POINTERS IN CRIMINAL LAW

2016 BAR EXAMINATIONS

ATTY. VICTORIA V. LOANZON
PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF
ATTY. JULIUS ABRAHAM FERRER
PART A: THE VELASCO CASES
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
Question: AQ, together with OQ had an encounter with B. The latter
hacked AQ and OQ. AQ found out that OQ was dead. B claimed that he
tried to get away with the AQ and OQ but the latter chased him and
engaged him into a fight. Seeing AQ was about to stab him, B grabbed a
bolo and used it to strike at AQ, injuring his left hand. AQs knife fell and
when he bent to pick it up, B again hacked at him with his bolo. What
crimes did B commit?
Answer: Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The offender is said to

have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the
victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical
intervention or attendance. (People v. Badriago)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
Question: Aminola and Maitimbang were accused of the crime of
robbery with homicide for robbing one Nestor Gabuya of his personal
properties and for killing the latter with the use of an unlicensed firearm.
The eyewitness Jesus Oliva identified the two accused to have
perpetrated the same. The RTC convicted Maitimbang of the crime
charged. Is the conviction for a special complex crime proper?
Answer. Yes. Essential for conviction of robbery with homicide is proof

of a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the

killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or
whether both crimes are committed at the same time. (People v.
Aminola)
COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Question: One evening, Elarcosa and accused-appellant Orias, both
members of the CAFGU, requested Saturnina that supper be prepared
for them. While Segundina and Rosemarie were preparing in the kitchen,
Elarcosa and Orias fired their guns at Jose and Jorge Cruz. Segundina
ran towards his son while Rosemarie hid in the shrubs. Rosemarie heard
her mother crying loudly and after a series of gunshots, silence ensued.
The following morning, Rosemarie returned to their house where she
found the dead bodies of her parents and her brother. The amount of
1|Page

P40,000 and a certificate of registration of large cattle were also gone.

Elarcosa and Orias were thereafter charged with robbery with multiple
homicide. RTC convicted the accused of the offense as charged. The
CA, however, changed the conviction to multiple murder, ratiocinating
that robbery was not proved and that the killing was qualified by
treachery. How many crimes were committed? What are those crimes if
any?
Answer: Only Robbery with Homicide. In a complex crime, although two

or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime
in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the offender x x x
when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute
separate and distinct crimes. (People v. Elarcosa)
ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES
MINORITY AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Taguig police
organized a buy-bust operation upon a tip from an informant that Musa
et. al. were selling drugs. Monongan, a minor, accepted the marked
money while Musa gave a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer. The RTC
found all of the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the RPC, it imposed the
maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC also found that the
offense was committed by an organized/syndicated crime group and
imposed a fine of P10 million. However, the RTC lowered the penalty of
Monongan who was only 17, a minor at the time of the commission of
the offense, to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA
affirmed the decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life
imprisonment. Is the imposition of penalty against accused Manongan
correct?
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can be

appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed in the

prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. (People v.
Musa)
MINORITY AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Taguig police
organized a buy-bust operation upon a tip from an informant that Musa
et. al. were selling drugs. Monongan, a minor, accepted the marked
money while Musa gave a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer. The RTC
found all of the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the RPC, it imposed the
2|Page

maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The RTC also found that the
offense was committed by an organized/syndicated crime group and
imposed a fine of P10 million. However, the RTC lowered the penalty of
Monongan who was only 17, a minor at the time of the commission of
the offense, to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. CA
affirmed the decision but imposed upon Monongan the penalty of life
imprisonment. Is the imposition of penalty against accused Manongan
correct?
Answer: No. The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can be

appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed in the

prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. (People v.
Musa)
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
Question: Reynaldo Capalad was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and
11 of the R.A. 9165. At the trial, the prosecution presented PO3
Fernando Moran, PO1 Jeffred Pacis, and PO1 Victor Manansala as
witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused and
his son, Reymel Capalad. After the trial, he was convicted by the RTC of
both charges. On appeal, he questioned the legality of his arrest. He
disputed the prosecution witnesses claim that an entrapment operation
took place. He also argued that the testimony of his son, Reymel, should
have been given more weight. The CA, however, still affirmed the lower
courts judgment. The accused contends before the Court among others
that the principle that a child is the best witness should have been
applied to his case giving emphasis on his son's testimony
corroborating his version of events. Should the SC give credence to his
allegations?
Answer. No. Findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and

which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no

glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary,
and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
(People v. Capalad)
CONSPIRACY
Question: Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella
twice, while Gatchalian, without a gun, allegedly blocked the road, and
Doctor positioned himself at the back of Damiana and Angelina and
poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but Tomas fired three more
gunshots at the former when she was already down on the ground. The
RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of the
offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of treachery and
3|Page

conspiracy. Is the conviction appreciating conspiracy correct?

Answer: No. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to

commit it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators before,
during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common
design or purpose. (People v. Tomas)
CONSPIRACY
Question Petitioners Yongco and Laojan, as security guards in the
premises of the City Engineers Office (CEO), and Tangian as garbage
truck driver of the City Government of Iligan were charged for allegedly
stealing one unit transmission of Tamaraw and l-beam of Nissan with a
total value of P40, 000.00. RTC held petitioners liable for qualified theft
with the attending circumstance of conspiracy.
Tangian claimed that he should not be considered as a conspirator
since he merely innocently obeyed Laojans instructions on the
assumption that the latter was his superior. Yongco, in his defense,
argued that Tangian and his two other helpers asked for his assistance
which he extended in good faith, in view of Laojans statement earlier
that day that the office garage has to be cleared. Laojan, on the other
hand, insisted that he cannot be considered as a conspirator since he
was not present at the time of taking, and that the mere giving of a
thumbs-up sign to Tangian when the latter delivered the materials to the
junk shop does not amount to conspiracy. Is there conspiracy?
Answer:
It is common design which is the essence of

conspiracyconspirators may act separately or together in different

manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character
and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and
viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a wholeacts
done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.
(Yongco v. People).
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Question:The victim, Marlon, stood up and greeted the accused, who
happened to be his brother-in-law, "good evening." He stated that the
accused kept quiet and suddenly raised the right hand of Marlon and
stabbed him by the armpit with a knife that he was carrying. Marlon
shouted because of the pain, which caused the people in the
neighborhood to come out.
After his arrest, David Maningding pleaded not guilty of the murder
charged against him. The RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found
that treachery attended the stabbing of the victim, being sudden and
unexpected. Is the altercation that ensued leading to the stabbing
4|Page

justified as self-defense?
Answer: No. Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical

assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.

In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the
wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and
TREACHERY
Question: Two criminal informations were filed against Roel Ruel Sally
for the murder of Edwin Lucas and Jose Bersero. According to the
prosecution witness Roger Lara, he saw the accused hit the victims with
a piece of pipe while sleeping. The RTC found Sally guilty of murder. In
his appeal to the CA, Sally questioned the finding that treachery
attended the killings, qualifying the crime to murder, instead of
homicide. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that an
iron pipe was used in the killing of the victims as the weapon was not
retrieved or presented in evidence, nor was the medico-legal officer
certain if an iron pipe would cause the injuries suffered by the victims.
However, the CA upheld the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition. Is
the conviction to murder and not homicide correct?
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected

attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, thereby ensuring its

commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the the slightest
provocation on the part of the victims. The kind of weapon used is
immaterial. (People v. Sally)
intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to ones life. (People v. Maningding)
PROVOCATION AS A DEFENSE
Question: Brothers Nahom and Nemrod went to the house of Serafin to
kill him but he was not there. Upon being informed of this, Serafin went
to Nahoms house. Nemrod advised Serafin to go home, but he refused
to leave. Instead, Serafin attempted to hack Nemrod and tried to enter
the gate of Nahoms house. Thereafter, Nahom struck Serafin on the
head with a bolo. Meanwhile, Nemrod went to his brothers house to
look for a bolo. After being hit, Serafin ran away. Nemrod, however,
pursued him, and hit him several times on the back and arm. He
eventually died from the wounds he sustained. The two brothers were
charged with homicide. Nemrod voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities. The trial court ruled that they were guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide. But for Nemrod a mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation and voluntary surrender was
credited. However, he appealed to the CA and ruled that he has failed to
5|Page

prove satisfactorily the elements of self defense and that unlawful

aggression did not exist. If you were the judge, will you appreciate the
mitigating circumstance of provocation?
Answer: Yes. In order to determine the sufficiency of a provocation for

the purpose of mitigating a crime, one must look into the act
constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person
provoked, and the place and time when the provocation is made. In the
present case, a finding that the act of the victim did not constitute
unlawful aggression does not automatically negate the attendant
circumstance of sufficient provocation. (Gotis v. People)
TREACHERY
Question:Ramil while he was attending a wake with his brother
Cristopher was sitting nearby on a parked motorcycle talking to
someone when Prince appeared from behind and started stabbing
Ramil using a knife until he died. Prince was charged with murder.
Prince his assault resulted to the death of Ramil but he argued that the
offense was only homicide and not murder because there was no
treachery. RTC convicted Prince with murder which was later on
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Prince argues that the attack was not
from behind but frontal thereby treachery was not present. Is there
trachery?
Answer: Yes. Treachery exists even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden

and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend

himself, for what is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. (People v. Francisco)
TREACHERY AND PREMEDITATION
Question:On July 1, 1996, accused Paling, accompanied by Vilbar,
allegedly killed Walter Nolasco in Roxas, Cotabato. When arraigned, they
both pleaded not guilty. One of the witnesses for the prosecution,
Richard, said that he saw Paling and Ernie stabbing Walter while Vilbar
held him. After killing Walter, the accused warned Richard not to speak
about what he saw otherwise, they would also kill him. The RTC
convicted Paling and Vilbar of the crime of murder with a qualifying
circumstance of treachery and evident premeditation which decision
was affirmed by the CA. Is the RTC correct in convicting the accused for
note: convictiin for murder correct but basis is wrong i.e. the qualifying
murder?
circumstance.
Answer: Yes. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of

superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of

forces between the victim and the aggressors that is plainly and
obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or
taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime. (People v.
6|Page

Paling)
DEFENSE OF INSANITY
Question: AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman. Paul, an
acquaintance, raped AAA inside his bedroom. Before finally letting the
crying AAA go, however, Paul threatened her with death should she
disclose to anybody what had just happened between them. Psychiatric
evaluation revealed that AAA, although 42 years old at that time, had the
mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10 year-old child.
Accused-appellant maintains that the trial court erred in giving full
credence to and reliance on AAAs inculpatory statements.
In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused-appellant invokes
insanity. He contends that the psychiatrist who examined him
consistently testified that there was a high possibility that he was
suffering from schizo affective disorder when the alleged rape incident
happened. Rule on the invocation of defense of insanity.
Answer: Paul is sane. The moral and legal presumption is always in

favor of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the

normal condition of a person. It is improper to assume the contrary.
(People v. Alipio) note additional fact of threatening victim if she would tell what happened presupposes that the
perpetrator was aware of the wrongful act he had done.

SELF-DEFENSE
Question: Ruperto Arbalate and his sons Roel and Ramil Arbalate were
charged with murder for killing Selemen. Roel and Ramil were able to
evade arrest and remained at large. Hence, only Ruperto faced trial.
During the arraignment, Ruperto pleaded not guilty. In his defense,
Ruperto invoked self-defense. Moreover, he argued that there was no
abuse of superior strength. Without clear proof of this qualifying
circumstance, Ruperto insisted that he must be convicted of homicide
only. Should self-defense be appreciated?
Answer: No. To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the

killing of the victim be simultaneous with the attack on the accused, or

at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of
time. (People v. Arbalate)
CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE
Question: Upon seeing Anabel Bautista and Reynaldo Juguilon, Manulit
stood up and successively shot Reynaldo at the back, resulting in the
latters death. He then tucked the gun in his waist, raised his hands, and
shouted, O, wala akong ginawang kasalanan at wala kayong nakita.
In his defense, Manulit offered a story of self-defense. While he and his
cousin, Marvin, were drinking, victim Reynaldo barged in holding a gun
with both his hands. He appeared not to be his normal self with reddish
7|Page

eyes, as if high on drugs.

Despite his claim of self defense, RTC convicted him for murder. Is the
conviction proper despite allegations of self-defense?
Answer: Yes. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at

least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of

threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful
intent to cause injury. It is present only when the one attacked faces real
and immediate threat to ones life. (People v. Manulit).
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to
life or personal safety. There must be an actual, sudden, and
unexpected attack or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. (People v. Satonero)
ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
Question:Accused Juanito Apattad was charged in four separate
informations with the crime of rape against his 12-year old daughter.
The child, AAA, testified her father repeatedly raped her since 2001. The
accused threatened to kill her if she will report the incident to her
mother and she eventually informed her of the rape. A defense witness
claimed that on the date of the incident, the accused stayed in the
formers house, which was only three kilometers away from the house
of the accused. The RTC found him guilty of three counts of rape. Is the
RTC correct?
Answer. Yes. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the

accused as the perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Apattad)

must show impossibility of being at the scene of the
crime when it happened

ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
Question: SPO1 Loreto Nerpio held a childrens birthday party for his son
at his residence. Mario Salazar joined the drinking session and later on
left the house of Nerpio. Thereafter, Nelly Villanueva, who was then
waiting for a friend, saw Salazar walking along the street. Villanueva
saw a man poked a gun at the right side of Salazars neck, and fired it.
He identified Nerpio as the malefactor. Nerpio was charged with
homicide but he said he was busy at his childs birthday party when the
crime happened. Rule on the defense of alibi raised by the accused.
Answer: It is a settled doctrine that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough

to prove that the accused was at some other place when the crime was
committed; but the defense must likewise demonstrate that the
accused could not have been physically present at the place of the
crime, or in its immediate vicinity, during its commission. (Nerpio v.
People)
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Question: Accused Mayor Ambagan Jr. was charged and convicted by
8|Page

the Sandiganbayan with two counts of homicide as principal by

inducement. The prosecution presented statements from two persons
who was said to be directly present during the shooting. The first
witness (Bawalan) said that shooting started after he heard the mayor
said GE, IYAN PALA ANG GUSTO MO, MGA KASAMA BANATAN NYO
NA YAN. However, the second witness contradicts this when he said
that he instead pushed the mayor out of the road where the shooting
incident occurred and that he did not hear the mayor saying those
words which could have provoked and initiate the shooting of the
victims. Further, evidence provides that Rene Amparo (one of Mayor
Ambagans men) has negative paraffin test which would lead to the fact
that it is not the Mayors men who initiated the shooting but rather from
the deceased Rey Santos. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of
the crime of double homicide. Aggrieved, petitioner moved for
reconsideration of the aforequoted ruling. Is the conviction as principal
by inducement correct?
Answer: No. The conviction of a person as a principal by inducement

requires (1) that the inducement be made with the intention of procuring
the commission of the crime; and (2) that such inducement be the
determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
(Ambagan Jr. v. People)
COMPUTATION OF IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Question: Celestial was convicted of six counts of qualified theft
through falsification of commercial document. The issue of conviction
has attained finality after the failure of Celestials counsel to file her
appellant brief. The court now only delves on the issue of the imposition
of proper penalty. How is the penalty computed?
Answer: Applying Article 70 of the RPC, such maximum period shall in

no case exceed forty years. Therefore, in spite of the six (6) penalties of
forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, petitioner shall only suffer
imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years. (Celestial v. People)
3 fold rule in convictions with atleast 4 penalties, i.e. total time to be served
must not exceed three times the most severe penalty and that in no case shall
such total period exceed 40 yrs.

PRESCRIPTION OF A CRIME
Question: By virtue of Administrative Order No. 13 issued by then
President Fidel V. Ramos creating a Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding
Committee on Behest Loans, a report dated January 4, 1993 identified
the accounts of Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC) as behest in
character. Later the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
PCGG, filed an Affidavit-Complaint on January 6, 2003 with the Office of
the Ombudsman, against respondent directors and officers of RHC and
the directors of DBP for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3 (g) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However
the Ombudsman dismissed petitioners Affidavit - Complaint on grounds
9|Page

10 yr prescription period applies here for crime was committed prior to

the amendment of r.a. 3019

of prescription. Hence, this petition. Has the crime prescribed?

Answer: Yes. When date of the violation was committed be not known,

then it shall begin to run from the discovery of said violation and the
institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF DISCHARGE OF DUTIES
Question:The prosecution alleged that four police officers, manning a
legal checkpoint, spotted a swerving vehicle, driven by Sydeco who was
under the influence of liquor. The police officers flagged the vehicle
down and asked Sydeco to alight from the vehicle for a body and vehicle
search. He refused and insisted on a plain view search only. By this
remark, the policemen told him that he was drunk, boxed him, and
poked a gun at his head. The officers pulled Sydeco out of the vehicle
and brought him to the hospital where they succeeded in securing a
medical certificate depicting Sydeco as positive of alcohol breath.
Sydeco was charged for violation of Section 56(f) of RA 4136 or the
Land Transportation Code and another for violation of Article 151 of the
RPC. Sydeco then filed a complaint-affidavit against the police officers.
MeTC found Sydeco guilty as charged. The RTC affirmed Sydecos
conviction. This was affirmed by the CA and upheld the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers. Is
appreciation of the presumption of regularity correct?
Answer: No. The presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty

is disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the

evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. The absence of
conclusive proof being under the influence of liquor while driving
coupled with the forceful manner the police yanked petitioner out of his
vehicle argues against or at least cast doubt on the finding of guilt for
drunken driving and resisting arrest. (People v. Sydeco)
BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: Acting upon confidential information, the District Anti-Illegal
Drugs (DAID) of Quezon City formed a team to conduct a buy-bust
operation to apprehend a certain Myrna who was allegedly conducting
illegal drug activities. According to the prosecution, the DAID recovered
the marked 500-peso bill used by the team from "Myrna," as well as two
plastic sachets, at the time of arrest of both "Myrna" and her
companion, Saguera. "Myrna," who was later identified as Nene
Quiamanlon, and Samula, as well as the recovered articles were brought
to the station for proper investigation and disposition.
RTC convicted Quiamanlon of violations of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act, specifically Sections 5 and 11 of Article II. Upon
appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Quiamanlon claimed
10 | P a g e

that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation failed to
observe the rules on chain of custody. Quiamanlon insisted that any
apprehending team having initial control of said drugs and/or
paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have
the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of
the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Rule on the merits of defense of violation of chain of custody.
Answer: The IRR of RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule

is not to be rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and evidentiary

value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team." Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be
preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
evidence has been tampered with. Evidently, the prosecution
established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
(People v. Quiamanlon)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question: A confidential informant reported to the Drug Enforcement
Unit (DEU) of Makati City that a certain "Vangie" was engaged in drug
pushing activities. Hence, a buy-bust operation was planned by the DEU.
Vangie arranged to meet at Starbucks Caf on Rockwell Drive, Makati
City. SPO1 Fulleros acceded to her request and headed to the coffee
shop. He gave Vangie the boodle money after examining the plastic
bags. Afterwards, he gave the pre-arranged signal to alert his team that
the transaction had been consummated. The back-up operatives arrived
while he was introducing himself to Vangie as a DEU operative. She was
placed under arrest and later identified as Sobangee.
RTC and CA found Sobangee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
violated Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling
methylamphetamine Sec. 5, Art. II of RA No. 9165 or the hydrochloride.
Sobangee claimed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
suffered from major inconsistencies, such as: (1) the date the alleged
informant came to the DEU office; (2) the time the buy-bust team left the
office to conduct its operation; (3) the place that the team first went to
before going to the buy-bust at Rockwell Center, Makati City; (4) the
location of the operatives during the buy-bust operation; (5) the site
where the illegal substances seized were marked; (6) the amount
involved in the buy-bust; (7) the officer who informed Sobangee of her
constitutional rights; and (8) the identity of the informant. Is the
conviction correct?
Answer. Yes. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal

sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following

elements: 1) Identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
11 | P a g e

consideration, 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
(People v. Sabongee)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question:An informant arrived at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs at the
Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig and reported that a
certain Paks was pushing shabu on P. Mariano St., Taguig. A team
was dispatched to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Boiser and PO2
Lagos walked with the informant to meet Paks. Paks, satisfied that PO2
Boise, was indeed a drug user, agreed to sell P500.00 worth of shabu.
He reached from his camouflage shorts a plastic sachet and handed it
to PO2 Boiser. After receiving the plastic sachet from Paks, PO2 Boiser
examined it under the light of a lamppost. Seeing the pre-arranged
signal acted out by PO2 Boiser, PO2 Lagos went to the scene and
introduced himself as a police officer to Paks. The buy-bust money was
then seized from Paks.
RTC found Paks Vicente, Jr. guilty of the crime charged. On appeal,
Vicente, Jr. argued that Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 were not complied with, since the buy-bust
team failed to present a pre-operation report and photographs of the
seized items. With this argument, he said that the seized items are now
polluted evidence. As an appellate judge, will you uphold the RTC ruling?
Answer: Yes. Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact

science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds

arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. It
is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of
drugs in a buy-bust operation. What is essential is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. (People v. Vicente)
BUY-BUST OPERATION
Question: In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon
Abetong, was caught selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC
rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date
and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have
passed since the items were confiscated before they were brought to
the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an inventory nor a
12 | P a g e

photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. Was the prosecution able

to establish the guilt of the accused based on the allegation of violation
of the chain of custody?
Answer: No. In a buy-bust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon

Abetong, was caught selling shabu to a police poseur buyer. The RTC
rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA affirmed his
conviction. The accused contended that the prosecution failed to
sufficiently prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
Raising non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, he argued, among
others: (1) that the markings on the items seized do not bear the date
and time of the confiscation, as required; (2) that about three days have
passed since the items were confiscated before they were brought to
the crime laboratory; and (3) that there was neither an inventory nor a
photograph of the recovered plastic sachet. He likewise hinged his
appeal on the fact that Inspector Lorilla, who had the only key to the
evidence locker, did not testify during trial. (Peopl v. Abetong)
BUY-BUST OPERATION; ALIBI
Question: The Taguig police formed a buy-bust team upon receipt of a
report of illegal activities of Pagkalinawan. He was arrested after
sachets of shabu were recovered from him. Pagkalinawan, interposed
the defense of alibi. He said that armed men barged into his house and
pointed a gun at him. He was brought to the police station when the
police could not find any prohibited drugs.
Pagkalinawan insists that what actually happened was an instigation
and not a buy-bust operation. Was there a valid entrapment in the form
of buy-bust operation?
Answer: Yes. A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused

during a buy-bust operation or what is known as a decoy solicitation, is

not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid.
(People v. Pagkalinawan)
BUY-BUST OPERATION, CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: As a result of a buy-bust operation, Dela Cruz was charged
with and convicted of the crime of drug pushing. In his defense, the
accused denied selling shabu to PO2 Ibasco. In short, the accused used
the defense of denial and alleged a frame-up by the arresting officers.
On appeal, he imputed material irregularities on the chain of custody of
the seized drugs. Rule on the irregularities on the chain of custody
raised by the accused.
Answer: The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to

establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody. The failure of the

13 | P a g e

police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs
raises doubt as to its origins and also negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. (People v. Dela
Cruz)
TEST-BUY
Question: SPO1 Dela Cruz was part of a team that conducted a test-buy
on to verify a report of Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug activities. When
this was confirmed, a buy-bust operation ensued. SPO1 Dela Cruz
subsequently marked the sachet that was sold to him as MDC-1 and the
sachet found on the person of Elizabeth as MDC-2. The chemistry report
confirmed that the subject drugs were positive for shabu. RTC convicted
the accused.
Elizabeth imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz observed
the requirements of RA 9165 on inventory and photographing of the
illegal substance, arguing that said police officer did not state where
and when he marked the sachets of shabu. Will you uphold the
conviction?
Answer: I will uphold the RTC decision. Non-compliance with the

provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous

drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case. The conviction
can be sustained if there are other independent evidence to establish
the guilt of the accused. (People v. Marcelino).
BUY-BUST OPERATIONS
Question: The Regional Special Operations Group IV (RSOG-IV) received
a tip about a group of drug traffickers led by Isidro Arguson operating in
Cavite. SPO2 Geronimo Pastrana, PO3 Ramos, and PO2 Emerson
Balosbalos the operation in front of the McDonalds branch in P.
Ocampo St., Pasay City. The sale was then consummated and PO3
Ramos gave his signal and arrested them. The accused, by way of
defense, alleged that she just finished her laundry when she took her
child to McDonalds when she saw a commotion. She then saw a
woman who alighted from a van and pointed at her to her companions
and boarded her inside the van causing her to lose hold of her child. The
RTC and the CA ruled against the accused. Hence, the case. Is the
conviction proper?
Answer: No. As embodied in Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, i.e., the

apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drug

shall immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the [drug] in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
14 | P a g e

the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. (People v. Cervantes)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: Manuel Ressurreccion was convicted of illegal sale of shabu.
On appeal to the Supreme Court he broaches the view that SA Isidoros
failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates
a reasonable doubt as to the drugs identity. Accused-appellant
Resurreccion now points to the failure of the buy-bust team to
immediately mark the seized drugs as a cause to doubt the identity of
the shabu allegedly confiscated from him. Was there a violation of the
chain of custody rule?
Answer: No. Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark

seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of

custody. It is essential for the prosecution to introduce other evidence
to establish the guilt of the accused. (People v. Resureccion)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Question: An informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias
"Boy Bicol" was at his Nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. When the
team reached the said Nipa Hut, Dela Cruz was seen holding a shotgun
but he later on dropped his shotgun when a police officer pointed his
firearm at him. The team entered the premises and saw a plastic bag of
shabu and drug paraphernalia. Dela Cruz was subsequently arrested
and was separately indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal
possession of firearm. The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition but convicted him of possession
of dangerous drugs. The accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of
the RTC Decision on the ground that the prosecution his arrest was
patently illegal and the prosecution failed to establish the chain of
custody of the illegal drug allegedly in his possession. The CA sustained
accused-appellant's conviction. Was the prosecution able to establish
possession of illegal drugs?
Answer: No. An accused can be held to be in constructive possession of

illegal drugs if it shown that they enjoy dominion and control over the
premises where these drugs were found. (People v. Dela Cruz)
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Question: The COA Special Audit Report stated that there were
anomalies in the payment of salary differentials, allowances, and
benefits, among others. Pursuant to such findings, three informations
were filed by the Ombudsman against Munib Estino, then Acting
15 | P a g e

Governor, and Ernesto Pescadera, the Provincial Treasurer during

Estinos stint. The said charges involve malversation of public funds
under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code and two violations of Sec. 3
(e) of R.A. 3019. The Sandiganbayan, in the consolidated criminal cases,
convicted both Estino and Pescadera for violation of Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019 for failure to pay the Representation and Transportation
Allowance (RATA) of the provincial government employees of Sulu but
acquitted them as to the other charge for the same violation. As to the
charge of malversation of public funds, the Sandiganbayan exonerated
Estino but convicted Pescadera for failure to remit the GSIS
contributions of the provincial government employees. Is the accused
guilty of the crime charged?
Answer: No. There is no proof that Pescadera misappropriated the said

amount for his personal use. While demand is not an element of the
crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the application of the
presumption. Without this presumption, the accused may still be proved
guilty under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation.
(Pescadera v. People)
LIABILITY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
Question: Petitioner Uyboco, a private individual, and his co-accused
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti- Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act by the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner asserts that the
Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the existence of a conspiracy and in
convicting him in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of
such conspiracy. May Uyboco be held liable for violation of RA 3019?
Answer: Yes. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public

officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent
offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019. (Uyboco v. People)
TREACHERY
Question: One evening, Estrella Doctor Casco along with her mother
named Damiana and two care- takers Liezl and Angelita, were walking
home from Damianas medical check-up when Estrellas cousins Tony
Tomas and Benedicto Doctor, together with Nestor Gatchalian, suddenly
came out from the side of the road. Without uttering a word, Tomas
drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while Gatchalian, without a gun,
allegedly blocked the road, and Doctor positioned himself at the back of
Damiana and Angelina and poked a gun at them. Estrella fell down but
Tomas fired three more gunshots at the former when she was already
down on the ground. After which, the three accused fled from the scene
of the crime. The RTC convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and
16 | P a g e

Gatchalian of the offense of Murder and appreciated the attendance of

treachery and conspiracy which the CA affirmed with modification.
Hence, this petition was filed. Is the CA correct in affirming the RTC
decision appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery?
Answer: Yes. For alevosiato qualify the crime to murder, it must be

shown that: (1) the malefactor employed such means, method or

manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or
retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means, method and
manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery
to be appreciated, it must be present and seen by the witness right at
the inception of the attack. (People v. Tomas)
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES
Question: Anthony was charged with murder and frustrated murder. The
trial found him guilty of the offenses charged. On appeal, aside from
reiterating his alibi, he also pointed out the inconsistencies in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The CA found no merit in
Anthonys contentions. In reviewing the testimonies of the witnesses,
the appellate court found no inconsistencies that would question their
credibility. Hence, this petition. Rule on accuseds contentions of
inconsistencies.
Answer: It is elementary that not all inconsistencies in the witnesses

testimony affect their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and

collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their
veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. (People v. Domingo)
INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES, POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
Question: Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke
Restaurant in Quezon City, noticed that Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc, were
beating Jaime. As a result of the beating died. Roda went to Camp
Karingal in Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. The police
then filed an investigation report which became the basis for the filing
of Information against Amodia et al. RTC ruled that Amodia et al. were
guilty of Murder. CA affirmed the RTC decision. CA gave credence to the
positive testimony of the prosecution eyewitness who, was not actuated
by improper motive to testify against accused-appellants. The CA,
moreover, held that the killing was qualified by the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength.
Amodia et al. contends that conviction is anchored on the positive
testimony of the prosecution eyewitness which was full of
inconsistencies. They allege that it was unbelievable that a person who
had witnessed a crime should simply go home without immediately
reporting the matter to the authorities. Were the accused positively
identified enough to convict them?
17 | P a g e

Answer: Yes. Positive identification of the accused, when categorical

and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of an

eye witness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial of [the]
accused, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
negative and self serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. (People
v. Amodia)
DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND DENIAL
Question: On November 20, 2001 in a forested area nearby the place
and house of the accused Didong and company, Didong hit with his
piece of wood the nape of Ahladdin (the victim who was also drunk at
the time) then held by the hand by Nante. When Nante released his hold,
Didong again hit Ahladdin on the back of the knees. After Boyet, Nante
and Didong stabbed Ahladdin, Fred Gongon shot him saying
Siguraduhin niyo patay na yan. The following morning the dead body
of Ahladdin was discovered. Consequently, based on these established
facts Didong and company were charged of murder qualified by
treachery. On this charge Didong merely provided the defense of alibi
and denial. Was there treachery?
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected

attack by the aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of

any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission
without risk to the aggressors, and without the slightest provocation on
the victims part.
RAPE AND DEFENSE OF ALIBI
Question: The accused was charged of the crime rape of certain AAA.
The prosecution presented the fact that the victim together with her
friends, went to a dance event but later on as she noticed that her
friends were no longer at the dance floor, she decided to go home to her
grandmothers house when on her way home, Alverio suddenly
appeared and raped her. During the incident, Alverio was armed with a
knife which he used to poke the victim and threatened her that he would
kill her if she told anyone of what he has done. On the other hand, the
accused denied all the accusations against him with an alibi. The RTC
convicted Alverio which decision was affirmed by the CA. Was the
conviction correct?
Answer: Yes. In cases involving the prosecution for rape, corroboration

of the victims testimony is not a necessary condition to a conviction for

rape where the victims testimony is credible, or clear and convincing or
sufficient to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. (People v. Alverio)
STATUTORY RAPE
18 | P a g e

Question: AAA, the private complainant, was 11 years old while Lindo
was their neighbor. While AAA was sleeping, Lindo took her away to a
place near a creek. He tried inserting his penis into her vagina but there
was no complete penetration. Not achieving full penile penetration, he
then made her bend over, and inserted his penis into her anus, causing
her to cry out in pain. RTC found him guilty of statutory rape under Art.
335 of the RPC in relation to R.A No. 7610. The CA affirmed the
judgment and awarded exemplary damages. Was the conviction
correct?
Answer: Yes. The mere introduction of the male organ in the labia

majora of the victims genitalia consummates the crime; the mere

touching of the labia by the penis was held to be sufficient. (People v.
Lindo)
RAPE
Question: AAA, then 15 years old, went to her grandmothers house
upon learning that her father and uncle were quarreling there. When she
cried for help, Elmer Barberos, a neighbor, went to her and told her that
he would protect her. Barberos brought AAA to his house and raped her.
AAA was able to escape by jumping out of the window when someone
knocked at the door. Both the RTC and CA convicted Barberos of the
crime of rape. Is total penetration necessary to commit rape?
Answer: No. Full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not

required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the labia
of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the
hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. (People v. Barberos)
SWEETHEART THEORY IN RAPE
Question: Cias was charged with the crime of rape. In his defense, he
argued that he and the victim had been carrying an illicit affair for about
six months. He alleged that in all their previous assignations, she
submitted herself to him voluntarily and willingly on each occasion that
they had sexual intercourse. Is relationship a defense in the crime of
love is not a license for lust
rape?
Answer: No. A love affair does not justify rape for a man does not have

an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against

her will. (People v. Cias)
RAPE AND SWEETHEART THEORY
Question: AAA was alone in her house and was taking a bath when she
noticed that the lights in the living room were turned off which she
thought was done by her live-in partner so she called his name.
However, upon opening of the bathroom door, she saw Rommel Belo
who was holding a bread knife and said "Sandali lang ito" and pushed
19 | P a g e

her inside the bathroom. Belo kissed and touched AAA's private parts
while pointing the knife at AAA and eventually he was able to insert his
penis into her vagina. Belo, in his defense, claims that it was a
consensual sex and that AAA was his girlfriend. Further, he claims that
the absence of bruises and contusions on AAAs body, based on the
medico- legal report, negates the crime of rape. The RTC found Belo
guilty of rape and was affirmed by the CA. Is the conviction proper
despite relationship with the victim?
Answer: Yes. Sweetheart" theory, being an affirmative defense, must be

established by convincing evidence -- some documentary and/or other

evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like.
(People v. Belo)
RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Question: Four separate informations for rape and one for acts of
lasciviousness were filed against Araojo. The latter tags AAAs account
of the alleged rape incidents, which, for the most part, consisted of the
same details, as utterly incredulous. If, as AAA alleged, she was raped,
then the results of her medical examinations would have yielded
complete hymenal lacerations, considering AAAs tender age and the
manner of the sexual assault. Araojo theorizes that, since AAA had been
hired as a babysitter, it is possible that she was exposed to various
forms of exploitation. Is the victims testimony sufficient to warrant
conviction?
Answer: Yes. The credibility of the victim is always the single most

important issue in prosecution for rape. Withal, in passing upon the

credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of respect must be accorded
to the findings of the trial court. (People v. Araojo)
RAPE COMMITTED BY A FATHER
Question: On three different dates, Martinez allegedly raped his 13-year
old daughter, AAA, who was mentally retarded. Martinez threatened to
kill AAA if she would reveal the incident to her mother. However, AAAs
teacher noticed that she appeared to be unusually weak. Aware of the
faCt that Martinez had sired two children from AAAs elder sister, the
teacher asked AAA if her father had raped her, to which AAA answered
in the affirmative. The teacher reported the same to the DSWD, and BBB,
her mother learned the rape incident. Martinez was then charged with
three counts of qualified rape. In his defense, Martinez raised denial and
alibi. RTC found Martinez guilty of three counts of rape under Art. 365 of
the RPC. Convinced of AAAs credibility, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision. Martinez argued that AAAs testimony is not credible for she is
mentally retarded. Is mental retardation a ground to discredit the
20 | P a g e

credibility of the testimony of the witness?

Answer: No. Anyone who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known

such perception to others, may be a witness. Thus, mental retardation

does not disqualify a person from testifying. What is essential is the
quality of perception, and the manner in which this perception is made
known to the court. (People v. Martinez)
RAPE
Question: Adelado Anguac is the common-law spouse of BBB, the
mother of AAA. Sometime in 1998 while sleeping with her siblings in a
room in their residence, AAA who was then 17 years old, found herself
suddenly awakened by Anguac who raped her. The sexual assault on
AAA was repeated for five times. AAA subsequently became pregnant.
She disclosed the assaults to her Aunts. Two separate informations
were filed charging Anguac with rape and violation of RA 7610. The RTC
found Anguac guilty. CA affirmed the RTCs ruling but treated the crime
of rape charged in Criminal Case No. RTC 2757-I as a violation of Sec.
5(b) of RA 7610 instead of Sec. 5(a) as found by the trial court. Anguac
on the other hand, questioned the sufficiency of the prosecutions
evidence. Was the CA correct in convicting the accused for Sec.5(b)
rather Sec. 5(a) as found by the RTC?
Answer: Yes. The character of the crime is determined by the recital of

the ultimate facts and circumstances in the information. The

testimonies of the victim and the witnesses which buttressed her claim
of the commission of the crime proved beyond reasonable doubt the
guilt of Anguac. (People v. Anguac)
STATUTORY RAPE
Question: Cruz was charged with one count of rape committed against
AAA, 9 years old. Upon arraignment Cruz pleaded not guilty. Medical
examination result showed that AAA had two (2) hymenal lacerations.
For his part, Cruz claimed that it was impossible for him to commit rape
as he had been sexually impotent since 1995. This was further
corroborated by his wife by saying that they seldom had sexual
intercourse after 1995. In 2001, Cruz was diagnosed to be suffering
from erectile dysfunction.
The RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the ruling of RTC and ruled that his impotency was not proven
with certainty and that the medical finding of erectile dysfunction was
based on an examination more than three years after the rape occurred;
thus, no categorical conclusion could be made that Cruz was impotent
when the rape was committed. Was there rape despite defense of
impotency?
21 | P a g e

Answer: Yes. Impotency as a defense in rape cases must likewise be

proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency.

STATUTORY RAPE
Question: Ugos was charged with raping AAA, his 7-year old
stepdaughter. While they were looking for AAAs mother, Ugos brought
AAA to a creek and raped her. Ugos denied the allegations and stated
that the victim fell while looking for her mother because the road was
dark and slippery. The RTC found him guilty, which the CA affirmed.
Ugos contends that the testimonies of AAA and her mother reveal only
the commission of acts of lasciviousness and not rape since he only
inserted his finger into her sex organ. Is the use of a finger sufficient to
commit the crime of rape?
Answer: Yes. Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by

inserting "any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of

by inserting one's penis inside another's oral or anal
another person." (People v. Ugos) also
orifice
QUALIFIED THEFT
Question: Respondent Amelio Tria (Tria) is a former branch manager of
Philippine National Banks (PNB) MWSS branch. MWSS opened an
account in PNB-MWSS. On April 22, 2004, PNB-MWSS received a letter
from MWSS instructing the bank to issue a managers check in the
amount of P5, 200, 000.00 in favor of a certain Atty. Rodrigo Reyes. The
employees of PNB, after authentication and verification approved the
request for the issuance of the managers check. On April 26, 2004, Tria
accompanied Atty. Reyes to PNB Quezon City branch since PNB-MWSS
had insufficient funds to pay the amount. He told the employee of PNB
QC that Atty. Reyes is their valued client. On February 2, 2005, Zaida
Pulida (Pulida), a MWSS employee handling the subject bank account
inquired to PNB about the P5, 200, 000.00 debited to the account. Pulida
notified PNB that MWSS did not apply for the issuance of the said
managers check. Furthermore, upon verification with the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, it was confirmed that there was no Rodrigo Reyes
included in its roster. PNB conducted its own investigation and held Tria
liable for qualified theft. Tria denied the allegation and contended other
bank employees should be liable for the loss. Is Tria guilty of qualified
theft?
Answer: Yes. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain,

but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon

things, shall take the personal property of another without the latters
consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft
becomes qualified. (PNB v. Tria)
22 | P a g e

ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Question: Petitioners were officers of the Municipality of Paracelis,
Mountain Province. They issued a Certificate of Inspection and
Acceptance in relation to the completion of a road construction in the
said municipality. As a result, the Government subsequently issued a
check for PhP106,970 as payment for the project. After COA
investigation, petitioners were charged with Estafa thru Falsification of
Public Documents. It was alleged that petitioners made it appear that
they have personally inspected the construction project and thereafter
found the same to have been fully accomplished 100%, when in truth
and in fact, the work on the aforesaid project was not yet finished. Is

the conviction correct?

Answer: Yes. The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2
of the RPC are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent
representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) such false
pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4)
as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. (Manangey v.
Sandiganbayan)
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Question: Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin was a former member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental. Mayor Fuentes
immediately approved and granted the request for financial assistance
for a sports activity. While the Mayor attended a conference, Mario
served as Officer-in Charge. Pactolin borrowed Abastillas letter from
the assistant treasurer and altered the same. Afterwards, Pactolin filed
a complaint against Mario with the Ombudsman, alleging that Mario
illegally disbursed public funds in connivance with the then city
accountant. Aggrieved, Mario instituted a criminal complaint against
Pactolin before the Sandiganbayan. Pactolin was charged of
falsification of public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised
Penal Code. Is Pactolin guilty of falsification?
Answer: Yes. The settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory

explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged

document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. (Pactolin v.
Sandiganbayan)
ESTAFA under ART.315(b), RPC
23 | P a g e

Question: Spouses Erlinda and Eliseo Asejo went to the house of Vilma
Castro to borrow PhP 100,000 to be shown to the bank (show money)
and make it appear that the Asejos were financially liquid. The spouses
went back to Castros house where she received the amount and signed
a Trust Undertaking. When the obligation became due, Castro went to
the spouses to demand payment but she failed to collect the money.
Spouses Asejo were charged with Estafa under Art. 315 (b). They were
found guilty as charged by the RTC. The CA affirmed the judgment but
modified the penalty. Is formal demand required to convict the
accused?
Answer: No. Demand under this kind of estafa [Art. 315 (b)] need not be

formal or written. It is sufficient that all the elements of the crime are
proved by the prosecution. (Asejo v. People) hindi ba 315 a to? abuse of confidence?
PART B: CONCEPTS, GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND LEADING CASES
I. Preliminaries

Q. What is the nature and scope of Criminal Law?

to all who live and sojourn in the ph regardless of

sex, color, creed or belief

A. (1) Generality will apply to people who commit any criminal act
committed within the territory of the Philippines and will generally deal
with the characteristic of the person accused of committing the crime;
(2) Territoriality Philippines will have jurisdiction over crimes
committed inside its territory except as provided for in treaties and laws

of preferential application and will normally deal with the characteristic

of the place where the crime was committed; and
(3) Prospectivity based on Art.22 of RPC, the appreciation of the crime
committed must take into consideration the date of the passage of the
law and give it retroactive effect (a) if it is favorable to the accused; and

(b) if the accused is not a habitual delinquent.

Q. What provisions of the Bill of Rights are relevant to Criminal Law?
A. The Bill of Rights
Sec. 1: due process and equal protection clause;
Sec. 2: right against illegal arrest, illegal search and seizure (in relation

to admission in evidence of extrajudicial admissions, warrantless arrest,

warrantless search and seizure and planted evidence);
Sec. 3: privacy of communications (in relation to Wire Tapping Law);
Sec. 4 freedom of religion (in relation to crime offending a religion);
Sec. 6 liberty of abode (in relation to restraint of travel (issuance of
Hold Departure Order; illegal detention committed by a public officer or
a private individual);
Sec.11 free access to courts (in relation to right to appropriate legal
24 | P a g e

representation);
Sec. 12 (1) and (3) Miranda rights (in relation to extrajudicial
confessions and when one can become a state witness), (2) and (4)
Rights while under detention (in relation to Human Security Act of 2007
and Human Torture Act of 2009);
Sec. 13 Right to bail (in relation to non-bailable offenses like Plunder,
Rebellion, etc.but pay attention to JPE v. Sandiganbayan decision which
introduced a new ground to grant bail which is not textually provided in
the Constitution); humanitarian conditions
Sec. 14 Presumption of innocence (in relation to degree of proof
required to convict);
Sec. 15 The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
Sec. 16 Right to speedy trial;
Sec.16 Nature of penalty of imprisonment (in relation to imposition of
penalties under RPC, Probation Law, Indeterminate Sentence Law,
Diversion and Rehabilitation);
Sec. 17 Nature fines and physical detention in case of conviction (in
relation to appreciation of attending circumstances in the commission
of the crime, suspension of death penalty);
Sec. 17 non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of a poll tax;
i.e. when same act is punished by a law and an
Sec. 18 prohibition against double jeopardy; and ordinance.
Sec. 22 prohibition against ex post fact law/ bill of attainder.

1st jeopardy to attach: competent court; jurisdiction over

the person of the accused; valid information; valid plea;
acquittal, dismissal without consent; conviction for a
crime that is necessarily included, includes, or is an
attempt or frustration of the 2nd offense.

Q. What are the elements of double jeopardy?

A. Double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached; (2) it

has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same
offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused
has been acquitted or convicted, or the case has been dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent, by a competent court
in a valid indictment for which the accused has entered a valid plea
during arraignment.Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et

al,G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014

Q. What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
A.The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose. To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the
exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained in violation of said
right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. However, the
interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute
25 | P a g e

and that warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed
permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of
moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4)
waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry
search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a
valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless
arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected
with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognizes permissible
warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest inflagrante delicto; (2) arrest
effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.People of

the Philippines v. Vicente Rom,G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014.

Q. Is a hearing necessary to determine probable cause in the issuance
of a warrant?
A. No. Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, the Supreme Court
has ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof.
In fact, the judges personal examination of the complainant and the
witnesses is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the
aptness of issuing a warrant of arrest. Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon.

Ephrem S. Abando, et al,G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014

Q. What is the rule on the admission of extrajudicial confession to
appreciate the element of conspiracy?
A. Theexception provided under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court to the rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the
prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence other than the
confession. The Supreme Court, however, has previously stressed that
mere association with the principals by direct participation, without
more, does not suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do
not prove conspiracy. It must be shown that the person concerned has
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. In
fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the
cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove
conspiracy.Gerry A. Salapuddin v. The Court of Appeals, Gov. Jum

Akbar, and Nor-RhamaJ. Indanan,G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.

Q. Cite the distinction between mala en se and mala prohibitum.
(1) mala en se by itself the act is inherently wrong (ex. killing another
person) while in mala prohibitum the act is merely prohibited by law (ex.
smoking or jay walking);
(2) good faith is a defense in mala en se but not in mala prohibitum;
(3) stages of commission under Art.6 of RPC is considered in mala en
26 | P a g e

se but not in mala prohibitum;

(4) degree of participation under Title II of RPC is considered in mala en
se but not in mala prohibitum;
(5) in mala en se, modifying circumstances are considered in
determining imposable penalty but not mala prohibitum; and
(6) in mala en se, generally, the crimes are punished under RPC while
generally, crimes considered mala prohibitum are punished under
special penal law.
II. Circumstances Affecting the Appreciation of Commission of a Crime
Attending circumstance in the commission of crimes: justifying,
mitigating, exempting and aggravating (generic and qualifying),
alternative circumstances ; appreciation of each circumstance will
depend on the facts surrounding the criminal act as it would affect theelements: 1 crime
was carried out
criminal liability and extent of liability of the accused. MEMORIZE
through means and
methods that ensure
PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE RPC.
its execution without
risk of defense or
Q. How will qualifying circumstance of treachery be appreciated?.
retaliation from the
victim; 2 the
A. There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against the accused
consciously adopted
means and
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof such
methods.
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Gunda Alias Fred,G.R. No.
provided that when victim dies, intent to kill
195525, February 5, 2014.
is presumed.

Q. How is intent to kill establish in the crime of murder?

A. The petitioners intent to kill was clearly established by the nature
and number of wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to prove
intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other things,
of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors
before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and
the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim.Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the

Philippines,G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014

Q. What is conspiracy?
A. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to
commit a felony.While direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime which point to a
27 | P a g e

joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests.

People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y Avellano, G.R. No. 189833,

February 5, 2014
Q. Is proof of previous agreement necessary to establish conspiracy?
A. No. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner
in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the
accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community ofinterests. Proofof a previous agreement and
decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the
malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective
suffices.People of the Philippines v. John Alvin Pondivida,G.R. No.
unlawful aggre: direct and physical act or a threat, in
188969, February 27, 2013
either case endangers one's life or limb.
Q. What are elements to establish self-defense?
necessity
A. By invoking self-defense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the
depends on the

circumstances
commission of the acts for which they were charged, albeit under
of the situation
a
circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated them by invoking including
comparison as
the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the to age, sex, and
physical
victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or attributes; as to
weapon rational
repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part equivalence
only is required.
of the persons resorting to self-defense. Of all the burdens the
petitioners carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful
aggression.Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the

no provocation
or there is
provocation but
not sufficient
or there is
sufficient
provocation but
not immediate

Philippines, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014

There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless
the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who
resorted to self-defense.Simon A. Flores v. People of the

Philippines,G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013.

Q. What is alibi?
A. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and
highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the accused must adduce clear
and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs
criminis at the time the crime was committed, such that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime
when it was committed. Alibi cannot prevail over and is worthless in the
face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused
perpetrated the crime.People of the Philippines v. Jonathan Uto

Veloso y Rama,G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013

Q. When is alibi applicable as a defense?
A. It has been held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused
must prove the following: (i) that he was present at another place at the
time of the perpetration of the crime; and (ii) that it was physically
28 | P a g e

impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its

commission. People of the Philippines v. Aurelio Jastiva,G.R. No.

199268, February 12, 2014

Q. What is the probative value of an affidavit if the affiant is not
presented in court?
A. An affidavit is hearsay unless affiantpresented in court. It is settled
that while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
acknowledged before a notary public (here, a public officer authorized
to administer oaths), they are still classified as hearsay evidence unless
the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify
thereon and the adverse party is accorded the opportunity to
cross-examine them. With the prosecutions failure to present the
affiant to affirm his statement should be treated as hearsay and, thus,
inadmissible to establish the truth or falsity of the relevant claims.

Q. How is circumstantial evidence appreciated in establishing ones

culpability?
A. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based
on reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v. People of the

Philippines,G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014

Circumstantial evidence; when sufficient for conviction. Circumstantial
evidence is defined as that evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the
evidenceestablished. Itis sufficient for conviction if: [a] there is more
than one (1) circumstance; [b] the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and [c] the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonabledoubt. Touphold a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain
which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The test to
determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is
sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances
duly proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every
circumstance must be consistent with the accusers guilt and
inconsistent with the accusers innocence. People of the Philippines v.

P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, et al,G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013.

Minority as a Mitigating Circumstance. To establish minority ones
29 | P a g e

Certificate of Birth may be introduced as evidence.

Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the offender
is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the
proper period. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and
compassion is that because of his age, the accused is presumed to
have acted with less discernment. This is regardless of the fact that his
minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was
belatedly presented for our consideration, since to rule accordingly will
not adversely affect the rights of the state, the victim and his heirs. .
People v. Agacer et. al., January 7, 2013
PLEASE MEMORIZE all attending circumstances BECAUSE YOU MIGHT
BE FACED WITH QUESTIONS WHICH WILL CALL FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THESE DISTINCTIONS IN COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES, ACTORS IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES, STAGES OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, APPRECIATION OF ATTENDING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND AVAILMENT OF PROBATION.
III. Felonies and other related matters
Classification of crimes; see your RPC on crimes against persons,
national security, committed by public officers etc. and those under
Special Penal Laws; concept of impossible crime and when one can be
held liable for it;
Stages of commission of a crime and actors involved: attempted,
frustrated and consummated; Principal, accomplice and accessory.
Please note the stage and degree of participation will determine the
penalties; actors may also be multiple offenders and may be covered
under any of the following - recidivism, quasi-recidivism, habituality,
habitual delinquency( nature of crime, time element and nature of
aggravating circumstances are factors which are considered if the
defendant is covered)

Conspiracy; liability of conspirators.Assuming that the prosecution

witnesses failed to identify exactly who inflicted the fatal wounds on
Joey during the commotion, Erwins liability is not diminished since he
and the others with him acted with concert in beating up and ultimately
killing Joey. Conspiracy makes all the assailants equally liable as
co-principals by direct participation. Since about 15 men, including
accused Erwin, pounced on their one helpless victim, relentlessly
30 | P a g e

bludgeoned him on the head, and stabbed him on the stomach until he
was dead; there is no question that the accused took advantage of their
superior strength. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the decision of the
lower courts finding accused Erwin guilty of murder.People of the

Philippines v. Erwin Tamayo y Bautisa,G.R. No. 196960, March 12,

2014.
Frustrated homicide; elements.The crime of frustrated homicide is
committed when: (1) an accused intended to kill his victim, as
manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim
sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely
medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present. Rodolfo

Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the Philippines,G.R. No.

170462, February 5, 2014 Consummated homicide; elements.The crime
of homicide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the accused
killed that person without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused
had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
parricide or infanticide.Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People

of the Philippines,G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014

Distinguish compound crime (when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less felonies); complex crime proper (when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other); composite crime (special
complex crime composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as
single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single
criminal impulse); continued crime (3 elements must concur: plurality of
acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of criminal
intent and purpose; and unity of penal provision violated).
IV. Penalties
General principles; purpose why penalty is imposed; classification of
penalties; duration and effect of penalties.
Under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if
it was of conviction, state: "(1) the legal qualification of the offense
constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating
or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the
participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal,
31 | P a g e

accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon
the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his
wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability
by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived."
A. Probation Law: nature and purpose of the law; when may defendant
avail of probation after conviction and no appeal is made during the
period perfecting an appeal; it is error on the part of the court to issue a
Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation because
defendants right to appeal has not yet prescribed; conversely, if
defendant filed an appeal, he can no longer avail of probation and if
defendant files an application for probation, he can no longer appeal;
individuals found guilty of drug trafficking cannot avail of probation;
probation also applies even if penalty is only a fine; probation shall not
exceed six years; consequences for violating the terms of probation;
when probation is deemed terminated.

Probation; appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies.Aside

from the goals of according expediency and liberality to the accused,
the rationale for the treatment of appeal and probation as mutually
exclusive remedies is that they rest on diametrically opposed legal
positions. An accused applying for probation is deemed to have
accepted the judgment. The application for probation is an admission of
guilt on the part of an accused for the crime which led to the judgment
of conviction. This was the reason why the Probation Law was
amended: precisely to put a stop to the practice of appealing from
judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable for
the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only
if the accused fails in his bid.Enrique Almero y Alcantara v. People of

the Philippines, et al,G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014.

PLEASE READ SEC. 9 OF THE PROBATION LAW AS TO WHO CANNOT
AVAIL OF THE BENEFITS OF PROBATION.

B. Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw): purposes of the law; where a

special law adopted penalties from RPC, ISLaw will apply just as it
would in felonies. PLEASE READ SEC.2 OF ISLaw WHEN BENEFITS OF
ISLaw MAY NOT BE AVAILED OF BY THE DEFENDANT. For example, a
person convicted of plunder which is punishable by life imprisonment
32 | P a g e

cannot avail of ISLaw.

Persons not eligible for Parole. People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo

Gunda Alias Fred,G.R. No. 195525, February 5, 2014. Under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder isreclusion
perpetuato death. There being no other aggravating circumstance other
than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court of Appeals
correctly held that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua,
the lower of the two indivisible penalties. It must be emphasized,
however, that appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of
R.A. 9346 which states that persons convicted of offenses punished
withreclusion perpetua,or whose sentence will be reduced toreclusion
perpetuaby reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act
No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
C. Graduation of Penalty: graduation of penalties may be appreciated as
follows stage of execution: for frustrated, 1 degree; for attempted
stage, 2 degrees except: for frustrated homicide, parricide or murder, 1
to 2 degrees and for attempted homicide, parricide or murder, 1 to 2
degrees; nature of execution as an accomplice, 1 degree and as
accessory, 2 degrees; privileged mitigating circumstance for minority,
1 degree and incomplete justification or exemption(except accident), 1
or 2 degrees.

Minority as mitigating circumstance. People v. Agacer et. al., January 7,

2013. The penalty imposed upon Franklin, being a minor, must be
accordingly modified. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to
death. A degree lower is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating
and ordinary mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on
Franklin should be reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum, which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision
mayor, the medium period of which ranges from eight (8) years and one
(1) day to ten (10) years. Due to the seriousness of the crime and the
manner it was committed, the penalty must be imposed at its most
severe range.

Imposition of Two Indivisible Penalties: People v. Seraspe, January 9,

2013. Under Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 20, Article IV, of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the
unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or methamphetamine
hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
33 | P a g e

ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The
total weight of the shabu confiscated in this case is 983.5 grams.
Hence, the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua to death. But
since the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death consists of two
indivisible penalties, appellant was correctly meted the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall
be applied.

Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua, not composed of three

periods. Bacolod v. People, July 15, 2013. It is imperative that the courts
prescribe the proper penalties when convicting the accused, and
determine the civil liability to be imposed on the accused, unless there
has been a reservation of the action to recover civil liability or a waiver
of its recovery. The information specifically alleged that the house
burned by the accused was an inhabited dwelling. Pursuant to Section
3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613 (Amending the Law on Arson), the
penalty to be imposed if the property burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling is from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Not being
composed of three periods, however, such penalty should be divided
into three equal portions of time, and each portion forms one period of
the penalty. Yet, reclusion perpetua, being an indivisible penalty,
immediately becomes the maximum period, leaving reclusion temporal
to be divided into two in order to fix the medium and minimum periods
of the penalty. The three periods of the prescribed penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua are then as follows:
Minimum period 12 years and 1 day to 16 years;
Medium period 16 years and 1 day to 20 years;
Maximum period reclusion perpetua.
Accordingly, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty in this case
should be within the range of the medium period of the penalty, i.e.,
from 16 years and 1 day to 20 years, because neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime; and the
minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of
the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime, without
regard to its periods.
Graduating Death Penalty Death penalty is still the penalty to be
reckoned with. With the suspension of death penalty, the next
imposable penalty shall apply.
D. Three-fold and 40-year limitation rule: distinguish simultaneous
34 | P a g e

service (ex. imprisonment and fine) from successive rule (ex. where
there is multiple penalties of imprisonment); three-fold rule on
maximum period of imprisonment; and 40-year limitation rule.
E. Subsidiary Imprisonment: when defendant shall be subjected to
subsidiary imprisonment after final conviction; imposition of civil
liability
F. Exemption from Criminal Liability under the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act: Distinguish between Diversion and Rehabilitation; how it
can be availed of;
G. Modes and Extinction of Criminal Liability: 1. from the Executive
Branch: acts of clemency by the President; 2. from the Legislative
Branch: amnesty; 3. Prescription of crimes; 4. Prescription of penalties;
and 5. pardon by offended party, where allowed.
General Rule: In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must
be considered, namely: (1) the period of prescription for the offense
charged; (2) the time when the period of prescription starts to run; and
(3) the time when the prescriptive period is interrupted.
V. The following are matters which are likely to be asked under Special
Penal Laws:
1. R.A. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: A public officer may
be charged both under this law and a provision of the RPC ex. when a
Mayor and the City Treasurer connive to use public funds not for the
purpose intended, they may also be held for malversation of funds under
the RPC; or when a Sheriff alters a date of execution of a court order, he
may also be charged with falsification of public documents under the
RPC; there is complex crime under R.A.3019 under both circumstances;
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A DISTICNTION IN PRESCRIPTION OF
CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER THE RPC AND
R.A.3019; review the participation of private individuals and relatives
under this law.

Elements of Corruption under Sec.4 (a) of R.A. 3019.. Disini v.

Sandiganbayan. The sufficiency of the allegations in the information
charging the violation of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019 is similarly
upheld. The elements of the offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 3019
are: that the offender has family or close personal relation with a public
35 | P a g e

official; that he capitalizes or exploits or takes advantage of such family

or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any present, gift, material or pecuniary advantage from any person
having some business, transaction, application, request, or contract
with the government; that the public official with whom the offender has
family or close personal relation has to intervene in the business
transaction, application, request, or contract with the government.

Direct Bribery and Indirect Bribery, Disini, ibid., The elements of

corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal
Code are: that the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or
presents to a public officer; and that the offers or promises are made or
the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances
that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect
bribery.

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; offenses under Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019. In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that there
are two (2) ways by which a public official violates section 3(e) of R.A.
3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: (1) by causing undue
injury to any party, including the Government; or (2) by giving any private
party any unwarranted benefit, advantage orpreference. Theaccused
may be charged under either mode or under both. The disjunctive term
or connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019.In other words, the presence of one would suffice for
conviction. To be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that
the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the
exercise of his official, administrative and judicial functions. The
element of damage is not required for violation of section 3(e) under the
secondmode. Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in
conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held
liable for the pertinent offenses under section 3 of R.A. 3019.
Considering that all the elements of the offense of violation of section
3(e) were alleged in the second information, the SC found the same to
be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction.Isabelo A.

Braza v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (1st Division),G.R. No. 195032,

February 20, 2013.
Sandiganbayan; original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction
over the claim against Asian Bank, for the Supreme Court has ruled
inPresidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan,
36 | P a g e

that the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction not only
over principal causes of action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth,
but also over all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such
cases.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, as successor-in-interest

of Asian Bank Corporation v. Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval, et al,G.R. No.

169677, February 18, 2013
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons
acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted.The only
question that needs to be settled in the present petition is whether
herein respondent, a private person, may be indicted for conspiracy in
violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 even if the public officer, with whom
he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the
Information. Respondent contends that by reason of the death of
Secretary Enrile, there is no public officer who was charged in the
Information and, as such, prosecution against respondent may not
prosper. The Supreme Court was not persuaded and it said that the only
thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal
liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the
basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent.
Stated differently, the death of Secretary Enrile does not mean that there
was no public officer who allegedly violated Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go,G.R. No. 168539, March 25,

2014.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 3(g); private persons
acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted. The
requirement before a private person may be indicted for violation of
Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person
must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The
law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances,
be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where
the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present
case where the public officer has already died, the private person may
be indicted alone.People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go,G.R. No.

168539, March 25, 2014.

R.A. 3019; Section 3(e); proof of the extent of damage is not essential.
The third element of the offense that the act of the accused caused
undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private
party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of
the functions of the accused was established here. Proof of the extent
of damage is not essential, it being sufficient that the injury suffered or
37 | P a g e

the benefit received is perceived to be substantial enough and not

merely negligible.Danilo O. Garcia and Joven SD. Brizuela v.

Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines,G.R. No. 197204, March

26, 2014.
Liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Plameras v. People, September
4, 2013. The following elements must concur to be liable under Section
3(e) of R.A. 3019:
1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative,
judicial or official functions;
2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence; and
3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.

2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 (R.A. 9165) Review of the

concept of chain of custody as it relates to the evidence and eventual
prosecution of the case (Sec. 21); no mitigating and aggravating
circumstances will be appreciated under law because mere possession
or any other act under the law is considered mala prohibita but

knowledge must be established by the prosecution that the offender

freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug without authority
(animus possidendi).
Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody rule. There are links that must
be established in the chain of custody in a buybust situation, namely:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and,fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the
prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscatedshabu.People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvador y

Balverde, et al,G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.

Exception to the chain of custody rule: People v. Romeo Ong et. al., July
3, 2013. Prosecution should establish the following links in that chain of
custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if
38 | P a g e

practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the

apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the

first required linkimmediate seizure and marking of the seized items in

the presence of the accused and othersnamely, that (a) there must be
justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved.
Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal possession of drugs; elements. With
regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
likeshabu, the following elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possesses the said drug.People of the Philippines v.

Vicente Rom,G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of drugs; elements. In a successful
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, likeshabu, the following
elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor. Place.People of the Philippines v. Glenn

Salvador y Balverde, et al,G.R. No. 190621. February 10, 2014.

Dangerous Drugs Act; transport defined. Transport as used under
the Dangerous Drugs Act means to carry or convey from one place to
another. The very act of transportingmethamphetamine
hydrochlorideismalum prohibitumsince it is punished as an offense
under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing
dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge.People of the Philippines v. Javier Morilla y

Avellano,G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014

Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust operations; distinction between
entrapment and instigation. A buy-bust operation has been recognized
in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is
distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not
predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or talked into
39 | P a g e

committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. In

entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust
operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied
to the target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an
informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success
of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the need to
protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through
his efforts. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered
absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the
need to protect his security is disregarded. People of the Philippines v.

Noel Bartolome y Bajo,G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.

Dangerous Drugs Act; illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements. To
establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu as defined and punished
under section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt the following: (a) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale;
and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing.
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like
shabu, requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction,
which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the
seller. In short, the Prosecution must show that the transaction or sale
actually took place, and present in court the thing sold as evidence of
the corpus delicti.People of the Philippinesv. Arnold Tapere y

Polpol,G.R. No. 178065,February 20, 2013

3. Anti-violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A.
2562) Nature of violence is not limited to physical but may cover
economic and psychological acts. Review S.C. ruling in People v.
Genosa on battered woman syndrome which consists of three phases:
tension-building phase; acute battering incident and tranquil, loving or
non-violent phase. Battered woman syndrome is a valid defense that will
exonerate a woman from killing her spouse/partner.

Dabalos v. RTC, Br. 59, Angeles City, January 7, 2013. The Court will not
read into Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 a provision that would render it
toothless in the pursuit of the declared policy of the State to protect
women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety
and security. The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting
qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime
of violence against women through physical harm, namely: 1) it is
committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the
40 | P a g e

offenders wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or

dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it
results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably,
while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is
not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such
relationship.
4. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22): elements of the crime; an offender
can be charged both with estafa for each party offended and violation of
B.P.22 for each count of checks dishonored covered by the prohibition
(ex. A pyramiding scam committed by Zebra was uncovered which
victimized 200 vendors for which 6 posted dated checks were issued to
each vendor to pay interest on their capital investment. Zebra shall be
held on 200 counts of estafa under the RPC and as many counts of
violation of B.P. for each check dishonored upon presentment.); relate
situation with definition of continued crime or delito continuado.
Liability under B.P. 22. San Mateo v. People, March 6, 2013. To be liable
for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be
present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for
account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer
that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment. Since there is insufficient proof that San Mateo
actually received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that she knew
of the insufficiency of her funds cannot arise. For this reason, the Court
cannot convict her with moral certainty of violation of B.P. 22
Estafa; syndicated estafa; elements. The elements of syndicated estafa
are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and
316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling
is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c)
defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, samahang
nayon(s), or farmers associations or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public. Rafael H. Galvez

and Katherine L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v. Gilbert, et

41 | P a g e

al./Gilbert Guy, et al v. Asia Untied Bank ,G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No.

187979/G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013
Effect of Acquittal on Civil Liability. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe,
November 11, 2013.If acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, will not
relieve the accused of the corresponding civil liability.
5. Anti- Fencing Law: Being a crime considered as malum prohibitum,
mere possession of a stolen good gives rise to prima facie presumption
of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. A question involving sale of
Ukay-ukay items might be asked.

Elements of Fencing. Ong v. People, April 10, 2013. The essential

elements of the crime of fencing are as follows: (1) a crime of robbery
or theft has been committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or
on 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
crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew 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 one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.hanr
6. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No.
8294): elements of the crime; differentiate criminal intent from intent to
possess; how will a person be treated if found to have possessed an
illegal firearm in a COMELEC check point, will he be charged for
violation of the Omnibus Election Law or for illegal possession of
firearm, or both; review concept of absorption in criminal law and when
it will and will not apply.
7. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001: define suspicious transactions,
covered transactions, covered institution, and covered persons;
knowledge of the culprits identity is not essential; effect of freeze order
(only the Court of Appeals may issue this order)
8. Anti-Hazing Law: definition of hazing; requisites under Sec. 2 of the
law; liability of persons under Sec.4 of the law who may held
principals and accomplices; Read the Lenny Villa case and latest
decision penned by Justice Mendoza on the fraternity rumble inside the
U.P. campus resulting to death of a U.P. student. See the dissenting
42 | P a g e

opinion of Justice Peralta.

VI. Other possible matters which may be taken up in Criminal Law
1. On prescription of a crime: The reckoning date of crime if not known
right after its commission may be computed from the date of discovery.
Example: If a crime was committed 10 years from its commission on
October 17, 1993 was only reported by an eyewitness on October 17,
2003 and the culprit was arrested only on October 17, 2013, prescription
will be counted only from October 17, 2003 and not from October 17,
1993.
2. On criminal liability: If Tiger borrowed a gun from Lion to kill
Kangaroo but Tiger did not use Lions gun but he instead stabbed
Kangaroo. Will Tiger have any criminal liability? If Tiger agreed with the
plan of Lion, he can be held liable as an accomplice.
3. Kidnapping: If A, B and C stopped at gunpoint a van carrying a
well-known artist with her driver and personal assistant inside the van
and announced Kidnap ito. They forcibly took over the van, hit the
drivers head and left him along the road but they took the personal
assistant with them. They ordered the artist to call up her talent
manager to ask for a ransom of P5M. What crimes were committed by
A, B and C
(a) As to the artist kidnapping and serious illegal detention
(b) As to the personal assistant serious illegal detention
(c) as to the driver- grave coercion and depending on injuries sustained,
serious or less serious physical injuries

People v. Betty Salvador, April 10, 2013. wIn order for the accused to be
convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267
of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime, namely: (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 must be 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) serious physical injuries are inflicted
43 | P a g e

upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made;
or (d) the person kidnapped and kept in detained is a minor, the duration
of his detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and

illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his
detention is immaterial.
People v. Nocum, April 1, 2013. Section 2 of RA 6539 defines
carnapping as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things." The crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under
Section 14 of the said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. To
prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there
must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also
that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was
perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on
the occasion thereof." Thus, the prosecution in this case has the burden
of proving that: (1) Mallari took the Toyota FX taxi; (2) his original
criminal design was carnapping; (3) he killed the driver, Medel; and (4)
the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof."oblesvirtu
4. Crimes covered under Art. 365 In cases of criminal negligence,
courts may impose a penalty without considering any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances. Thus, voluntary surrender will not be
appreciated.

Negligence; Medical negligence; four elements the plaintiff must prove

by competent evidence. An action upon medical negligence whether
criminal, civil or administrative calls for the plaintiff to prove by
competent evidence each of the following four elements, namely: (a) the
duty owed by the physician to the patient, as created by the
physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance with the specific
norms or standards established by his profession; (b) the breach of the
duty by the physicians failing to act in accordance with the applicable
standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably
close and causal connection between the negligent act or omission and
the resulting injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient. Dr.
44 | P a g e

Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192123,

March 10, 2014
Res ipsa loquitor; applicability in medical negligence cases. The
applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence
cases was significantly and exhaustively explained in Ramos v. Court of
Appeals, where the Court saidMedical malpractice cases do not
escape the application of this doctrine. Thus, res ipsa loquitur has been
applied when the circumstances attendant upon the harm are
themselves of such a character as to justify an inference of negligence
as the cause of that harm. The application of res ipsa loquitur in
medical negligence cases presents a question of law since it is a
judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances
does, as a matter of law, permit a given inference. Resort to res ipsa
loquitur is allowed because there is no other way, under usual and
ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redress for injury
suffered by him. Dr. Fernando P. Solidum v. People of the Philippines,

G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014

5. Crime of Rape Complex crime of rape with homicide may result if
after the incident of rape, the victim was killed where there was no
original intent to kill her. Aggravating circumstances of dwelling,
nocturnity disguise and if alcohol was used to embolden the offender
may be appreciated by the court in imposing the penalty.

Rape; three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. The three guiding

principles in rape prosecutions are as follows: (1) an accusation of rape
is easy to make, and difficult to prove, but it is even more difficult to
disprove; (2) bearing in mind the intrinsic nature of the crime, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost care and
caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merits; and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
defense.People of the Philippines v. Aurelio Jastiva,G.R. No. 199268,

February 12, 2014.

Rape; elements.The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for
rape are: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2)
said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation,
or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious,
45 | P a g e

or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.People

of the Philippines v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178,

February 12, 2014
Rape; sweetheart theory. For the sweetheart theory to be believed when
invoked by the accused, convincing evidence to prove the existence of
the supposed relationship must be presented by the proponent of the
theory. For the [sweetheart] theory to prosper, the existence of the
supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial
evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be
self-serving and of no probative value.People of the Philippines v.

Mervin Gahi,G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.

Rape; elements of statutory rape; carnal knowledge of a female without
her consent is the essence of statutory rape. The elements of statutory
rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12 years or is demented;
and (b) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim. Considering
that the essence of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a female
without her consent, neither the use of force, threat or intimidation on
the female, nor the females deprivation of reason or being otherwise
unconscious, nor the employment on the female of fraudulent
machinations or grave abuse of authority is necessary to commit
statutory rape.People of the Philippinesv.Tomas Teodoro y

Angeles,G.R. No. 175876,February 20, 2013

6. Distinguish the crime of unjust vexation and acts of lasciviousness

7. Distinguish robbery, theft and qualified theft as general rule, when
crime of this nature is committed, intent to gain is an essential element;
the same principle applies in carnapping (Anti- Carnapping Act of 1972,
as amended)

Elements of Qualified Theft: Zapanta v. People, March 20, 2013. 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.
46 | P a g e

Homicide on occasion of robbery, victim is immaterial. People v. Welvin

Diu, et al., April 3, 2013. When homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually
take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the same.
If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the
commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of
robbery with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with
homicide are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited
and gained from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy
adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer
repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion
of robbery if, for instance, it was committed to (a) facilitate the robbery
or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit
of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery;
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long
as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter
crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.
8. Distinguish libel, internet libel and oral defamation malice is an
essential element in libel and under Art. 361, RPC proof of truth shall be
admissible only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public
officer with respect to facts related/published.

Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al,G.R. No.

203335, February 11, 2014: The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation
of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of
the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of
malice. There is actual malice or malice in fact when the offender
makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless
disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of
probable falsity.
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al,G.R. No.

203335, February 11, 2014.

Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to
47 | P a g e

Article 355 of the Penal Code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)
(4) of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 merely
affirms that online defamation constitutes similar means for
committing libel. But the Supreme Courts acquiescence goes only
insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes only the author of the libelous
statement or article.
9. Distinction between crime of rebellion and that of sedition who may
liable; elements of each crime; can crime be considered as complex
with robbery, complex with homicide, complex with damage to
property?

Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al,G.R. No. 176830,

February 11, 2014.
Under the political offense doctrine, common crimes, perpetrated in
furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as
common offenses and assume the political complexion of the main
crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be
punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the
same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty. Thus, when a killing
is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or
murder but the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as
its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion
alone
10. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208) ; Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 (R.A.9775), Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A. 7610, as
amended) acts punishable and who are liable; In case of aliens,
violating R.A. 9775, may they be subjected to both deportation
proceedings and a criminal action? YES; Read the conviction of Judge
Adoracion Angeles judge was not suspended from judicial duties
while conviction was pending appeal; issuance of Protection Order even
at the barangay level

Balois Alberto et. al. v. C.A. et. al. As held in People v. Pangilinan: [I]f
the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the
offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because
48 | P a g e

his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be

subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise,
rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a
felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
Cabalo v. People, June 10, 2013. Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610
pertinently reads: SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate
or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), the elements of
the foregoing offense are the following: (a) The accused commits the
act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) The said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and (c) The child, whether male or female, is below 18
years of age.
11. Murder and Homicide
Murder; elements. To hold the accused liable for 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 of the Revised Penal Code; and
(4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. People of the

Philippines v. Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz, G.R. No. 199713,February 20,

2013.
Homicide; intent to kill. The intent to kill, as an essential element of
homicide at whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the
infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist
of,inter alia,the means used; the nature, location and number of
wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of the malefactors
before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim.
Accuseds intent to kill was simultaneous with the infliction of injuries.
Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest. Despite a bloodied right
upper torso, the latter still managed to run towards his house to ask for
help. Nonetheless, accused continued to shoot at the victim three more
times, albeit unsuccessfully. These belie the absence of petitioners
intent to kill the victim.Edmundo Escamilla y Jugo v. People of the
Philippines,G.R. No. 188551, February 27, 2013.
12. Illegal Use of Alias
49 | P a g e

Illegal use of aliases. A person who uses various names and such
contained his true names, albeit at times joined with an erroneous
middle or second name, or a misspelled family name in one instance is
not guilty of violating the Anti-Alias Law when he was not also shown to
have used the names for unscrupulous purposes, or to deceive or
confuse the public. The Court that the dismissal of the charge against
him was justified in fact and in law.Revelina Limson v. Eugenio Juan

Gonzalez,G.R. No. 162205, March 31, 2014.

13. Bigamy (Both decisions were penned by Justice Peralta)
Capili v. People, July 3, 2013. The elements of the crime of bigamy,
therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage
has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the
Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that
the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there
is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so
long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage
was celebrated.
People v. Odtuhan, July 17, 2013. The Family Code has settled once and
for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the
absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause
of action or a ground for defense. It has been held in a number of cases
that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent
marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous
marriage, reprehensible and immoral.
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts
a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid
marriage. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment
of competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he
who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy.
14. On computation of penalties It is important to relate the felony
committed with the corresponding penalty prescribed for such felony,
then consider the attending circumstances which may shorten or
50 | P a g e

lengthen the service sentence and if ISLaw applies, then the

corresponding adjustments will have to be made.

51 | P a g e