Questions & Answers Criminal Law Review

Atty. Victoria C. Garcia

1. While C was ordering bread at a store, D suddenly appeared and
without uttering a word, stabbed C once on the left side of Cs body
using a sharpened bamboo stick. D immediately fled. 22 days
thereafter, C was brought to the San Lazaro hospital where he died
the following day due to a tetanus infection secondary to stab wound.
The relatives of C filed a case for Homicide, based on Article 4(1),
RPC Proximate Cause Doctrine, against D. If you were the Judge,
would you convict D as charged?
If YES, why?
If NO, why?
What if any, is the criminal liability of D? Explain.
ANSWER: YES. D may be convicted for Homicide in this
particular case because the neglect of the wound caused by D is
itself a consequence of the criminal act of stabbing and
naturally follows from his act of stabbing C. The infection is a
consequence that was a result of the felony for which D must
be held responsible.
The criminal liability for Homicide is Reclusion Temporal.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.
2. Entrusted by his employer to get a check from a client, X did as
instructed. However, instead of remitting the check to his employer, X
deposited the check to his account, which was thereafter dishonored
by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds.
The employer filed a case of Qualified Theft against X, as he gravely
abused the confidence reposed on him.
If you were the Judge, would you convict X as charged?
If YES, why?
If NO, why?

What if any is the criminal liability of X?

ANSWER: Yes. Qualified Theft is the correct charge in this case.
There is grave abuse of confidence by X because the check was
entrusted to him.
The criminal liability for Qualified Theft is two degrees higher
than that provided for Theft. Depending on the amount stolen
3. X and his two daughters, Y and Z were in their home. Thereafter,
when X stepped outside, the accused, who was approximately five
meters away from X, shot the latter with a 12-gauge shotgun,
inflicting a not so serious wound. X called for help. When Y and Z
went to Xs aid, the accused shot Y in the abdomen. Thereafter,
accused fled the crime scene. Y was pronounced dead on arrival at the
hospital while X made a full recovery.
The RTC convicted accused of murder and frustrated murder. On
appeal, if you were a Justice of the CA, would you uphold the
conviction?
ANSWER: Yes, I will uphold the conviction for murder for Y but
downgrade liability for the crime against X. With respect to the
daughter who was shot in the abdomen, Y, there was murder.
The fact that X used a 12-gauge shotgun means that he
intended to kill his victim. There was treachery; therefore the
crime committed against Y is murder. With respect to the
father, X, the wound was not so serious. Here, frustrated
murder should be downgraded to mere attempted murder.
Since it was a non-mortal wound, it will never bring about
death. Thus, the conviction should only be for attempted
murder and NOT frustrated murder.
4. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial
element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of
oneself. Which of the following does not constitute unlawful
aggression?
a. Victim aiming a revolver at the accused with intent to shoot;
b. Victim opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack;
c. Victim pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was
holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance.

d. Victim hitting the accused twice on the head with a big stone
that caused bleeding.
C. The mere act of holding a weapon does not constitute
unlawful aggression yet. It might be a provocation but not UA.
UA must place the person invoking it in threatened, actual,
imminent danger.
5. X, intoxicated, urinated on the store of Y in the public market. Y
confronted X and a heated argument ensued between them. The
moment Y turned his back at X, X stabbed Y causing his death. X was
arrested and a case of Murder, qualified by treachery was filed against
X. If you were the Judge, would you appreciate treachery against X?
Why?
ANSWER: There is no treachery. According to People vs.
Vicente Bilbar, when the meeting between the victim and the
accused was casual, and the stabbing was sudden and in the
spur of the moment, there can be no treachery even if the
victim was rendered defenseless. It was done impulsively. The
first element is wanting. He did not deliberately choose that
mode of attack.
The elements of treachery are:
i.
Deliberately and consciously adopted the ways,
means and methods;
ii.
By reason of the ways, means and methods, the
offended party was unable to put up any
fight/defense.
6. After AAA was introduced to X, she convinced AAA to accompany her
to a wake at Paraaque City. Then, they went to Bulungan Fish Port
along the coastal road to ask for some fish. Afterwards, AAA and X
proceeded to the kubuhan located at the back of the port. When they
reached the kubuhan, X suddenly pulled AAA inside a room where a
man known by the name Speed was waiting. AAA saw Speed give
money to X. Thereafter Speed wielded a knife and tied AAAs hands to
the papag and raped her. AAA asked for Xs help when she saw the
latter peeping into the room while she was being raped, but X did not
do so. After the rape, Speed and X told AAA not to tell anyone what
had happened or else they would get back at her.

Speed and X were charged with the crime of Rape Speed as a

Principal by Direct Participation and X as a Principal by inducement.
Are they liable as charged? Explain.
ANSWER: Yes. Speed is liable as principal by direct
participation. He is the one who actually raped A. X, on the
other hand is NOT LIABLE as a principal by indispensible
cooperation. Xs acts were not indispensible to the commission
of the crime of rape. Those can be performed by any person not
necessarily by X.
X is liable because the act of X is that of a pimp procuring a
child prostitute. Hence, X is convicted for this crime of child
abuse and not as a principal by indispensible cooperation.
7. Accused Dilangen and an unidentified man forcibly dragged C from
her house and was forced to board a van. When they stopped at a
house, accused Dukilman warned C not to shout as he had his gun
pointed at her mouth. C was brought inside the house and was made
to lie on a bed, guarded by R, E, Dukilman and M. R and E threatened
C that she would be killed unless she paid P20M.
The next day, C was brought to a room in a resort. Inside the room
were three persons, M, U and G. Another woman, P, arrived. P entered
the room where the victim was detained and conversed with E and R
regarding stories unrelated to the kidnapping. The group then talked
to Cs son and negotiated the ransom at P400k to be given at a
restaurant along Buendia at 2am.
On the agreed date and time 4 men took the ransom money and
headed towards SLEX. The police surveillance team, however,
successfully intercepted the van and arrested the 4 men; K, A, G, and
D. The team was also able to recover the P400k ransom.
Thereafter, the police team rescued C and her abductors.
All the accused, G, K, Du, A, U, M, Di, R, E and P were charged with
Kidnapping for Ransom as principals, they being conspirators. During
the trial, the girl, P, gave inconsistent answers and lied about
substantial details such as her name, age, address, and the fact that
she saw the victim. When asked why she lied, P claimed that she was

scared to be identified with the other accused. She said she came to
the resort that day thinking it was a swimming party.
A. If you were the Judge, would you convict the accused as
charged?
B. Perpenian was 17 at the commission of the crime but was 31
at the time of the promulgation of the judgment. What is the
effect of Perpenians minority on her criminal liability?
C. What civil liabilities would you impose on the accused?
ANSWER:
A. All of them are liable as principals EXCEPT Perpenian she
is liable as an accomplice because she already saw that Chan
was there and yet she did not report the matter to the police.
Therefore, she concurs with the criminal design of the
principal.
B. She acted with discernment. The fact that she lied about her
age, address, and other things, means that there was
discernment. She knew they were committing a crime and yet
she did not inform the police officers. Her minority at the time
of the commission of the crime has the effect of a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
C. The SC has changed the civil indemnity for heinous crimes
from
P75k
to
the
following:
Civil Indemnity P100k
Moral Damages P100k without need of proof except the
fact of the commission of the crime.
Exemplary Damages P100k
8. X barged into a conference room, armed with an SMG, squeezed the
trigger of the gun once and several bullets were fired from the barrel
of the gun killing three people and causing mortal wounds on two
others. What is Xs criminal liability?
ANSWER: 2 counts of Frustrated Murder and 3 counts of
Murder. When the accused uses a submachine gun or a highpowered gun, the crime is not based on the number of times he
pulls the trigger but on the number of bullets released. Since it

was high powered, there are as many crimes committed as

there are persons killed.
9. While Mayor X and his security escorts were in a vehicle, A, B, and C,
and their cohorts opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle of
Mayor X using high powered firearms. The Mayor and another escort
were not hit but 2 of his bodyguards died, while 5 others sustained
physical injuries. A, B, C, and their cohorts were indicted for the
complex crime of Double Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder.
If you were the Judge, would you convict them as charged? Explain.
ANSWER: 2 counts of murder and 7 counts of attempted
murder. Article 48 is inapplicable in this case. Here, there are
several gunmen, several bullets, and several people. There are
as many crimes committed as there are people injured. The
basis of Article 48 is the singularity of the act. The court also
noted that the singularity of impulse is not written in the law.
10.
While six navy personnel were having a drinking spree at a bar,
one of them had an altercation with P. To prevent further trouble, they
left. They were walking by the roadside, on their way back to their
base, when Ps speeding van mowed them down. P stepped on the
accelerator of his van, swerved to the right side of the road and
rammed through the group, killing two and injuring four others.
A complex crime of Double Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder
was filed against P.
If you were the Judge, how would you rule on the case? Explain.
ANSWER: I will affirm the conviction. The offender performed a
single act of stepping on the accelerator of his vehicle and
turning to the right, running over the victims, since the basis of
this is the single act of stepping on the accelerator, a
compound crime exists.
11.
On 30 August 1995, XX issued to YY a check in payment of a
loan. YY deposited the check on its maturity date 15 November 1995.
On 15 December 1995 XX received a notice of dishonor that the check
he issued in favor of YY was dishonored due to insufficient funds but
he failed to make good the check within 5 banking days. On 16
September 1997, YY filed a case for Violation of BP 22 against XX
before the Office of the Public Prosecutor. After several Motions and

Appeals on the case, the Office of the Public Prosecutor filed the case
before the MeTC on 3 February 2000. Will the case prosper? Or has
the crime prescribed? Explain.
ANSWER: The case will prosper; the crime has not prescribed.
According to Act 3326, in case of BP22 or other special penal
laws where imprisonment does not exceed 1 year, the
prescriptive period is 4 years. This is counted from the time the
drawer received the notice of dishonor. Here, he received the
notice of dishonor in 1995, the case was filed on 16 December
1997, then RTC on 3 February 2000. The 16 December 1997
filing with the prosecutor had the effect of halting the
prescriptive period.
12.
For having raped his daughter of 12 years, RTC convicted X of
Qualified Rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed Xs conviction of Qualified
Rape. Insisting on his innocence, X appealed to the SC. In its decision
dated 09 January 2013, SC affirmed the conviction. However in a
letter dated 07 February 2013, the OIC of the BuCor informed the SC
that X had died at the New Bilibid Prison, attaching to his letter a
photocopy of the Death Report stating that X, 62 years old, died at
about 5:00pm on 11 December 2012 of Cardio Respiratory Arrest. Yet,
on 22 February, 2013, PAO, representing X, unaware of its clients
demise, still filed an MR of the SCs decision on 09 January 2013.
What is the effect of Xs death on his criminal and civil liability?
ANSWER: His death extinguished everything. Because of PAOs
MR, the SC decision had not become final and executory.
Therefore he died before the finality of the judgment, both civil
and criminal liabilities are extinguished.
13.
X raped his ex-girlfriend. Thereafter he went to his uncle, a
Brgy. Chairman who accompanied him to the nearest PNP station to
surrender. X was then prosecuted for the crime of Rape which carries
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. At the arraignment, X pleaded
guilty to the commission of the crime. As the Judge, what penalty
would you impose on X? Explain.
ANSWER: Reclusion Perpetua. Since the penalty prescribed by
law is RP, under Article 63, it shall be imposed regardless of
any mitigating circumstance where the penalty imposable is a

single indivisible penalty. There is also no benefit of parole

because under RA 9346, if the penalty is Reclusion Perpetua, it
is without the benefit of parole.
14.
Accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal
knowledge with the same woman against her will. The Judge imposed
upon him the penalty of 40 years imprisonment under the Three Fold
Rule and civil indemnity of P50,000.00. Is the Court correct?
ANSWER: No. The Court is wrong. The three-fold rule cannot
be used by the Court. The three-fold rule refers to the SERVICE
of sentence and is directed to the Director of Prisons, not by
the judges. The latter of course are mandated to impose the
penalty mandated by law. The Judge should convict for each
count of rape, Reclusion Perpetua for each and P50,000.00 for
each. There are as many civil liabilities as she has been
violated.
15.
LB the Casheir/Manager of PP Cooperative was in charge of
receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the
cooperative. On 02 September 2007, LB made it appear that she
released Cash Voucher No. 305A for a P15k loan to a certain EO by
falsifying EOs signature, making it appear in the records that EO was
the payee and recipient of the loan. EO was not a member of PP
Cooperative. What crime is committed by LB? Explain.
ANSWER: Falsification of Private Document. Under Art. 172(2)
a cash voucher is a private document. It is not regulated by the
Code of Commerce. Here, estafa could not have been
committed without the falsification. Estafa cannot be
complexed with falsification of private documents because they
both require the element of damage. The following may be
considered in determining which crime was committed:
If Estafa cannot be committed without falsifying it is
Falsification of Private Documents;
If Estafa can be committed even without the falsification
Estafa, because falsification was merely incidental.
16.
In July 2000, Major C was assigned as CO of the 22 nd FSU of the
PSG, Malacanang, Manila. His duty was to supervise the

disbursement of funds for the PSG personnel and to perform other

finance duties as requested by the PSG Commander. On December 19,
2000, he received a check from Director A in the amount of
P1,975,000.00 representing the Special Allowance of PSG personnel.
Accompanied by two personnel, he went to the bank and enchased the
check. He placed the money in a duffel bag and kept it inside a steel
cabinet in his office together with P1,295,000.00 that was earlier also
entrusted to him by Gen. D. Major C is the only one with keys to his
office. Although there was a vault in his office, he opted to place the
money in the steel cabinet because he believed that the vault was
defective.
On December 21, 2000, Major C informed Major B that the money he
was handling in the amount of more or less P3M was missing from his
custody. Is Major C liable of any crime? Explain.
ANSWER: He is liable for malversation of public funds. If the
funds are not forthcoming from someone who has a
responsibility to account for them, there arises a presumption
of malversation.
17.
Upon motion of the public prosecutor, X, a PDEA agent was
subpoenaed by the RTC Judge to bring to the court the dangerous
drugs confiscated from the accused in a raid conducted in Alabang.
On said trial date, X boarded a van with the said drugs worth millions
of pesos and drove to court. However, on his way to court, two
motorcycles overtook his van and the men shot X repeatedly and
hurriedly took the drugs from the PDEA van. Thereafter, the men
immediately left the place. X was brought to the hospital and
survived. Is X criminally liable of any crime?
ANSWER: Yes he is. Malversation under Art. 217. There was
negligence on the part of the PDEA agent, considering the bulk
and cost of the dangerous drugs, he should have asked for
escort. By reason of his negligence, the drugs, then already in
custodial egis were stolen.
18.
X has carnal knowledge of Y a mental retardate, without use of
force, threat and intimidation. X personally knew Ys condition before
and at the time of the sexual intercourse. What crime if any, is
committed by X?

ANSWER: Qualified Rape.

19.
AAA had always been going to the house of X for 4 months. AAA,
39 years old, was diagnosed to be suffering from moderate mental
retardation with a mental age of 6 and an IQ of 41. One morning while
AAA was holding a dog outside her residence, X approached her and
gave her P200 to buy some food. X then asked her to go with him to
his house. Upon reaching his house, X ordered AAA to lie down and
proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. AAA later put her dress
on and was fetched by her sister at Xs house. What crime, if any, is
committed by X?
ANSWER: X is liable for Qualified Rape, as in the case of People
vs. Rosal. There are two requisites in qualifying a rape by
reason of the victims being a mental retardate:
- The victim was suffering from mental retardation;
- Offender knew of the mental retardation;
So if in the information, if you only allege that the victim was a
retardate but did not allege that the accused KNEW of this fact,
then the crime is only rape. If the information states both and
both are proven before the court = the crime now committed is
Qualified Rape.
20.
X was charged with rape. The information alleged that the
victim was a minor and that X was the common-law-spouse of the
mother of the victim. During the trial of the case:
a. The prosecution failed to present the Birth Certificate of the
victim for identification purposes and the same was not attached
to its Formal Offer of Exhibits;
b. The victim testified that she did not know her birth date, as well
as her age at the time of the commission of the rape;
c. The victim testified that X was her stepfather, the husband of
her mother and X and her mother were married; and
d. X testified that he was married to the mother of the victim.
The RTC found X guilty of Qualified Rape. On appeal, if you were a
Justice of the Appellate Court, would you affirm the conviction?
ANSWER: No. I will not. Minority is not present. The
information alleges two things: minor + common law spouse.

During trial, the victim testified when asked about her age and
time of rape, she said she did not know her age. So the Judge
asked the prosecution to produce the Certificate of Live Birth
in court, which was never produced. Though attached to the
Formal Offer, it was never identified. It was not proven that she
was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime.
The Aggravating Circumstance of Relationship is not present.
Both victim and accused testified that X is the stepfather, the
Information alleges him as a common law spouse but during
the trial of the case, they said stepfather. The latter implies
they are married, common law implies they are not.
SC said the accused is liable only for Simple Rape since these
two qualifying circumstances were not proven beyond
reasonable doubt just like the crime for it to be considered
against the accused.
21.
NA, LD, and LG were having a drinking spree when they saw
AAA waiting for a ride. They approached her but AAA tried to get
away but LD and LG took their shirts off and were laughing at AAA.
NA suddenly appeared out of a dark portion of the vacant lot and
stabbed AAA on her right thigh. Simultaneously LD, LG and NA
crowded her, pulled her skirt and forcibly undressed her. As the three
were undressing themselves, AAA tried to escape and NA stabbed her
five times causing her instantaneous death.
What is/are the crimes committed by NA, LD, and LG? Explain.
ANSWER: Attempted rape with homicide. The obvious intent
was to rape the victim; however said rape was not
consummated. In the course thereof, they killed the victim.
Here we have under the RPC Art. 266-B of Attempted Rape with
Homicide. When by reason or on occasion of attempted rape, a
homicide is committed.
22.
X and Y, friends, were walking along the rice paddies on their
way to work when suddenly, Z holding an ice pick and a lead pipe
waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a grassy area at the back
of a concrete wall. Without warning, Z struck X on the head causing
her to feel dizzy and to fall down. When Y saw this, she cried out for

help but Z also hit her. Z stabbed Y several times with the ice pick and
covered her body with grass. Z then hit X several times more with the
lead pipe and slashed her face. While X was in this defenseless
position, Z raped her. After raping X, Z also covered her body with
grass. At that point, X passed out. When X regained consciousness
and was able to get help.
Two crimes: Murder and Rape were filed against Z. If you were the
Judge, would you convict Z as charged? Explain.
ANSWER: Special Complex Crime of Rape with Homicide. The
criminal intent was to rape the victim but in the course thereof,
homicide was committed.
23.
On January 23, 2003 while X was cooking dinner at their house
in Surigao del Sur, 5 armed men, A, B, C, D, & E, entered their house
and pointed a gun at her younger brother. The 5 men were armed
with rifles and hand grenades. A and B brought X upstairs to her
bedroom where she was divested of her money and jewels.
Dissatisfied with their loot,
they would take her son. X
Instead, the men took her
left, they again reminded
Hashiba would be killed.

the five demanded P3M from her if not,

offered herself as a hostage in his place.
Japanese husband, Hashiba. Before they
X that if she did not pay the ransom,

What are the crimes committed by A, B, C, D, & E? Explain.

ANSWER: Robbery by a Band and Kidnapping for Ransom. Here
you have five men, armed. Their criminal design was to rob, and
they indeed robbed by taking jewelry and money of the victim.
It does not matter if only A and B divested the wife of jewelry,
they shall all be liable for robbery by a band if they did not do
anything to prevent its consummation.
The taking of the husband and the demand for 3M gives rise to
Kidnapping for Ransom. It does not matter if the money was
paid, it suffices that the purpose for taking the husband was to
get money.
24.
WA, EQ, and WB played poker with JC and SC. WA won the
game. Thereafter, while walking home, WB, who was walking behind
WA and EQ saw JC and SC running up the hill. Suddenly WB heard

gunshots and saw WA and EQ, walking ahead of him get hit by
gunfire. WB then instantly jumped into a canal to save himself. Then
he saw JC and SC take the money they lost in the poker game.
What is/are the crimes committed by JC and SC?
ANSWER: Robbery with Homicide. The criminal design was to
get the winnings of the victim and in the course thereof they
killed two and tried to kill the third. Even that third attempt is
already absorbed in the crime of Robbery with Homicide,
because they were committed on the occasion of or by reason of
the robbery.
25.
X testified that he knew Y for a long time. He stated that he was
on his way home to the barangay when at around 9pm on October 9,
2003, in the light of a bright moon, he saw Y enter the house of L,
which was lit with a lamp and poked a gun at Ls head and demanded
money. L stated that he had no money and Y shot him. What
aggravating circumstances attended the crime?
ANSWER: Attempted Robbery with Homicide. Since the victim
could not produce the money, accused shot the victim. In this
case, he was charged with Robbery with Homicide. The CA said
that the robbery was not consummated, it was only attempted
because the money was not obtained. SC said CA is correct.
Dwelling is appreciated as aggravating. Why? Because the
crime was committed against persons. The answer will be
different if robbery with violence by use of force upon things-as
to the latter, the violence is necessarily against the dwelling.
Nighttime is not considered because the room was lit with a
lamp and the moon was bright.
26.
AMCGS undertook a construction project in Baguio City.
AMCGS subcontracted Anjar to handle the steel framing. Anjar in
ordered its steel beams from Linton Commercial in Pasig City. It hired
Junio Trucking to deliver the steel beams and other construction
materials to Baguio City. Engr. X was assigned as project manager. On
two occasions, X ordered B, a truck driver for Junio to deliver the
beams at Marcos Highway. When an audit was conducted of the site,
it was discovered that several beams were missing. X was convicted of

theft. Is it necessary that the Corpus Delicti be produced? What is

Corpus Delicti? What constitutes the Corpus Delicti in the said case.
ANSWER: I will affirm the conviction. It is not necessary that
the corpus delicti be produced. Engr. X was entrusted to be
project manager and taksed to have custody of the materials.
Instead he delivers the materials to another place. In said act
of taking, there was grave abuse of confidence on the part of
the project manager.
Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime.
In theft, what constitutes corpus delicti is the fact that the
offender TOOK the personal property of another. For as long as
there is a single witness that can testify ast to the single act of
taking, there exists taking. Here, even if the actual steel beams
were not produced, the testimony of the delivery men that X
asked them to unload is sufficient to produce the crime.
Engr. Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines (2013)
AMCGS undertook the Porta Vaga building construction in Session
Road, Baguio City. AMCGS subcontracted the fabrication and erection of the
buildings structural and steel framing to Anmar, owned by the Marigondon
family. Anmar ordered its construction materials from Linton Commercial in
Pasig City. It hired Junio Trucking to deliver the construction materials to its
project site in Baguio City. It assigned the petitioner as project manager
with general managerial duties, including the receiving, custody, and
checking of all building construction materials.8
On two occasions in October 2001, the petitioner instructed Bernardo,
Junio Truckings truck driver, and about 10 Anmar welders, including Cano
and Buen, to unload about 10 to 15 pieces of 20 feet long wide flange steel
beams at Anmars alleged new contract project along Marcos Highway,
Baguio City. Sometime in November 2001, the petitioner again instructed
Bernardo and several welders, including Cano and Buen, to unload about 5
to 16 pieces of 5 meters and 40 feet long wide flange steel beams along
Marcos Highway, as well as on Mabini Street, Baguio City.9
The stolen steel beams amounted to P2,269,731.69.10

RTC convicted the petitioner of qualified theft. It gave credence to

the prosecution witnesses straightforward and consistent testimonies and
rejected the petitioners bare denial. It sentenced the petitioner to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment from 10 years and 3 months, as minimum, to
20 years, as maximum, to indemnify Anmar P2,269,731.69, with legal
interest from November 2001 until full payment, and to pay Engr.
Marigondon P100,000.00 as moral damages.
The crime of qualified theft was
committed with grave abuse of discretion
The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310 in relation to
Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), are:
(a) the taking of personal property;
(b) the said property belongs to another;
(c) the said taking be done with intent to gain;
(d) it be done without the owner's consent;
(e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, nor of force upon things; and
(f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of
the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.18
All these elements are present in this case. The prosecutions
evidence proved, through the prosecutions eyewitnesses, that upon the
petitioners instruction, several pieces of wide flange steel beams had been
delivered, twice in October 2001 and once in November 2001, along Marcos
Highway and Mabini Street, Baguio City; the petitioner betrayed the trust
and confidence reposed on him when he, as project manager, repeatedly
took construction materials from the project site, without the authority and
consent of Engr. Marigondon, the owner of the construction materials.
Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission
of the crime

"Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime

charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does
not refer to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to
the body of the person murdered" or, in this case, to the stolen steel beams.
"Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, this
Court has ruled that even a single witness' uncorroborated testimony, if
credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus
delicti may even be established by circumstantial evidence." 19 "In
theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost
by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking."20
In this case, the testimonial and documentary evidence on record fully
established the corpus delicti. The positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly Bernardo, Cano and Buen, stating that the petitioner
directed them to unload the steel beams along Marcos Highway and Mabini
Street on the pretext of a new Anmar project, were crucial to the
petitioners conviction. The security logbook entry, delivery receipts and
photographs proved the existence and the unloading of the steel beams to a
different location other than the project site.
Proper Penalty
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, sentenced the petitioner to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment from 10 years and three months, as minimum, to
20 years, as maximum, and to indemnify Anmar P2,269,731.69, with legal
interest from November 2001 until full payment. Apparently, the RTC erred
in failing to specify the appropriate name of the penalty imposed on the
petitioner.
We reiterate the rule that it is necessary for the courts to employ the
proper legal terminology in the imposition of penalties because of the
substantial difference in their corresponding legal effects and accessory
penalties. The appropriate name of the penalty must be specified as under
the scheme of penalties in the RPC, the principal penalty for a felony has its
own specific duration and corresponding accessory penalties.21 Thus, the
courts must employ the proper nomenclature specified in the RPC, such as
"reclusion perpetua" not "life imprisonment," or "ten days of arresto menor"
not "ten days of imprisonment."
In qualified theft, the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua based
on Article 310 of the RPC which provides that "the crime of qualified theft

shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those
respectively specified in Article 309."221wphi1
To compute the penalty, we begin with the value of the stolen steel
beams, which is P2,269,731.69. Based on Article 309 of the RPC, since the
value of the items exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods, to be imposed in the maximum period,
which is eight years, eight months and one day to 10 years of prision mayor.
To determine the additional years of imprisonment, we
deduct P22,000.00 from P2,269,731.69, which gives usP2,247,731.69. This
resulting figure should then be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any
amount less thanP10,000.00. We now have 224 years that should be added
to the basic penalty. However, the imposable penalty for simple theft should
not exceed a total of 20 years. Therefore, had petitioner committed simple
theft, the penalty would be 20 years of reclusion temporal. As the penalty
for qualified theft is two degrees higher, the correct imposable penalty
is reclusion perpetua.
The petitioner should thus be convicted of qualified theft with the
corresponding penalty of reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Wagas (2013)
Gilbert R. Wagas appeals his conviction for estafa under the decision
rendered on July 11, 2002 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, in Cebu
City (RTC), meting on him the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 30 years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum.
That on or about the 30th day of April, 1997, and for sometime prior
and subsequent thereto, in the City of Cebu, Philippines the said accused,
with deliberate intent, with intent to gain and by means of false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud, to wit: knowing that he did not have sufficient funds deposited
with the Bank of Philippine Islands, and without informing Alberto Ligaray
of that circumstance, with intent to defraud the latter, did then and there
issue Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No. 0011003, dated May 08,
1997 in the amount of P200,000.00, which check was issued in payment of
an obligation, but which check when presented for encashment with the
bank, was dishonored for the reason "drawn against insufficient funds" and
inspite of notice and several demands made upon said accused to make

good said check or replace the same with cash, he had failed and refused
and up to the present time still fails and refuses to do so, to the damage and
prejudice of Alberto Ligaray in the amount aforestated.
At the trial, the Prosecution presented complainant Alberto Ligaray as
its lone witness. Ligaray testified that on April 30, 1997, Wagas placed an
order for 200 bags of rice over the telephone; that he and his wife would not
agree at first to the proposed payment of the order by postdated check, but
because of Wagas assurance that he would not disappoint them and that he
had the means to pay them because he had a lending business and money in
the bank, they relented and accepted the order; that he released the goods
to Wagas on April 30, 1997 and at the same time received Bank of the
Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 0011003 for P200,000.00 payable to
cash and postdated May 8, 1997; that he later deposited the check with
Solid Bank, his depository bank, but the check was dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds;5 that he called Wagas about the matter, and the latter
told him that he would pay upon his return to Cebu; and that despite
repeated demands, Wagas did not pay him.6
On cross-examination, Ligaray admitted that he did not personally
meet Wagas because they transacted through telephone only; that he
released the 200 bags of rice directly to Robert Caada, the brother-in-law
of Wagas, who signed the delivery receipt upon receiving the rice.7
Decision of the RTC: As stated, the RTC convicted Wagas of estafa on July
11, 2002, viz:
Issues
In this appeal, Wagas insists that he and Ligaray were neither friends
nor personally known to one other; that it was highly incredible that
Ligaray, a businessman, would have entered into a transaction with him
involving a huge amount of money only over the telephone; that on the
contrary, the evidence pointed to Caada as the person with whom Ligaray
had transacted, considering that the delivery receipt, which had been
signed by Caada, indicated that the goods had been "Ordered by ROBERT
CAADA," that the goods had been received by Caada in good order and
condition, and that there was no showing that Caada had been acting on
behalf of Wagas; that he had issued the check to Caada upon a different
transaction; that Caada had negotiated the check to Ligaray; and that the
element of deceit had not been established because it had not been proved

with certainty that it was him who had transacted with Ligaray over the
telephone.
The circumstances beg the question: did the Prosecution establish
beyond reasonable doubt the existence of all the elements of the crime of
estafa as charged, as well as the identity of the perpetrator of the crime?
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
provides:
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
xxxx
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation
when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee
or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the
efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must be
able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the
issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the
Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered
would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the
issuance of the check by the offender.25

The essential elements of the crime charged are that:

(a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at
the time the check is issued;
(b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(c) damage to the payee thereof.26
It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is
punishable, not the non-payment of a debt.27 Prima facie evidence of deceit
exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the
notice of dishonor.
In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity of the offender,
like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.28 In that regard, the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable
doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.
It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty of estafa as charged,
must have used the check in order to defraud the complainant. What the
law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless
check. Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he had
issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still
clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who had defrauded
Ligaray by means of the check.
Ligaray admitted that it was Caada who received the rice from him
and who delivered the check to him. Considering that the records are bereft
of any showing that Caada was then acting on behalf of Wagas, the RTC
had no factual and legal bases to conclude and find that Caada had been
acting for Wagas. This lack of factual and legal bases for the RTC to infer so
obtained despite Wagas being Caadas brother-in-law.
Finally, Ligarays declaration that it was Wagas who had transacted
with him over the telephone was not reliable because he did not explain
how he determined that the person with whom he had the telephone
conversation was really Wagas whom he had not yet met or known before
then. We deem it essential for purposes of reliability and trustworthiness
that a telephone conversation like that one Ligaray supposedly had with the

buyer of rice to be first authenticated before it could be received in

evidence. Among others, the person with whom the witness conversed by
telephone should be first satisfactorily identified by voice recognition or any
other means.32 Without the authentication, incriminating another person
just by adverting to the telephone conversation with him would be all too
easy. In this respect, an identification based on familiarity with the voice of
the caller, or because of clearly recognizable peculiarities of the caller
would have sufficed.33 The identity of the caller could also be established by
the callers self-identification, coupled with additional evidence, like the
context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement
challenged, internal patterns, and other distinctive characteristics, and
disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller.34
Yet, the Prosecution did not tender any plausible explanation or offer
any proof to definitely establish that it had been Wagas whom Ligaray had
conversed with on the telephone. The Prosecution did not show through
Ligaray during the trial as to how he had determined that his caller was
Wagas. All that the Prosecution sought to elicit from him was whether he
had known and why he had known Wagas.
Ligarays statement that he could tell that it was Wagas who had
ordered the rice because he "know[s]" him was still vague and unreliable for
not assuring the certainty of the identification, and should not support a
finding of Ligarays familiarity with Wagas as the caller by his voice. It was
evident from Ligarays answers that Wagas was not even an acquaintance of
Ligarays prior to the transaction. Thus, the RTCs conclusion that Ligaray
had transacted with Wagas had no factual basis. Without that factual basis,
the RTC was speculating on a matter as decisive as the identification of the
buyer to be Wagas.
It is a fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries
the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt, as a consequence of the tenet ei incumbit probation, qui
dicit, non qui negat, which means that he who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove,40 and as a means of respecting the presumption of innocence in
favor of the man or woman on the dock for a crime. Accordingly, the State
has the burden of proof to show: (1) the correct identification of the author
of a crime, and (2) the actuality of the commission of the offense with the
participation of the accused. All these facts must be proved by the State
beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace

from the weakness of the defense. That the defense the accused puts up
may be weak is inconsequential if, in the first place, the State has failed to
discharge the onus of his identity and culpability. The presumption of
innocence dictates that it is for the Prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and
not for the accused to establish innocence.41 Indeed, the accused, being
presumed innocent, carries no burden of proof on his or her shoulders. For
this reason, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to
prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the crime
can be established, without competent proof of the identity of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction.42
There is no question that an identification that does not preclude a
reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary
force.43 Thus, considering that the circumstances of the identification of
Wagas as the person who transacted on the rice did not preclude a
reasonable possibility of mistake, the proof of guilt did not measure up to
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded in criminal cases.
Perforce, the accuseds constitutional right of presumption of innocence
until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an
acquittal,44 even though his innocence may be doubted.45
Nevertheless, an accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still be held
civilly liable where the preponderance of the established facts so
warrants.46 Wagas as the admitted drawer of the check was legally liable to
pay the amount of it to Ligaray, a holder in due course. 47 Consequently, we
pronounce and hold him fully liable to pay the amount of the dishonored
check, plus legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
rendered on July 11, 2002 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, in Cebu
City; and ACQUITS Gilbert R. Wagas of the crime of estafa on the ground of
reasonable doubt, but ORDERS him to pay Alberto Ligaray the amount
of P200,000.00 as actual damages, plus interest of 6% per annum from the
finality of this decision.
People vs. Ilagan (2007)
Petitioners Gemma Ilagan, Albert Cordero Sy, and Jaime Tan, who
have separately filed the subject petitions which have been consolidated,
were charged, in an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

of Manila on January 30, 2002, for Estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(d),
alleged to have been committed as follows:
That on or about July 1, 2001, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
together and helping one another, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud ROSITA
TAN in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means
of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which
they made to said ROSITA TAN to the effect that the following
checks, to wit:

AMOUN
T

REASON
FOR
DISHON
OR

PAYABL
E TO

BANK/CHE
CK NO.

DATE

RCBC
A0514808

Sept. 30, P70,000

2000
.00

Account
Closed

Jazshirt
Trdg.

RCBC
A0514816

Sept. 16, P88,350

2000
.00

Account
Closed

Jazshirt
Trdg.

RCBC
A0514810

Oct. 31, P180,00

2000
0.00

Account
Closed

Jazshirt
Trdg.

FEBTC
P8069954

Aug. 15, P152,00

2000
0.00

DAIF

Jazshirt
Trdg.

issued by Gemma Ilagan, is a [sic] good checks covered by

sufficient funds and would be honored by the drawee bank on its
maturity date, and by means of other similar deceits, induced
and succeeded in inducing Rosita Tan to accept said checks in
exchange for cash in the amount of P470,350.00; that however,
when said checks were presented to the drawee bank for
payment, the same were dishonored and payment thereof
refused for the reason ACCOUNT CLOSED and DRAWN
AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS, and that said accused knew
fully well that said manifestations and representations were
made for the purpose of inducing the said ROSITA TAN to part
with the said amount of P470,350.00, to the damage and
prejudice of the said ROSITA TAN in the aforesaid amount
of P470,350.00, Philippine Currency.

Agreeing to accommodate petitioners because of their promise that

the checks will be good on due date and during that time they will have
money and they being her relatives, Rosita asked them to return. For the
purpose of encashing the checks, she immediately borrowed money from
her friend Juanito Tan after which she advised petitioner Tan to go back to
her address.
Branch 21 of the Manila RTC, by Decision[11] of February 18, 2003,
convicted petitioners. It ratiocinated:
x x x Even if the checks in question were issued by accused
Gemma Ilagan, it was [the] accused Jaime Tan and Albert
Cordero Sy being the manager and registered owners of Jazshirt
Trading who directly and personally benefited from the
postdated checks exchanged into cash by Rosita. Negotiating
directly and personally the postdated checks issued by Gemma
Ilagan and obtaining their cash value from Rosita Tan through
deceit and misrepresentation that the checks would be funded
upon maturity when in fact they were not, may be construed as
the efficient cause which constitutes the crime of estafa as
defined and penalized under par. 2(d) of Art. 315 of the Revised
Penal Code. Rosita was deprived of disposing of the amount
covered by the check. There was disturbance of property rights
sufficient to cause damage satisfying the element of
estafa. While admittedly Jaime Tan and Albert Cordero Sy did
not issue the postdated checks, the act of negotiating and
receiving the cash equivalent indicate the presence of
conspiracy as charged in the information filed against them.
As early as 1935, this issue has already been resolved by
the Court in People v. Isleta and Nueno (61 Phil. 33[2]) cited
in Zagado v. CA ([1]78 SCRA 146) when it held:
It is true that the testimony of Isleta should be
carefully scrutinized as there is no reason to believe
that he was not such an innocent drawer as he
pretends to be, but we are of the opinion that, apart
from the weight which may be given to said
testimony, the bad faith of appellant [Nueno] has
been clearly demonstrated. Whether a conspiracy
existed between appellant and Isleta, we do not
need here to decide. The fact remains and this is
sufficient to support the conviction of appellant
that the latter had guilty knowledge of the fact that

Isleta had no funds in the bank when he negotiated

the check in question.
Assessing the evidence on record, the Court is convinced
that accused are guilty of the crime charged. Accused therefore
must be held liable not only criminally but likewise civilly for the
damages they have caused private complainant as persons
criminally liable are also civilly liable (Art. 100, Revised Penal
Code).[12] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revise Penal Code under which petitioners
were indicted provides:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
shall be punished by:
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
xxxx
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment
of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3)
days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or
holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent.
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Deceit and damage are the essential elements of estafa. Deceit to
constitute estafa under above-quoted Article 315 2(d) of the Revised Penal
Code must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. There must be
concomitance: the issuance of the check should be the means to obtain
money or property from the payer.[21]

By Rositas own admission, she and petitioner Tan had, prior to the
transaction in question, been engaged in rediscounting or discounting
transactions for four (4) years in which she charged interests which varied
because she sourced the cash for the purpose from different persons.
People vs. Cayanan (2013)
The prosecution established that Cayanan took advantage of 15-year
old AAA4 on February 1, 2001 while the victim was alone inside her house in
x x x, Bulacan. Cayanan is the victims brother-in-law, being married to her
older sister, and the couple lived in a nearby house. AAA was asleep when
she felt someone caressing her. It turned out to be Cayanan. He then
started kissing her and told her to remove her shorts. When she refused,
Cayanan forcibly took it off and after the latter took off his own under
garment, he inserted his organ into her genitalia. Cayanan, who had a knife
with him, threatened to kill AAA if she resisted and informed anybody of the
incident.
On February 26, 2001, AAA was about to enter the school campus
with her friend Armina Adriano (Adriano) when Cayanan arrived on a
tricycle driven by his uncle, Boy Manalastas. Cayanan then pulled AAA
towards the tricycle. She tried shouting but he covered her mouth. They
alighted somewhere and boarded a jeep. He brought her to a dress shop in
x x x, Bulacan where he asked someone to give her a change of clothes as
she was in her school uniform and later to a Jollibee outlet. He then brought
her to his sisters house in x x x where he raped her inside a bedroom.
Afterwards, a certain couple Putay and Tessie talked to Cayanan and she
was brought to the barangay office where she was asked to execute a
document stating that she voluntarily went with Cayanan. It was the latters
mother and sister-in-law who brought her home later that evening. She told
her mother and brother of the incidents only after her classmate Adriano
informed her family of what happened in school and of the rape incidents.
AAA testified that she did not immediately tell her family because she was
still in a state of shock.5
Cayanan interposed the sweetheart defense. The RTC, however, did
not give credit to his defense, ruling that it is a weak defense and does not
rule out the use of force given the prosecutions evidence. He also failed to
establish the genuineness and authenticity of the love letters allegedly
written by AAA.7

The Court, however, finds that Cayanan should be convicted only of

Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001. Forcible abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape
the victim.10 In this case, circumstances show that the victims abduction
was with the purpose of raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged her into
the tricycle, he took her to several places until they reached his sisters
house where he raped her inside the bedroom. Under these circumstances,
the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.11
Mayor Escalante vs. People of the Philippines (2013)
The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations that
were filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog City, Samar
against the petitioner, charging him for violation of Section 261 (q) of BP
881 (Election Gun Ban) and Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1866,3 as amended (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions). The
first Information4 dated August 23, 1995, docketed as Criminal Case No.
2074, reads:
That on or about the 3rd day of April, 1995, at about 11:00 oclock in
the evening, at Barangay Biasong, Municipality of Almagro, Province of
Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, during the Election Period of the May 8, 1995
Election, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control one (1) .45 caliber pistol, without first
having obtained the proper license and/or permit from the Comelec.
That on or about the 3rd day of April, 1995, at nighttime, at Barangay
Biasong, Municipality of Almagro, Province of Samar, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with deliberate intent to possess and without being authorized by law, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and illegally have in his
possession, custody and control one (1) caliber .45 pistol loaded with live
ammunition, in a public place outside of his residence, without first
securing the necessary permit to possess the same from the competent
authority, as required by law.
That the petitioner was in possession of a firearm with live
ammunition outside of his residence within the period of the election gun
ban imposed by the COMELEC sans authority therefor is a finding of fact by

the RTC and the CA which cannot be disturbed by this Court in this original
action for certiorari.
Moreover, "it has been held time and again that factual findings of the
trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative
weight of their testimonies and the conclusions based on these factual
findings are to be given the highest respect. As a rule, the Court will not
weigh anew the evidence already passed on by the trial court and affirmed
by the CA."30 Here, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from this
rule.
The Court notes, however, that the lower courts erred in imposing
applicable penalty against the petitioner. Finding the petitioner guilty of
offense of violation of election gun ban, the RTC imposed upon him
straight penalty of one (1) year imprisonment. The penalty imposed by
RTC was affirmed by the CA. Section 264 of BP 881, in part, reads:

the
the
the
the

Sec. 264. Penalties. Any person found guilty of any election offense
under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one
year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In
addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold
public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he
shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison
term has been served. x x x. (Emphasis ours)
On the other hand, Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law31 provides:
Sec. 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law
and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
the same.1wphi1
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty for
violation of the election gun ban should have a maximum period, which shall

not exceed six (6) years, and a minimum period which shall not be less than
one (1) year. Accordingly, the RTC and the CA erred in imposing a straight
penalty of one (1) year imprisonment against the petitioner.

Entire length

Minimum length

Medium length

Maximum length

Accessory penalties

Type
Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Civil interdiction for life or during

Reclusin

the period of the sentence as the

30 years

perpetua

case may be, and perpetual

absolute disqualification

12

14

years

years

Reclusin

years

temporal

and one years

and one and 8

day

day

Prisin
mayorand
temporary
disqualification

6 years
and one
day

20

12

12
years

months

6 years
and 1
day

14 years
and 8
months

8 years
8 years

and 1
day

17
years
and 4
months

10
years

17 years
and 4
months

10 years
and 1
day

20
years

If disqualification is
imposed, 12 years and 1
day

Temporary absolute
disqualification and that of
perpetual special
disqualification from the
right of suffrage

12
years

Prisin

correccional,

months

months

suspension,

and one

and destierro

day

1 month
Arresto mayor

and 1
day

6 years

and 1
day

2 years,
2 years

4 years

and 4

months

and 2

months

months

and 1

months

and 1

day

months

1 month

6 years

day

2
6

If suspension is
imposed, 6 years

Suspension from public

office, from the right to
follow a profession or
calling, and that of perpetual
special disqualification from
the right of suffrage, if the
duration of said
imprisonment shall exceed
eighteen months

4 years,

months

months

months

and 1

months

and 1

months Suspension of the right to hold

day

day

office and the right of suffrage

during the term of the sentence

Arresto menor

1 day

30
days

1 day

10 days 11 days

20 days 21 days

30
days