigration.

Sec. 19. Reward. – Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery
of carnapped vehicles and for the apprehension of the persons charged with carnapping
 shall be given monetary reward as the PNP may determine. The PNP shall include in
their annual budget the amount necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. Any
information given by informers shall be treated as confidential matter.

Sec. 20. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The PNP together with the Department
of Transportation and Communications, LTO, Philippine Coast Guard, Maritime Industry
Authority, Bureau of Customs and relevant motorists and automotive sectors shall,
within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, after unanimous approval,
promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations to effectively carry out
the provisions of this Act, including the setting up of a coordinated online access and the
effective clearance system mentioned in Section 12 of this Act to expedite motor vehicle
data and details verification.

Sec. 21. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act is declared invalid, the
remainder of this Act or any provision not affected thereby shall remain in full force and
effect.

Sec. 22. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the “Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972”, is hereby repealed. All laws, executive orders, rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
amended or repealed accordingly.

Sec. 23. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
the Official Gazetteor in two (2) newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes
earlier.
NOTES:
Carnapping was punishable under RA No. 6539. However, Section 22 of RA No. 10883
expressly repeals RA No. 6539. This is a partial repeal or repeal with re-enactment. By re-
enacting the crime of carnapping, the intention of the law is not to decriminalize carnapping.
Hence, the court, where a case for catnapping committed prior to RA No. 10883 is pending,
shall not lose jurisdiction to try and punish the accused under RA No. 6539. Since RA No. 10883
prescribes penalties graver than that imposable under RA No. 6539, the former shall be given a
prospective effect.
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 person, or by
using force upon things (Section 3 of RA No. 10883) Concealment of carnapping is also
punishable under the law (Section 3).
CONCEPT OF CARNAPPING
1. Concept of Carnapping – Concept of carnapping is the same as theft or robbery by
means of violence or intimidation or by using force upon thing. Thus, jurisprudence
and rules that pertain to theft and robbery are applicable to carnapping. People v.
Sia, G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001; People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913,
September 2, 2015).

Person, who possesses or deals with intent to gain property derives from the
proceeds of theft or robbery is liable for fencing. However, the term “carnapping”
can be considered as within the contemplation of the word “theft” or robbery in PD
No. 1612. Hence, possession of carnapped vehicle with intent to gain is fencing
(Dimat v. People, G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012).

2. Taking – In theft, robbery and carnapping, taking is deemed complete from the
moment the offender gains possession of the thing even if he no opportunity to
dispose of the same (People v. Sia)

The person, who is in possession of a recently stolen property without justifiable

explanation, is presumed to be the author of theft. Since the concept of carnapping
is the same as that of theft, this presumption of authorship of theft applies to
carnapping (People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003)

In the absence of an explanation of how one has come into the possession of stolen
effects belonging to a person wounded and treacherously killed, he must necessarily
be considered the author of the aggression and death of the said person and of the
robbery committed on him. The application of this presumption validly applies to a
case of carnapping (People vs. Sia). Thus, on the basis of presumption of authorship
of the unlawful taking, the accused can be convicted of qualified carnapping or
carnapping with homicide or rape (People v. Prado, G.R. No. 95260, March 8, 1996;
People v. Latayada, G.R. No. 146865, February 18, 2004).

3. Motor Vehicle – Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other
than mascular power using the public highways. Trailers having any number of
wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor
vehicle shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle with no power rating.

(a) Excluded Motor Vehicle – However, the following motor vehicles are excluded
from the coverage of RA No. 10883:

1. Road rollers, trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers. Lawn mowers,

bulldozers, graders, forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on
public highways.
 2. Vehicles which run only on rails or tracks ; and
3. Tractors, trailers and traction engines of any kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes (Section 2 of RA No. 10883)

The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is not covered by the anti-carnapping

law and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery. Hence, taking
motor vehicle is carnapping and not qualified theft (People v. Bustinera, G.R.
No. 148233, June 8, 2004; BAR 2016). However, if the motor vehicle is
expressly excluded from the coverage of RA No. 10883, taking such vehicle is
qualified theft. Unlike RA No. 10883, Article 310 of the RPC has no provision
on exclusion of motor vehicle. Thus, unlawful taking of a tractor exclusively
used for agricultural purpose is not carnapping since this is a motor vehicle
excluded from the coverage of RA No. 10883. But this tractor is a motor
vehicle within the context of Article 310 of the RPC. Hence, stealing such
tractor is qualified theft (People v. Bustinera)

(b) Not exclusively Used for Private Purposes – Going over the enumerations of
excepted vehicle, it would readily be noted that any vehicle which is motorized
using the streets which are public, not exclusively for private use, comes within
the concept of motor vehicle. A tricycle, which is not included in the exception, is
thus deemed to be that kind of motor vehicle as defined in the anti-carnapping
law the stealing of which comes within its penal sanction (Izon v. People, G.R.
No. L – 51370, August 31, 1981)

To be considered as a motor vehicle contemplated by the carnapping law, it is

important that the same is using public highways, and not a street exclusively for
private use. If a motor vehicle is being used inside a private compound
exclusively for private purposes, it shall not be treated as a motor vehicle within
the context of the carnapping law. But it shall be treated as motor vehicle within
the context of Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, unlawful taking
thereof constitutes qualified theft.

© License to Use Public Highways, Not Required -- License to use a tricycle on

public highways is not required to make it a “motor vehicle” within the definition
given by the carnapping law. The law protects a vehicle, which uses the streets
with or without the required license. The crime of carnapping is not measured by
kind of streets or highways the vehicle is being used; but by the very nature of
the vehicle itself and the use to which it is devoted. Otherwise, cars using the
streets but still unlicensed or unregistered as when they have just be bought for
the company, or only on test runs, may be stolen without the penal sanction of
 the carnapping law. This obviously, could not have been the intention of the law
(Izon v. People).

In People v. Lallave, CA O.G. 3192, a motorized bicycle is considered a motor

vehicle within the meaning of qualified theft. This case was decided prior to the
passage of the carnapping law. It is submitted that if the motorized bicycle us
suing public highways, the same shall be treated as motor vehicle contemplated
by the carnapping law. Applying the Izon principle, license to use this motorized
bicycle on the public highways is not required to make it a “motor vehicle”
within the definition given by the carnapping law.

“A” bought a bicycle and equipped it with a motor. It could also be operated by
the use of pedals. One evening, “A” left his motor bike in front of a restaurant.
Without his knowledge or consent, “B” took the motorbike and operated it using
the pedals. The crime committed is carnapping. The fact that “A” used the pedal
of the bicycle will not affect its character as a motor vehicle (BAR 1972).

(c) Belonging to Another Person – In Chua v. CA, G.R. No. 79021, May 17, 1993, a
criminal prosecution for carnapping need not establish the fact that complainant
therein is the absolute owner of the motor vehicle. What is material is the
existence of evidence which would show that respondent took the motor vehicle
belonging to another.

In robbery by means of intimidation or violence and carnapping it is not

necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the
owner thereof. What is simply required is that the proper taken does not belong
to the offender. Actual possession of the property by the person dispossessed
suffices (People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003).

(D) Intent to Gain – After taking the vehicle, the accused removed the wheels
therefrom, and then abandoned the vehicle. The crime committed is carnapping since the
accused took the vehicle without the consent of the owner with intent to gain although the
criminal intention is merely to gain from the parts of the vehicle taken. Intent to gain with
respect to the vehicle in its entirety is not required. (People v. ellasos, G.R. No. 139323, june 6,
2001). The rule would have been different if the accused merely took the wheels of the vehicle.
In such case, the crime committed is theft.
In People v. Panida, G.R. No. 127125, July 6, 1999, appellants took the tricycle of
the complainant. Although only appellant Hora appears to have mortgaged the motorcycle, the
intent to gain on the part of all the appellants can be inferred from the unlawful taking of
tricycle by them. Moreover, it has been held that it is enough that the other accused intended
that any one of them should benefit from the taking.
(E) Return of the Motor Vehicle – The accused took motor vehicle without the
consent of the owner, and thereafter, returned the vehicle to the owner. Accused raised the
defense that “taking” and “intent to gain” as elements of carnapping are not present.
Taking as an element of carnapping is present. The concept of carnapping is the same as
that of robbery and theft. Hence, rules applicable to theft or robbery are also applicable to
carnapping. In theft, unlawful taking should be understood within the Spanish concept of
apoderamiento. In order to constitute apoderamiento, the physical taking must be coupled
with the intent to appropriate the object or intent to deprive the owner of the thing,
permanent or temporary (People v. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007). In sum, taking
motor vehicle property with intent to temporarily deprive the owner of the thing without his
consent is carnapping.
Intent to gain as an element of carnapping is also present. By temporarily using the
motor vehicle, the intent to gain on the part of the accused is evident since he derives
therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment, and pleasure. (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233,
June 8, 2004).
(F) Qualified Carnapping – Qualified carnapping or carnapping in the aggravated form is
committed when the owner, driver, or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed, or
raped in the commission of the carnapping (Section 3 of RA No. 10883). Qualified carnapping is
a special complex crime (People v. Paramil, G.R. No. 128056, March 31, 2000). The intention of
this provision is to make the offense a special complex crime, in the same way that robbery
with homicide. As such, the killing merely qualifies the crime of carnapping which for lack of
specific nomenclature may be known as qualified carnappng or carnapping in an aggravated
form (People v. Mejia, G.R. Nos. 118940- 41 and G.R. No. 119407, July 7, 1997; BAR 2012).
1. Original Design – The concept of special complex crime of robbery with homicide or rape is
the same as that of qualified carnapping. Same as the rule in robbery with homicide or rape,
the accused can only be convicted of qualified carnapping if the original design is to commit
robbery. (People v. Nocum, G.R. No.179041, April 1, 2013). In People v. Calacroso, G.R. No.
126368, September 14, 2000, accused boarded a tricycle driven by victim to attend a dance
party. Because of the dispute regarding the fare rate, the victim was fatally stabbed by the
accused. After the victim was fatally stabbed, accused took the tricycle. The taking away of the
tricycle of the victim followed the killing apparently as an afterthought of accused. In fact, their
original design was not to commit carnapping but to attend a dance party. Accused was
convicted of separate crimes of homicide and simple carnapping.
X rode on the tricycle, poked a knife at driver, and instructed him to go near the bridge.
Upon reaching the bridge, X alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed the driver
several times until he was dead. X fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. Since
there is no showing of a motive or reason to kill the victim, it appears that the proginal desing
of x is to commit carnapping and he killed the driver to facilitate the commission thereof.
Hence, the crime committed is qualified carnapping or carnapping in the aggravated form (BAR
1998).
8. Owner, Drive or Occupant of the Motor Vehicle – In robbery with homicide, the victim
of homicide can be a person other than the victim of robbery such as a bystander
(People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013). However, in qualified carnapping, the
victim of homicide or rape must be the driver, owner or occupant of the carnapped
vehicle. If the victim is not the driver, owner or occupant of the carnapped vehicle, the
offender is liable for separate crimes of simple carnapping and homicide or murder.

A, possession only a student license to drive motor vehicle, finds a parked car with the
key left in the switch. He proceeds to drive it away, intending to sell iy. Just then B, the
owner of the car arrives. Failing to make A stop, B boards a taxi and pursues A who in his
haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a jeepney full of
passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked; one passenger was killed; the leg
of another was crushed and had to be amputated, the car driven by A was also
damaged. A is liable for simple carnapping. Qualified carnapping is not committed since
the person killed is not the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle. A
is also liable for homicide and serious physical injuries since there are the direct, natural
and logical consequence of catnapping. This is a compound crime since a single act
produced two felonies. A is also civilly liable for damage to property (BAR 1960 and
1993).

9. Murder or Homicide – Since Section 3 of RA No. 10883 uses the words “is killed” in
defining qualified carnapping, no distinction must be made between homicide and
murder. However, the words “is killed” refer only to the consummated felony of either
homicide or murder. If attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed in the
commission of the carnapping, the crime committed is simple carnapping committed by
means of violence against or intimidation. (People v. Mejia).

10. Non-bailable Crime – any person charged with carnapping shall be denied bail when the
evidence of guilt is strong in the following cases: (1) when the crime of carnapping is
committed by criminal groups, gangs or syndicates or by means of violence or
intimidation of any person or persons or forced upon things; or (2) when the owner,
driver, or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of
carnapping (Section 3, RA No. 10883).

11. No attempted Carnapping – Since RA No. 10883 did not borrow the penalties from the
Revised Penal Code, Article 6 in relation to Article 51 of the RPC on attempted felony
 cannot be applied for carnapping. Thus, the crime of carnapping has no attempted stage
since the penalty prescribed for carnapping cannot be reduced two degrees lower as
mandated by the law if the crime is at the attempted stage.

12. Doctrine of Absorption – Felonies cannot absorb carnapping. For being punishable
under special law, carnapping shall always be considered as a separate and independent
crime. Taking cash, killing the victim, and taking his tricycle on the same occasion
constitute robbery with homicide and carnapping. (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
174658, February 24, 2009). Failure to return the service motorcycle of the company
and misappropriating its money on the same occasion constitutes carnapping and
qualified theft (People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913, September 2, 2015). Abducting
the victim and taking his vehicle on the same occasion constitutes kidnapping and
carnapping (People v. Roxas, G.R. no. 172604, August 17, 2010).

During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old public utility
vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sensio, each armed with guns,
hailedseveral 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, Rizal, Percy, Pablo, Pater, and Sencio
forcibly divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They ordered the
passengers to leave therafter. 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 (BAR
2017).

The crime committed is robbery and not kidnapping because Percy, Pablo, Pater, and
Sencio commandeered the bus for purpose of robbing the passengers (People v.
Moreno, G.R. No. 94755, April 10, 1992), and not to transport them to another place for
purpose of detention (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993). Intent to
deprive liberty, which is an element of kidnapping is not present since the deprivation of
liberty is just incidental to the commission of robbery.

2. Republic Act No. 7080 July 12, 1991

AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled::

Section 1. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the term -

a) Public Officer means any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or contract.

b) Government includes the National Government, and any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.

c) Person includes any natural or juridical person, unless the context indicates otherwise.

d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of
any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly
through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:

1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on

the public treasury;

2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any
other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer
concerned;

3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National

Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any
other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking;

5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations

and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or

6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or

influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

NOTE:

Plunder defined:
 Plunder is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at
least P50 million through a series or combination of acts enumerated in Section 1, paragraph
[d] of the Plunder Law.

“Combination” refers to at least two enumerations in Section 1, paragraph [d], e.g.,

raids on the public treasury and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National
Government. To constitute a “series” there must be two or more overt or criminal acts falling
under the same category of enumeration, say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the
public treasury. A “pattern” consists of at least a combination of series of overt or criminal acts
enumerated in subsections [1] to [6] of Section [d]. Pursuant to Section 2 of the law, the pattern
of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the
public officer to amass, accumulate, or acquire ill-gotten wealth. There must be either an
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood,
the term “overall unlawful scheme” indicates a “ general plan of action or method” which the
principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the
aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the
schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of
a conspiracy to attain a common goal.

IS THE CRIME OF PLUNDER MALA IN SE OR MALA PROHIBITA?

It is malum in see which requires proof of criminal intent. In Estrada v. SB (supra), the
Supreme Court held that it is malum in se precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in
se. The element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is worthy that the
amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally.” It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of the petitioner.

See Section 2 As amended by Section 12 of RA No.7659

Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties - Any public officer who, by himself or
in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof, in
the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00), shall be
guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolute disqualification from holding any public office. Any person who participated with said
public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. In the imposition of
penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten
wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of
stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.

NOTE:
 Pattern is not an element of Plunder. All the essential elements of Plunder can be culled
and understood from its definition in Section 2, in relation to Section 1, paragraph [d], and
pattern is not one of them. (Estrada v. SB, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001).

Section 2 authorizing the application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances to

prosecutions thereunder indicates that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degeee of
responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. The legislative declaration
that plunder is a heinous crime implies that it is malum in se.

What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts
sufficient to form a combination or series o which would constitute a pattern and involving an
amount of at least P50 million. There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in
the Information to have been committed by the accused. For instance, the prosecution need
not prove all 50 raids on the treasury, if such is alleged, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at
least 2 of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least P50
million.

Section 2 authorizing the application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances to

prosecutions thereunder indicates that mens rea is an element of plunder, since the degree of
responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. The legislative declaration
that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is malum in se.

Section 3. Competent Court – Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act
shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Section 4. Rule of Evidence – For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be
necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall
unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

NOTES:

Section 4 is a rule of evidence as shown by its epigraph. It purports to do no more than

prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Section 4 does
not define or establish any substantial right in favour of the accused but only operates in
furtherance of a remedy. Indubitably, even without invoking Section 4, a conviction for plunder
may be had, for what is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to engender
that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

Section 5. Suspension and Loss of Benefits – Any public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act in whatever stage of execution and mode
of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by
final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is
acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and other benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime, administrative proceedings have
been filed against him.

Section 6. Prescription of Crimes – The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in
twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by
public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppels.

Section 7. Separability of Provisions – If any provisions of this Act or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act and the
application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Section 8. Scope – This Act shall not apply to or affect pending prosecutions or proceedings, or
those which may be instituted under Executive Order No. 1, issued and promulgated on
February 28, 1986.

Section 9. Effectivity – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in
the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation.

R.A. No. 7080 – Plunder Law

1. Plunder is the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least
P50 million through a series or combination of acts enumerated in Section 1, paragraph [d] of
the Plunder Law.
“Combination” refers to at least 2 enumerations in Section 1, paragraph [d], e.g., raids
on the public treasury and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National
Government. To constitute a “series” there must be 2 or more overt or criminal acts falling
under the same category of enumeration, say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the
public treasury. A “pattern” consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
enumerated in subsections [1] to [6] of Section 1 [d]. Pursuant to Section 2 of the law, the
pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to
enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. There must either
be an “overall unlawful scheme” indicates a ‘general plan of action or method’ which the
principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the
aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the
schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of
a conspiracy to attain a common goal.
 Pattern is not an element of Plunder can be culled and understood from its definition in
Section 2, in relation to Section 1, paragraph [d], and pattern is not one of them. (Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)

2.Section 2 authorizing the application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances to

prosecutions thereunder indicates that mens rea is an element of plunder, since the degree of
responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. The legislative declaration
that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is malum in se.

3. The use of “reasonable doubt” standard is indispensable to command the respect and
confidence of the community in the application of criminal law. It is critical that the moral force
of criminal law be not diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether
innocent men are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual
going about his ordinary affairs has confidence that his government cannot adjudge him guilty
of a criminal offense without convincing a proper fact finder of his guilt with utmost certainty.
This “reasonable doubt” standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of
constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against
conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute
the crime with which he is charged.

4. What the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts
sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an
amount of at least P50 million. There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in
the Information to have been committed by the accused. For instance, the prosecution need
not prove all 50 raids on the treasury, if such is alleged, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at
least 2 of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least P50
million. (id.)

5. Section 4 is a rule of evidence as shown by its epigraph. It putports to do no more than

prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Section 4 does
not define or establish any substantial right in favour of the accused but only operates in
furtherance of a remedy. Indubitably, even without invoking Section 4, a conviction for plunder
may be had, for what is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to engender
that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. (id.)

6. Plunder defined in R.A. 7080, as amended by R.A. 76059 was provisionally placed within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan ‘until otherwise provided by law.’ R.A. 8249, enacted on
February 5, 1997, is the special law that provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
‘otherwise’ than that prescribed in R.A. 7080. (Organo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 136916,
December 14, 1999)
Additional Notes:
First Element of Plunder
That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with other
persons, acquires or amasses ill-gotten wealth.
1. Principal Plunderer – The principal plunderer must be a public officer. However, a public
officer can be held liable for plunder even if the one, who masterminded the plunder of
public funds is a private individual (e.g., the allegations that Napoles, a private
individual, masterminded the plunder of pork barrels by legislators). What is important
is that the public officer in connivance with another person acquired ill-gotten wealth.

2. Participants – The participants of the crime of plunder can be a public officer or a

private individual. Participants, who help the public officer in committing plunder are
also liable under RA No. 7070 on the basis of conspiracy (U.S. v. Ponte, G.R. No. L –
5952, October 24, 1911) Moreover, under Section 2 of 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. The law in using the
word “person” as participant in the commission of plunder did not distinguish a public
officer from private individual. Hence, the word “persons” includes private individual
applying the principle that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not
distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.
The participants in plunder can be members of the family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, or subordinates of the principal plunderer or any
other persons.
Second elements of Plunder
That public officer amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of the overt act or criminal acts (or predicate crimes):
1. Combination or Series of Predicate Crimes – The act of receiving by Governor Datu
kickback from a contractor in the amount of P50 million in connection with any
government contract or project for the development of an economic and tourism hub
(BAR 2017) is a predicate crime of plunder. However, he is not liable 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 act or criminal acts. The word
“combination” means at least two different predicate crimes; while the term “series”
means at least two predicate crimes of the same kind. (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 157294-95, November 30, 2006). Thus, a single predicate crime amounting to P50
million is not constitutive of the crime of plunder. The intention of the lawmakers is that
if there is only one predicate crime, the offender has to be prosecuted under the
 particular crime, which is already covered by existing laws. What is punishable under the
law is “acts of plunder,” which means that there should be at least two or more
predicate crimes.

2. Predicate Crimes – The predicate crimes of Plunder are as follows:

(a) Misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on

the public treasury. The concept of malversation as a predicate crime of plunder is
the same as that of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code
(Gloria Macapagal Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016)

This malversation can be committed by culpa or dolo. Lending a service government

vehicle worth P2 million by the public officer to his driver, who did not return the same,
constitutes culpable malversation, which is a predicate crime of plunder (BAR 2014).

Even if the malversation is not committed since the public officer, who misappropriated
the fund, is not an accountable officer, he still committed a predicate crime of plunder
since under the law “misappropriation or conversion” is an overt act thereof.
Misappropriation is a concept more comprehensive than malversation.

Misuse of government fund in the amount of P100 million by diverting the construction
of road from the poblacion as required by the ordinance to the farm of the public officer
is a predicate crime of plunder. Misuse of P10 million funds for the construction of
building by not awarding the project to the lowest bidder is a predicate crime of plunder
(BAR 2014)

The plunderer must be benefitted from the raid on public treasury to consider this
predicate crime of plunder as present. (GMA v. People).

(b) Receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback
or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or
position of the public officer.

Collecting or receiving commission by President Estrada from the sale of Belle Shares
in the amount of P189, 700, 000. 00, which was deposited in the Jose Velarde
account, is a predicate crime of plunder. The commission was received in connection
with government contract. (People v. Joseph Estrada, Sandiganbayan Criminal Case
No. 26558, September 12, 2007)
 Receiving bi-monthly collections by President Estrada from “jeuteng” a form of
illegal gambling in the aggregate amount of P545, 291, 000. 00 of which was
deposited in the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, is a predicate crime of plunder. The
share was received by reason of his position as President. (People v. Joseph Estrada).

Receiving the total amount of P30 million by chairman of a bid committee from
bidders, who subsequently lost the bid, is a predicate crime of plunder. The concept
of this predicate crime is similar to that of indirect bribery, (BAR 2014).

C. Illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to

Government.

Ordering the GSIS and the SSS by President Estrada to purchase shares of stock of
Belle Corporation is a predicate crime of plunder (People v. Estrada).

D. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock,

equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of
future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking.

E. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other

combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; or

F. By taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or

influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

Bribery, malversation of public funds or property and violations of Section 3 € of RA

No. 3019 are predicate crimes of plunder. An information for plunder containing
these predicate crimes does not violate the rule against duplicity or multiplicity of
offenses. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003).
THIRD ELEMENT
That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated
or acquired is at least P50 million. (Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001)
1. Ill-gotten Wealth – Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise
or material possession of any person within the purview of plunder acquired by him
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
 business associates by any combination or series of predicate crimes of plunder
(Section 1 of RA No. 7080).

2. Aggregate Amount of ill-Gotten Wealth – “A” as city engineer miused government

funds in the amount of P100 million by diverting the construction of road from the
poblacion as required by the ordinance to his farm. “A” as chairman of bid
committee received in the total amount of P30 million from three bidders, who
subsequently lost the bid, and misused P10 million funds for construction of building
by not awarding the project to the lowest bidder. “A” committed the crime of
mlaversation through culpa by lending his service vehicle worth P2 million to his
driver, who did not return the same. “A” also malversed P10 million in is custody.
“A” has a net worth of more than P50 million, which was way beyond his legitimate
income. (BAR 2014)

(a) What is the crime committed by “A”? “A” had committed series and combination
of predicates of misusing government funds, receiving commission and
committing malversation. His net worth of more than P50 million is presumed to
be ill-gotten wealth since this amount was way beyond his legitimate income.
Hence, the crime committed by “A” is plunder.
(b) Suppose the discovered net worth of is less than P50 million, will your answer
still be the same? My answer is not the same. “A” is not liable for plunder. The
amount of P100 million for construction of road misused by diverting it to his
farm, the amount of P10 million misused by awarding it to the lowest bidder,
and the P2 million worth of vehicle taken by his driver through negligence shall
not be considered in determining if the P50 million threshold has been reached
since the road, amount awarded to lowest bidder and the vehicle taken by his
driver are not his ill-gotten wealth.

The amount of P30 million received from bidders and P2 million misappropriated
shall be considered in determining if the P50 million threshold has been reached.
However, their total amount is not at least P50 million. His net worth is less than
P50 million. Hence, the same is not enough to establish “P50 million ill- gotten
wealth” as an element of plunder.

However, “A” committed violation of Section 3 € of RA No 3019 for causing

damage to the government through evidence bad faith and manifest partiality by
diverting the construction of a P100 million worth of road leading to his farm
instead of the poblacion in the exercised of his official function through evidence
bad faith and manifest partiality; Violation of Section 3 € of RA No 3019 for
giving unwarranted preference, advantage and benefit through evident bad faith
and manifest partiality by awarding a P10 million worth of project for building
 construction to the lowest bidder; indirect bribery by receiving the total amount
of P30 million from three bidders, who subsequently lost the bid; malversation
of service vehicles worth P2 million by allowing other person to take it through
negligence and malversation of an accounted funds worth P10 million.

© Pattern – Under Section 4 of RA No 7080, for purposes of establishing the crime

of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused
in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
Establishing beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy is sufficient to prove plunder. However, pattern of overt
act is not an element of plunder. Section 4 merely provides a rule on evidence (Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan).
To illustrate, supposing that the accused is charged in an Information for plunder with
having committed 50 raids on the public treasury. The prosecution need not prove all these 50
raids, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least two of the raids beyond reasonable doubt
provided that they amounted to at least P50, 000, 000. 00.
In People vs. Estrada, one of the predicate crimes alleged in the information is
misappropriation of the excise tax share of Ilocos Sur. This was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. However, following predicate crimes were alleged and proven by evidence (1) series of
acts of receiving collections from “jueteng” in the aggregate amount of P545, 291, 000. 00; (2)
series consisting of two acts of ordering the GSIS and the SSS to purchase shares of stock of
Belle Corporation and collecting or receiving commission from the sales of Belle Shares in the
amount of P189, 700, 000. 00. This pattern of criminal acts indicate an overall unlawful scheme
or conspiracy to amass ill-gotten wealth in the amount of more than P50 million. Estrada was
convicted of plunder.
CONSPIRACY IN PLUNDER
Plunder can be committed by the public officer acting alone or in connivance with other
persons. If the public officer committed plunder in connivance with other persons, the “other
persons” or the participants are also liable on the basis of conspiracy. Moreover, the
participants, with whom the public officer connived in committing plunder, are liable under RA
No. 7080. Under Section 2 of this law, 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.
Where the public officer connives with other persons in committing plunder, their
liabilities are subject to single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies. There are two structures of
multiple conspiracies, namely: Wheel Conspiracy and Chain Conspiracy.
1. Single Conspiracy – In single conspiracy, the public officer conspired with a single
individual or group in committing plunder. The principal plunderer in this case must be a
public officer. But the participants in this case can be public officers or private
individuals (Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015).
Hypothetical problem: A Senator conspired with nine private individuals in acquiring ill-
gotten wealth through a series of misappropriation of his pork barrel amounting to P200
million. Each of them is entitled to 10% of P200 million or P20 million. They are liable for
plunder. On the basis of conspiracy, total amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired by the
conspirators including the private individuals shall be considered for purpose of
determining if the P50 million threshold had been reached. Since the total amount of ll-
gotten wealth acquired by the Senator, the principal plunderer, and his nine co-
conspirators, participants, is P200 million, they are liable for plunder (Enrile v. People).
2. Wheel Conspiracy – Under the Wheel or Circle Conspiracy, there is a single person or
group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (the
spokes). (Fernan v. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007). In plunder, the principal
plunderer is the hub, while the participants or persons with whom the principal
plunderer connived in acquiring ill-gotten wealth are ht spokes.

Hypothetical Problem: Pedro, the President of the Philippines, conspired with A, B and
D, private individuals, in connection with his shares on the “jueteng” collections in the
amount of P20 million; and with X, Y and Z, private individuals, in connection with his
P20 million commission pertaining to transaction where the GSIS and SSS bought share
of a private corporation on his order. A, B and D and X, Y and Z received P10 million each
out of these transactions. Since there is wheel conspiracy in this case, the total amount
of P40 million acquired by Pedro, the hub, and the total amount of P60 million acquired
by A, B and D and X, Y and Z, the spokes, shall be considered for purpose of determining
if the P50 million threshold had been reached. Since the total amount of ill-gotten
wealth acquired by hub and spokes is P100 million, they are liable for plunder (GMA v.
People).

(a) Identification of the Principal Plunder – In wheel conspiracy involving plunder, the
public officer (principal plunder or the hub) amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth in connivance with others (the spokes). The rim that enclosed the
spokes was the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. (GMA v. People).

1. Identified hub – If there is wheel conspiracy concerning the series of acts of

misappropriation of PCSO fund in the amount of P360 million, and Pedro, a
public officer, was identified as the principal plunder or the hub and the nine
other accused were identified as the spokes, the entire amount of P360
 million shall be considered to determine if the P50 million threshold in
plunder has been reached. Hence, Pedro, the hub, and nine spokes are liable
for plunder since the total amount of ill-gotten wealth that they acquired is
P360 million.

2. Unidentified Hub – If there is wheel conspiracy concerning the series of acts

of misappropriation of P360 million, but none of the 10 accused was
identified as the hub or principal plunder, each of them is only liable for P36
million, plunder is not committed since the P50 million threshold had not
been reached (GMA v. People).

b. The Hub Must be a Public Officer – In plunder, the principal plunder (the hub) must be
a public officer (GMA v. People); but the participants (the spokesperson) can be public officers
or private individuals (Enrile v. People).
A contractor, a private individual, gave a governor P50 million through his wife for
tourism project, a mayor P25 million for the tourism project and P10 million for overpriced
sport project, and a sanggunian member P25 million for the tourism project and P25 million for
sport project, the amount of which are deposited in the account of his secretary (BAR 2017).
In this case, there is no wheel conspiracy involving plunder. The contractor cannot be
considered as a hub since he is not a public officer. In the absence of wheel conspiracy, the
amount individually acquired by the public officer shall be considered to determine if the P50
million threshold had been reached.
The governor acquired ill-gotten wealth in the amount of P50 million by a single
predicate crime of receiving kickback. Hence, he is not liable for plunder since a combination or
series of predicate crimes is an indispensable element thereof.
The mayor acquired ill-gotten wealth in the amount of P35 million by a series of
predicate crimes of receiving kickback. Hence, he is not liable for plunder since the amount of
ill-gotten wealth acquired is not at least P50 million, which is an indispensable elements
thereof.
The Sangguniang Member acquired ill-gotten wealth in the amount of P50 million by a
series of predicate crimes of receiving kickback. Hence, he is liable for plunder. The contractor is
also liable for plunder since he participated and contributed in the commission of this crime.
3. Chain Conspiracy – Under the chain conspiracy, usually involving the
distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which 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 v. People).
 A contractor, a private individual, gave a sanggunian member P25 million for
the tourism project and P25 million for sport project, the amount of which
are deposited in the name of his secretary, who personally maintained a
bank account for his share in government projects (BAR 2017)

There is chain conspiracy involving plunder in this case. The SB conspired

with contractor in committing acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the amount of
P50 million through a series of predicate crimes of receiving kickbacks.
Subsequently, the SB conspired with his secretary in hiding his ill-gotten
wealth, by depositing the proceeds of plunder under the account of the
latter. Because of chain conspiracy, they are all 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.

3. REPUBLIC ACT N0. 9745

AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND

DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFOR

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in

Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Torture Act of 2009".

Section 2. Statement of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State:

(a) To value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for
human rights;

(b) To ensure that the human rights of all persons, including suspects, detainees
and prisoners are respected at all times; and that no person placed under
investigation or held in custody of any person in authority or, agent of a person
authority shall be subjected to physical, psychological or mental harm, force,
violence, threat or intimidation or any act that impairs his/her free wi11 or in any
manner demeans or degrades human dignity;

(c) To ensure that secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or other

similar forms of detention, where torture may be carried out with impunity, are
prohibited; and
 (d) To fully adhere to the principles and standards on the absolute condemnation
and prohibition of torture as provided for in the 1987 Philippine Constitution;
various international instruments to which the Philippines is a State party such
as, but not limited to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W) and the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (CAT); and all other relevant international human rights
instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Section 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(a) "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 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 or acquiescence of a person in authority
or agent of a person in authority. It does not include pain or Buffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

(b) "Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment" refers to a

deliberate and aggravated treatment or punishment not enumerated under
Section 4 of this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against a person under his/her custody, which attains a level of severity
causing suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter.

(c) "Victim" refers to the person subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment as defined above and any individual who has
suffered harm as a result of any act(s) of torture, or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment.

(d) "Order of Battle" refers to any document or determination made by the

military, police or any law enforcement agency of the government, listing the
names of persons and organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State
and that it considers as legitimate targets as combatants that it could deal with,
through the use of means allowed by domestic and international law.

Section 4. Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act, torture shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:

(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in

authority or agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her custody that
causes severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of
the body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with
truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the
stomach;

(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human
excreta and other stuff or substances not normally eaten;

(3) Electric shock;

(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by
the rubbing of pepper or other chemical substances on mucous
membranes, or acids or spices directly on the wound(s);

(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement,
urine, vomit and/or blood until the brink of suffocation;

(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position;

(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign objects into
the sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;

(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body such as the
genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;

(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;

(10) Pulling out of fingernails;

(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;

(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to
the point of asphyxiation;

(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory.

alertness or will of a person, such as:

(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or reduce mental

competency; or

(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain symptoms of a

disease; and

(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and

 (b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed by a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority which are calculated to affect or
confuse the mind and/or undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:

(1) Blindfolding;

(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with bodily harm,

execution or other wrongful acts;

(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;

(4) Prolonged interrogation;

(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or public

humiliation of a detainee or prisoner;

(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one

place to another, creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily
executed;

(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;

(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the person's family,

relatives or any third party;

(9) Denial of sleep/rest;

(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her
in public places, shaving the victim's head or putting marks on his/her
body against his/her will;

(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member

of his/her family; and

(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.

NOTE:

The three kinds of torture are:

(1) Physical which involves treatment or punishment causing severe pain,

exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body.
(2) Mental/Psychological which affects or confuses the mind and or undermines
one’s dignity and morale.
(3) Other CID treatment or punishment at a level of severity causing suffering, gross
humiliation, or debasement to the victim.
BAR 2013

AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary

confinement. He was able to post bail after two weeks of detention. During the period of
detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him physical discomfort.
Food deprivation and confinement in solitary cell are considered as physical and
psychological torture under Section 4 (2) of RA No. 9745. Hence, the crime committed
is torture.

Section 5. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. - Other

cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment refers to a deliberate and
aggravated treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act,
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority against another person
in custody, which attains a level of severity sufficient to cause suffering, gross
humiliation or debasement to the latter. The assessment of the level of severity shall
depend on all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the treatment or
punishment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, religion, age
and state of health of the victim.

Section 6. Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, An Absolute Bight. - Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as criminal 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.

Section 7. Prohibited Detention. - Secret detention places, solitary confinement,

incommunicado or other similar forms of detention, where torture may be carried out
with impunity. Are hereby prohibited.

In which case, the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and other law enforcement. agencies concerned shall make an updated list of all
detention centers and facilities under their respective jurisdictions with the
corresponding data on the prisoners or detainees incarcerated or detained therein such
as, among others, names, date of arrest and incarceration, and the crime or offense
committed. This list shall be made available to the public at all times, with a copy of the
complete list available at the respective national headquarters of the PNP and AFP. A
copy of the complete list shall likewise be submitted by the PNP, AFP and all other law
enforcement agencies to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), such list to be
periodically updated, by the same agencies, within the first five (5) days of every month
at the minimum. Every regional office of the PNP, AFP and other law enforcement
agencies shall also maintain a similar list far all detainees and detention facilities within
their respective areas, and shall make the same available to the public at all times at
their respective regional headquarters, and submit a copy. updated in the same manner
provided above, to the respective regional offices of the CHR.
Section 8. Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule; Exception. - Any confession,
admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence
in any proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons
accused of committing torture.

Section 9. Institutional Protection of Torture Victims and Other Persons Involved. - A

victim of torture shall have the following rights in the institution of a criminal complaint
for torture:

(a) To have a prompt and an impartial investigation by the CHR and by agencies
of government concerned such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO), the PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and
the AFP. A prompt investigation shall mean a maximum period of sixty (60)
working days from the time a complaint for torture is filed within which an
investigation report and/or resolution shall be completed and made available. An
appeal whenever available shall be resolved within the same period prescribed
herein,

(b) To have sufficient government protection against all forms of harassment;

threat and/or intimidation as a consequence of the filing of said complaint or the
presentation of evidence therefor. In which case, the State through its
appropriate agencies shall afford security in order to ensure his/her safety and all
other persons involved in the investigation and prosecution such as, but not
limited to, his/her lawyer, witnesses and relatives; and

(c) To be accorded sufficient protection in the manner by which he/she testifies

and presents evidence in any fora in order to avoid further trauma.

Section 10. Disposition of Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data
Proceedings and Compliance with a Judicial 07'der. - A writ of habeas corpus or writ of
amparo or writ of habeas data proceeding, if any, filed on behalf of the victim of torture
or other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment shall be disposed of
expeditiously and any order of release by virtue thereof, or other appropriate order of a
court relative thereto, shall be executed or complied with immediately.

Section 11. Assistance in Filing a Complaint. - The CHR and the PAO shall render legal
assistance in the investigation and monitoring and/or filing of the complaint for a person
who suffers torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, or
for any interested party thereto.

The victim or interested party may also seek legal assistance from the Barangay Human
Rights Action Center (BRRAC) nearest him/her as well as from human rights
nongovernment organizations (NGOs).

Section 12. Right to' Physical, Medical and Psychological Examination. - Before and
after interrogation, every person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall
have the right to he informed of his/her right to demand physical examination by an
independent and competent doctor of his/her own choice. If such person cannot afford
the services of his/her own doctor, he/she shall he provided by the State with a
competent and independent doctor to conduct physical examination. The State shall
endeavor to provide the victim with psychological evaluation if available under the
circumstances. If the person arrested is a female, she shall be attended to preferably by
a female doctor. Furthermore, any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation, including his/her immediate family, shall have the right to immediate
access to proper and adequate medical treatment. The physical examination and/or
psychological evaluation of the victim shall be contained in a medical report, duly signed
by the attending physician, which shall include in detail his/her medical history and
findings, and which shall he attached to the custodial investigation report. Such report
shall be considered a public document.

Following applicable protocol agreed upon by agencies tasked to conduct physical,

psychological and mental examinations, the medical reports shall, among others,
include:

(a) The name, age and address of the patient or victim;

(b) The name and address of the nearest kin of the patient or victim;

(c) The name and address of the person who brought the patient or victim for
physical, psychological and mental examination, and/or medical treatment;

(d) The nature and probable cause of the patient or victim's injury, pain and
disease and/or trauma;

(e) The approximate time and date when the injury, pain, disease and/or trauma
was/were sustained;

(f) The place where the injury, pain, disease and/or trauma was/were sustained;

(g) The time, date and nature of treatment necessary; and

(h) The diagnosis, the prognosis and/or disposition of the patient.

Any person who does not wish to avail of the rights under this provision may knowingly
and voluntarily waive such rights in writing, executed in the presence and assistance of
his/her counsel.

Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person who actually participated Or
induced another in the commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment by previous or
simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal.
NOTES:

Under Article 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, one who concurs with the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, is liable as principal by indispensable
cooperation if the crime would not have been accomplished without his participation
(indispensable cooperation), or as an accomplice if his previous or simultaneous
participation merely supplies the principal moral or material aid in an efficacious way
(dispensable cooperation). However, under Section 13 of RA No. 9745, both the
principal by indispensable cooperation and accomplice are liable as principal. It
expressly states that person cooperated in the execution of the act of torture by
previous or simultaneous shall be liable as principal without distinction as to whether the
participation is indispensable or not.

Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who
issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose
shall be held equally liable as principals.

The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate
senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable
as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall
have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission
thereof by his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the
circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being
committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her
area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective
action either before, during or immediately after its commission, when he/she has the
authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of
such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals.

NOTES:

Superior officer on the basis of command responsibility are also liable for torture as
principal. Under Section 13 of RA 9745, the immediate commanding officer of the unit
concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law
enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture for any
act or omission, or negligence committed by him that shall have led, assisted, abetted
or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by his subordinates. If
he has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that
the acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall
be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates or by
others within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission,
when he has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as
principal.

Section 13 of RA No. 9745 explicitly makes superiors criminally liable under the doctrine
of command responsibility. Thus, liability under the doctrine of command responsibility
is no longer administrative (based on neglect of duty) but is now criminal. (Rubrico v.
GMA, G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010)

BAR 2011

X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a suspected drug pusher, and
watched as Y and Z, police trainees, beat up and tortured W to get his confession. “X” is
liable as principal for the crime of torture. Under Section 13 of RA No. 9745, immediate
senior public official of the PNP shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture
for he has, who has knowledge of that acts of torture is being committed by his
subordinates, did not take preventive action during its commission. Section 13 of RA
No. 9745 explicitly makes superiors criminally liable under the doctrine of command
responsibility.

Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge
that torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is being
committed and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice,
takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:

(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects
of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment;

(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in
order to prevent its discovery; or(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting m the
escape of the principal/s in the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment: Provided, That the accessory acts are done
with the abuse of the official's public functions.

Section 14. Penalties. - (a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
the perpetrators of the following acts:

(1) Torture resulting in the death of any person;

(2) Torture resulting in mutilation;

(3) Torture with rape;

 (4) Torture with other forms of sexual abuse and, in consequence of
torture, the victim shall have become insane, imbecile, impotent, blind or
maimed for life; and

(5) Torture committed against children.

(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed on those who commit any
act of mental/psychological torture resulting in insanity, complete or partial
amnesia, fear of becoming insane or suicidal tendencies of the victim due to guilt,
worthlessness or shame.

(c) The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed on those who commit
any act of torture resulting in psychological, mental and emotional harm other
than those described 1n paragraph (b) of this section. '

(d) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have lost the power of
speech or the power to hear or to smell; or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot,
an arm or a leg; or shall have lost the use of any such member; Or shall have
become permanently incapacitated for labor.

(e) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have become deformed or
shall have lost any part of his/her body other than those aforecited, or shall have
lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for labor for a period of
more than ninety (90) days.

(f) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in
its minimum period shall be imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall
have been ill or incapacitated for labor for mare than thirty (30) days but not more
than ninety (90) days.

(g) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be
imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have been ill or
incapacitated for labor for thirty (30) days or less.

(h) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed for acts constituting cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in Section 5 of this
Act.

(i) The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon those who
establish, operate and maintain secret detention places and/or effect or cause to
effect solitary confinement, incommunicado or other similar forms of prohibited
detention as provided in Section 7 of this Act where torture may be carried out
with impunity.
 (j) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon the responsible officers or
personnel of the AFP, the PNP and other law enforcement agencies for failure to
perform his/her duty to maintain, submit or make available to the public an
updated list of detention centers and facilities with the corresponding data on the
prisoners or detainees incarcerated or detained therein, pursuant to Section 7 of
this Act.

NOTES:

Section 14 defines the following special complex or composite crimes carrying the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The penalty is higher by one or two degrees than those in Article 263 and 265 on
serious and less serious physical injuries inflicted by wounding, beating, assaulting or
administering injurious substances on the victim. The offender in the RPC is any person
who may be private person or public official whereas here, offender is mainly a Person
in Authority or Agent of Person in Authority, though private person can be liable also as
principal by conspiracy as direct participator, inducer or indispensable co-operator.

Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall
not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a
consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case,
torture shall be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties
shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by
domestic and international laws.

NOTE:

The felonies and offenses are IN ADDITION to the offense under this Act for Section 15
expressly states that “Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by
any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or
commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and
independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any
other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.”

Independent Crime – Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by
any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or a means in the conduct or
commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and
independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any
other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.

Section 16. Exclusion from the Coverage of Special Amnesty Law. - In order not to
depreciate the crime of torture, persons who have committed any act of torture shall not
benefit from any special amnesty law or similar measures that will have the effect of
exempting them from any criminal proceedings and sanctions.
Section 17. Applicability of Refouler. - No person shall be expelled, returned or
extradited to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that such
person shall be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the purposes of determining
whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
and the Secretary of the DOJ, in coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall
take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable and not limited
to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or
mass violations of human rights.

Section 18. Compensation to Victims of Torture. - Any person who has suffered torture
shall have the right to claim for compensation as provided for under Republic Act No.
7309: Provided, That in no case shall compensation be any lower than Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00). Victims of torture shall also have the right to claim for
compensation from such other financial relief programs that may be made available to
him/her under existing law and rules and regulations.

Section 19. Formulation of a Rehabilitation Program. - Within one (1) year from the
effectivity of this Act, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the
DOJ and the Department of Health (DOH) and such other concerned government
agencies, and human rights organizations shall formulate a comprehensive
rehabilitation program for victims of torture and their families. The DSWD, the DOJ and
thc DOH shall also call on human rights nongovernment organizations duly recognized
by the government to actively participate in the formulation of such program that shall
provide for the physical, mental, social, psychological healing and development of
victims of torture and their families. Toward the attainment of restorative justice, a
parallel rehabilitation program for persons who have committed torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment shall likewise be formulated by the same agencies.

Section 20. Monitoring of Compliance with this Act. - An Oversight Committee is hereby
created to periodically oversee the implementation of this Act. The Committee shall be
headed by a Commissioner of the CRR, with the following as members: the
Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the respective
Chairpersons of the House of Representatives' Committees on Justice and Human
Rights, and the Minority Leaders of both houses or their respective representatives in
the minority.

Section 21. Education and Information Campaign. - The CHR, the DOJ, the
Department of National Defense (DND), the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) and such other concerned parties in both the public and private
sectors shall ensure that education and information regarding prohibition against torture
and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall be fully included
in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public
officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or
treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
The Department of Education (DepED) and the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) shall also ensure the integration of human rights education courses in all
primary, secondary and tertiary level academic institutions nationwide.

Section 22. Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. - The provisions of the Revised
Penal Code insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this Act. Moreover, if
the commission of any crime punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) and
Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code is
attended by any of the acts constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment as defined herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum period.

NOTE:

The RPC is suppletory per Section 22. Moreover, if any of the crimes against persons
and against personal liberty and security is attended by the prohibited acts under the
Anti-Torture Act, the penalty shall be in the maximum.

Application of the Provisions of the Revised Penal Code – The provisions of the
Revised Penal Code insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this Act.
Moreover, if the commission of any crimes against persons and crimes against personal
liberty and security of the Revised Penal Code is attended by any of the acts
constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment,
the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum period.

Section 23. Appropriations. - The amount of Five million pesos (Php5,000,000.00) is

hereby appropriated to the CHR for the initial implementation of tills Act. Thereafter,
such sums as may be necessary for the continued implementation of this Act shall be
included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The DOJ and the CHR, with the
active participation of human rights nongovernmental organizations, shall promulgate
the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of tills Act. They shall also
ensure the full dissemination of such rules and regulations to all officers and members
of various law enforcement agencies.

Section 25. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the other provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in full
force and effect.

Section 26. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders or rules and
regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 27. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Republic Act 7877
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
Files:
Republic Act 7877
AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines

in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Sexual

Harassment Act of 1995."

SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall value the dignity of every
individual, enhance the development of its human resources, guarantee full
respect for human rights, and uphold the dignity of workers, employees,
applicants for employment, students or those undergoing training,
instruction or education. Towards this end, all forms of sexual harassment in
the employment, education or training environment are hereby declared
unlawful.

SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training -Related, Sexual Harassment

Defined. - Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person
who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another
in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests
or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of
whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
accepted by the object of said Act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment

is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in

the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said
individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of
conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual
favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in
any way would discriminate, deprive ordiminish employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect said employee;

(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights

or privileges under existing labor laws; or

(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or

offensive environment for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is

committed:

(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of

the offender;

(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or

tutorship is entrusted to the offender;

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a

passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment
of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or

offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual
harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof
by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be
held liable under this Act.

The elements of sexual harassment are as follows:

1. The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer,

teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another;
2. The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working
environment;
3. The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer,
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having
authority, influence, or moral ascendancy makes a demand or request
or requirement of a sexual favour.
Example 1: Thus, a mere casual buzz on the check is not a sexual conduct
or favour and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under
RA 7877.

Example 2: There is no showing that respondent Judge demanded,

requested, or required any sexual favour from complainant in exchange for
“favourable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges”
specified under Sec. 3 of RA 7877. Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the
Canons of Judicial Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility (Aquino
v. Acosta. A.M. CTA – 01-1, April 2, 2002).

Example 3: It is not necessary that the demand, request, or requirement of

a sexual favour be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It
may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender.
(Bacsin v. Wahiman, G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008).

Example 4: In prosecuting sexual harassment, it is not essential that the

demand, request, or requirement be made as a condition for continued
employment or for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the
respondent’s acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the employee (Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., G.R. No. 169449,
March 26, 2010).

Example 5: Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man taking

advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire – it is about power being
exercised by a superior over his women subordinates. That power emanates
from the fact that he can remove them if they refuse his amorous advances.
Under Sec. 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative
Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work
Decorum in the Judiciary), work-related sexual harassment is committed by
an official or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, influence or
moral ascendancy over another in a work environment, demands, requests
or otherwise requires any sexual favour from the other, regardless of
whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by
the latter. It is committed when ‘sexual favour is made as condition in the
hiring or in the employment, reemployment or continued employment of
said individual, or in granting said individual favourable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the
sexual favour results in limiting, segregating or classifying the em ployee
which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee.” (Alegria v. Judge
Manuel N. Duque, A.M. RTJ-06-2019, April 4, 2007).
Example 6: a female employee was sexually harassed by a male manager at
a coordinate governmental branch. The court imposed a light sentence on
him (6 months suspension without pay) since he was not a direct authority
figure over the complainant and it was his first offense. The court’s approach
overlooks the broader unequal gender dynamic – the respondent took
advantage of his position in order to invite complainant to his isolated rural
farm. He entered the room, half naked, joined her in bed and was unwilling
to leave. This is gross misconduct and his very actuations already indicate
that he wanted to gain sexual favour from the complainant. Corruption can
be gender-based as illustrated in this case. (CSC v. Nierras, G.R. No.
165121, February 14, 2008).

SECTION 4. Duty of the Employer or Head of Office in a Work-related,

Education or Training Environment. - It shall be the duty of the employer or
the head of the work-related, educational or training environment or
institution, to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment
and to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution
of acts of sexual harassment. Towards this end, the employer or head of
office shall:

(a) Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in consultation with

and joint1y approved by the employees or students or trainees, through
their duly designated representatives, prescribing the procedure for the
investigation of sexual harassment cases and the administrative
sanctions therefor.

Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper

courts for unlawful acts of sexual harassment.

The said rules and regulations issued pursuant to this subsection (a)
shall include, among others, guidelines on proper decorum in the workplace
and educational or training institutions.

(b) Create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on

sexual harassment. The committee shall conduct meetings, as the case may
be, with officers and employees, teachers, instructors, professors, coaches,
trainors, and students or trainees to increase understanding and
prevent incidents of sexual harassment. It shall also conduct
the investigation of alleged cases constituting sexual harassment.

In the case of a work-related environment, the committee shall be

composed of at least one (1) representative each from the management,
the union, if any, the employees from the supervisory rank, and from the
rank and file employees.

In the case of the educational or training institution, the committee shall

be composed of at least one (1) representative from the administration, the
trainors, instructors, professors or coaches and students or trainees, as the
case may be.

The employer or head of office, educational or training institution shall

disseminate or post a copy of this Act for the information of all concerned.

SECTION 5. Liability of the Employer, Head of Office, Educational or

Training Institution. - The employer or head of office, educational or training
institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising from the acts
of sexual harassment committed in the employment, education or training
environment if the employer or head of office, educational or training
institution is informed of such acts by the offended party and no immediate
action is taken.

SECTION 6. Independent Action for Damages. - Nothing in this Act shall

preclude the victim of work, education or training-related sexual harassment
from instituting a separate and independent action for damages and other
affirmative relief.

SECTION 7. Penalties. - Any person who violates the provisions of this

Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than
one (1) month nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000), or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the
court.

Any action arising from the violation of the provisions of this Act shall
prescribe in three (3) years.

SECTION 8. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is

declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions
hereof shall not be affected by such declaration.

SECTION 9. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and

regulations, other issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 10. Effectivity Clause.- This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its complete publication in at least two (2) national newspapers
of general circulation.

R.A. No. 7877 – Sexual Harassment Law

1. In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:

a. The sexual favour is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favourable compensation, terms,
conditions, promotions or privileges; or the refusal to grant sexual favour results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in anyway would discriminate, deprive or
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employees:

b. The above acts would impair the employee’s right or privileges under existing labor
law; or

c. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for
the employee.

2. The elements of sexual harassment are as follows:

a. The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,

instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another;

b. The authority, influence, or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment;

c. The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,

instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy makes a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favour.

Thus, a mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favour and does not fall
within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877.

1. There is no showing that respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual
favour from complainant in exchange for “favourable compensation, terms, conditions,
promotion or privileges” specified under Section 3 of R.A. 7877. Nor did he, by his
actuations, violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics or the Code of professional
Responsibility. (Aquino vs. Acosta, A.M. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002)

Republic Act No. 9208 May 26, 2003

AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF
TRAFFICKED PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND
FOR OTHER

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in

Congress assembled:

Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003".

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity
of every human person and guarantees the respect of individual rights. In pursuit of this
policy, the State shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures and
development of programs that will promote human dignity, protect the people from any
threat of violence and exploitation, eliminate trafficking in persons, and mitigate
pressures for involuntary migration and servitude of persons, not only to support
trafficked persons but more importantly, to ensure their recovery, rehabilitation and
reintegration into the mainstream of society.

It shall be a State policy to recognize the equal rights and inherent human dignity of
women and men as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations
Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families. United Nations
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime Including its Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and all
other relevant and universally accepted human rights instruments and other
international conventions to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or

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 or receipt of a child for the

purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if
it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.
 (b) Child - refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over
eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.

(c) Prostitution - refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the
use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in
exchange for money, profit or any other consideration.

(d) Forced Labor and Slavery - refer to the extraction of work or services from
any person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force
or coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral
ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.

(e) Sex Tourism - refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related

establishments and individuals which consists of tourism packages or activities,
utilizing and offering escort and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This
includes sexual services and practices offered during rest and recreation periods
for members of the military.

(f) Sexual Exploitation - refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the

production of pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to a threat,
deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or
through abuse of a victim's vulnerability.

(g) Debt Bondage - refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal
services or labor or those of a person under his/her control as security or
payment for a debt, when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined
or when the value of the services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward
the liquidation of the debt.

(h) Pornography - refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition,

cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever means,
of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual purposes.

(i) Council - shall mean the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking created
under Section 20 of this Act.

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to commit any of the following acts:

(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any

means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
 pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;

(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other

consideration, any person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any
Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling or trading him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;

(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism

packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;

(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;

(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;

(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or

use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of
removal or sale of organs of said person; and

(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the

Philippines or abroad.

Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. - The following acts which promote
or facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:

(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building
or establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake

counseling certificates, registration stickers and certificates of any government
agency which issues these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with
government regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;

(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the

advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means,
 including the use of information technology and the internet, of any brochure,
flyer, or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking in persons;

(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of

facilitating the acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from
government agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure registration
and services for departing persons for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;

(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country
at international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in
possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose
of promoting trafficking in persons;

(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal

documents or belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
prevent them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies; and

(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or
slavery.

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified

trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;

(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise
known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is

deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group;

(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who
exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed
by a public officer or employee;

(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any
member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
 (f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
and

(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the

offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS).

Section 6. Confidentiality. - At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of an

offense under this Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, court personnel
and medical practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall recognize the right to
privacy of the trafficked person and the accused. Towards this end, law enforcement
officers, prosecutors and judges to whom the complaint has been referred may,
whenever necessary to ensure a fair and impartial proceeding, and after considering all
circumstances for the best interest of the parties, order a closed-door investigation,
prosecution or trial. The name and personal circumstances of the trafficked person or of
the accused, or any other information tending to establish their identities and such
circumstances or information shall not be disclosed to the public.

In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted behind closed-doors, it shall be unlawful

for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials,
announcer or producer in case of television and radio, producer and director of a film in
case of the movie industry, or any person utilizing tri-media facilities or information
technology to cause publicity of any case of trafficking in persons.

Section 8. Prosecution of Cases. - Any person who has personal knowledge of the
commission of any offense under this Act, the trafficked person, the parents, spouse,
siblings, children or legal guardian may file a complaint for trafficking.

Section 9. Venue. - A criminal action arising from violation of this Act shall be filed
where the offense was committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or where the
trafficked person actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided,
That the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other courts.

Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and sanctions are
hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:

(a) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section
4 shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of not
less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but not more than Two million
pesos (P2,000,000.00);

(b) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section
5 shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not
 less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos
(P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00);

(d) Any person who violates Section 7 hereof shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of six (6) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

(e) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association, club, establishment

or any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
partner, manager, and/or any responsible officer who participated in the
commission of the crime or who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to
prevent its commission;

(f) The registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
license to operate of the erring agency, corporation, association, religious group,
tour or travel agent, club or establishment, or any place of entertainment shall be
cancelled and revoked permanently. The owner, president, partner or manager
thereof shall not be allowed to operate similar establishments in a different name;

(g) If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be immediately deported after serving

his sentence and be barred permanently from entering the country;

(h) Any employee or official of government agencies who shall issue or approve
the issuance of travel exit clearances, passports, registration certificates,
counseling certificates, marriage license, and other similar documents to
persons, whether juridical or natural, recruitment agencies, establishments or
other individuals or groups, who fail to observe the prescribed procedures and
the requirement as provided for by laws, rules and regulations, shall be held
administratively liable, without prejudice to criminal liability under this Act. The
concerned government official or employee shall, upon conviction, be dismissed
from the service and be barred permanently to hold public office. His/her
retirement and other benefits shall likewise be forfeited; and

(i) Conviction by final judgment of the adopter for any offense under this Act shall
result in the immediate rescission of the decree of adoption.

Section 11. Use of Trafficked Persons. - Any person who buys or engages the services
of trafficked persons for prostitution shall be penalized as follows:

(a) First offense - six (6) months of community service as may be determined by
the court and a fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); and
 (b) Second and subsequent offenses - imprisonment of one (1) year and a fine of
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).

Section 12. Prescriptive Period. - Trafficking cases under this Act shall prescribe in ten
(10) years: Provided, however, That trafficking cases committed by a syndicate or in a
large scale as defined under Section 6 shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.

The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the day on which the trafficked
person is delivered or released from the conditions of bondage and shall be interrupted
by the filing of the complaint or information and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused.

Section 13. Exemption from Filing Fees. - When the trafficked person institutes a
separate civil action for the recovery of civil damages, he/she shall be exempt from the
payment of filing fees.

Section 14. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds and Instruments Derived from
Trafficking in Persons. - In addition to the penalty imposed for the violation of this Act,
the court shall order the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all the
proceeds and properties derived from the commission of the crime, unless they are the
property of a third person not liable for the unlawful act; Provided, however, That all
awards for damages shall be taken from the personal and separate properties of the
offender; Provided, further, That if such properties are insufficient, the balance shall be
taken from the confiscated and forfeited properties.

When the proceeds, properties and instruments of the offense have been destroyed,
diminished in value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act or omission, directly or
indirectly, of the offender, or it has been concealed, removed, converted or transferred
to prevent the same from being found or to avoid forfeiture or confiscation, the offender
shall be ordered to pay the amount equal to the value of the proceeds, property or
instruments of the offense.

Section 15. Trust Fund. - All fines imposed under this Act and the proceeds and
properties forfeited and confiscated pursuant to Section 14 hereof shall accrue to a
Trust Fund to be administered and managed by the Council to be used exclusively for
programs that will prevent acts of trafficking and protect, rehabilitate, reintegrate
trafficked persons into the mainstream of society. Such programs shall include, but not
limited to, the following:

(a) Provision for mandatory services set forth in Section 23 of this Act;

(b) Sponsorship of a national research program on trafficking and establishment

of a data collection system for monitoring and evaluation purposes;
 (c) Provision of necessary technical and material support services to appropriate
government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs);

(d) Sponsorship of conferences and seminars to provide venue for consensus

building amongst the public, the academe, government, NGOs and international
organizations; and

(e) Promotion of information and education campaign on trafficking.

Section 16. Programs that Address Trafficking in Persons. - The government shall
establish and implement preventive, protective and rehabilitative programs for trafficked
persons. For this purpose, the following agencies are hereby mandated to implement
the following programs;

(a) Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) - shall make available its resources and
facilities overseas for trafficked persons regardless of their manner of entry to the
receiving country, and explore means to further enhance its assistance in
eliminating trafficking activities through closer networking with government
agencies in the country and overseas, particularly in the formulation of policies
and implementation of relevant programs.

The DFA shall take necessary measures for the efficient implementation of the
Machine Readable Passports to protect the integrity of Philippine passports,
visas and other travel documents to reduce the incidence of trafficking through
the use of fraudulent identification documents.

It shall establish and implement a pre-marriage, on-site and pre-departure

counseling program on intermarriages.

(b) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) - shall implement

rehabilitative and protective programs for trafficked persons. It shall provide
counseling and temporary shelter to trafficked persons and develop a system for
accreditation among NGOs for purposes of establishing centers and programs
for intervention in various levels of the community.

(c) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) - shall ensure the strict
implementation and compliance with the rules and guidelines relative to the
employment of persons locally and overseas. It shall likewise monitor, document
and report cases of trafficking in persons involving employers and labor
recruiters.

(d) Department of Justice (DOJ) - shall ensure the prosecution of persons

accused of trafficking and designate and train special prosecutors who shall
handle and prosecute cases of trafficking. It shall also establish a mechanism for
free legal assistance for trafficked persons, in coordination with the DSWD,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and other NGOs and volunteer groups.
(e) National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) - shall actively
participate and coordinate in the formulation and monitoring of policies
addressing the issue of trafficking in persons in coordination with relevant
government agencies. It shall likewise advocate for the inclusion of the issue of
trafficking in persons in both its local and international advocacy for women's
issues.

(f) Bureau of Immigration (BI) - shall strictly administer and enforce immigration
and alien administration laws. It shall adopt measures for the apprehension of
suspected traffickers both at the place of arrival and departure and shall ensure
compliance by the Filipino fiancés/fiancées and spouses of foreign nationals with
the guidance and counseling requirement as provided for in this Act.

(g) Philippine National Police (PNP) - shall be the primary law enforcement
agency to undertake surveillance, investigation and arrest of individuals or
persons suspected to be engaged in trafficking. It shall closely coordinate with
various law enforcement agencies to secure concerted efforts for effective
investigation and apprehension of suspected traffickers. It shall also establish a
system to receive complaints and calls to assist trafficked persons and conduct
rescue operations.

(h) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) - shall implement an

effective pre-employment orientation seminars and pre-departure counseling
programs to applicants for overseas employment. It shall likewise formulate a
system of providing free legal assistance to trafficked persons.

(i) Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) - shall institute a
systematic information and prevention campaign and likewise maintain a
databank for the effective monitoring, documentation and prosecution of cases
on trafficking in persons.

(j) Local government units (LGUs) - shall monitor and document cases of
trafficking in persons in their areas of jurisdiction, effect the cancellation of
licenses of establishments which violate the provisions of this Act and ensure
effective prosecution of such cases. They shall also undertake an information
campaign against trafficking in persons through the establishment of the Migrants
Advisory and Information Network (MAIN) desks in municipalities or provinces in
coordination with DILG, Philippine Information Agency (PIA), Commission on
Filipinos Overseas (CFO), NGOs and other concerned agencies. They shall
encourage and support community based initiatives which address the trafficking
in persons.

In implementing this Act, the agencies concerned may seek and enlist the
assistance of NGOs, people's organizations (Pos), civic organizations and other
volunteer groups.
Section 17. Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. - Trafficked persons shall be
recognized as victims of the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall not be penalized
for crimes directly related to the acts of trafficking enumerated in this Act or in
obedience to the order made by the trafficker in relation thereto. In this regard, the
consent of a trafficked person to the intended exploitation set forth in this Act shall be
irrelevant.

Section 18. Preferential Entitlement Under the Witness Protection Program. - Any
provision of Republic Act No. 6981 to the contrary notwithstanding, any trafficked
person shall be entitled to the witness protection program provided therein.

Section 19. Trafficked Persons Who are Foreign Nationals. - Subject to the guidelines
issued by the Council, trafficked persons in the Philippines who are nationals of a
foreign country shall also be entitled to appropriate protection, assistance and services
available to trafficked persons under this Act: Provided, That they shall be permitted
continued presence in the Philippines for a length of time prescribed by the Council as
necessary to effect the prosecution of offenders.

Section 20. Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. - There is hereby established an

Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking, to be composed of the Secretary of the
Department of Justice as Chairperson and the Secretary of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development as Co-Chairperson and shall have the following as members:

(a) Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs;

(b) Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment;

(c) Administrator, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration;

(d) Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration;

(e) Director-General, Philippine National Police;

(f) Chairperson, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women; and

(g) Three (3) representatives from NGOs, who shall be composed of one (1)
representative each from among the sectors representing women, overseas
Filipino workers (OFWs) and children, with a proven record of involvement in the
prevention and suppression of trafficking in persons. These representatives shall
be nominated by the government agency representatives of the Council, for
appointment by the President for a term of three (3) years.

The members of the Council may designate their permanent representatives who
shall have a rank not lower than an assistant secretary or its equivalent to
meetings, and shall receive emoluments as may be determined by the Council in
accordance with existing budget and accounting, rules and regulations.
Section 21. Functions of the Council. - The Council shall have the following powers and
functions:

(a) Formulate a comprehensive and integrated program to prevent and suppress

the trafficking in persons;

(b) Promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary for the effective
implementation of this Act;

(c) Monitor and oversee the strict implementation of this Act;

(d) Coordinate the programs and projects of the various member agencies to
effectively address the issues and problems attendant to trafficking in persons;

(e) Coordinate the conduct of massive information dissemination and campaign

on the existence of the law and the various issues and problems attendant to
trafficking through the LGUs, concerned agencies, and NGOs;

(f) Direct other agencies to immediately respond to the problems brought to their
attention and report to the Council on action taken;

(g) Assist in filing of cases against individuals, agencies, institutions or

establishments that violate the provisions of this Act;

(h) Formulate a program for the reintegration of trafficked persons in cooperation

with DOLE, DSWD, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), LGUs and NGOs;

(i) Secure from any department, bureau, office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government or from NGOs and other civic organizations such assistance as may
be needed to effectively implement this Act;

(j) Complement the shared government information system for migration

established under Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" with data on cases of trafficking in
persons, and ensure that the proper agencies conduct a continuing research and
study on the patterns and scheme of trafficking in persons which shall form the
basis for policy formulation and program direction;

(k) Develop the mechanism to ensure the timely, coordinated, and effective
response to cases of trafficking in persons;

(l) Recommend measures to enhance cooperative efforts and mutual assistance

among foreign countries through bilateral and/or multilateral arrangements to
prevent and suppress international trafficking in persons;
 (m) Coordinate with the Department of Transportation and Communications
(DOTC), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and other NGOs in monitoring
the promotion of advertisement of trafficking in the internet;

(n) Adopt measures and policies to protect the rights and needs of trafficked
persons who are foreign nationals in the Philippines;

(o) Initiate training programs in identifying and providing the necessary

intervention or assistance to trafficked persons; and

(p) Exercise all the powers and perform such other functions necessary to attain
the purposes and objectives of this Act.

Section 22. Secretariat to the Council. - The Department of Justice shall establish the
necessary Secretariat for the Council.

Section 23. Mandatory Services to Trafficked Persons. - To ensure recovery,

rehabilitation and reintegration into the mainstream of society, concerned government
agencies shall make available the following services to trafficked persons:

(a) Emergency shelter or appropriate housing;

(b) Counseling;

(c) Free legal services which shall include information about the victims' rights
and the procedure for filing complaints, claiming compensation and such other
legal remedies available to them, in a language understood by the trafficked
person;

(d) Medical or psychological services;

(e) Livelihood and skills training; and

(f) Educational assistance to a trafficked child.

Sustained supervision and follow through mechanism that will track the progress of
recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration of the trafficked persons shall be adopted and
carried out.

Section 24. Other Services for Trafficked Persons. -

(a) Legal Assistance. - Trafficked persons shall be considered under the category
"Overseas Filipino in Distress" and may avail of the legal assistance created by
Republic Act No. 8042, subject to the guidelines as provided by law.
 (b) Overseas Filipino Resource Centers. - The services available to overseas
Filipinos as provided for by Republic Act No. 8042 shall also be extended to
trafficked persons regardless of their immigration status in the host country.

(c) The Country Team Approach. - The country team approach under Executive
Order No. 74 of 1993, shall be the operational scheme under which Philippine
embassies abroad shall provide protection to trafficked persons insofar as the
promotion of their welfare, dignity and fundamental rights are concerned.

Section 25. Repatriation of Trafficked Persons. - The DFA, in coordination with DOLE
and other appropriate agencies, shall have the primary responsibility for the repatriation
of trafficked persons, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented.

If, however, the repatriation of the trafficked persons shall expose the victims to greater
risks, the DFA shall make representation with the host government for the extension of
appropriate residency permits and protection, as may be legally permissible in the host
country.

Section 26. Extradition. - The DOJ, in consultation with DFA, shall endeavor to include
offenses of trafficking in persons among extraditable offenses.

Section 27. Reporting Requirements. - The Council shall submit to the President of the
Philippines and to Congress an annual report of the policies, programs and activities
relative to the implementation of this Act.

Section 28. Funding. - The heads of the departments and agencies concerned shall
immediately include in their programs and issue such rules and regulations to
implement the provisions of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in the annual
General Appropriations Act.

Section 29. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Council shall promulgate the
necessary implementing rules and regulations within sixty (60) days from the effectivity
of this Act.

Section 30. Non-restriction of Freedom of Speech and of Association, Religion and the
Right to Travel. - Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a restriction of the freedom
of speech and of association, religion and the right to travel for purposes not contrary to
law as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Section 31. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act
is held unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof shall not be
affected thereby.

Section 32. Repealing clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders and
rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly: Provided, That this Act shall not in any way
amend or repeal the provision of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the
"Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act".

Section 33. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its
complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Philippine Laws on Illegal Gambling

February 25, 2017

Since the announcement of Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte for

the Philippine National Police to halt its operation on war against drugs and
shift the fight against illegal gambling, hundreds of suspected individuals
were apprehended allegedly involved with illegal gambling nationwide.

In General Santos City for instance, there are at least 4 suspects are
brought before our office for inquest investigation. There suspects are
either violating Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1602 or Republic Act No.
9287.

It might be noteworthy to consider because the police officers are doing

their job as mandated by law, but, most, if not all, of the suspects
apprehended belong to the poorest of the poor. We are still waiting at the
time when we would face suspects who are the financier of these illegal
gambling games.
This image is taken from google.

The following are the gambling laws of the Philippines:

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602

It amended the criminal provisions of Arts. 195-199 of the Revised Penal

Code of the Philippines (as amended), Republic Act No. 3063, Presidential
Decree Nos. 483, 449, 510 and 1306 and all letters of instructions,
executive orders, rules and regulations, city and municipal ordinances
which are inconsistent thereof.

Penalties:

1. Imprisonment of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine

ranging from One Thousand to Six Thousand Pesos, and in case of
recidivism, the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period or a fine
ranging from Five Thousand to Ten Thousand Pesos shall be imposed to
those:
a. Any person who in any manner shall directly or indirectly take part in
any illegal or unauthorized activities or games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai
alai or horse racing to include bookie operations and game fixing,
numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y cruz, pompiang
and the like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine,
poker and its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajao, pangguinge and
other card games; paik que, high and low, mahjong, domino and other
games using plastic tiles and the likes; slot machines, roulette,
pinball and other mechanical contraptions and devices; dog racing,
boat racing, car racing and other forms of races, basketball, boxing
and volleyball, bowling, pingpong and other forms of individual or
team contests to include game fixing, point shaving and other
machinations; banking or percentage game, or any other game
scheme, whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value or representative of value are at stake or
made;

b. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling to be

carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any building, vessel or
other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place
where gambling is carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that
prohibited gambling is frequently carried on therein, or the place is a public
or government building or barangay hall, the malefactor shall be punished
by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of Six Thousand
Pesos;

2. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of Six

Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon the maintainer or conductor of
the above gambling schemes;

3. The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period with temporary

absolute disqualification or a fine of Six Thousand Pesos shall be
imposed if the maintainer, conductor or banker of said gambling
schemes is a government official, or where such government official
is the player, promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case of
game fixing, point shaving and machination;

4. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine ranging

from Four Hundred to Two Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall, knowingly and without lawful purpose in any hour
of any day, possess any lottery list, paper or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbols pertaining to or in any manner used
in the game of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar
games of lotteries and numbers which have taken place or about to
take place;

5. The penalty of temporary absolute disqualification shall be imposed

upon any barangay official who, with knowledge of the existence of a
gambling house or place in his jurisdiction fails to abate the same or
take action in connection therewith;

6. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine

ranging from Five Hundred to Two Thousand Pesos shall be imposed
upon any security officer, security guard, watchman, private or house
detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and the like which
have the reputation of a gambling place or where gambling activities
are being held.

NOTE: Any person who shall disclose information that will lead to the
arrest and final conviction of the malefactor shall be rewarded twenty
percent of the cash money or articles of value confiscated or forfeited
in favor of the government.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9287

It is an act increasing the penalties for illegal numbers games, amending

certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1602, and for other purposes.

This law provides the following definitions:

1. Illegal Numbers Game - Any form of illegal activity which uses numbers
or combinations thereof as factors in giving out jackpots.

2. Jueteng - An illegal numbers game that involves the combination of 37

numbers against 37 numbers from number 1 to 37 or the combination of 38
numbers in some areas, serving as a form of local lottery where bets are
placed and accepted per combination, and its variants.

3. Masiao - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is

derived from the results of the last game of Jai Alai or the Special Llave
portion or any result thereof based on any fictitious Jai Alai game consisting
of 10 players pitted against one another; and its variants.

4. Last Two - An illegal numbers game where the winning combination is

derived from the last two numbers of the first prize of the winning
Sweepstakes ticket which comes out during the weekly draw of the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and its variants.

5. Bettor ("Mananaya", "Tayador", or variants thereof) - Any person who

places bets for himself/herself or in behalf of another person, or any
person, other than the personnel or staff of any illegal numbers game
operations.

6. Personnel or Staff of Illegal Numbers Game Operation - Any person,

who acts in the interest of the maintainer, manager or operator, such as,
but not limited to, an accountant, cashier, checker, guard, runner, table
manager, usher, watcher, or any other personnel performing such similar
functions in a building structure, vessel, vehicle, or any other place where
an illegal numbers game is operated or conducted.
7. Collector or Agent ("Cabo", "Cobrador", "Coriador" or variants thereof) -
Any person who collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her
principal for any illegal numbers game who is usually in possession of
gambling paraphernalia.

8. Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor ("Encargado" or variants thereof) -

Any person who exercises control and supervision over the collector or
agent.

9. Maintainer, Manager or Operator - Any person who maintains, manages

or operates any illegal number game in a specific area from whom the
coordinator, controller or supervisor, and collector or agent take orders.

10. Financiers or Capitalist - Any person who finances the operations of

any illegal numbers game.

11. Protector or Coddler - Any person who lends or provides protection, or

receives benefits in any manner in the operation of any illegal numbes
game.

Penalties:

1. Bettor - imprisonment from 30 days to 90 days;

2. Personnel or Staff of an Illegal Numbers Game - imprisonment from 6

years and 1 day to 8 years.

Note: Same penalty shall be imposed to any person who allows his
vehicle, house, building or land to be used in the operation of the illegal
numbers game.

3. Collector or Agent - imprisonment from 8 years and 1 day to 10

years.

4. Coordinator, Controller or Supervisor - imprisonment from 10 years

and 1 day to 12 years.

5. Maintainer, Manager or Operator - imprisonment from 12 years and 1

day to 14 years.

6. Financier or Capitalist - imprisonment from 14 years and 1 day to 16

years.

7. Protector or Coddler - imprisonment from 16 years and 1 day to 20

years.

Note: Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia or Materials shall be prima

facie evidence of any offense covered by this Act.

Source: www.lawphil.net

Punishable Acts
Illegal Gambling is committed by any person, who in any manner directly or indirectly
takes part in any unauthorized game scheme whether upon chance or skill, wherein wagers
consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value are at stake or made (BAR
1969)
1. Direct Participation – Players, bet takers or bettors in gambling schemes, or referee,
umpire, judge or coach in illegal sports, maintainer or conductor of illegal gambling is
held, are all liable for illegal gambling. But a mere bystander or spectator in an illegal
gambling game is not criminally liable, because he does not take part therein. Directly or
indirectly.
2. Game of Chance or Skill – Under the old rule, games, the result of which depends whilly
or chiefly upon skill, were not considered as gambling. (U.S. v. Hilario, G.R. No. 6941,
March 6, 1913). However, under PD No. 1602, games of skill are now included in the
definition of gambling.
 3. Wager – Wages is an element of the crime of illegal gambling. However, there is a view
that games or sports specifically mentioned in law such as monte, jueteng, lottery and
dog race is prohibited even though money or other consideration of value is not at
stake. (U.S. v. Rafael, G.R. No. 7380, September 18, 1912). The Rafael case involved the
interpretation of Act No. 1627, the old gambling law. The principle in Rafael case should
not be applied in the interpretation of PD No. 1602. To rule otherwise is to consider all
games specifically mentioned in PD No. 1602 including basketball, boxing, volleyball,
bowling, and pingpong as illegal gambling although no wagers are at stake. A reading of
PD No. 1602 shows that wager is an element of all forms of illegal gambling.

4. Lottery – Lottery shall be considered as illegal gambling if a valuable consideration of

some kind is paid, directly or indirectly, for a chance to draw a price. (The Revised Pena
Code by Vicente Francisco; Caltex v. Palomar, G.R. No. L – 19650, September 29, 1966).

In lottery, there must be payment of something of value, or agreement to pay, for the
chance to win a price. If the payment is the consideration for the goods purchased, and
not a consideration for the chance to win a price, there is no lottery. (U.S. v. Olsen and
Marker, G.R. No. L – 11602, March 6, 1917). If the buyer must pay an amount in addition
to the regular price of the goods purchased, there is lottery. In such a case, the payment
is not only a consideration for the goods bought but also a consideration for the chance
of winning a price. (Uy v. Palomar, G.R. No. L – 23248, February 28, 1969).

El Debate principle, which considered a plan whereby prizes can be obtained without
any additional consideration when a product is purchased as lottery or illegal gambling,
is not anymore controlling.
Y corporation is a major manufacturer of soap and toilet articles. With the
announcement of general increase in prices of its product, it also announced through its
President a contest in connection with one of its soap products. Coupons were inserted
in the wrappers, some of which would win valuable prizes. The President is not liable for
illegal gambling since there is no showing that an amount in addition to the regular price
is required to join the contest (BAR 1971).

5. Illegal Number Game – Illegal number game is any form of illegal gambling activity which
uses numbers or combinations thereof as factors in giving out jackpots such as jueteng,
masiao and last two. All forms of gambling are punishable under PD No. 1602. However,
if gambling constitutes illegal number game, PD No. 1602 is deemed amended by RA No.
9287. The penalty for illegal number game is higher compared to other forms of
gambling.

R.A. No. 8049 – The Anti – Hazing Law

Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in
fraternity, sorority or organization or a requirement for employment in a corporation by placing
the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations (BAR 2002)
The elements of the crime of hazing are: (1) that there is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization; (2) That
there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and (3)
That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise
subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury (Dungo v. People, G.R. No.
209464, July 1, 2015; People v. Bayabos, G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015). However, hazing
involving psychological suffering alone is not punishable under RA No. 8049.
1. Requisite for Admission – Failure to allege that the physical or psychological harm were
employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization would prevent
the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused, either as
principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Plain reference to a technical term –
in this case, hazing – is insufficient and incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the
acts allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law (People v. Bayabos)
2. Organization – Organization includes, but is not limited to groups, teams, fraternities,
sororities, citizen army training corps, educational institutions, clubs, societies.
Cooperatives, companies, partnerships, corporations, the PNP, and the AFP. The
Philippine Merchant Marine Academy is included in the term organization within the
meaning of the law (People v. Bayabos)
3. Malum Prohibitum – Prior to RA No. 8049, good faith is a defense in homicide where the
victim is killed during hazing. The consent of the victim and lack of intent to kill of the
accused will negate dolo, which is an important element of homicide. Hence, the crime
committed is only reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. (Villareal v. People, G.R.
No. 151258, February 1, 2012). Now, the participants of the hazing with or without dolo
are liable for violation of RA No. 8049 if the neophyte died as a consequence thereof.

Instead of amending the Revised Penal Code which penalizes mala in se, where good
faith is a defense, the Congress created a special law on hazing, founded upon the
principle of mala prohibita where good faith is not a defense.

The deliberation of the Senate shows that what is important is not the intention to kill
the neophyte during the hazing but the result of the act of hazing. Recognizing the
malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged
with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was
no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
 Also, the framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim to be injured shall
not be a defense in hazing. The very act of inflicting physical pain is a punishable act.
Death of the victim will only aggravate the offense. (Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464,
July 1, 2015).

4. Persons Liable – The first class of principals would be the actual participants in the
hazing. If the person subject to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any
physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity,
sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall
be liable as principals. Interestingly, the presence of any person during the hazing is
prima facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the commission of the
acts punishable herein.
RA No. 8049 presents a novel provision that introduces a disputable presumption of
accrual participation; and which modifies the concept of conspiracy. Section 4,
paragraph 6 thereof provides that the presence of any person during the hazing is prima
facie evidence of participation as principals, unless he prevented the commission of the
punishable acts. This provision is unique because a disputable presumption arises from
the mere presence of the offender during the hazing, which can be rebutted by proving
that the accused took steps to prevent the commission of hazing.
Generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to
conspiracy. Exceptionally, under RA No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal
conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing,
unless they prevented the commission of the acts therein.
This rule on prima facie evidence does not shatter the presumptive innocence the
accused enjoys because, before prima facie evidence arises, certain facts have still to be
proved; the trial court cannot depend alone on such evidence, because precisely, it is merely
prima facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged. Neither can it rely on the weak defense the latter may adduce.
The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. Although these
planners were not present when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they still be
liable as principals. The provision took in consideration the non-resident members of the
organization, such as their former officers or alumni.
The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an organization, group,
fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the
victim to be present thereat. These officers or members are penalized, not because of their
direct participation in the infliction of harm, but due to their indispensable cooperation in the
crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing.
 The accused claim that the information avers a criminal charge of hazing by actual
participation, but the only offense proved during the trial was hazing by inducement. The
information alleged that the accused during a planned initiation rite and being then officers of
APO fraternity used personal violence upon a neophyte resulting to his death. The “planned
initiation rite” as stated in the information included the act of inducing victim to attend it.
Accused not only induced victim to be present at the resort, but they actually brought him
there. The hazing would not have been accomplished were it not for the acts of the petitioners
that induced the victim to be present. Hence, they are liable for hazing (Dungo v. People).
The next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority’s adviser who was present
when the acts constituting hazing were committed, and failed to take action to prevent them
from occurring. The liability of the adviser arises, not only from his mere presence in the hazing,
but also his failure to prevent the same.
The last class of principals would be the parents of the officers or members of the
fraternity, group, or organization. The hazing must be held in the home of one of the officers or
members. The parents must have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their homes and
failed to take any action to avoid the same from occurring (Dungo v. People).
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no direct
participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as accomplices if it is shown that (1)
hazing occurred; (2) the accused are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they
consented to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual knowledge
thereof. (People v. Bayabos)
Likewise, owner of the place where the hazing was conducted can also be an accomplice
to the crime. The owner of the place shall be liable when he has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein and he failed to take any steps to stop the same.
President, manager, director or other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in
hazing as a requirement for employment are covered by the law.
The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are
distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense (hazing) can be duly
established in evidence, the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
proceed independently of that of the principal. (People v. Bayabos)
5. Common Defense – In hazing, taking action to prevent the occurrence of hazing is a
defense by any offender except: (1) those who actually inflicted harm; (2) those who
induced the victim to be present at the hazing; and (3) officers, former officers and
alumni of the fraternity, who planned the hazing.

6. Homicide and Hazing – The difference between homicide or murder and hazing:
 (a) In homicide, what is criminal is the killing of persons. Hence, intent to kill is an
indispensable element thereof. Death of the victim consummates the crime. In
hazing, what is prohibited is the infliction of physical suffering on another in
furtherance of the latter’s admission or entry into an organization. Hence, intent to
kill is not material. Death of the neophyte is only important to determine the proper
imposable penalty.
(b) In homicide, praetor intentionem is appreciable as a mitigating circumstance. In
hazing, the law expressly disallows the appreciation of this circumstance.
(c) Homicide, is malum in see. Consent of the victim to the infliction of harm may
negate dolo or criminal intent, which would make the killing punishable as reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1,
2012). Hazing is malum prohibitum. Consent of the neophyte is not a defense.
(d) In homicide, the basis of criminal liability is the actual and conspiratorial
participation of the offender in killing the victim. In hazing, criminal responsibility is
based on: (1) inducing the victim to be present; (2) accrual participation in the
inflicting physical harm; (3) presumed participation of those who are present during
the hazing; (4) the presence of adviser; (5) participation in the planning by officers,
former officers and alumni of the fraternity; (6) knowledge of the parent of frat
member in the home of whom hazing occurred, owner of the place of commission,
and school authorities.

7. Regulated Hazing – Although hazing has been defined as consisting of those activities
involving physical or psychological suffering or injury, the penalties for hazing only
covered the infliction of physical harm. At best, the only psychological injury recognized
would be causing insanity to the victim. Conversely, even if the victim only sustained
physical injuries which did not incapacitate him, there is still a prescribed penalty.

And not all form of initiation rites are prohibited by law. Section 2 of RA No. 8049
provides that initiation rites of fraternities, sororities or organization shall be allowed
provided that the following requisites are met:

1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization;
2. That said written notice must be secured at least seven days before the conduct of
such initiation;
3. That the written notice shall indicate: (a) The period of the initiation activities, which
shall not exceed three days; (b) The names of those to be subjected to such
activities; and (c) An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody
during the initiation rites.
 RA No. 8049 qualifies that the physical, mental and psychological testing and training
procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological
fitness of prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP, as approved by the Secretary of
National Defense and National Police Commission, duly recommended by the Chief of Staff of
the AFP and the Director General of the PNP, shall not be considered as hazing.