Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PRO REO
In dubio pro reo is means "when in doubt, for
the accused. Intimately related to the in dubio pro
reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when
the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a
penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused
and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for
the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient
to the accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. People,
G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL THERORY
The positivist theory states that the basis for
criminal liability is the sum total of the social and
economic phenomena to which the offense is
expressed. The purpose of penalties is to secure
justice. The penalties imposed must not only be
retributive but must also be reformative, to give the
convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin
society as a productive and civic-spirited member of
the community. The adoption of the aspects of the
Positivist theory is exemplified by the indeterminate
sentence law, impossible crime, privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority and modifying circumstances,
rule on imposition of penalties for heinous and quasiheinous crimes) (Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R.
Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003;).
Under the classical theory, man is essentially a
moral creature with an absolutely free will choose
between good and evil. When he commits a felonious
or criminal act, the act is presumed to have been done
voluntarily, i.e. with freedom, intelligence and intent.
Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held
accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will
appears unimpaired (People vs. Estrada, G.R. No.
130487, June 19, 2000). Since the Revised Penal Code
is based on the classical school of thought, it is the
identity of the mens rea which is considered the
predominant consideration and, therefore, warrants the
imposition of the same penalty for conspirators on the
consequential theory that the act of one is thereby the
act of all (Hon. Sandiganbayan, Honrado, G.R. No.
115439-41, July 16, 1997). Under this theory, the
criminal liability is based on the result of the felonious
act (proximate cause rule).
DECRIMINALIZATION
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY - It is
immaterial whether appellant acted as a principal or as
an accomplice because the conspiracy and his
participation therein have been established. In
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and the
conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime
(People vs. Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010).
COMPLEX CRIME
Killing persons and injuring two more by
treacherously detonating a hand grenade in a dancing
place constitutes the complex crime of multiple
murders with double attempted murder. Single act of
detonating an explosive device may quantitatively
constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct
offenses, yet these component criminal offenses
should be considered only as a single crime in law on
which a single penalty is imposed because the offender
was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows
his lesser degree of perversity. Even though the other
victim did not suffer mortal wounds, the crime
committed is not physical injuries, because accused
was motivated by the same intent to kill when he
detonated the explosive device inside the dancing
place (People vs. Barde, G.R. No. 183094, September
22, 2010).
RECOMMENDED EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Accused was convicted of crime RA No. 8282
for his failure to remit SSS contributions of his
employees and was sentenced to suffer up to 20 years
of reclusion temporal. The penalty is excessive since
he already paid his delinquent contribution. Under
Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the courts are
bound to apply the law as it is and impose the proper
penalty, no matter how harsh it might be. The same
provision, however, gives the Court the discretion to
recommend to the President actions it deems
appropriate but are beyond its power when it considers
the penalty imposed as excessive. Although an
accused is convicted under a special penal law, the
Court is not precluded from giving the Revised Penal
Code suppletory application in light of Article 10 of the
same Code (Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 183891,
October 19, 2011).
CONSPIRACY
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY - In People vs.
Dollendo, G.R. No. 181701, January 18, 2012 -The
evidence of a chain of circumstances, to wit: that
appellant went inside the house of Romines to
ascertain that the victim was there; that he fetched
Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave
the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime; and that
they both fled after the stabbing, taken collectively,
shows a community of criminal design to kill the victim.
Evidently, there was conspiracy in the commission of
the crime.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but
a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Article 29 of RPC
RA NO. 10592 and its implementing rules
a. He shall do in writing
b. With the assistance of counsel.
1) Recidivist
2) Habitual Delinquent
3) Escapee
4) Person charged with heinous crimes
c. Single criminal impulse to satisfy lust In People vs. Aaron, G.R. NOS. 136300-02, September
24, 2002 - The accused inserted his penis into the
victims vagina; he then withdrew it and ordered the
latter to lie down on the floor and, for the second time,
he inserted again his penis into the victims vagina; the
accused, thereafter, stood up and commanded the
victim to lie near the headboard of the makeshift bed
and, for the third time, he inserted again his penis into
the victims vagina and continued making pumping
motions. Accused is convicted of only one count of
rape. Accused thrice succeeded in inserting his penis
into the private part of victim. However, the three
penetrations occurred during one continuing act of
rape in which the accused obviously motivated by a
single criminal intent. Accused decided to commit
those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault
merely because of his lustful desire to change positions
inside the room where the crime was committed.
DELICTO CONTINUADO
In order that continuous crime may exist, there
should be: (1) plurality of acts performed separately
during a period of time; (2) unity of criminal intent and
purpose and (3) unity of penal provision infringed upon
or violated (Santiago vs. Garchitorena , GR NO.
109266, December 2, 1993).
MALVERSATION
The essential elements common to all acts of
malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code are: (1) That the offender be a public officer; (2)
That he had the custody or control of funds or property
by reason of the duties of his office; (3) That he had
the custody or control of funds or property by reason of
the duties of his office; (4) That those funds or property
were public funds or property for which he was
accountable; and (5) That he appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented, or through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person
to take them (Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
178626, June 13, 2012).
Accountable officer An accountable public
officeris one who has custody or control of public funds
or property by reason of the duties of his office. The
nature of the duties of the public officer or employee,
the fact that as part of his duties he received public
money for which he is bound to account and failed to
account for it, is the factor which determines whether
or not malversation is committed by the accused public
officer or employee. Hence, a school principal of a
public high school may be held guilty of malversation if
he or she is entrusted with public funds and
misappropriates the same (Torres vs. People, GR No.
175074, August 31, 2011).
The municipal mayor initiated the request for
obligation of allotments and certified and approved the
disbursement vouchers. The municipal accountant
obligated the allotments despite lack of prior
certification from the budget officer. Municipal
treasurer certified to the availability of funds and
released the money even without the requisite budget
officers certification. The signatures of beneficiaries,
who supposed to have received the money, were
forged. Can the mayor and accountant be held liable
for malversation even though they are not accountable
officer? Yes. Ordinarily, a municipalitys mayor and
accountant are not accountable public officers as
defined under the law. However, a public officer who is
not in charge of public funds or property by virtue of
his official position, or even a private individual, may
be liable for malversation if such public officer or
private individual conspires with an accountable public
officer to commit malversation. In this case, combined
acts of the mayor and accountant, and treasurer, an
accountable officer, conspired to defraud the
government (People vs. Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 167860-65,
June 17, 2008).
In addition, municipal mayors are chief
executives of their respective municipalities. Under the
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, he is
responsible for all government funds pertaining to the
municipality. As a required standard procedure, the
signatures of the mayor and the treasurer are needed
before any disbursement of public funds can be made.
No checks can be prepared and no payment can be
effected without their signatures on a disbursement
voucher and the corresponding check. In other words,
any disbursement and release of public funds require
their approval. The mayor and treasurer had control
and responsibility over the funds of the municipality.
Hence, they are accountable officers. Any unlawful
disbursement or misappropriation of the municipal
funds would make them accountable for malversation
(Evangelista vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158413,
February 08, 2012).
Intentional and culpable malversation
Malversation may be committed either through a
positive act of misappropriation of public funds or
property, or passively through negligence. To sustain a
charge of malversation, there must either be criminal
MURDER
Murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a
person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the
killing is neither parricide nor infanticide (People vs.
Camat, G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012
ATTEMPTED MURDER - Accused opened the
door of his vehicle and then drew a gun and shot victim
once, hitting him just below the left armpit. Victim
immediately ran at the back of the car, while accused
sped away. Is the accused liable for attempted murder?
No. Accused only shot the victim once and did not hit
any vital part of the latters body. If he intended to kill
him, accused could have shot the victim multiple times
or even ran him over with the car. When such intent is
lacking but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the
crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries
only (Pentecoste, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 167766, April
7, 2010).
EXCESSIVE CHASTISEMENT
X tied his son to a coconut tree and, there
after hit on his right eye and right leg. As a
consequence, his son sustained injuries that would heal
in one week upon medication. Is X liable for slight
physical injuries despite the fact that his intention in
beating his son is merely to discipline him? Yes. X
cannot evade criminal culpability by the circumstance
that he merely intended to discipline his son (People
vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
RAPE
STAGES
CONSUMMATED RAPE If the touching" of
the female organ constitutes the sliding of the penis
into or the touching of either labia majoraor labia
minoraof the pudendum, the crime committed is
consummated rape. Anything short of that will only
result in either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness
(People vs. Publico, April 13, 2011, G.R. No.
183569).However, the penis that touches the external
genitalia must be capable of consummating the sexual
act to constitute consummated rape (People vs.
Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011). Touching
must be made in the context of the presence or
existence of an erect penis capable of penetration
(People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30,
2000).
Circumstantial evidence - In People vs.
Castillo, GR No. 193666, February 19, 2014, Justice De
Castro - Absent any showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ, i.e, touching of
either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can
be no consummated rape. However, even though the
victim testified that there was no penetration and the
accused simply rubbed his penis in the victim's vagina,
accused will be convicted of consummated Rape if
there are evidence that the pain felt by the victim, the
sex organ of the victim suffered injury, and there is
bleeding of the victim's genitalia.
Hymen is intact - Sexual penetration even
without laceration of the hymen or even the briefest of
contact consummates rape (People vs. Pangilinan, G.R.
No. 183090, November 14, 2011). It is possible for the
victims hymen to remain intact despite repeated
sexual intercourse. Likewise, whether the accuseds
penis fully or only partially penetrated the victims
genitalia, it is still possible that her hymen would
remain intact because it was thick and distensible or
elastic. The strength and dilability of the hymen varies
from one woman to another such that it may be so
elastic as to stretch without laceration during
intercourse, or on the other hand, may be so resistant
that its surgical removal is necessary before
intercourse can ensue. In some cases even, the hymen
is still intact even after the woman has given birth
(People vs. Deligero, GR No. 189280, April 17, 2013;
People vs. Broca, GR No. 201447, January 09, 2013).
ATTEMPTED RAPE If the touching merely
constitutes an epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of
organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the
external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons
pubis, the crime committed is either attempted rape or
acts of lasciviousness (People v. Campuhan, G.R. No.
129433, March 30, 2000). Attempted rape is
committed when the touching of the vagina by the
penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate;
otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness. The
difference between attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness lies in the intent of the perpetrator as
deduced from his external acts. (People vs. Dadulla, G.
R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011; People vs.
Collado G.R. Nos. 135667-70, March 1, 2001).
To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be
shown that erectile penis is in the position to penetrate
(Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014) or
the offender actually commenced to force his penis
into the victim's sexual organ (People vs. Banzuela,
G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013, Justice De
Castro).
Mother of the victim saw X was kneeling
before victim whose pajamas and panty were already
removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.
Accused was forcing his penis into victims vagina.
Sexual abuse and lascivious conduct "Sexual abuse" includes the employment, use,
persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a
child to engage in, or assist another person to engage
in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children;
CHILD ABUSE
THEFT
QUALIFIED THEFT - The elements of the
crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the
taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things. Theft becomes qualified "if committed by
a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence,
or if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter
or large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance
(People vs. Bayon, GR No. 168627, July 02, 2010).
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE - To warrant the
conviction and, hence, imposition of the penalty for
qualified theft, there must be an allegation in the
information and proof that there existed between the
offended party and the accused such high degree of
confidence]or that the stolen goods have been
entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused. In
other words, where the accused had never been vested
physical access to, or material possession of, the stolen
goods, it may not be said that he or she exploited such
access or material possession thereby committing such
grave abuse of confidence in taking the property (Viray
vs. People, GR No. 205180, November 11, 2013).
ARSON
Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove
wrongful intent to burn on the part of the accused to
establish arson? No. Although intent may be an
ingredient of the crime of arson, it may be inferred
from the acts of the accused. There is a presumption
that one intends the natural consequences of his act;
and when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire
to a building, the prosecution is not bound to produce
further evidence of his wrongful intent. If there is an
eyewitness to the crime of arson, he can give in detail
the acts of the accused. When this is done the only
substantial issue is the credibility of the witness
(People vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 180762, March 4, 2009).
What is the crime committed if the offender
burned the building and there is person who died? In
the classification of crimes committed by fire involving
the killing of the victim, attention must be given to the
intention of the author. Main objective of the offender
determines the kind of crime committed. (a) Intent to
burn If the main objective is the burning of the
building or edifice, but death results by reason or on
the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson
(qualified by dead of the victim), and the resulting
homicide is absorbed. (b) Intent to kill If the main
objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the
means to accomplish such goal the crime committed
is murder only. When the Code declares that killing
committed by means of fire is murder, it intends that
fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that
end. There can be no murder without a design to take
life. Murder qualified by means of fire absorbs the
crime of arson since the latter is an inherent means to
commit the former (People vs. Baluntong, G.R. No.
182061, March 15, 2010; People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No.
93485, June 27, 1994) (c) Intent to conceal If the
objective is to kill, and in fact the offender has already
done so, and arson is resorted to as a means to cover
up the killing, the offender may be convicted of two
separate crimes of either homicide or murder, and
arson.
Article 320 of RPC contemplates the malicious
burning of structures, both public and private, hotels,
buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories
and other military, government or commercial
establishments by any person or group of persons.
Section 3 of PD No. 1613, on the other hand, currently
governs simple arson. P.D. No. 1613 contemplates the
malicious burning of public and private structures,
regardless of size, not included in Article 320 of the
RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This law
punishes simple arson with a lesser penalty because
the acts that constitute it have a lesser degree of
perversity and viciousness. Simple arson contemplates
crimes with less significant social, economic, political,
and national security implications than destructive
arson (People vs. Macabando, GR No. 188708, July 31,
2013). Burning of inhabited house or dwelling is simple
arson under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1613, and not
destructive arson under RPC. Burning personal
property is also simple arson under Section 1 of PD No.
1613.
KIDNAPPING
As for the crime of kidnapping, the following
elements, as provided in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, must be proven: (a) a person has been
deprived of his liberty, (b) the offender is a private
individual, and (c) the detention is unlawful. (People vs.
Jovel, G.R. No. 189820. October 10, 2012).
The crime has the following elements: (1) the
offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter
of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is
illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of
the following circumstances is present: (a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c)
any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female or a public official (People vs. Jacalney,
GR No. 168552, October 03, 2011).
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with
the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not
only the imprisonment of a person but also the
deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for
whatever length of time. It involves a situation where
the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or
detention, or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to
move (People vs. Jacalney, GR No. 168552, October 03,
2011).
Illegal marriage
BP BLG. 22
What Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punished was
the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did
not look either at the actual ownership of the check or
of the account against which it was made, drawn, or
issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or
issuer. Also, that the check was not intended to be
deposited was really of no consequence to her
incurring criminal liability under Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 (Resterio vs. People, G.R. No. 177438. September
24, 2012).
The giving of the written notice of dishonor
does not only supply the proof for the second element
arising from the presumption of knowledge the law
puts up but also affords the offender due process. The
law thereby allows the offender to avoid prosecution if
she pays the holder of the check the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangements for the payment in
full of the check by the drawee within five banking
days from receipt of the written notice that the check
had not been paid. The Court cannot permit a
deprivation of the offender of this statutory right by not
giving the proper notice of dishonor (Resterio vs.
People, G.R. No. 177438. September 24, 2012).
Where the check is drawn by a corporation,
company or entity, the person or persons who actually
signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be
liable under this Act." This provision recognizes the
reality that a corporation can only act through its
officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and
mandatory that the person who actually signed the
corporate check shall be held liable for a violation of BP
22. This provision does not contain any condition,
qualification or limitation (Mitra Vs. People and Tarcelo,
G.R. No. 191404. July 5, 2010)
NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN ESTAFA CASE The essential elements of the felony are: (1) a check
is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3)
damage to the payee thereof. It is criminal fraud or
deceit in the issuance of a check which is made
punishable under the RPC, and not the non-payment
of a debt. The postdating or issuing of a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no
funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a
false pretense or a fraudulent act. However deceit is
presumed if the drawer of the check fails to deposit
the amount needed to cover his check
within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor.
a. No notice of dishonor - If there is no
notice of dishonor, the prosecution can still prove the
existence of deceit such as in a case where the
accused knows that his checking account is closed.
The receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is
not an element of the estafa through bouncing check.
b. With notice of dishonor - If there is
notice of dishonor, the presumption of deceit can still
be rebutted by: (1) proof that the check is issued in
payment of a pre-existing obligation or (1) evidence of
good faith, a defense in estafa by postdating a check.
Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance, by a
debtors offer to arrange a payment scheme with his
creditor or making full payment of the entire amount
of the dishonored checks. However, simply empty
promise to pay complainant the value of the bum
checks issued in order to induce her to part with her
property in favor of accused is not an evidence of
good faith that will rebut the presumption of deceit.
(See: People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3,
2004, Corona; Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 166810, June
CYBERLIBEL