2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS

Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

BOOK I
Article 4: Criminal liability

Q1: X stabbed Y with a sharpened bamboo stick. Y was brought to a hospital and treated
as an outpatient. 22 days later, Y was rushed to another hospital where he died the day
after due to tetanus infection. X was charged with and found guilty of murder by the trial
court. On appeal, X argues that he should only be held liable for slight physical injuries
for the stab wound he inflicted. Decide.

X should be found guilty of the lesser offense of slight physical injuries. The proximate cause of
Ys death is the tetanus infection, not the stab wound. Proximate cause is that cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. There is doubt as to the stabbing
by X being the proximate cause of Ys death given the intubation period of tetanus and the
span of 22 days between the stabbing and Ys being rushed to the hospital. Ultimately, it can
only be deduced that Ys stab wound was the remote cause, and its subsequent infection with
tetanus might have been the proximate cause of Ys death. The infection of Ys stab wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Y was stabbed to the time
of his death. (People v Villacorta, 2011)

Q2: X had a heated altercation with Y. Y delivered a lucky punch on Xs face which
made him topple down. X was on the verge of hitting his head on the ground had their
companions not caught him and prevented the fall. Thereafter, he regularly reported for
work. But after 12 days, he died. Y was charged with Homicide. Is he liable?

Yes. The court was convinced that the "lucky punch" was the proximate cause of Xs death.
The prosecution had satisfactorily proven that it was only after the incident that transpired that
the victim was hospitalized several times until he died. It is moreover of no consequence
whether the victim was able to report for work during the intervening days. However, the
mitigating circumstance that petitioner had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed should also be appreciated in his favor. (Urbano v People, 2009) *J. Velasco

Q3: O, intending to kill P, peppered the latters bedroom with bullets. P was not home.
The RTC convicted O of attempted murder. O seeks modification of the judgment,
contending that Ps absence from her room made the crime inherently impossible. P
contended that the crime committed was attempted murder because his absence was a
supervening cause independent of Os will. Is P correct?

No, this is a case of an impossible crime where the impossibility of accomplishing the criminal
intent is not a defense. Art 4 of the RPC makes a person criminally liable for an act which
would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. All circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be
treated as an accident independent of the actors will. (Intod v. CA, 1992)

Q4: Distinguish factual impossibility from legal impossibility.

Factual impossibility Legal impossibility

Extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation
of the intended crime. (Example:
Man puts his hand in the pocket of
another with the intention to steal
and finds the pocket empty.)
Intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a
crime.
The following must be present: (1) the motive to perform
an act in violation of the law; (2) an intention to perform
the physical act; (3) physical act is performed; and (4)
the consequence does not amount to a crime. (Example:
killing a person already dead). (Intod v. CA, 1992)

Q5: Can a person be charged for qualified theft when he stole a check that was
subsequently dishonored?

Page 1 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

No, because the personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention
of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. A check that is subsequently dishonored means
that it has no value, hence there can be no theft.

However, he can be liable for an impossible crime, under the 2nd paragraph of Art 4. The
requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an offense against
persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that its accomplishment
was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual. In
taking possession of the check, he had performed all the acts to consummate the crime of
theft, had it not been impossible of accomplishment. (Jacinto v People, 2009)

Article 5: Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not
covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties

Q6: Where the penalty depends on the value of the property, such as in estafa and other
crimes against property, can the Court modify the penalty if it is excessive?

No. The Court cannot modify the imposable penalties because that would constitute judicial
legislation. In this case, Art 5 of the RPC will apply which allows the courts to submit to the
Chief Executive, through the DOJ, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
RPC would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused. (Corpuz v. People, 2014)

Article 6: Consummated, frustrated and attempted

Q7: Is there a crime of frustrated theft?

None. Under Art 308, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted (no
unlawful taking) or consummated (there is unlawful taking). (Valenzuela v. People, 2007)

Q8: X struck Y on the head with a huge stone. The blow was so forceful that it knocked
Y out. What crime was committed?

Attempted homicide. Intent to kill may be inferred from the following: means used, nature,
location and number of wounds inflicted on the victim. Considering the size of his weapon, the
impact produced, and the location of the wounds that were inflicted, there was clearly intent to
kill. However, X is guilty only of attempted, not frustrated, homicide. (Colinares v. People, 2011)

Article 8: Conspiracy

Q9: Does a mere thumbs-up sign after the stolen materials were unloaded constitute
conspiracy?

Yes. Lack of physical participation in hauling items does not exclude one as a conspirator.
Giving thumbs-up is clear proof of meeting of minds. (Yongco v. People, 2014) *J. Velasco

Article 11: Justifying Circumstance

Q10: A was sleeping when he realized that his neighbor B together with Bs laborers
began chiseling the fence that separates his property from the latter. A asked B to stop
such since it was, according to him, his property. B, however, responded that the
operations be continued. In anger, A went inside his house and shot B and his associate
with a shotgun. Can A avail the justifying circumstance of self-defense?

No. While there was unlawful aggression (evidenced by the damage to As right to property)
and lack of sufficient provocation (A tried conversing with B), As means of preventing or
repelling the crime was not reasonable. Shooting with a shotgun disqualifies A from fully
availing the justifying circumstance of self-defense. (People v Narvaez, 1983)

Page 2 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Q11: V was arrested for robbery. A, B and C, police officers, in an attempt to recover the
stolen items, brought V along with them, unhandcuffed, in an open jeepney to show
them where the items were hidden. Along the way, V was able to take an M16 Armalite
from A and jumped out of the jeepney. C, without firing a warning shot, shot V once,
then after, fired another 3 bullets at V. V died and C was prosecuted for homicide. C
argued that he is entitled to the justifying circumstance of performance of duty. On the
other hand, prosecution argues that C failed to show that the shooting of V was the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty. Prosecution pointed out that
while it was the duty of the policemen to stop the escaping detainee, C exceeded the
proper bounds of performing this duty when he shot Valino without warning. Decide.

C should be acquitted. His acts were justified under fulfilment of duty. A policeman in the
performance of duty is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and
detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes,
and protect himself from bodily harm. V was not only escaping but had stolen an M16 Armalite
from a policeman. The policemen had the duty not only to recapture Valino but also to recover
the loose firearm. Given that the weapon V grabbed was an M16 Armalite, the police officers
were in imminent danger. Where the threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent, and
there is no other option but to use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcers failure to
issue a warning is excusable. (Cabanlig v Sandiganbayan, 2005)

Article 12: Exempting Circumstance

Q12: Accused X claims that he was suffering from schizoaffective disorder when the
alleged rape incident happened. Is the exempting circumstance of insanity present?

No. There is presumption of sanity. Evidence tended to show, albeit impliedly, that accused
was not deprived of reason and can distinguish right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust,
he threatened AAA not to tell anybody about what he had done; otherwise, she would be killed.
This single episode irresistibly implies, for one, that accused-appellant knew what he was
doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. (People v. Alipio, 2009) *J. Velasco

Article 13: Mitigating Circumstance

Q13: Is the court bound to consider voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in

the crime of reckless imprudence under Art. 365 (i.e. reckless imprudence resulting to
serious physical injury)?

NO. Par 5 of Art 365, RPC, expressly states that in the imposition of the penalties, the courts
shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Art 64. The
rationale of the law can be found in the fact that in quasi-offenses penalized under Article 365,
the carelessness, imprudence or negligence which characterizes the wrongful act may vary
from one situation to another, in nature, extent, and resulting consequences, and in order that
there may be a fair and just application of the penalty, the courts must have ample discretion in
its imposition, without being bound by what We may call the mathematical formula provided for
in Art 64. (Mariano v. People, 2014 citing People v Medroso, 1975).

Q14: Spouses H and W had an argument which resulted in H piling up clothes and
pouring gasoline all over the clothes and W. H then set fire to W and the clothes, which
caused W to sustain 3rd degree burns over 90% of her body. H rushed W to the hospital,
but W succumbed to her injuries a month later. Contrary to Hs contention that they
fought over the container of kerosene which then accidentally spilled on W, the court
found that H had intentionally poured the gasoline over Ws head which is the only
rational explanation why 90% of Ws body was wet with kerosene. On appeal, H argued
that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed. Is H entitled to this mitigating circumstance?

No, the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong is not obtaining.
This mitigating circumstance holds when there is a notable disparity between the means
employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention
of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifest from the weapon used,

Page 3 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim. H knew that he would
cause fatal injuries when he poured kerosene over his wife and lit a match to ignite the fire.
There was no disparity between the means H used in injuring his wife and the resulting third
degree burns on her body which caused her death. (People v Maglian, 2011) *J. Velasco

Article 14: Aggravating Circumstance

Q15: Is treachery a qualifying or a generic aggravating circumstance in the crime of

robbery with homicide?

Generic aggravating circumstance. There is no special complex crime of robbery with murder.
Treachery forms part of the circumstances proven concerning the actual commission of the
complex crime. It does not qualify the homicide to murder but only determines the penalty to be
imposed. (People v. Laog, 2011)

Q16: Differentiate recidivism, reiteracion, habitual delinquency and quasi-recidivism.

Recidivism Habituality/ Habitual Delinquency Quasi-

Reiteracion Recidivism
As to crimes committed
Crimes Involves any crime The crimes are specified (serious Involves any
involved must or less serious physical injuries, crime (pointed
be embraced robbery, theft, estafa, or out that the 2nd
in the same falsification). offense must be
title of the a felony, while
Code. the 1st offense
need not be).
As to the period of time the crimes are committed
Offender is on Offender previously After conviction and serving out Offender has
trial for an served sentence for his sentence, offender is been convicted
offense and is another offense to convicted again of any of the 2nd of an offense
subsequently which the law crime and that after conviction and and commits
convicted of attaches an equal or serving out his sentence for the another felony
the new crime. greater penalty, or for 2nd crime, offender again before or during
two or more crimes to committed and was convicted serving
which it attaches within 10 years from his last sentence.
lighter penalty than sentence or conviction of any of
that for the new the crimes specified the 3rd time or
offense. oftener.
As to their effects
A generic A generic aggravating An extraordinary aggravating A special
aggravating circumstance. circumstance (imposes an aggravating
circumstance additional penalty). circumstance.

Q17: What are the examples of aggravating circumstances absorbed by treachery?

1. Nighttime (People v Hilot, 2000)

2. Abuse of superior strength (People v Gaballo, 1999)
3. Employing means to weaken the defense (People v Siaotong, 1957)
4. With the aid of armed men
5. Evident premeditation
6. Craft, fraud or disguise, may be absorbed by treachery if it is deliberately adopted as the
means, method or form for the treacherous strategy. (People v. Lab-Eo, 2002)
7. Disregard of age and sex (People v Clementer, 1974)
8. By a band (People v Ampo-an, 1990)

Article 15: Alternative Circumstance

Q18: If the accused was tipsy when he committed the crime, will the mitigating
circumstance of intoxication be appreciated?

Page 4 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

No. The quantity consumed prior to the commission of the crime must be sufficient to produce
the effect of obfuscating reason. (People v. Rebucan, 2011). In addition, it must also be proven
that he is not a habitual drinker and did not take the alcohol in order to reinforce his resolve to
commit the crime to be considered mitigating. (People v. Ortega, 2001)

Conspiracy under Special Penal Laws

Q19: How is conspiracy appreciated under the Dangerous Drugs Act?

DDA provides for a chain conspiracy wherein there is successive communication and
cooperation for the distribution of narcotics and other contraband akin to that of a legitimate
business operations starting from the manufacturer, then to the retailer and finally to the
consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 2002)

Q20: How is conspiracy appreciated under the Plunder Law?

In the wheel or circle conspiracy, a person or a group (hub) deals with 2 or more persons or
groups (spokes), to achieve the common goal of amassing and accumulating ill-gotten
wealth. A public officer need not be the hub because what Sec 2 merely requires is that the
public officer must be in connivance with others. (Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, 2016).

Article 39 Subsidiary Liability

Q21: Discuss the application of Art 39 Subsidiary Liability.

Art. 39 of the RPC states that if the convict has no property with which to meet the fine as a
penalty of the crime committed, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the
Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court. (R.A. 10159)

Q22: What is the difference between accessory and subsidiary penalty?

Accessory penalty is that deemed included in the imposition of principal penalties while
subsidiary penalty is the subsidiary imprisonment to be suffered by the convict who has no
property with which to meet a fine. Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty; it is
imposed on the accused and served in lieu of the fine he fails to pay on account of insolvency.

Q23: Differentiate between the 1/3 rule and 3-fold rule in service of sentences.

The 1/3 rule pertains to Art 39 on subsidiary liability stating that when the principal penalty is
prision correcional or arresto and fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the
term of the sentence and in no case shall it continue for more than 1 year. On the other hand,
the 3-fold rule pertains to Art 70 on successive service of sentences that where a culprit has to
serve 2 or more penalties, the maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more
than 3-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed.

Article 48: Complex Crime

Q24: X fired his gun once without intent to kill Y. The single bullet hit two persons,
killing one and slightly injuring another. X was charged with complex crime of Homicide
with Attempted Homicide. Is the charge proper?

No. There is no complex crime of Homicide with Attempted Homicide because from the
beginning, X had no intent to kill. Separate crimes of Homicide and Slight Physical Injuries
were committed. Since the injury is only a slight physical injury, it cannot be complexed with
Homicide. (People v. Inocencio Gonzales, 2001)

Q25: Jason, while driving, crossed the center island of the road and bumped into the car
driven by A, who was with his wife, B. As a result of the collision, A died and B only
suffered slight physical injuries. Jason was charged with reckless imprudence resulting

Page 5 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

in slight physical injuries. He pleaded guilty and was convicted. Thereafter, another
Information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against him. Will the
latter case prosper?

No. This situation involves a quasi-offense under Art 365. A quasi-offense cannot stand for (1)
a single act constituting 2 or more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a
necessary means for committing another. There shall be no splitting of charges and only one
information shall be filed in the same first level court. (Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 2010)

Q26: How do you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law to complex crimes?

According to the case of People v. Gonzales (1942), the steps are the following:
1. Start from the penalty imposed by the RPC;
2. Apply any privileged mitigating circumstance;
3. Determine the penalty immediately inferior in degree; and
4. Apply the same in the maximum period.

Q27: Differentiate complex crime proper, compound crime, and continued crime.

Complex Crime Proper Compound Crime Continued Crime

An offense is a necessary
means for committing the
other.
The requisites are:
(1) that at least 2 offenses
are committed,
(2) that one or some of the
offenses must be necessary
to commit the other,
(3) that both or all the
offenses must be punished
under the same statute
A single act constitutes 2 or
more grave or less grave
felonies.
The requisites are:
(1) that only a single act is
performed by the offender,
(2) that the single act produces
(a) two or more grave felonies,
(b) one or more grave and one
or more less grave felonies,
(c) 2 or more less grave
felonies
There is a single crime
consisting of a series of acts
but all arising from one
criminal resolution.
A continued crime is not a
complex crime, because the
offender in continued or
continuous crime does not
perform a single act, but a
series of acts, and one offense
is not a necessary means for
committing the other.

Article 49: Penalty when crime committed is different from that intended

Q28: X and Y kicked and punched As stomach, the resulting injuries causing A's death.
Can X and Y argue that because they only intended to inflict slight physical injuries,
they should only be meted the penalty therefor, pursuant to Article 49 of the RPC?

No. Such provision should only apply where the crime committed is different from that intended
and where the felony committed befalls a different person; and not to cases where more
serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act. It is well-
settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide
because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the law looks particularly to the material
results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences
thereof. However, they are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem or lack
of intention to commit so grave a wrong under Art 13 (3). (Wacoy v. People, 2015)

Article 91: Prescriptive Period

Q29: X, a public officer, failed to submit his SALN from 1982 to 1985. He then left the
Philippines. An information was filed against him and preliminary investigation was
initiated in 2004. X argued that the information should be quashed because the crime
has prescribed. Is X correct?

Yes. The prescriptive period of offenses punishable by SPL is not tolled by the absence of the
accused from the Philippines. The rule is different for felonies defined under the RPC, whose
prescriptive periods are tolled by the absence of the accused from the Philippines pursuant to
Article 91 of the RPC. Although Art. 91 applies suppletorily to SPL, Act No. 3326, which

Page 6 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

governs the prescriptive periods of offenses punishable under SPL, is not itself an SPL.
(Romualdez v. Marcel, July 28, 2006)

Q30: When does the prescriptive period for offenses penalized under SPL run?

It shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same
not be known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings
for its investigation and punishment. In the nature of things, acts made criminal by special laws
are frequently not immoral or obviously criminal in themselves; for this reason, the applicable
statute requires that if the violation of the special law is not known at the time, the prescription
begins to run only from the discovery thereof. (Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 2004)

Article 98: Extinction of Criminal Liability

Q31: Discuss the amendment to Art 98 Special Time Allowance for Loyalty.

RA 10592 amended Art 98 of the RPC granting a deduction of 2/5 of the period of the sentence
of the prisoner who chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence
of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated under Art 158.

Article 160: Quasi-recidivism

Q32: May quasi-recidivism be appreciated in violations of special penal laws?

Yes, if the SPL adopts the nomenclature of the RPC for penalties. For example, the Dangerous
Drugs Act uses the nomenclature of RPC penalties for possession of illegal drugs. However,
for quasi-recidivism to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be proven by
records of the previous sentence. (People v. Salazar, 1997)

BOOK II

Title Two: Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State

Q33: What is the difference between arbitrary detention and unlawful arrest?

Arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer/employee who detains a person w/o any
legal ground while unlawful arrest is committed by any person, not authorized by law or has no
legal ground therefor, against another person for the purpose of delivering the latter to the
proper authorities.

Title Three: Crimes Against Public Order

Q34. X was flagged down by police officers. He was asked to step out of his car. X
refused contending that the police officers are limited to plain view search. He was
dragged out of the vehicle and punched in the face. X was charged with resistance and
disobedience of persons in authority or his agent. Is X liable?

No. Xs act of exercising ones right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the
middle of the night cannot be equated to disobedience. (Sydeco v. People, 2014) *J. Velasco

Title Four: Crimes Against Public Interest

Q35. Mayor X, after consultation with a DENR official during a Multi-Sectoral Assembly,
proceeded to issue 221 transport permits. He was charged of Usurpation of Official
Functions under Art. 177 of RPC. He claims good faith. Is he liable?

No. Evidence of good faith warrants the acquittal of Mayor X. The fact that he consulted with a
DENR official does not mean that he acknowledge his want of authority. Rather, it serves to
strengthen his claim of good faith. Mere public consultation is not a badge of bad faith. (Ruzol
v. Sandiganbayan, 2013) *J. Velasco

Page 7 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Title Seven: Crimes Committed by Public Officers

Q36: What is the difference between Malversation and Technical Malversation?

In malversation, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows
any other person to take such public funds for the latters personal use. In technical
malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or
anothers personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated
by law or ordinance. (Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 1991)

Q37: Is criminal intent necessary for technical malversation?

No. Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of
diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to
another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not
inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission
based on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. (Ysidoro v. People, 2012)

Q38: What is the effect of the return of misappropriated funds on criminal liability for
malversation?

The return of funds malversed is only a mitigating circumstance, not an exempting

circumstance. At most, it is akin to voluntary surrender. (Perez v. People, 2008)

However, the return of the malversed funds should be prompt. Where the partial restitution or
restoration of the shortage was made 7 years after the swindling took place and after one of
the accused was already convicted, there is no prompt refund of the shortage, and the accused
cannot be credited with a mitigating circumstance similar and analogous to voluntary surrender.
(People v. Amante, C.A., 65 O.G. 5628)

Q39: What is the principal distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery?

In direct bribery there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift or
present. In indirect bribery, usually, no such agreement exists.

Title Nine: Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security

Q40: An old man with a heart condition was kidnapped. He was kept in a room while the
kidnappers discussed the ransom to be demanded. Two days later, the man died of a
heart attack. What is the criminal liability of his kidnappers?

They are guilty of committing kidnapping with homicide. Although the old man died of natural
causes, his death occurred on the occasion of the kidnapping. (People v. Montanir, 2011).

Q41: M was walking on his way home from school in his subdivision. When M was about
two blocks away from his house, two men suddenly attacked him and snatched his bag.
As M resisted, the robbers brutally stabbed him multiple times. The assailants
immediately fled the scene when a car was approaching, and left M lying on the streets,
wounded, until his eventual death. The CCTV of the barangay showed that minutes
before Ms death, M tried to ask for help from some passing motorists and bystanders,
but to no avail. What is the criminal liability of the onlookers in refusing to help M?

None. The onlookers were not criminally liable for refusing to help M. The crime of
abandonment of persons in danger was not present.

In order to be liable under Art. 275 or abandonment of persons in danger, the offender must
have (1) failed to render assistance to (2) a person wounded or in danger of dying in (3) an
uninhabited place when he (4) can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless
such commission constitutes a more serious offense. In this case, the onlookers did not find M
in an uninhabited place. M was wounded in the premises of his subdivision village, an

Page 8 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

inhabited place. With one of the elements lacking, the onlookers cannot be charged with
abandonment of persons in danger and therefore did not incur any criminal liability.

Title Ten: Crimes Against Property

Q42. Can a person (entrustee) be liable for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC in
relation to PD 115 for entrusting trust receipts, even if it was sufficiently proved that the
entruster knew beforehand that the goods subject of the trust receipts were never
intended to be sold but only to be used for the entrustees construction business?

NO because no person can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. There are 2 obligations in
a trust receipt transaction: the first refers to money received under the obligation involving the
duty to turn it over (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold, while the second refers to
the merchandise received under the obligation to return it (devolvera) to the owner. A
violation of any of these undertakings constitutes Estafa. When both parties enter into an
agreement knowing fully well that the return of the goods subject of the trust receipt is not
possible even without any fault on the part of the trustee, it is not a penalized trust receipt
transaction. This is a mere loan where the borrower is obligated to pay the entruster the
amount spent for the purchase of the goods. (Yang v. People, 2013) *J. Velasco

Q43: Is it necessary that the injured party be the source of the funds in a case of Estafa?

No. Ownership is not a necessary element of Estafa. In a case where A handed a check signed
by his father to B for the purpose of exchanging such peso amount stated in the check to
dollars and B subsequently runs away with the check without giving the appropriate dollar
equivalent. A may sue B even if the former does not own the funds of the check taken by B.
(Delgado v People, 2010). *J. Velasco

Q44: In the information, the complainants name was X; during trial, the complainant
turned out to be Y. Z, the accused for Estafa involving various jewelry valued at P1M,
insists on her acquittal on the postulate that her constitutional right to be informed of
the nature of the accusation against her has been violated. Will Zs defense prosper?

No. If the subject matter of the offense is generic and not identifiable, such as money unlawfully
taken, an error in the designation of the offended party is fatal and would result in the acquittal
of the accused. However, if the subject matter of the offense is specific and identifiable, such
as a warrant, a check, or jewelries, an error in the designation of the offended party is
immaterial. (Senador v People, 2013) *J. Velasco

Q45: What is the Ponzi Scheme?

It is syndicated Estafa defined under paragraph 2(a) of Art. 315, RPC in relation to PD 1689
(Decree Increasing the Penalty for certain forms of Swindling and Estafa). Ponzi scheme is a
type of investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors
from funds contributed by new investors. Its organizers often solicit new investors by promising
to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many
Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised payments
to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a
legitimate business. (People v. Tibayan, 2015)

Q46: What is the crime committed by stealing through riding in tandem?

Merely theft since it is without violence. (People v. Concepcion, 2012) However, if it can be
shown that there was some violence or force in the act of snatching, the person shall be liable
for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

Q47: X, a traffic enforcer, stopped Y for a traffic violation. X demanded P1,000 in

exchange for letting Y go. While making the demand in a threatening manner, he was
holding his service pistol. Is he liable for bribery or for robbery?

Page 9 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Robbery, where the violence or intimidation enforced against the person is merely for the
purpose of taking personal property of another. It is committed by taking anothers property
against his will, and w/ intimidation or violence against any person or force upon things.

Q48: If the accused breaks the door to enter, is he liable for qualified theft or robbery?

Robbery. The fact that accused forced open the main door negates the existence of high
degree of confidence, an element of qualified theft. The accused being without having ready
access proves the lack of firm trust. (Viray v. People, 2013)

Title Eleven: Crimes Against Persons

Q49: What must the accused present to successfully invoke the sweetheart defense
doctrine in rape cases?

The sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing proof.
Evidence such as a love letter, a memento, or even a single photograph to substantiate the
claim that they had a romantic relationship should be presented (People v. Cias, 2011). *J.
Velasco

Q50: Does having an illicit affair grant sufficient proof for the sweetheart doctrine to
apply in rape cases?

Having an illicit affair alone does not rule out rape as it does not necessarily mean that consent
was present. 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, 2011). *J. Velasco

Q51: May a woman conspire to commit rape?

Yes. A woman may be convicted of rape under the principle of conspiracy wherein the act of
one is the act of all. In one case, a married couple rapes their househelp, where the wife holds
the victims legs while the husband performs acts of rape. The wife is in conspiracy with
husband and is held to be liable for rape as well. (People v. Opelia, 2003).

Q52: A and B together with some friends were having a drinking spree one night. During
the night, C overheard A and B having a heated argument. Thereafter, when everyone
was about to leave, A shot B while the latters back was turned. What is the crime
committed by A?

A committed the crime of murder qualified by treachery. The elements of treachery are: 1. The
employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself; and 2. The means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. The fact that
there was an altercation prior to the shooting was immaterial because the said instance does
not necessarily mean that B was forewarned of any danger to himself. (People v Torres, 2011)
*J. Velasco

Q53: A caught his wife having sexual intercourse with B. Without any hesitation, he took
out his gun and shot both his wife and B. Can A be charged under Art. 247 of the RPC?

No. Art. 247 (Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstance) does not
charge a distinct crime. (People v Sabilul, 49 O.G. 2743) The prosecution will have to charge
the defendant with parricide or homicide. As a defense, the accused must establish through
evidence the requisites of Article 247.

Requisites for the application of Art. 247:

1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person.
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.

Page 10 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.

Q54: A judge was ambushed on his way home from work. It was found that D was the
one responsible and that his motive was in relation to a case handled by the deceased
where the latter convicted a gang member of D. What crime did D commit, if any?

Complex crime of direct assault with murder. A judge is considered as a person in authority as
defined in Art. 152 of the RPC. Moreover, the crime constitutes direct assault in the 2nd form
wherein a person in authority is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties.
When the assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in authority for that matter,
there arises the complex crime of direct assault with murder or homicide. The killing in the
instant case constituted murder because of the presence of evident premeditation which was
manifest in the manner of the commission of the crime and the evidence which showed that
there was sufficient lapse between the determination and execution of the crime. (People v.
Abalos, 1996)

Q55: What is the rule when several acts of rape are committed against the same woman
by one offender on a single occasion?

Each of the penetrations constitute separate and distinct acts of rape. It has been held that
where 3 penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of 5 minutes wherein the
accused would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he has regained his
strength, he would again commit rape, he was not motivated by a single impulse, but rather by
several criminal intents. (People v. Lucena, 2014)

However, in the earlier (2002) Aaron Case, the Court convicted the accused for only one count
of rape despite the 3 successful penetrations because there was no indication that the accused
decided to commit separate and distinct acts of sexual assault other than his lustful desire to
change positions inside the room where the crime was committed. The Court viewed that the 3
penetrations occurred during one continuing act of rape in which the accused was obviously
motivated by a single criminal intent. (People v. Aaron, 2002)

Q56: In the composite crime of rape with homicide, what are meant by the phrases "by
reason of the rape" and "on occasion of the rape"?

The phrase by reason of the rape conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the
offense the offender originally designed to commit. The phrase "on the occasion of the rape"
refers to a killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the commission itself of the
rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for
as long as the killing is linked to the rape. (People v. Villaflores, 2012)

Title Twelve: Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons

Q57: Can a person with authority to solemnize marriage be held liable for the
performance of illegal marriage ceremony?

Yes. In the case of Ronulo v. People (2014), the priest who had authority to solemnize
marriages conducted a marriage ceremony despite the fact that he knew that the persons
seeking to be married had no marriage license.

Title Thirteen: Crimes Against Honor

Q58: Manila Chronicles published articles mentioning Y as a crony of Former President

Marcos. Y sued persons responsible for libel. The latter claims exception under qualified
privilege communication. Will the defense prosper?

No. The phrase Marcos crony is derogatory. As understood in Philippine context, it refers to
an individual who was the recipient of special and/or undeserved favors from Marcos due to a
special closeness to the latter. Defamatory imputations written or uttered during any of the 3
classes of qualifiedly privileged communications, i.e., (1) a private communication made by any

Page 11 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; (2) a fair and true
report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions; and (3) fair commentaries on matters of public interest may still be
considered actionable if actual malice is proven. This is in contrast with absolutely privileged
communications, wherein the imputations are not actionable, even if attended by actual malice.
There is actual malice when there is either (1) knowledge of the publications falsity; or (2)
reckless disregard of whether the contents of the publication were false or not. Failure to even
get the side of Y in the published articles clearly constituted reckless disregard of the truth or
falsity of said articles. (Yuchengco v Manila Chronicle Publishing, 2011) *J. Velasco

Q59: Is giving the dirty finger to someone a felony?

Yes. It constitutes simple slander by deed. (Villanueva v. People, 2006)

Q60: What could be the crime charged against the perpetrators of the Tanim Bala
incident in NAIA?

Under the RPC, the crime is Incriminating Innocent Person. Art. 363 provides that Any person
who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent
person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto mayor. However, People v.
Rivera (1933) provides that the RPC only punishes any act which may tend directly to cause a
false prosecution. If there be unlawful arrest first before incriminating the person, the crime is
the complex crime of incriminating a person through unlawful arrest.

The crime of planting of bullets is also punishable under Section 38 of RA 10591

(Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) where a person who shall willfully
and maliciously insert, place, and/or attach, directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert
act, any firearm, or ammunition, or parts thereof in the person, house, effects, or in the
immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating or incriminating the
person shall be held liable. It also applies to public officers and employees. The offender may
be held liable both under the special law and the RPC.

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019)

Q61: A high ranking Filipino Police General, the Rock, was offered an all-expense paid
trip in Las Vegas to watch the boxing fight of a Filipino Boxer. PNP General the Rock
and his family were billeted in one of the most expensive hotels in the world. Upon his
arrival in the Philippines, he was charged with violations of Sec 3(c) of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act. Can he criminally be charged under this provision?

No. Under R.A. 3019, The Rock cannot be held liable. Section 3 (C) of R.A. 3019 states that a
person can be held liable if he directly or indirectly request(s) or receiv(es) any gift, present or
other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the
public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any
Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given

In this case, the facts of the case did not state that The Rock received such gift for a permit,
license, or consideration for help given. Thus, he cannot be held liable under Section 3(c) of
R.A. 3019. However, he can be held liable under Art. 211 of the RPC for Indirect Bribery, if the
element/s of the crime transpired within PH territory.

Q62: Under what circumstances may there be conspiracy by silence and inaction under
the Anti-Graft Law?

When the accused are all heads of their respective offices that perform interdependent
functions in the processing of cash advances and, exhibit an attitude of buck-passing [the
practice of shifting the responsibility for something to someone else] in the face of the

Page 12 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

irregularities. Their indifference to their individual and collective duties to ensure the laws and
regulations are observed in the disbursement of the funds of the local government lead to a
finding of conspiracy of silence and inaction. (Jaca v. People, 2013)

Q63: What are the punishable acts under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019?

The two ways are:

(a) By causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or
(b) By giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.

Q64: How may violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 be committed?

A violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the
accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa as when the accused
acted with gross inexcusable negligence. The law requires that the intent or negligence which
must attend the commission of the prohibited acts under Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 should meet the
gravity required by law. (Jaca v. People, 2013)

Q65: Can public officers charged under the Anti-Graft Law or the Plunder Law be
suspended without a pre-suspension hearing?

No. A pre-suspension hearing is required to determine the validity of the information. However,
an actual hearing is not necessary. All that is required is that the accused be given an
opportunity to be heard. (Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 2012.)

Q66: Enumerate and explain the meaning of the modes of violating Sec 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which excites a disposition to see and report matters
as they are wished for rather than as they are.
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.
"Gross negligence has been defined as negligence characterized by the want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in
so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. (Fonacier et al. v.
Sandiganbayan, 1994)

Q67: Is the inclusion of all the modes of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in the charge
sheet equivalent to charging the accused with 3 acts?

NO. The use of the 3 phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith" and "gross inexcusable
negligence" in the same information does not mean that the indictment charges three distinct
offenses but only implies that the offense charged may have been committed through any of
the modes provided by the law. (Fonacier et al. v. Sandiganbayan, 1994)

Q68: May an offender be convicted of attempted or frustrated violation of Section 3(e)

of the RA 3019 if the 3rd requisite causing undue injury to any party, including the
Government is absent?

NO. Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, can be said to penalize only consummated
offenses. Accordingly, there can be no valid basis for the application of, inter alia, Art 50 and 51
on the penalty to be imposed on the principal of a frustrated and attempted felony. The lack of
or failure to establish the 3rd requisite of 3(e) means that the offense was not committed.
(Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, 1994)

Q69: X, a private entity supplier of the government, was charged with violation of Sec
3(g) of R.A. 3019, due to overpricing in a procurement contract with the government. The
contract contained a guarantee to the government that in case there would be a finding
of an overprice by the COA, X would refund the same. Is X liable?

Page 13 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

No. Where the government was amply protected by the guarantee in the subject transaction,
and consequently the contract was not grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government, it was held that one of the elements of the crime, i.e., that the contract or
transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government, is conspicuously
missing (Froilan v. Sandiganbayan, 2000).

Q70: Sec 3(g) of R.A. 3019 declares as unlawful the entering, on behalf of the
Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. Is it
required that the validity of the contract or transaction be first proved?

No. It need only be established that the accused is a public officer; that he entered into a
contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and that such contract or transaction is
grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to that government. In other words, the act treated
thereunder partakes of the nature of a malum prohibitum; it is the commission of that act as
defined by the law, not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated (Lociano v. Estrella,1970).

Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160)

Q71: Must the prosecution of the Money Laundering case be deferred until the case
involving the unlawful act is concluded?

No. The prosecution of any offense or violation under the AMLA shall proceed independently of
any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity. (Sec 6 (b), R.A. 10365)

Q72: Is mere attempt to commit any unlawful act covered in the AMLA punishable?

Yes. Under Sec 4(d) of AMLA, money laundering offenses include (d) attempts or
[conspiracies] to commit money laundering offenses referred to in Sec. 4 (a) to (c). (R.A. No.
10365, Sec. 4)

Q73: Is a court order always necessary before the AMLC may inquire into bank
deposits/investments?

No. The general rule is that the AMLC must apply for a court order before inquiring into bank
deposits/investments. However, a court order is not needed when:
1. The unlawful activities are violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Kidnapping for Ransom,
Hijacking, and other violations of R.A. No. 6325, destructive arson, and murder;
2. The unlawful activities involve similar crimes to the above which are punishable under the
laws of other countries; or
3. The unlawful activities involve violations of the Human Security Act of 2007.(Sec. 8, RA 8184
amending Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9160)

New Firearms Law (R.A. 8294) now amended by (R.A. 10591)

Q74: May a barangay captain walking around his barangay carrying a licensed firearm
but without a permit to carry be held liable under the New Firearms Law?

No. The authority of a Barangay Captain to carry his firearm outside his residence was rooted
in the authority given to him by the Local Government Code, which states that in the
performance of his peace and order functions, the punong barangay shall be entitled to
possess and carry the necessary firearms within his territorial jurisdiction. As long as the
Barangay Captain is within his barangay, he cannot be separated from his duty as a punong
barangay to maintain peace and order. (Artillero v. Casimiro, 2012)

Q75: Is the use of an unlicensed/loose firearm in the commission of the crime an

aggravating circumstance?

Page 14 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

The use of a unlicensed/loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime, is an

aggravating circumstance. If it is not inherent, the following rules must be observed:

1. If the penalty for the crime committed is higher than the penalty prescribed for illegal
possession, illegal possession shall be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance.
2. If the penalty for the crime committed is lower than the penalty prescribed for illegal
possession, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed.
3. If the penalties for the crime committed and possession of illegal firearm are equal, the
penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed in addition to the penalty of the crime committed.
4. If the violation is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion
or insurrection, or attempted coup d etat, it will be absorbed as an element of the latter
crimes.(Sec. 29, R.A. 10591 amending R.A. 8294)

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act

Q76: When a child in conflict with the law does not qualify for diversion or is not
submitted to diversion by his/her parents, such child can no longer be submitted to
diversion proceedings. Is this correct?

No. A court can still order the child in conflict with the law to be submitted to diversion
measures if:

1. The maximum penalty of the offense is not more than 12 years imprisonment; and
2. The child has not been arraigned. (Sec. 37, R.A. No. 9344)

Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Law (R.A. 9262)

Q77: What is Battered Woman Syndrome?

It repeated and cyclical violence against a woman which results in the immobilization of the
latters ability to act decisively in her own interest and making her feel trapped in a relationship
with no means of escape. (People v. Genosa, 2004). It is a defense which can be used by the
victim-survivors who really are suffering from the said syndrome at the commission of a crime.

Q78: What are the stages in the cycle of violence in Battered Woman Syndrome?

1. Tension building phase

2. Acute battering incident; and
3. Tranquil, loving phase (non-violent phase) (People v. Genosa, 2004)

Q79: Can VAWC be committed by a woman?

Yes. The acts constituting violence against women and children can be committed by any
person against a woman with whom he has or had, among others, a sexual or dating
relationship. (Sec. 3(a), VAWC Law)

Q80: Can VAWC be committed by parents-in-law through conspiracy?

Yes. While the provisions of the law provide that the offender must be related or connected to
the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude
the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. (Go-Tan v. Tan, 2008)

Q81: Can a person be charged under the provisions of VAWC even though the violence
occurred after their dating relationship?

Yes. It is immaterial that the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence
showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim
when the physical harm was committed. 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. (Dabalos v. RTC,
2013)

Page 15 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Q82: Distinguish between a dating relationship and a sexual relationship under the RA
9262 (VAWC Law).

Dating relationship Sexual relationship

Dating relationship refers to a situation wherein parties: Sexual relationship refers to
(a) live as husband and wife without benefit of marriage or any single sexual act which
(b) are romantically involved over a time and on a may or may not result to the
continuing basis during course of relationship. bearing of a common child.

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208), as amended by RA 10364

Q83: When does Trafficking of Persons become qualified?

a. When the trafficked person is a child;

b. When the adoption is effected through Inter-Country Adoption Act and said adoption is for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
c. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of 3 or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
3 or more persons, individually or as a group;
d. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises
authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or
employee;
e. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the
military or law enforcement agencies;
f. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
g. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with HIV or AIDS. (RA 9208 Sec. 6)

Q84: Does trafficking have an attempted stage?

Yes. R.A. 10364 amended the Anti-Trafficking Law to include an attempted stage. (Sec. 5, R.A.
No. 10364)

Q85: A person was charged for violating the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. In his
defense, he claimed that the victim had been travelling abroad to work in bars, and has
consented to being recruited to work in such places. Is this a valid defense?

No. Under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the
victims consent or knowledge. The Act punishes the recruitment, transport, transfer of any
person, by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage. (People v. Lalli, 2011)

Q86. Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction over violations of the Anti-Trafficking law
committed outside the Philippines?

Yes. Sec. 23 of R.A. 10364, the Philippines has extraterritorial jurisdiction over trafficking cases
even if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not such act or acts constitute an
offense at the place of commission, the crime being a continuing offense, having been
commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been committed in another country, if
the suspect or accused is (1) a Filipino citizen, (2) a permanent resident or (3) has committed
the act against a citizen of the Philippines. (Sec. 26-A, R.A. No. 9208)

Anti-Torture Act (R.A. 9745)

Q87: May a person be prosecuted separately for serious physical injuries and physical
torture by systematic beating and punching under the Anti-Torture Act?

Page 16 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Yes. Sec. 15 of the Anti-Torture Act provides that torture is treated as a separate and
independent crime the penalties of which shall be imposable without prejudice to any other
criminal liability under domestic or international laws.

Q88: What is the non-refoulement rule?

No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to another State where there are
substantial grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of being subjected to torture.
The Secretary of DFA, Secretary of DOJ and Chairperson of CHR shall determine whether
such grounds exist considering the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9745)

Child Abuse Law (R.A. 7610)

Q89: Should child abuse be habitual for it to be punishable under R.A. No. 7610?

No. Child abuse refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child. (Sec. 3, R.A.
7610)

Q90: Who are children under R.A. No. 7610?

Persons below 18 years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or
protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition. (Sec. 3(a), R.A. 7610)

Q91: Can the provision on Acts of Lasciviousness under the Child Abuse Law be
applied even if a child victim is NOT abused for profit?

Yes. Art. III, Sec 5 of R.A. No. 7610 states that children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse includes acts of lasciviousness committed against a child being abused for
profit, as well as against a child who engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or
intimidation.

Q92: What is the difference between Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC and Acts of
Lasciviousness under R.A. 7610?

The imposable penalty of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC is lower (prision
correccional) compared to that under Sec. 5 of R.A. 7610 when the offense is committed
against a minor under 12 years of age (reclusion temporal in its medium period).

Q93: Will the sweetheart defense apply to violations of the Child Abuse Law?

No. It is settled that consent is immaterial in cases involving a violation of Sec 5, Art III of RA
7610; as such, the sweetheart defense remains irrelevant. (People v. Caballo, 2013)

Q94: Is the laying of hands (e.g. slapping) in the spur of moment and anger punishable
under RA 7610 or Child Abuse Law?

No. In the case of Bongalon v. People (2013), the laying of hands by X on Ys child, A, was
done in the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of X being then overwhelmed by his
fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm
at the hands of A. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so
essential in the crime of child abuse. He is only guilty of slight physical injury.

Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372)

Q95: X was charged with violating the Human Security Act by furnishing false testimony
during an investigation of another violation of the HSA. May X be held liable therefor?

Page 17 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

Yes. The law provides that furnishing forged documents and spurious evidence in any
investigation or hearing is punishable. (Sec. 9, HSA)

Q96: The accused is an Al-Qaeda member and compels a pilot of a PH registered aircraft
to change its destination and land at an area near Al-Qaedas base of operations. He
was charged with both violations of the Anti-Hijacking Law and the HSA. Is this correct?

No. The prosecution of the accused for HSA violations is a bar to another prosecution for any
offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense under the Act. (Sec. 49, HSA)

Q97: When does piracy, rebellion or insurrection, coup d etat, murder, kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, and crimes involving destruction become a crime punishable
under HSA?

When such crime was done in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand, by sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace, (Sec. 3, HSA)

Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. 6539)

Q98. A killed B. A then saw Bs car and took it. What is/are the crime/s committed?

Separate counts of homicide and carnapping. 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 carnapping or on the occasion thereof. The killing of the victim
cannot qualify the carnapping into a special complex crime because the carnapping was an
afterthought when the victims death was already fait accompli. (People v. Aquino, 2014)

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175)

Q99: Can a person be charged for libel under the RPC and subsequently for online libel
under the Cybercrime Law? (R.A. 10175)

No. Identical material cannot be the subject of two separate libels. The two offenses, one a
violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of
R.A. No. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same
offense. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as another means of
publication. Charging the offender under both laws would be a blatant violation of the
proscription against double jeopardy. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 2014)

Anti-Sexual Harassment Law (RA 7877)

Q100: Distinguish the acts punishable between the Anti Sexual Harassment Law and the
Anti-Voyeurism Law.

Anti-Sexual Harassment Anti- Voyeurism

1. The sexual favor is made as a 1. Without the consent of the person/s involved and under
condition in the hiring or in the circumstances in which the person/s has/have a
employment, reemployment or reasonable expectation of privacy:
continued employment of said a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or
individual, or in granting said group of persons performing sexual act or any
individual favorable similar activity or
compensation, terms, b) To capture an image of the private area of a
conditions, promotions, or person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
privileges; or the refusal to grant genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast
the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or 2. To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
classifying the employee which reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act
in a way would employment or any similar activity with or without consideration;
opportunities or otherwise

Page 18 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

adversely affect said employee; 3. To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed,

such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it
2. The above acts would impair be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
the employees rights or
privileges under existing labor 4. To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or
laws; or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or
exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
3. The above acts would result sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD,
in an intimidating, hostile, or internet, cellular phones and other similar means or
offensive environment for the device.
employee.

Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22)

Q101: What is the effect of lack of written notice of dishonor under the Bouncing Checks
Law (BP 22)?

The lack of a written notice of dishonor is fatal. While, indeed, Sec 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not
state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Sec 3 of the
law, i.e., "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact
shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal," a mere oral notice or
demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. The Court is
convinced that both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require not only
that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually
been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor. (Resterio v. People, 2012)

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 CDDA (RA 9165)

Q102: What are the elements of sale of dangerous drugs?

(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

It is essential that the sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

Q103: What are the necessary steps for a valid chain of custody?

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same 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 the DOJ, and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic
Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by
the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within 24 hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s. (Sec. 21, R.A. 9165)

Q104: When is the failure to follow the provision on physical inventory/custody of

evidence under RA 9165 fatal to the prosecution in cases of illegal sale of drugs?

Generally, non-compliance with the requisite provision does not mean that no buy-bust
operation ever took place. The prosecutions failure to submit the required physical inventory
and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to RA 9165 will not discharge the
accused from the crime. Non-compliance is not necessarily fatal and will not render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. But where there
are other pieces of evidence putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation (e.g. lack of
surveillance), these irregularities become more significant and become fatal to the prosecution.

Page 19 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

If therefore, there really was no buy-bust operation conducted, the elements for illegal sale of
prohibited drugs cannot be duly proved despite the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and the seeming straightforward testimony in court by the arresting
police officers. (People v. Dela Cruz, 2011) *J. Velasco

Q105: X was charged of illegal possession and sale of shabu following a buy bust
operation. SPO1 Marindas direct narrative ended with the statement that the 3 sachets
were submitted for laboratory examination. He, however, admitted having no
participation in the submission of the specimen for examination. The evidence then
jumped to the results of the examination yielding positive for shabu. Will the charge
prosper?

No. The integrity of the corpus delicti is not established beyond reasonable doubt. There is a
gap in which the drugs whereabouts were unaccounted for resulting to a break in chain of
custody. (People v Adrid, 2013) *J. Velasco

Q106: The information charging A of illegal selling of shabu states that he sold 0.02g.
However, the foresic expert testified that the specimen collected contained 0.04g. What
is the effect of this discrepancy?

It is fatal to the case because the indemnity and integrity of the corpus delicti must have been
preserved. A is acquitted. (People v. Abetong, 2014) *J. Velasco

Q107: Is a confirmatory test still necessary to convict a person for illegal use if he was
already caught sniffing or using the illegal drugs?

Yes. Without a confirmatory test, the offender cannot be held liable for illegal use of dangerous
drugs under Sec. 15 of the CDDA. Though he was caught in the act of sniffing shabu, Sec. 15
of the CDDA requires a confirmatory test in order to penalize the offender for illegal use.

Q108: Compare Actual and Constructive Possession of Drugs under the amended
CDDA.

Actual Possession Constructive Possession

The drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused.
Knowledge, being an internal act, may
be presumed from the failure of the
accused to explain why the drug was in
a place over which he exercised
dominion and control. (People vs.
Bernardino, 2009)
When a person is shown to exercise dominion and
control over the premises where the drugs are found.
(People v. Dela Cruz, 2008) *J. Velasco
Such as when the drugs are found in the masters
bedroom of the house even if the owner was not at
home (People v. Torres, 2006) and when the
prohibited drugs is found in the drawer of the
accused (Abuan v. People, 2006)

Probation Law (P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707)

Q109: X was guilty of frustrated homicide that imposed a penalty beyond 6 years,
disqualifying him for probation. After his appeal, the court found that he was only liable
for attempted homicide with a penalty less than 6 years. May X apply for probation?

Yes. In Colinares v. People (2011) and under R.A. 10707, when a judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified
through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for
probation based on the modified decision before such decision becomes final (Colinares v.
People, 2011) (R.A. 10707).

Q110: In such cases, where will the applicant file the application for probation?

The trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing the non-probationable penalty was
rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled (R.A. 10707).

Q111: Who cannot avail of the benefits of probation?

Page 20 of 21
 2016 CRIMINAL LAW BLUE TIPS
Unauthorized use and reproduction of this material is prohibited.

1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years;

2. Convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or public order;
3. Previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less
than 1 month and 1 day and/or a fine not less than P200;
4. Once placed on probation;
5. Those who have appealed or were convicted of drug trafficking or drug pushing; and
6. Convicted of election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code. (Sec. 9, P.D. 968).

Q112: X and 6 other persons were eating at a university cafeteria when about 15 persons
entered and attacked them. All were masked and armed with lead pipes and baseball
bats. X died as a result. Thereafter, the attackers were charged for murder, with the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. The defense claimed that treachery
was not present given that the alleged place of attack was a public place, that X could
have reasonably defended himself or that the several persons in the area could have
helped him. The trial court held that treachery was not present. Was the court correct?

No. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in
a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, 2 elements must concur:

(1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to
defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted.

The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they
would be reasonably expected to be on guard for any sudden attack.

The unarmed victims were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats. In a situation where
they were outnumbered, it would be impossible for them to fight back against the attackers.
The attack also happened in less than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the
bystanders being able to help them until after the incident (People v. Feliciano, 2014).

Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103)

Q113: X was convicted of murder by the trial court which imposed on him the
indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 18 years
and 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. On appeal, the CA imposed
reclusion perpetua without the benefit of the ISL. Was the appellate court correct?

Yes. the proper penalty to be imposed on accused should be reclusion perpetua. At the time
the crime was committed, the imposable penalty for murder was reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death. Accused cannot avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law because Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses
punishable with reclusion perpetua. (People v. Aquino, 1998).

NOTE: Art. III, Sec 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution which states that Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua does not change the periods of the penalty
prescribed by Art 248 of the RPC except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. The range of the medium and minimum penalties
remain unchanged. (People v. Muoz, 1989)

Q114. What are the requisites for a valid conviction using circumstantial evidence?

(1) There is more than one circumstance;

(2) The inference is based on proven facts; and
(3) The combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused.

Page 21 of 21