SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

RA 7877 – SEXUAL HARASSMENT

A. Definition (Section 3)
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.
B. Elements
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, request or
requirement of a sexual favor.

C. Prohibited Acts
(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.
D. Duty of Employer (Section 4)
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.
E. Liability of Employer (Section 5)
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.
1
F. Penalties (Section 7, par 1)
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.
G. Prescription of Crime (Section 7, par 2)
Any action arising from the violation of the provisions of this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years.
H. Cases
Aquino v. Acosta, A.M. No. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002
A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within the purview of sexual
harassment under R.A. No. 7877.
There is no showing that respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from complainant
in exchange for "favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges" specified under Section 3 of
R.A. 7877.

2
 I. PD 1829 – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
A. What is the stated purpose of PD 1829?
As stated in the law, its purpose is to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and
prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or
frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders.
B. Who may be charged under PD 1829?
Any person — whether private or public — who commits the acts enumerated below may be charged with
violating PD 1829.
In case a public officer is found guilty, he shall also suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
C. What are the prohibited acts?
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any
offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
threats;
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair
its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of
a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing
proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent
to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or
impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or
that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the
data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for
publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
D. What are some of the instances when questions against charges under PD 1829 reached the Supreme
Court?
In Posadas vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000), certain officials of the University of the
Philippines (UP) were charged for violating PD 1829 (paragraph c above). The UP officers objected to the
warrantless arrest of certain students by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme
Court, the police had no ground for the warrantless arrest. The UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent the
arrest of the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The “need to enforce the law cannot
be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.”
In another case, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was charged under PD 1829, for allegedly accommodating Col.
Gregorio Honasan by giving him food and comfort on 1 December 1989 in his house. “Knowing that Colonel
Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or
apprehended.” The Supreme Court ruled that Sen. Enrile could not be separately charged under PD 1829, as
this is absorbed in the charge of rebellion already filed against Sen. Enrile.

II. RA 1612 – ANTI - FENCING

A. What is "Fencing"?
3
 Is the act of any person who,
with intent to gain for himself or for another,
shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or
shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in
any article, item, object or anything of value
which he knows, or should be known to him,
to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

B. What are the Elements of the crime?

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals
in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;

3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and

4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
C. Duty to Procure Clearance or Permit (Section 6)
All stores, establishments or entities
dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof,
shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station
commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is
located.
The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.
Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by this section or who violates any of the
provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
D. Presumption
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise
known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found to be in possession of recently stolen Jewelry valued at
P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she
merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the
past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to
prove that she knew or should have known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.
Suggested Answer:
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of
theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove
that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose
whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R
111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should
have known or ought to know that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is
unlicensed in order to escape liability.

4
 Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any similarity between
them?
Suggested Answer:
One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence is punished as a
principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised
Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft
or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice,
hence the penalty is one degree lower. Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove
criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are
included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as
such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer.
King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned
everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of
jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities.
Suggested Answer:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and
Theft. ... Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal
the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art.
19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being
an adopted brother of the principal. Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed
by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the
participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same
was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the AntiFencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612)
since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold it.

III. RA 6539 – ANTI - CARNAPPING

A. What is 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.
B. What are the other acts punishable?
Deface or otherwise tamper with the original or registered serial number of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
and chassis.
C. What is a “motor vehicle”?
is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but excepting road
rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, 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 separate
motor vehicle with no power rating.lawphi1™
D. Registration Requirements

1. Registration of motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in knock down condition with the LTO and
local police.

2. Registration of sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis with the LTO.
E. Clearance Requirements
1. Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild or cause the assembly rebuilding of a motor vehicle
shall first secure a certificate clearance from the Philippine Constabulary.
5
 2. Any person who owns or operates inter-island shipping or any water transportation with launches, boats,
vessels or ships shall within seven days submit a report to the Philippine Constabulary on all motor vehicle,
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or bodies transported by it for the motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, engine block, chassis or body to be loaded on board the launch, boat vessel or ship.
F. Penalties
Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective
of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished
1. by imprisonment for not less than 14 years and 8 months and not more than 17 years and four months,
when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and
2. by imprisonment for not less than 17 years and 4 months and not more than 30 years, when the carnapping
is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and
3. the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the
carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping.

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005)
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a daylong
official conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key
and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to
his brother, Danny for P20,000.00, although the car was worth P800,000.00. What are the respective crimes, if any,
committed by Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation committed through negligence or culpa. The government car
which was assigned to him is public property under his accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of
negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by another person, resulting in malversation, consistent with the
language of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Danny violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item
which is the subject of thievery. P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) under Section 5 provides that mere possession of
any good, article, item, object or any thing of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie, evidence of fencing. Jules is guilty of carnapping. He took the motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter's consent. (R.A. No. 6539)
What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? Explain. (5%)
Suggested Answer:
Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or make reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the amount he
gained from the sale of the car which is P20,000.00. Danny must make reparation corresponding to the value of the
car which is P800,000.00.

IV. PD 532 – PIRACY AND HIGHWAY ROBBERY

A. What is Philippine Waters?

It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting
each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all
other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
B. What is a “vessel”?
Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through
Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
C. Philippine Highway
It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within
the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons
or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both.
D. Piracy
Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment,
or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of

6
 violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger
or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders
shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.

E. Highway Robbery/BrigandageThe seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or
the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon
things of other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.
F. Piracy vs Highway Robbery

Piracy Highway Robbery/Brigandage

1. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed
2. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as
a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
3. If rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result
or on the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders
abandoned the victims without means of saving
themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished by
firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed.
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum
period shall be imposed.
2. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed
during or on the occasion of the commission of
robbery or brigandage, the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum periods
shall be imposed.
3. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder
or homicide, or rape is committed as a result or
on the occasion thereof, the penalty of death
shall be imposed.

Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or
personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.

Art. 123. Qualified piracy. — The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon those who
commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

Piracy in the High Seas & Qualified Piracy (2006)
While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 miles
from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting
for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat
manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the
ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then
they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port
Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits. What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)
Suggested Answer:
Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade Ybanags. The culprits, who are neither members of the
complement nor passengers of the ship, seized part of the equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles
away from Aparri, Cagayan (Art. 122, Revised Penal Code). Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the
culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping.
What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)
Suggested Answer:
The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was accompanied by physical injuries/homicide. The culprits
stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping (Art. 123, Revised Penal Code).

7
V. PD 533 – CATTLE RUSTLING
A. Definitions (Section 2)
a. Large cattle as herein used shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member
of the bovine family.
b. Owner/raiser shall include the herdsman, caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the
raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such large cattle.
c. Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser,
of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without
violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking
its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
B. Duty of owners or raisers (Section 3)
The owner/raiser shall, before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age of six months, register the
same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised. The city/municipality
concerned may impose and collect the fees authorized by existing laws for such registration and the issuance of
a certificate of ownership to the owner/raiser.
C. Permit to Buy and Sell
No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity shall engage in the business of buy and sell of large
cattle without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the Provincial Commander of the province where it
shall conduct such business and the city/municipal treasurer of the place of residence of such person,
partnership, association, corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such province.
D. Clearance for Shipment
Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its hides, or
meat, from one province to another shall secure a permit for such purpose from the Provincial Commander of the
province where the large cattle is registered. Before issuance of the permit herein prescribed, the Provincial
Commander shall require the submission of the certificate of ownership as prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a
certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle, hides or meat are free from any
disease; and such other documents or records as may be necessary. Shipment of large cattle, its hides or meat
from one city/municipality to another within the same province may be done upon securing permit from the
city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin.
E. Presumption
Every person having in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall, upon demand by competent
authorities, exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the required documents
shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession, control or custody are the fruits of the crime
of cattle rustling.
F. Penalties
Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle
involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period if the
offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed.
If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed