Sie sind auf Seite 1von 67

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES or accessory.


As to what Laws are Violated
Q. Define Criminal Law
Revised Penal Code Special Penal Laws
Criminal law is that branch or division As to Stages of Execution
of law which defines crimes, treats of their There are three stages: No such stages of
nature, and provides for their punishment attempted, frustrated, execution.
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book One, consummated.
18th ed., 2012, p. 1). As to Persons Criminally Liable
Q. Distinguish crimes which are mala in se There are three Generally, only the
from crimes which are mala prohibita. persons criminally principal is liable.
liable: principal,
The following are the distinctions accomplice, and
between the two: accessory.

Mala in Se Mala Prohibita Q. What are the rules of construction in


As to Nature penal laws?
Wrong from its very Wrong because it is
nature prohibited by law Penal laws are strictly construed against
As to Use of Good Faith as a Defense the Government and liberally in favour of the
Good faith is a valid Good faith is NOT a accused. (US vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243)
defense; unless the defense. The rule that penal statutes should be strictly
crime is a result of construed against the State may be invoked
culpa. only where the law is ambiguous and there is
As to Use of Intent as an Element no doubt as to its interpretation. Where the
Intent is an element. Criminal Intent is law is clear and unambiguous, there is no
NOT required. Only room for the application of the rule. (People
intent to perpetrate vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)
the act prohibited by Q. What does In Dubio Pro Reo mean?
law will suffice.
As to Degree of Accomplishment of the Crime In dubio pro reo means "when in
The degree of The act gives rise to a doubt, for the accused." Intimately related to
accomplishment of crime only when it is the In dubio pro reo principle is the rule of
the crime is taken into consummated. lenity. The rule applies when the court Is faced
account in punishing with two possible interpretations of a penal
the offender. statute, one that Is prejudicial to the accused
As to Mitigating and Aggravating and another that is favorable to him. The rule
Circumstances calls for the adoption of an Interpretation
Mitigating and Mitigating and which is more lenient to the accused (Intestate
aggravating aggravating estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No.
circumstances are circumstances are 181409, February 11, 2010).
taken into account in generally NOT taken
Q. What are the three characteristics of
imposing the penalty. into account.
criminal law?
As to Degree of Participation
When there is more Degree of There are three characteristics of
than one offender, participation is criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2)
the degree of generally NOT taken territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The
participation of each into account. Al who general, territorial and prospective
in the commission of participated in the act characteristics of criminal law are principles
the crime is taken into are punished to the that define and demarcate the scope and
account. same extent. limitation of the operation of criminal law.
As to Persons Criminally liable Under these three principles, the operation or
Penalty is computed The penalty on the enforceability of criminal law is limited to
on the basis of offenders is the same, wrongful acts committed on or after its
whether there is a whether they are effectivity (prospectively) within the territory
principal offender, or merely accomplices or of the Philippines (territoriality) by person
merely an accomplice accessories. living and sojourning therein (generality).

Page 1 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Q. Discuss the Principle of Generality in affect its peace and security, or has no
criminal law. pernicious effect therein. It is the English rule
that obtains in this jurisdiction.
Generality principle is akin to
territoriality principle in the sense that the NOTE: in the Philippines, the English Rule is
demarcating factor of both principles is the followed.
territory of the Philippines. Under generality
principle, criminal law is enforceable to person Q. Discuss the Principle of Extra
living or sojourning in the territory of the Territoriality in criminal law.
Philippines. Under the territoriality principle, Under the principle of extra-
criminal law is applicable only to criminal act territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction
committed within the territory of the over crimes committed outside its territory for
Philippines. But the concept of generality is those five instances mention in Article 2 such
different from territoriality. The applicability as crime committed in vessel of Philippines
of territoriality principle or generality principle registry (ownership is not material), function-
will depend on the issue raised by the accuse d related crime committed by public officer (such
in questioning the jurisdiction of the court. If as corruption or direct bribery), crimes against
the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court national security (such as treason, espionage;
because of the unique characteristic of his rebellion is not a crime against national
person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military, hermit, security), and crime against law of nation such
primitive, ambassador, legislator, President), as piracy and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin,
the applicable principle is generality. If the G.R. No. 111709, August 30', 2001- "Piracy is
accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court an exception to the rule on territoriality in
due to the unique characteristic of the place criminal law (Article 2). The same principle
where the crime was committed (e.g. the place applies even if accused were charged, not with
of commission is foreign vessel, embassy or a violation of qualified piracy under the penal
high sea) etc, the applicable principle is code but under a special law, PD No. 532
territoriality. which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. It
Q. What is the Principle of Territoriality in is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the
relation to criminal law? law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole world."
Under the principle of territoriality, the
Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes Q. What is the Rule on Prospectivity of
committed inside its territory except as penal laws?
provided in the treaties and laws of A penal law cannot make an act
preferential application. punishable in a manner in which it is not
Q. Distinguish the English Rule from the punishable when committed. As provided in
French Rule. Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes
are punished under the laws in force at the
There are two fundamental rules in time of their commission.
International Law regarding crimes committed
aboard a foreign merchant vessel (not military Q. What is the exception to the rule that
vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile penal laws shall be applied only
territorial water (not internal or archipelagic prospectively and not retroactively?
water or high seas) of the Philippines to wit: Whenever a new statute dealing with
French rule -Crimes committed aboard a crime establishes conditions more lenient or
foreign merchant vessel within the territorial favourable to the accused, it can be given a
water of the Philippines are subject to the retroactive effect.
jurisdiction of the flag state extra-territoriality But this exception has no application:
principle) unless their commission affects the
peace and security of our country. (1) Where the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or
English rule -Crimes committed aboard a existing causes of action. (Tavera vs.
foreign merchant vessel within the territorial Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471)
water of the Philippines are subject to
jurisdiction of the Philippines (territoriality
principle) unless their commission does not

Page 2 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

(2) Where the offender is a habitual Due process in criminal cases requires:
criminal under Rule 5, Article 62,
Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC) (a) Impartial and competent court in
accordance with procedure prescribed
Q. Discuss the effects of repeal or by law.
amendment of a penal law. (b) Proper observance of all the rights
accorded the accused under the
The following are the effects of Constitution and the applicable
repeal/amendment of a penal law: statutes.
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty Non-imposition of cruel and unusual
lighter in the new law, the new punishment or excessive fines
law shall be applied, except when
the offender is a habitual Q. What is the right of an accused against
delinquent or when the new law is the non-imposition of cruel and
made not applicable to pending unusual punishment and excessive
action or existing causes of action. fines?

(2) If the new law imposes a heavier Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
penalty, the law in force at the nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
time of commission of the offense inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
shall be applied. imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
(3) If the new law totally repeals the hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
existing law so that the act which already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
was penalized under the old law is perpetua.
no longer punishable, the crime is The employment of physical,
obliterated (Reyes, The Revised psychological, or degrading punishment
Penal Code Book One, 18th ed., against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
2012, p. 15). substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with
Constitutional Limitations on the power of by law. (Section 19, Article III, 1987
Congress to enact penal laws Constitution)

Equal Protection Q. Is the imposition of the death penalty


unconstitutional in the Philippines?
Q. What are the requirements of a valid
classification as a guarantee of equal No. Article III, Section 19(1) of the
protection in the promulgation of Constitution provides that neither shall the
criminal laws? death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes,
For classification to be reasonable, the the Congress provides for it. Thus, the
following requisites should be satisfied: imposition of death penalty is not
unconstitutional as the Constitution left it to
(1) It must rest on substantial distinctions; the wisdom of Congress to impose it.
(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the Q. How shall R.A. No. 9346 be imposed
law; to persons convicted of crimes
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions punishable by death penalty?
only; and Sec. 2 of R.A. 9346 provides that the
(4) It must apply equally to all members of the penalty of (1) reclusion perpetua shall be
same class. (People vs. Cayat, G.R. No. L- imposed if the law violated makes use of the
45987 May 5, 1939) nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC; and
(2) life imprisonment when the law violated
Due Process does not use the nomenclature of the penalties
of the RPC.
Q. What are the requirements of due
process in criminal cases?

Page 3 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Bill of Attainder Q. What are the elements of a felony?


Q. What is a Bill of Attainder? The elements of felonies in general are:
A bill of attainder is a legislative act (1) That there must be an act or omission;
which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative for a (2) That the act or omission must be
judicial determination of guilt (People vs. punishable by the Revised Penal Code;
Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32613-14). The 1987
Philippine Constitution prohibits it (Article III, (3) That the act is performed or the
omission incurred by means of dolo or
Section 22, 1987 Philippine Constitution).
culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
Ex post facto law 80762, March 19, 1990)

Q. What is an Ex Post Facto Law? What CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES


are its characteristics?
Article 3 classifies felonies according to the
An ex post facto law is one which: means or manner by which they are
committed:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was innocent (a) Intentional felonies those committed
when done, and punishes such an act; with deliberate intent; and
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
(b) Culpable felonies those resulting from
than it was, when committed;
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a foresight or lack of skill.
greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;
Q. Distinguish intentional felony from a
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and culpable felony
authorizes conviction upon less or different
In intentional felonies, the act or
testimony than the law required at the time of
omission of the offender is malicious. In the
the commission of the offense;
language of Article 3, the act is performed with
(5) Assuming to regulate civil rights and deliberate intent (with malice). The offender,
remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or in performing the act or incurring the
deprivation of a right for something which omission, has the intention to cause an injury
when done was lawful; and to another. In culpable felonies, the act or
omission of the offender is not malicious. The
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime of injury caused by the offender to another
some lawful protection to which he has person is unintentional, it being simply the
become entitled, such as the protection of a incident of another act performed without
former conviction or acquittal, or a malice. (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939)
proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas
Kami, Inc., G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, Q. What are the requisites of dolo or
1970) malice?

NOTE: Its characteristics are: (a) it must refer In order that an act or omission may be
to criminal matters; and (b) it must be considered as having been performed or
prejudicial to the accused. incurred with deliberate intent, the following
requisites must concur:
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing
FELONIES an act or omitting to do an act;
Q. What is a felony? What are its
2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while
classifications?
doing the act or omitting to do the
Felonies are acts or omissions act;
punishable by the Revised Penal Code (Reyes,
p.33).

Page 4 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

3. He must have INTENT while doing the presumed from taking property without
act or omitting to do the act. consent of owner.
CRIMINAL INTENT MOTIVE
To be held liable for intentional Motive to prove identity - In a
felony, the offender must commit the act criminaI case, the prosecution must prove
prohibited by RPC with specific criminal intent the elements of crime and the identity of the
and general criminal intent. General criminal person who committed it. Proof of motive
intent (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element will not establish the presence of the
of all crimes but malice is properly applied elements of the crime but it will help the
only to deliberate acts done on purpose and prosecution in showing that the accused
with design. Evil intent must unite with an committed the crime. The identity of the
unlawful act for there to be a felony. A culprit, which is an essential requisite to
deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a cause the conviction of the accused, is
presumption of malice by intent. On the other usually established through positive
hand, specific intent is a definite and actual identification of the witness. However if
purpose to accomplish some particular thing. there is doubt as to the identity of the
In estafa, the specific intent is to defraud, in culprit, showing motive of the accused for
homicide intent to kill, in theft intent to gain committing the crime will help establish his
(Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June direct Unit to the commission of the crime.
27, 2006). In the US vs. Ah Chong, the In People vs. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965,
accused was acquitted because of mistake of June 18,1987, En Banc, it was held that
fact principle even though the evidence motive is essential to conviction in murder
showed that he attacked the deceased with cases only when there is doubt as to the
intent to k/M (United States vs.. Apego, G.R. identity of the culprit, not when the accused
No. 7929, November 8, 1912; Dissenting has been positively identified as the
opinion of J. Trent), which was established by assailant. Motive as an element - Although
the statement of the accused If you enter the motive is not an essential element of a
room I will kill you." Article 249 (homicide) crime, and proving it is just a matter of
should be read in relation to Article. The procedure pertaining to the identification of
accused was acquitted not because of the the accused, there are some cases where it is
absence of intent to kill (specific intent]) but by absolutely necessary to establish a particular
reason of lack of general intent (dolo or motive as a matter of substance because it
malice). forms an essential element of the offense. In
cases of libel or slander or malicious
PRESUMED MALICE mischief, prosecution must prove malice on
the part of the accused as the true motive of
The general criminal intent (malice) is the conduct (People vs. Diva and Diva, G.R.
presumed from the criminal act and in the No. L-22946, April 29, 1968, En Banc).
absence of any general intent is relied upon as
a defense, such absence must be proved by the Elements of Criminal Liability
accused (Ah Chong case, the accused was able
to rebut the presumption of general criminal Q. When is criminal liability incurred?
intent or malice). Generally, a specific intent is
not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
fact must be proved by the State just as any provides that criminal liability shall be
other essential element. This may be shown, incurred:
however, by the nature of the act, the (a) By any person committing a felony
circumstances under which it was committed, (delito) although the wrongful act
the means employed and the motive of the done be different from that which he
accused (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. intended.
168217, June 27, 2006). There are other (b) By any person performing an act,
specific intents that are presumed. If a person which would be an offense against
died due to violence, intent to kill is persons or property, were it not for
conclusively presumed. Intent to gain is the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the

Page 5 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

employment of inadequate or tetanus was an efficient intervening cause. The


ineffectual means. accused was held liable for physical injuries.
Q. Define proximate cause Q. What is error in personae?
Proximate cause is the primary or There is error in personae when a
moving cause of the death of the victim; it is crime intended to a person is committed to
the cause, which in the natural and continuous another because the offender mistook the
sequence unbroken with any efficient latters identity as the former.
intervening cause" produces death and without
which the fatal result could not have In case of error in personae, a person is
happened. It is the cause, which is the nearest criminally responsible for committing an
in the order of responsible causation (Black's intentional felony although the consequent
Law Dictionary). victim is different from that intended due to
mistake of identity.
Intervening cause - The direct relation
between the intentional felony and death may In order to make a person criminally
be broken by efficient intervening cause or an liable in case of error in personae, the
active force which is either a distinct act or fact following requisites must be present:
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
offender. Lightning that kills the injured victim (1) Offender committed an intentional
or tetanus infecting the victim several days felony;
after the infliction of injuries, or voluntary
immersing the wounds to aggravate the crime (2) The consequent victim against whom
committed by accused is an intervening cause. the felony was directed is different
Thus, the accused is liable for physical injuries from that intended due to mistake of
because of the intervening cause rule. On the identity.
other hand, carelessness of the victim, or
involuntary removal of the drainage, lack of If the penalty for the intended crime is
proper treatment is not an intervening cause. different from that of the committed crime,
Hence, the accused is liable for the death the court shall impose the penalty for the
because of the proximate cause rule. intended crime or committed crime, whichever
is lesser.
If the victim died due to tetanus of
which he was infected when the accused Q. What is aberratio ictus?
inflicted injuries upon him, the crime
committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow
G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the victim is committed when an offender attacks
died due to tetanus of which he was infected another but because due to the mistake in the
after the accused inflicted injuries upon him, execution of the attack, another person, whom
the crime committed is physical injuries. The the offender has no intention to injure, suffers
accused is not liable for homicide because said attack. Article 48 of the RPC applies in this
tetanus is an efficient intervening cause. Thus, case.
the proximate cause of the death of the victim
is not the infliction of injuries. In Villacorta vs. In case of aberratio ictus, a person is
People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011, criminally responsible for committing an
there had been an interval of 22 days between Intentional felony although the consequent
the date of the stabbing and the date when victim is different from that intended due to
victim was rushed to hospital, exhibiting mistake of blow.
symptoms of severe tetanus infection. Since the
victim was infected of severe tetanus, he died In order to make a person criminally
the next day. The incubation period of severe liable in case of aberratio ictus, the following
tetanus is less than 14 days. Hence, he could requisites must be present:
not have been infected at the time of the
stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days (1) Offender committed an intentional
before the victim was rushed to the hospital. felony;
The infection of victim's stab wound by

Page 6 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

(2) The consequent victim against whom the unlawful act and holds the aggressor
the felony was directed is different responsible for all the consequences thereof.
from that intended due to mistake of He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
blow. the evil caused (Seguritan vs. People, G.R. No.
172896, April 19, 2010).
The crime committed against the
intended victim and victim injured due to Mitigating circumstance
aberratio ictus shall be made a complex crime
(compound crime). The court shall impose the The mitigating circumstance that "the
penalty for the most serious crime in its offender had no intention to commit
maximum period. so grave a wrong as that committed"
or praeter intentionem is obtaining
The circumstance of aberratio ictus: when there is a notable disparity
(mistake in the blow) can neither exempt the between the means employed by the
accused from criminal responsibility nor accused to commit a wrong and the
mitigate his criminal liability. Under Article 4 resulting crime committed. The
of RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any intention of the accused at the time of
person committing a felony although the the commission of the crime is
wrongful act done be different from that manifested from the weapon used, the
which he intended (Matic vs. People, G.R. No. mode of attack employed and the
180219, November 23, 2011). injury sustained by the victim (People
vs. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March
Q. What is praeter intentionem and what 30, 2011). The mitigating circumstance
are its implications? of praeter intentionem cannot be
appreciated if the acts employed by
Praeter intentionem is committed accused were reasonably sufficient to
when an injury resulted from an act is greater produce and did actually produce the
from the injury intended to be caused by the death of the victim (People vs. Sales,
offender. It is considered as a mitigating G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
circumstance under Art. 13 par. 3 of the RPC.
In case of praeter intentionem, a Evident premeditation
person is criminally responsible for committing
an intentional felony although its wrongful In case of aberratio ictus and error in
consequence is graver than that intended. personae, the SC did not appreciate
evident premeditation since the victim,
In order to make a person criminally who was actually killed, is not
liable under Article 4 (1) in case of praeter contemplated in the premeditation of
intentionem, the following requisites must be the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R.
present: NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988; People
vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967; People vs.
(1) Offender committed an intentional Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28,
felony; 1988). However, praeter intentionem
and evident premeditation can be
(2) The wrongful act done, which is graver independently appreciated, there is no
than that intended, is the direct, incompatibility between evident
natural and logical consequence of the premeditation and no intention to
felony committed by the commit so grave a wrong since the
offender.Praeter intentionem may be latter is based on the state of mind of
appreciated as mitigating circumstance the offender while the former manner
of lack of Intent to commit so grave a of committing the crime (Reyes;
wrong than that committed. People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).

When death resulted, even if there was Treachery


no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of If accused employed means to render
personal violence the penal law looks the victim defenseless, treachery shall
particularly to the material results following be appreciated even if the killing is doe

Page 7 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

to error in personae (People vs. Del at the bedroom, where the victim is supposed
Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April to be sleeping. No one was in the room when
30, 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs. the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by
Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August the gun fire. The accused were convicted of
10,1926, En Banc) or with the impossible crime. The accused shot at the place
circumstance of praeter Intentionem where he thought his victim would be,
(People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511, although in reality, the victim was not present
October 6, 1933). in said place. The accused failed to accomplish
their end due to its factual impossibility. In the
Conspiracy Philippines, the crime committed is impossible
crime if the offense sought to be committed is
Conspirators, who conspired to kill a factually or legally impossible. Killing a dead
particular parson, are equally liable for person is an impossible crime because of legal
the killing of another person due to impossibility. Putting the hand inside an empty
error in personae (People vs. Pinto, Jr. pocket with the intention to steal a wallet is an
and Buenaflor, G.R. No. No. 39519, impossible crime because of factual
November 21, 1991). However, a impossibility.
conspirator, who never even fired a
single shot and whose only Raping a dead person - Prior to RA 8353, rape
participation was to drive their was a crime against chastity. Thus, if a person
getaway vehicle and to lend his raped a dead person believing that she was
firearm to his back rider so that the just sleeping, offender could not be held liable
latter could finish off the target victim for an impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino). In
was not found accountable for the impossible crime the act could have
injury sustained by the unintended constituted the crime against person or
victim was just a star-crossed bystander property if its accomplishment was not
who was accidentally hit in the process impossible. Rape is neither a crime against
(aberratio ictus) (People vs. Herbias, person nor against property. However, RA
G.R. No. 112716-17, December 8353 reclassifies rape from crime against
16,1996; People vs. Flora and Flora, chastity to a crime against persons. Hence, an
G.R. No. 125909, June 23,2000). offender for raping a dead person without
knowing that she was already dead may now
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME be held liable for impossible crime.
Q. What are the elements of an Committing another crime - "A" discharged a
impossible crime? shotgun at "B" from a distance of 300 yards;
The elements of an impossible crime are: but because of the limited range of the
firepower of the shotgun, it would be
(1) That the act performed would be an impossible for "A" to harm "B". "A" is liable of
offense against persons or property. discharged of firearm and not impossible
crime. Where the offender unlawfully entered
(2) That the act was done with evil intent. the house and took a watch that turned out to
be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling
(3) That its accomplishment is inherently and not impossible crime (Criminal Law
impossible, or that the means Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). If the
employed is either inadequate or accused administered abortive drugs upon his
ineffectual. girlfriend whom he believed to be pregnant,
which turned out not to be true, but the
(4) That the act performed should not woman became ill for more than 30 days, the
constitute a violation of another accused will be liable for serious physical
provision of the Revised Penal Code. injuries and not impossible crime of abortion
(Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).
Intod principle
STAGES OF EXECUTION
Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
103119, October 21, 1992 - Outside the house Q. What are the stages of execution of a
of the victim, accused with intent to kill fired material crime? Briefly discuss them.

Page 8 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

CLASSIFICATION UNDER ART. 6: external acts "would produce" the felony as a


consequence.
(1) Consummated Felony When all the
elements necessary for its execution FRUSTRATED AND CONSUMMATED:
and accomplishment are present; the
felony is produced. In frustrated and consummated felony,
the accused performed all acts of execution
(2) Frustrated Felony When the offender that would produce the felony as a
performs all the acts of execution consequence. If the felony is not produced due
which would produce the felony as a to external cause, the crime committed is
consequence but which, nevertheless, frustrated felony; if the felony is produced the
do not produce it by reason of causes crime committed is consummated.
independent of the will of the
perpetrator. In frustrated felony, the offender
performed all the acts of execution but the
(3) Attempted Felony When the felony was not produced as a consequence
offender commences the commission due to extraneous cause. However, there are
of a felony directly by overt acts, and felonies, the commission of which has no
does not perform all the acts of frustrated stage since the performance of all
execution which should produce the the acts of execution immediately
felony by reason of some cause or consummates the felony.
accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. In homicide or murder case, once the
offender inflicted mortal wound on the victim,
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES: all the acts of execution are considered
performed. However, what consummates
In attempted felony, the offender homicide or murder is not the infliction of
performs directly an overt act, which consists mortal wounds but the death of the victim as a
of one or more acts of execution, but not consequence of the mortal wound inflicted.
enough to consequently produce the felony. Thus, if the mortally wounded victim did not
die due to medical intervention, homicide or
In frustrated felony, the offenders murder is only at the frustrated stage. On the
perform all the acts of execution that would other hand, in rape once the offender sexuality
produce the felony as a matter of penetrate the labia of the vagina of the victim,
consequence. all the acts of execution are considered
performed. But since sexual penetration
To determine whether the felony is at consummates rape, there are no occasions
the attempted or frustrated stage, acts of where the offender performed all the acts of
execution of execution of a felony must be execution and yet the felony was not
identified. Example: The acts of execution that produced as a consequence. In sum, there is no
would produce homicide or murder are such thing as frustrated rape since the
infliction of mortal wounds upon the victim. If performance of all the acts of execution
the wounds inflicted upon the victim with immediately consummates rape.
intent to kill are non-mortal, the crime
committed is attempted homicide; if wounds ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
are mortal, the crime committed is frustrated
homicide. In attempted felony and frustrated
felony, the offender failed to accomplish his
In attempted felony and frustrated criminal objective by reason of extraneous
felony, the external acts performed by the causes; If the causes are not extraneous, the
offender and the intended felony must have a accused will be absolved from criminal
direct connection; but in an attempted felony, liability.
the offender failed to perform all the acts of
execution; thus his external acts would "not Negative Act - In the attempted stage of the
produce the felony as a consequence; on the execution of a felony, the offender must do a
other hand in a frustrated felony, the offender "negative act" to be exempt from criminal
performed all the acts of execution; thus, his liability for attempted felony; since the

Page 9 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

offender has not yet performed all the acts of "A" of criminal responsibility. "A" had already
execution that would produce the felony as a performed all the acts of execution, which
consequence, he must spontaneously desist produced the crime of theft before he returned
from further doing criminal acts that will the chicken (Reyes). (3) The fact that the
complete all the acts of execution. Example: accused abandoned the victim after six days of
"A" with intent to kill shot "B"; "B" sustained captivity does not lessen his criminal
non-mortal wound. To be exempt from culpability much less exempt him from criminal
criminal liability for attempted homicide or liability for the kidnapping and detention of
murder, "A" must spontaneously desist from the victim (People vs. Baldogo, G.R. No.
further shooting "B" in order not to inflict 128106-07, January 24,2003, En Banc).
mortal injury upon him.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF
Positive Act - If the offender performs all the FRUSTRATED STAGE
acts of execution, which would produce the
felony as a consequence, offender is not RAPE
exempted from liability for frustrated felony
even if he voluntary desisted from further The essence of the crime is carnal
doing criminal act. Spontaneous desistance is a knowledge.
defense in attempted felony but not in
frustrated felony. In the frustrated stage of the No matter what the offender may do
execution of a felony, the offender must do a to accomplish a penetration, if there
"positive act" to be exempt from criminal was no penetration yet, it cannot be
liability; since the offender has performed all said that the offender has performed
the acts of execution that would produce the all the acts of execution.
felony as a consequence, he must do
something to prevent, or thwart the We can only say that the offender in
production of the felony. Example: "A" with rape has performed all the acts of
intent to kill shot "B"; "B" sustained mortal execution when he has effected a
wound. To be exempt from criminal liability penetration.
for frustrated felony, it is not enough that "A"
would desist from further shooting "B". The Once there is penetration, no matter
spontaneous desistance is not a valid defense how slight it is, the offense is
since "A" had already inflicted mortal wound consummated. For this reason, rape
on "B" that would cause his death as a admits only of the attempted and
consequence. Thus, "A" must save the life of consummated stages, no frustrated
"B" by treating his wound. If "B" did not die stage. [People v. Orita]
because "A"s medical treatment, the latter will
not be held liable for frustrated felony because ARSON
the homicide was not produced due to the will
of "A. One cannot say that the offender, in
the crime of arson, has already
Not absolutory cause - If the felony is performed all the acts of execution
consummated, offender cannot undo what which could produce the destruction
was done. Offender would not be absolved of the premises through the use of fire,
from criminal liability even if he had done unless a part of the premises has begun
something that will mitigate the effects of the to burn.
felonious act. Example: (1) Restitution of funds
malversed immediately and voluntarily made The crime of arson is therefore
before the case was instituted is not an consummated even if only a portion of
absolutory cause (Navarro vs. Meneses III, the wall or any part of the house is
CBO Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998, burned. The consummation of the
En Banc). (2) "A" stole a chicken from the crime of arson does not depend upon
house of "B" one evening. Realizing that what the extent of the damage caused.
he did was wrong, "A" returned the chicken to (People v. Hernandez)
the place under the house of "B". Since the
crime of theft was already consummated, the
return of the stolen property does not relieve

Page 10 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC b. The elements of the crime; and


OFFICERS
c. The nature of the crime itself.
The manner of committing the crime
requires the meeting of the minds INDETERMINATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE
between the giver and the receiver.
In People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No.
If there is a meeting of the minds, there 43530, August 3, 1935, En Banc - Accused
is consummated bribery or who was caught in the act of making an
consummated corruption. opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store was held guilty of attempted trespassing
If there is none, it is only attempted. and not attempted robbery. The act of making
an opening on the wall of the store is an overt
ADULTERY act of trespassing since it reveals an evident
intention to enter by means of force said store
This requires the sexual contact against the will of its owner. However, it is
between two participants. not an overt act of robbery since the intention
of the accused once he succeeded in entering
If that link is present, the crime is the store is not determinate; it is subject to
consummated; different interpretations. His final objective
could be to rob, to cause physical injury to its
PHYSICAL INJURIES occupants, or to commit any other offense. In
sum, the crime the he intended to commit
Under the Revised Penal Code, the inside the store is indeterminate, and thus, an
crime of physical injuries is penalized attempt to commit it is not punishable as
on the basis of the gravity of the attempted felony.
injuries.
In People vs. Crisostomo, et al., G.R.
There is no simple crime of physical No. L-19034, February 17 1923 - The accused
injuries. There is the need to categorize dragged the victim to a rice field. Fortunately,
because there are specific articles that she was saved from her captors. It was held
apply whether the physical injuries are that the purpose of the accused in taking away
serious, less serious or slight. the offended party could be to injure or
affront her or to compel her through force to
Thus, one could not punish the marry one of the accused. Thus, the acts are
attempted or frustrated stage because not constitutive of attempted coercion. Note:
one does not know what degree of The accused were found guilty of illegal
physical injury was committed unless it detention. Taking the victim reveals the
is consummated. evident intention of the accused to deprive the
liberty of the latter, which is the mens rea in
THEFT illegaI detention.

Once there is unlawful taking, theft is In U.S. vs. Simeon, G.R. No. 1603,
consummated. April 15,1904 - Raising a bolo and hacking the
victim with it are acts of execution in homicide
Either the thing was taken or not. or murder. Such acts together with other
circumstance may reveal intent to kill.
Disposition of the stolen goods is not However, raising a bolo alone is susceptible to
an element of theft under the RPC. different interpretation. The intention of the
offender may either to kill the victim or merely
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require to threaten him. Since doubt should be
any result do not have a frustrated stage. interpreted in favor of the accused, such act
should be considered to have been made with
Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution intent to threaten the victim. Thus, the crime
of a Felony: committed is merely threat and not attempted
homicide.
a. The manner of committing the crime;

Page 11 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL that, without it, the crime would not have
materialized (People vs. Janjarani, G.R. No.
Q. When is there conspiracy? Enumerate 188314, January 10,2011).
the requisites for the existence of
conspiracy. PRESENCE
Article 8 of the RPC provides that The accused who was unarmed,
conspiracy exists when two or more persons appeared in the company of his employer, and
come to an agreement concerning the another person. His employer shot and killed
commission of a felony and decide to commit the victim. Accused did nothing to prevent the
it. The requisites for its existence are: killing. Accused fled together with his
employer and other person. The fact that
(1) There are two or more persons accused appeared together with employer and
who come to an agreement. another and fled with them proves a certain
Agreement presupposes meeting of degree of participation and cooperation in the
the minds of two or more persons. execution of the crime. However, there is
doubt as to whether accused acted as a
(2) The agreement pertains to a principal or just a mere accomplice. Such
commission of a felony. doubt should be resolved in favor of the
milder form of criminal liabilitythat of a
(3) The execution of the felony was mere accomplice (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No.
decided upon. 192251, February 16, 2011). If the accused is
armed at the time, he could be held liable as
IMPLIED CONSPIRACY principal on the basis of implied conspiracy.
The fact that the companion of the criminal
In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No. actor is armed may mean that the former is
181701, January 18,2012 -The "evidence of a supplying moral assistance to the latter. The
chain of circumstances," to wit: that appellant armed presence of conspiratorial companion
went inside the house of Romines to ascertain may prove a sense of security and
that the victim was there; that he fetched encouragement on the part of the material
Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave executor or may serve as deterrence against
the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime; possible defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No.
and that they both fled after the stabbing, 133887, May 28,2002, En Banc).
taken collectively, shows a community of
criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently, SPECIAL LAW
there was conspiracy in the commission of the
crime. B.P. Big. 22 does not expressly
proscribe the supplementary application of the
MASTERMIND provisions RPC including the rule on
conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied
To be held liable as conspirator, it supplementary. Thus, a non-issuer of bum
must also be shown that the accused check can be held liable for violation of BP
performed an overt act in furtherance of the Big. 22 on the basis of conspiracy (Ladonga vs.
conspiracy except in the case of the People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005).
mastermind of a crime (People vs. Vera, GR The principle of conspiracy may be applied to
No. 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans RA No. 9262. Thus, a person (such as mother-
the commission of a crime is liable as in-law), who has no marital, sexual or dating
conspirator and principal by inducement relationship with the victim, can be held liable
(People vs. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March for violence against women on the basis of
4, 2004, En banc). Notwithstanding, the fact conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852,
that one was not at the crime scene, evidence September 30, 2008).
proved that he was the mastermind of the
criminal act or the principal by inducement.
What Is important is that inducement was the
determining cause of the commission of the
crime. The command or advice made by
principal by inducement was of such nature

Page 12 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

MULTIPLE OFFENDERS (a) The accused is on trial for an


offense;
Q. Who is a recidivist?
(b) He has previously served sentence
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for another crime which the law
for one crime shall have been previously attaches an equal or greater
convicted by final judgment of another crime penalty or for two or more crimes
embraced in the same title of the RPC. What is with lighter penalties; and
controlling is the time of trial, not the time of
the crime. (Article 14, par. 9, RPC) (c) The accused is convicted of the
Q. What are the requirements for a new offense.
person to become a recidivist?
Q. Distinguish reiteracion from recidivism
The requirements are: or reincindencia
(a) The offender is on trial for an offense; The following are the distinctions
between the two:
(b) The offender was previously convicted
by final judgment for another crime; (a) In reiteracion, the offender must have
served out his sentence for the first
(c) Both the first and second offenses are offense, while in recidivism, it is
embraced in the same title of the RPC; enough that there be final judgment in
and the first offense;

(d) The offender is convicted of the new (b) In reiteracion, the previous and
offense. subsequent offenses can be from
different titles of the RPC, while in
recidivism, the offenses must come
Q. When does a judgment in a criminal from the same title; and
case become final?
(c) Reiteracion is not always an
Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Rules of aggravating circumstance while
Court provides that a judgment in a criminal recidivism is always to be taken into
case shall become final: consideration in fixing the penalty to
(a) After the lapse of the period for be imposed upon the accused.
perfecting an appeal15 days from
promulgation of the judgment or from Q. Who is a quasi-recidivist? What is
notice of the final order appealed quasi-recidivism?
from;
A quasi-recidivist, as provided by
(b) When the sentence has been partially Article 160 of the RPC, is a person who
or totally satisfied or served; commits a felony after having been convicted
by final judgment, before beginning to serve
(c) When the accused has waived in such sentence, or while serving the same.
writing his right to appeal; or Quasi-recidivism is the special aggravating
circumstance which imposes the maximum
(d) When the accused applied for period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
probation. new felony.

Q. When is there reiteracion or Q. Who is a habitual delinquent?


habituality? It is a person who, within a period of
There is reiteracion or habituality ten (10) years from the date of his last release
when the offender has been previously or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or
punished for an offense to which the law less serious physical injuries; (2) robbery; (3)
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two theft; (4) estafa; or (5) falsification, he is found
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
penalty. Its requisites are: oftener (Article 62, RPC).

Page 13 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Q. What are the requisites of habitual or last conviction. last conviction.


delinquency? As to the number of crimes committed
The accused must be The second offense is
The following are the requisites of
found guilty the third for an offense found
habitual delinquency:
time or oftener of the in the same title of
(a) The offender has been convicted of crime specified. the RPC.
any of the crimes of serious or less As to their effect
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, An additional penalty If not offset by a
estafa or falsification; is also imposed. mitigating
circumstance, it serves
(b) That after that conviction or after to increase the
serving his sentence, he again penalty only to the
committed, and within 10 years from maximum.
his release or first conviction, he was
again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time; and CONTINUING CRIMES
Q. What is a continuing crime?
(c) That after his conviction of, or after
serving sentence for, the second The term "continuing" here must be
offense, he again committed, and understood in the sense similar to that of
within 10 years from his last release or "transitory" and is only intended as a factor in
conviction, he was again convicted of determining the proper venue or jurisdiction
any of said offenses, the third time or for that matter of the criminal action pursuant
oftener. to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court. This is so, because "a person charged
Q. Does habitual delinquency apply to with a transitory offense may be tried in any
persons who are adjudged to have jurisdiction where the offense is part
acted only as accomplices or committed. In transitory or continuing offense
accessories? in which some acts material and essential to
the crime and requisite to its consummation
Yes. Any person who commits the occur in one province and some in another,
crimes enumerated in par. 5 of Article 62 the court of either province has jurisdiction to
whether acting as a principal, accomplice, or try the case, it being understood that the first
accessory will be considered a habitual court taking cognizance of the case will
delinquent if the requisites for habitual exclude the other." (Gamboa vs. Court of
delinquency are present (People vs. San Juan, Appeals, G.R. No. L-41054, 1975)
69 Phil. 347, 349 [1939]).
Q. What is a continuous or continued
Q. Distinguish habitual delinquency from crime?
recidivism.
This is a single crime consisting of a
HABITUAL RECIDIVISM series of acts arising from a single criminal
DELINQUENCY resolution or intent not susceptible of division
As to Crime Committed (Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
The crimes are It is sufficient that the 41054, 1975). For Cuello Calon, when the
specified. accused on the date actor, there being unity of purpose and of
of the trial shall have right violated, commits diverse acts, each of
been previously which, although of a delictual character,
convicted by final merely constitutes a partial execution of a
judgment of another single particular delict, such concurrence or
crime embraced in the delictual acts is called a "delito continuado". In
same title of the RPC. order that it may exist, there should be
As to the period of time the crimes are "plurality of acts performed separately during a
committed period of time; unity of penal provision
The offender is found No period of time infringed upon or violated and unity of
guilty within ten years between the former criminal intent and purpose, which means that
from his last release conviction and the two or more violations of the same penal

Page 14 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

provision are united in one and the same 28, 1975 - Accused cannot be held to
intent leading to the perpetration of the same have entertained continuously the
criminal purpose or aim" (Santigao v same criminal intent in making the first
Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, 1993). abstraction October 2, 2972 for the
subsequent abstractions on the
Single occassion - In People vs. Tumlos, following days and months until
G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En December 30,1972, for the simple
Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows reason that he was not possessed of
owned by six owners involved thirteen any foreknowledge of any deposit by
(13) acts of taking. However, the acts any customer on any day or occasion
of taking took place at the same time and which would pass on to his
and in the same place; consequently, possession and control. At most, his
accused performed but one act. The intent to misappropriate may arise
intention was likewise one, namely, to only when he comes in possession of
take for the purpose of appropriating the deposits on each business day but
or selling the thirteen cows which he not in future, since petitioner company
found grazing in the same place. The operates only on a day-to-day
fact that eight of said cows pertained transaction. As a result, there could be
to one owner and five to another does as many acts of misappropriation as
not make him criminally liable for as there are times the private respondent
many crimes as there are owners, for abstracted and/or diverted the deposits
the reason that in such case neither the to his own personal use and benefit
intention nor the criminal act is (People vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. 1-16943,
susceptible of division. October 28,1961).

"X" was angered when he discovered a COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX
tap from the main line of the public CRIMES
water tank. On separate occasions, X"
threatened to VW and crack the skulls There are two kinds of complex crimes. The
of "A", "B", and "C", who suspected to first is known as compound crime, or when a
be responsible for the tapping of water single act constitutes two or more grave or less
line. There is no continued crime since grave felonies. The second is known as
the three crimes of grave threat were complex crime proper, or when an offense is a
not committed under a single criminal necessary means for committing the other
Impulse. "X's" intent to threaten "A", (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July
"B", and "C" with bodily harm arose 27, 2011).The underlying philosophy of
only when he chanced upon each of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code,
his victims. Several threats can only be which follows the pro reo principle, is
considered as continued crime if the intended to favor the accused by imposing a
offender threatened three individuals single penalty irrespective of the crimes
at the same place and at the same time committed. The rationale being, that the
(Paera vs. People, G.R. No. 181626, accused who commits two crimes with single
May 30, 2011). General plan In criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-1745, than when the crimes are committed by
May 23, 1950, it was held that different acts and several criminal resolutions
ransacking several houses located (People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050,
within the vicinity of a sugar mill while September 19, 2008).
two of the bandits guarded the victims
with guns leveled at them is a COMPLEX CRIME AND COMPOSITE CRIME
continued crime of robbery. Several
acts of robbery were made pursuant to A composite crime, also known as a
general plan to despoil all those in i special complex crime, is composed of two or
the said place, which is an indicative of more crimes that the law treats as a single
a single i criminal design. indivisible and unique offense for being the
product of a single criminal impulse. It is a
Foreknowledge doctrine - In Gamboa specific crime with a specific penalty provided
vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November by law. The distinctions between a composite

Page 15 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

crime, on the one hand, and a complex or Self-Defense


compound crime under Article 48 are as
follows: Q. What are the requirements for self-
defense to be a justifying circumstance?
(1) In a composite crime, the composition
of the offenses is fixed by law; In a For self-defense to be a justifying
complex or compound crime, the circumstance, the following elements must be
combination of the offenses is not present: (URL)
specified but generalized, that is, grave
and/or less grave, or one offense being (1) Unlawful aggression; (condition sine
the necessary means to commit the qua non)
other;
(2) Reasonable necessity of means
(2) For a composite crime, the penalty for employed to prevent or repel the
the specified combination of crimes is unlawful aggression.
specific; for a complex or compound
crime, the penalty is that (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
corresponding to the most serious part of the person defending himself.
offense, to be imposed in the
maximum period; and Includes not only the defense of the person or
body of the one assaulted but also that of his
(3) A light felony that accompanies a rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by
composite crime is absorbed; a light law. It includes:
felony that accompanies the
commission of a complex or (a) The defense of honor. Hence, a slap
compound crime may be the subject of on the face is considered as unlawful
separate information (People vs. aggression since the face represents a
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, person and his dignity. (Rugas vs,
2012). People)

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (b) The defense of property rights can be


invoked if there is an attack upon the
Q. What are justifying circumstances? property although it is not coupled
with an attack upon the person of
Justifying circumstances are those acts the owner of the premises. All the
of a person said to be in accordance with law, elements for justification must
so that such person is deemed not to have however be present. (People v.
transgressed the law and is free from both Narvaez)
criminal and civil liability. There is no civil
liability except in par. 4, Art. 11 where the civil Q. Define unlawful aggression
liability is borne by the persons benefited by
the act. Unlawful aggression is an equivalent to
an actual physical assault; OR threatened
Q. What are the justifying circumstances assault of an immediate and imminent kind
under Article 11 of the RPC? which is offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause harm.
(1) Self-defense
(2) Defense of relatives The aggression must constitute a
(3) Defense of strangers violation of the law. When the aggression
(4) Avoidance of a greater evil or injury ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to
(5) Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of defend ones self.
right of office
(6) Obedience to an order issued for some EXCEPT: when the aggressor retreats to obtain
lawful purpose. a more advantageous position to ensure the
success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression
is deemed to continue.

Page 16 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Must come from the person attacked remains, however, that no injury of any kind
by the accused. or gravity was found on the person of accused
when he presented himself to the hospital. In
Unlawful aggression must also be a contrast, the physician who examined the
continuing circumstance or must have been cadaver of victim testified that he had been hit
existing at the time the defense is made. Once on the head more than once. The plea of self-
the unlawful aggression is found to have defense was thus belied, for the weapons use d
ceased, the one making the defense of a by accused and the location and number of
stranger would likewise cease to have any wounds he inflicted on victim revealed his
justification for killing, or even just wounding, intent to kill, not merely an effort to prevent
the former aggressor. [People vs. Dijan (2002)] or repel an attack from victim. We consider to
be significant that the gravity of the wounds
Ordinarily there is a difference manifested the determined effort of the
between the act of drawing one's gun and the accused to kill his victim, not just to defend
act of pointing one's gun at a target. The himself.
former cannot be said to be unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. For BURDEN OF PROOF
unlawful aggression to be attendant there must
be a real danger to life or personal safety. When the accused's defense is self-
Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden defense he thereby admits being the author of
and unexpected attack, or imminent danger the death of the victim, that it becomes
thereof, and not merely a threatening or incumbent upon him to prove the justifying
intimidating attitude. Here, the act of the circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.
victim in drawing a gun from his waist cannot Burden of evidence shifts to the accused.
be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084,
did not put in real peril the life or personal January 18, 2012).
safety of appellant. The facts surrounding the
case must, however, be differentiated from EQUIVALENCE - Under doctrine of rationale
current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. equivalence, plea of self-defense would
Accused was justified in defending himself prosper If there Is a rational equivalence
considering that victim was a trained police between the means of attack by the unlawful
officer and inebriated. Even if the victim did aggressor and the means of defense by the
not point his firearm at accused, there would accused that would characterize the defense as
still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the reasonable. The doctrine of rational
part of the victim (Nacnac vs. People, G.R. equivalence presupposes the consideration not
No. 191913, March 21, 2012). only of the nature and quality of the weapons
used by the defender and the assailantbut of
Imminent unlawful aggression means the totality of circumstances surrounding the
an attack that is impending or at the point of defense vis-a- vis, the unlawful aggression.
happening; it must not consist in a mere Clearly, this "continuous attack" by accused
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely despite the fact that aggressor already was
imaginary, but must be offensive and neutralized by the blow constitutes force
positively strong (like aiming a revolver at beyond what is reasonably required to repel
another with intent to shoot or opening a the aggression and is therefore unjustified
knife and making a motion as if to attack). (Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No. 181071, March
Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a 15, 2010).
mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
pressing his right hand to his hip where a The plea of self-defense would fail for
revolver was bolstered, accompanied by an lack of rational equivalence between the
angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a means of attack and the means of defense that
pot (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, would characterize the defense as reasonable.
January 18, 2012). The fact that victim suffered several wounds
belies the claim that accused was simply
In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. warding off the victim's attack (People vs.
177743, January 25, 2012 - Indeed, had victim Bracia, G.R. No. 174477, October 2, 2009,
really attacked accused, the latter would have Justice Brion; People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No.
sustained some injury from the aggression, it 153287, June 30, 2008, Justice Brion)

Page 17 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Defense of Relatives Stranger any person not included in


the enumeration of relatives under
Elements: [par. 2 of Art. 11]

(1) Unlawful aggression If the person being defended is a


second cousin, it will be defense of
(a) Unlawful aggression may not exist stranger.
as a matter of fact; it can be made
to depend upon the honest belief Avoidance of a Greater Evil
of the one making the defense.
Q. What are the requirements for
(b) Reason: The law acknowledges avoidance of a greater evil or injury
the possibility that a relative, by to be a justifying circumstance?
virtue of blood, will instinctively
come to the aid of their relatives. For avoidance of a greater evil or
injury to be a justifying circumstance, the
(2) Reasonable necessity of means following elements must be present:
employed to prevent or repel it
a. The evil sought to be avoided actually
(3) In case the provocation was given by exists;
the person attacked, the one making
the defense had no part therein. b. The evil or injury sought to be avoided
must not have been produced by the
Q. Who are the relatives that can be one invoking the justifying
defended? circumstances;

The relatives that can be defended are: c. The injury feared be greater than that
a. The spouse; done to avoid it
b. Ascendants;
c. Descendants; d. There is no other practical & less
d. Brothers and sisters, whether natural or harmful means of preventing it.
adopted;
e. Relatives by affinity in the same degree General rule: No civil liability in justifying
as brothers and sisters; and circumstances because there is no crime
f. Relatives by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree (Article 11, par. 2, Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
RPC). paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in
proportion to the benefit which they have
Defense of Strangers received.

Q. What are the requirements for Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right
defense of a stranger to be a or Office
justifying circumstance?
Q. What are the requirements for
For defense of a stranger to be a fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise
justifying circumstance, the following elements of right or office to be a justifying
must be present: circumstance?

(1) Unlawful aggression; For fulfilment of duty or lawful


exercise of right or office to be a justifying
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means circumstance, the following elements must be
employed to prevent or repel it; present:

(3) The person defending was not induced a. The accused acted in performance of
by revenge, resentment or other evil duty or lawful exercise of a right or
motive. office;

Page 18 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

b. That the injury caused or the offense exercised due diligence in the
committed be the necessary performance of his duties?
consequence of the due performance
of duty or the lawful exercise of such Yes. In the case of People vs. Beronilla,
right or office. 96 Phil. 566, the Supreme Court held that in
case of a soldier who acted upon the orders of
If the first condition is present, but the second superior officers, which he, as a military
is not because the offender acted with culpa, subordinate, could not question, and obeyed
the offender will be entitled to a privileged the orders in good faith, without being aware
mitigating circumstance. The penalty would be of its illegality, without any fault or negligence
reduced by one or two degrees. on his part, he is not liable because he had no
criminal intent and he was not negligent.
Q. What is the Doctrine of Self-Help?
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
The doctrine as provided in Article 429 of the THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (RA 9262)
New Civil Code, states that the owner or
lawful possessor of a thing has the right to Q. What is the Battered Woman
exclude any person from the enjoyment and Syndrome under RA 9262? Can it be
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use used as a justifying circumstance?
such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened Battered Woman Syndrome is a
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his scientifically defined pattern of psychological
property. and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of
In People vs. Apolinar, CA, 3 O.G. cumulative abuse. (R.A. 9262, Section 3, Par.
270, It was held that the defense of property 4, subpar. c)
is not of such importance as right to life, and
defense of property can be invoked as a Battered Woman Syndrome as a
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by
with an attack on the person of one entrusted the courts to be suffering from battered
with said property. woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
However, in People vs. Narvaez, 6.R. of any of the elements for justifying
Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, the SC found circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
the presence of unlawful aggression despite the Penal Code. (R.A. 9262, Section 26)
fact that the invasion of his property right was
not coupled by an attack against the accused. In the determination of the state of
The accused has the right to resist pursuant mind of the woman who was suffering from
Article 429 of the Civil Code, which provides: battered woman syndrome at the time of the
"The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has commission of the crime, the courts shall be
the right to exclude any person from the assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this [SECTION 26, RA 9262]
purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an The battered woman syndrome is
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion characterized by a CYCLE OF VIOLENCE,
or usurpation of his property." However, since which is made up of three phases [People v.
the means employed to resist the invader Genosa]:
(killing) is not reasonable, the accused is
merely given the benefit of incomplete self- First Phase: Tension Building Phase
defense. Justice Florenz Regalado stated that
the rule in Apolinar case may be deemed to Where minor battering occurs, it could
have been superseded by Narvaez case. be a verbal or slight physical abuse or
another form of hostile behavior.
Q. Can a subordinate raise the defense of
good faith if he is not aware of the The woman tries to pacify the batterer
illegality of the order and that he through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior, or by simply staying out of
the way.

Page 19 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

e. Impulse of uncontrollable fear


But this proves to be unsuccessful as it f. Insuperable or lawful cause (Article 12,
only gives the batterer the notion that RPC)
he has the right to abuse her.
Exempting circumstances those grounds for
Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
Characterized by brutality, conditions which make the act voluntary or
destructiveness, and sometimes death. negligent.

The battered woman has no control; The reason for the exemption lies on
only the batterer can stop the violence. the complete absence of intelligence, freedom
of action, or intent, or on the absence of
The battered woman realizes that she negligence on the part of the accused.
cannot reason with him and resistance
would only worsen her condition. One who acts without intelligence,
freedom of action or intent does not act with
Third Phase: Tranquil Period malice.

Characterized by guilt on the part of One who acts without intelligence,


the batterer and forgiveness on the freedom of action or fault does not act with
part of the woman. negligence.

The batterer may show a tender and Q. Distinguish justifying circumstances


nurturing behavior towards his partner from exempting circumstances.
and the woman also tries to convince The distinctions are the following:
herself that the battery will never
happen again and that her partner will Justifying Exempting
change for the better. Circumstance Circumstance

Four Characteristics of the Syndrome: It affects the act not It affects the actor not
the actor. the act.
1. The woman believes that the violence
was her fault; The act is considered The act complained
to have been done of is actually
2. She has an inability to place the within the bounds of wrongful, but the
responsibility for the violence law; hence, legitimate actor is not liable.
elsewhere; and lawful in the eyes
of the law.
3. She fears for her life and/or her
childrens life Since the act is Since the act
considered lawful, complained of is
4. She has an irrational belief that the there is no crime. actually wrong there
abuser is omnipresent and omniscient. is a crime but since
the actor acted
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES without voluntariness,
there is no dolo nor
Q. What are the exempting circumstances culpa.
under the Revised Penal Code?
The following are the exempting No crime There is a crime
circumstances under the RPC: No criminal liability No criminal liability
No civil liability There is civil liability
a. Imbecility/Insanity (except Art. 11, par. 4 (except Art. 12, par. 4
b. Minority where there is civil and 7, where there is
c. Accident liability) no civil liability)
d. Compulsion of irresistible force

Page 20 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Insanity or Imbecility Insanity as an exempting circumstance


must relate to the time immediately preceding
Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age, or coetaneous with the commission of the
has a mental development comparable to that offense with which accused is charged (People
of a child between 2 and 7 years of age. vs. Tibon, supra).
Exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION TEST
Insane - There is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act but capable The case of Formigones established two
of having lucid intervals. distinguishable tests to determine the insane
condition of the accused:
During a lucid interval, the insane acts
with intelligence and thus, is not (a) The test of cognition - whether there
exempt from criminal liability. was a "complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the criminal
Insanity is a defense in the nature of act" After satisfying his lust, accused
confession and avoidance and must be threatened the victim. This implies that
proved beyond reasonable doubt. accused knew what he was doing, that
it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a
Evidence of insanity must refer to: secret. It also indicated that the crime
was committed during one of his lucid
a. The time preceding the act under intervals. Accused is not exempt from
prosecution or liability for failure to pass the cognition
test (People vs. Alipio, G.R. No.
b. at the very moment of its execution. 185285, October 5,2009) and
evidence tended to show that accused
Insanity subsequent to commission of was not deprived of reason at all and
crime is not exempting can still distinguish right from wrong
when, after satisfying his lust, he
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility. It is threatened victim. This single episode
necessary that there is a complete irresistibly implies, for one, that
deprivation of intelligence in accused knew what he was doing, that
committing the act, that is, the accused it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a
be deprived of reason, that there is no secret. And for another, it indicated
responsibility for his own acts; that he that the crime was committed during
acts without the least discernment; that one of lucid intervals of accused
there be complete absence of the (People vs. Alipio, supra).
power to discern, or that there be a
complete deprivation of the freedom (b) The test of volition whether there
of the will. [People vs. Formigones] was a "total deprivation of freedom of
the will." In the Bonoan case,
Acts penalized by law are always schizophrenic accused, who acted
presumed to be voluntary, and it is improper under irresistible homlcidak impulse to
to conclude that a person acted unconsciously toll (volition test), was acquitted due
in order to relieve him of liability, unless his to insanity. This is not anymore a good
liability is proved (People vs. Pambid, GR No. rule. Even If the mental condition of
124453, March 15, 2000). Insanity is the the accused had passed the volition
exception. The presumption, under Article 800 test, the plea of Insanity will noit
of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. prosper unless it also passed the
Anyone who pleads the exempting cognition test. The controlling test is
circumstance of insanity bears the burden of cognition (People vs. Opuran, G.R.
proving it with clear and convincing evidence. Nos. 147674-75, March 17,2004).
It is in the nature of confession and avoidance.
An accused invoking insanity admits to have In recent Supreme Court cases, the plea of
committed the crime but claims that he or she insanity of person, who is suffering from
is not guilty because of insanity (People vs. schizophrenia, was rejected because of failure
Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010). to pass the cognition test, in sum, a

Page 21 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

schizophrenic accused must be deprived The exemption from criminal liability


completely of intelligence to be exempt front herein established does not include exemption
criminal liability (See: People vs. Medina, G.R . from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People vs. accordance with existing laws.
Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993).lf a
person (such as sex maniac, homicidal maniac Determination of Age [Sec. 7, RA 9344]
or kleptomaniac) had merely passed the
volition test but not the cognition test, he will Presumption: Minority of child in conflict with
only be given the benefit of mitigating the law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a child
circumstance of illness. Diminution of freedom in conflict with the law until s/he is proven to
of the will is enough to mitigate the liability of be 18 years old or older.
the offender suffering from illness (See: People
vs. Rafanan, Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. No. The age of a child may be determined from:
54135, November 21,1991).
The childs birth certificate,
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF Baptismal certificate, or
2006 (R.A. 9344); ALSO REFER TO CHILD Any other pertinent documents.
AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (P.D. 603, AS
AMENDED) In the absence of these documents, age may be
based on:
Q. What is the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare System? Information from the child
himself/herself,
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System"
Testimonies of other persons,
refers to a system dealing with children at risk
and children in conflict with the law, which The physical appearance of the child,
provides child-appropriate proceedings, and
including programs and services for Other relevant evidence.
prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re- In case of doubt as to the childs age, it shall be
integration and aftercare to ensure their resolved in his/her favor.
normal growth and development. [Title V:
Juvenile Justice and Welfare System of RA Exemption from criminal liability
9344]
15 yrs old or below at the time of
Sec. 4 (e), RA 9344."Child in conflict with the commission of offense: ABSOLUTELY
law" a child who is alleged as, accused of, or EXEMPT from criminal liability but
adjudged as, having committed an offense subject to intervention program.
under Philippine laws. Over 15 yrs old but below 18: EXEMPT
from criminal liability & subject to
Sec. 6, RA 9344. Minimum Age of Criminal intervention program
Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of If acted w/ discernment subject to
age or under at the time of the commission of diversion program.
the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected Discernment mental capacity to understand
to an intervention program pursuant to the difference between right and wrong as
Section 20 of this Act. determined by the childs appearance ,
attitude, comportment and behavior not only
A child above fifteen (15) years but before and during the commission of the
below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise offense but also after and during the trial. It is
be exempt from criminal liability and be manifested through:
subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which Manner of committing a crime Thus, when
case, such child shall be subjected to the the minor committed the crime during
appropriate proceedings in accordance with nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot
this Act. to another town to avoid discovery, he
manifested discernment. (People vs. Jacinto,
G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).

Page 22 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Conduct of the offender The accused shot his minority was not proved during the trial
the victim with his sling shot and shouted and that his birth certificate was belatedly
Putang ina mo. presented for our consideration, since to rule
accordingly will not adversely affect the rights
Note: The exemption from criminal liability of the state, the victim and his heirs (People vs.
shall not include exemption from civil liability. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7,2013).
Automatic Suspension of Sentence Once the SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE - While Section
child who is under eighteen (18) years of age 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of
at the time of the commission of the offense is sentence can still be applied even if the child in
found guilty of the offense charged, the court conflict with the law is already 18 years of age
shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
or more at the time of the pronouncement of
which may have resulted from the offense
his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits
committed. However, instead of pronouncing
the judgment of conviction, the court shall the said suspension of sentence until the child
place the child in conflict with the law under reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the
suspended sentence, without need of child in conflict with the law, who reached 21
application: Provided, however, That years, cannot avail of privilege of suspension
suspension of sentence shall still be applied of sentence. However, the child in conflict
even if the juvenile is already eighteen years with the law may, after conviction and upon
(18) of age or more at the time of the order of the court, be made to serve his
pronouncement of his/her guilt. sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp and
Upon suspension of sentence and after other training facilities (People vs. Mantalaba,
considering the various circumstances of the G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011).
child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the P.D. No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC
Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict provide that the benefit of suspended sentence
with the Law. (Sec. 38) would not apply to a child In conflict with the
law If, among others, he/she has been
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law convicted of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life Imprisonment. In
Upon the recommendation of the
construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the Court
social worker who has custody of the child,
the court shall dismiss the case against the child is guided by the basic principle of statutory
whose sentence has been suspended and construction that when the law does not
against whom disposition measures have been distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since
issued, and shall order the final discharge of R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish between a
the child if it finds that the objective of the minor who has been convicted of a capital
disposition measures have been fulfilled. offense and another who has been convicted
off a lesser offense, the Court should also not
The discharge of the child in conflict distinguish and should apply the automatic
with the law shall not affect the civil liability suspension of sentence to a child in conflict
resulting from the commission of the offense, with the law who has been found guilty of a
which shall be enforced in accordance with
heinous crime Moreover, the legislative
law. (Sec. 39)
intent:, to apply to heinous crimes the
Under Article 68(2) of RPC, when the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in
offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 conflict with the law can be gleaned from the
years, the penalty next lower than that Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1402
prescribed by law shall be imposed on the (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
accused but always in the proper period. The Act of 2005) (People vs. Sarcia, G.R. No.
rationale of the law in extending such leniency 169641, September 10,2009).
and compassion is that because of his age, the CREDIT OF THE PREVENTIVE
accused is presumed to have acted with less IMPRISONMENT OF CHILD - Under Article
discernment. This is regardless of the fact that 29 of RPC, a convicted recidivist is not entitled

Page 23 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

to a full or 4/5 credit of his preventive uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury,
imprisonment. However, if the convict is a is exempt from criminal liability because he
child, the applicable rule for crediting the does not act with freedom. Actus me invite
period of commitment and detention is not factus non est meus actus. An act done by me
Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344. against my will is not my act. The force
Under the said provision, the full time spent in contemplated must be so formidable as to
reduce the actor to a mere instrument who
actual commitment and detention of juvenile
acts not only without will but against his will.
delinquent shall be credited in the services of
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
his sentence. present, imminent and impending, and of such
Accident nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm
Something that happens outside the if the act be done. A threat of future injury is
sway of our will and, although coming about not enough. The compulsion must be of such a
through some act of our will, lies beyond the character as to leave no opportunity for the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. accused for escape or self- defense in equal
combat (People vs. Oequina, G.R. No.
Elements: 177570, January 19,2011)

1. A person is performing a lawful act; Uncontrollable Fear


2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by Elements:
mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it. 1. That the threat which causes the fear is
of an evil greater than or at least equal
Basis: Lack of negligence and intent. to, that which he is forced to commit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity
Irresistible Force and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.
Elements:
A threat of future injury is not enough. The
1. That the compulsion is by means of compulsion must be of such a character as to
physical force; leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
2. That the physical force must be or self-defense in equal combat.
irresistible;
3. That the physical force must come Insuperable or Lawful Causes
from a third person.
Insuperable means insurmountable. A
Note: Before a force can be considered to be cause which has lawfully, morally or physically
an irresistible one, it must produce such an prevented a person to do what the law
effect on the individual that, in spite of all commands.
resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument
and, as such, incapable of committing the Elements:
crime. (Aquino, Revised Penal Code)
1. That an act is required by law to be
To be exempt from criminal liability, a person done;
invoking irresistible force must show that the 2. That a person fails to perform such act;
force exerted was such that it reduced him to a 3. That his failure to perform such act
mere instrument who acted not only without was due to some lawful or insuperable
will but against his will. [People v. Lising cause
(1998)]
Basis: Lack of intent.
Basis: Complete absence of freedom.
People v. Bandian (1936):A woman cannot be
A person who acts under the held liable for infanticide when she left her
compulsion of an irresistible force, like one newborn child in the bushes without being
who acts under the impulse of an aware that she had given birth at all. Severe

Page 24 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

dizziness and extreme debility made it Surrender is not voluntary where the
physically impossible for Bandian to take home accused went to Barangay Chairman
the child plus the assertion that she didnt after the killings to seek protection
know that she had given birth. against the retaliation of the victims'
relatives, not to admit his participation
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES in the killing of the victims ( People vs.
Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January
Q. What are the mitigating circumstances 18, 2012).
under the Revised Penal Code?
Appellant had asked his uncle to go to
The following are the mitigating the police to signify his intention to
circumstances under the RPC: surrender. A day after the stabbing
incident, SPO1 Camba came to his
1. Incomplete justifying circumstances; house to bring him back to the Bolinao
2. When the offender is over fifteen (15) Police Station for investigation. That
but under eighteen (18) years of age the appellant surrendered only a day
who acted with discernment or when after the stabbing incident does not
offender is over seventy (70) years diminish nor affect the voluntariness of
old; his surrender. For voluntary surrender
3. No intention to commit so grave a to mitigate an offense, it is not
wrong required that the accused surrender at
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat the first opportunity. Here, the
5. Immediate vindication of a grave appellant went voluntarily went with
offense SPO1 Camba to the police station
6. Passion or obfuscation within a day after the killing to own
7. Voluntary surrender up to the killing. Thus, the police did
8. Voluntary plea of guilt not devote time and effort to the
9. Plea to a lower offense investigation of the killing and to the
10. Physical defect search and capture of the assailant
11. Illness (People vs. Casta, G.R. No. 172871,
12. Analogous Circumstances September 16,2008, Justice Brion).

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER The appellants are not entitled to the


mitigating circumstance of voluntary
In order that voluntary surrender is surrender. The evidence shows that the
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the appellants were arrested when the
following requisites must concur: police officers manning the checkpoint
stopped the passenger jeepney driven
a. the accused has not been actually by appellant Rona and arrested the
arrested; appellants. The fact that the appellants
b. the accused surrenders himself to a did not resist but went peacefully with
person in authority or the latter's the peace officers does not mean that
agent; and they surrendered voluntarily (People
c. surrender is voluntary (People vs. Del vs. Castlllano, G.R. No. 139412, April
Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2, 2003).
2012).
VINDICATION
The surrender made after 14 days from
the date of killing cannot be The mitigating circumstance of having
considered voluntary since his act did acted in the immediate vindication of a
not emanate from a natural impulse to grave offense was, likewise, properly
admit the killing or to save the police appreciated. The appellant was
officers the effort and expense that humiliated, mauled and almost
would be incurred in his search and stabbed by the deceased. Although the
incarceration. (People vs. Agacer, G.R. unlawful aggression had ceased when
No. 177751, December 14,2011). the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was
nonetheless a grave offense for which

Page 25 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

the appellant may be given the benefit sufficient enough a time within which
of a mitigating circumstance. But the accused could have regained his
mitigating circumstance of sufficient composure and self-control. Hence,
provocation cannot be considered passion should not be appreciated
apart from the circumstance of (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551,
vindication of a grave offense. These July 27,2011).
two circumstances arose from one and
the same incident, i.e., the attack on AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
the appellant by Anthony, so that they
should be considered as only one Aggravating Circumstances are those
mitigating circumstance (People vs. circumstances which raise the penalty for a
Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 4, crime in its maximum period provided by law
2004). applicable to that crime or change the nature
of the crime.
In vindication of grave offense,
criminal exemption of accessories, Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has
alternative circumstance of relationship expressly required that qualifying and
and defense of stranger, the concept of aggravating circumstances be specifically
relationship is the same. It refers to (1) alleged in the information. Due to such
spouse, (2) ascendants, (3) requirement being pro reo, the Court has
descendants, or (4) legitimate, natural authorized its retroactive application in favor
or adopted brothers or sisters or (5) of of even those charged with felonies committed
his relatives by affinity in the same prior to December 1, 2000, which is the date
degrees. However, in defense of of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the
relative, there is an additional concept Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied the
of relationship. It includes relatives by requirement (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No.
consanguinity within the fourth civil 172321, February 9, 2011).
degree. Thus, an uncle is a relative
within the concept of defense of TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION
stranger (Reyes). However,
relationship of uncle and niece is not The mere use of service firearm is not
an alternative circumstance (People vs. enough to constitute taking advantage of
Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February public position. Fact that accused made use of
23, 2004). firearms which they were authorized to carry
or possess by reason of their positions, could
PASSION not supply the required connection between
the office and the crime. The crime in
The following essential requirements question, for example, could have been
must be present: committed by the defendants in the same or
like manner and with the same case if they had
(1) There was an act that was both been private individuals and fired with
unlawful and sufficient to produce unlicensed weapons (People vs. Mandolado,
such condition (passion or G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983; People vs.
obfuscation) of the mind; and Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999, En
Banc; People vs. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899,
(2) That such act was not far removed April 27, 2000; People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos.
from the commission of the crime 140407-08 and 141908-09, January 15, 2002,
by a considerable length of time, En Banc; and People vs. Failorina, G.R. No.
during which the perpetrator might 137347, March 4, 2004, En Banc).
have recovered his normal
equanimity (People vs. Comiiio, TREACHERY
G.R. No. 186538, November 25,
2009). Minor children, who by reason of their
tender years, cannot be expected to put up a
Four days after the victims attempted defense. When an adult person illegally attacks
on the virtue of his wife, accused rifled a child, treachery exists. The abuse of superior
them. The period of four days was strength is already absorbed by treachery and

Page 26 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

need not be considered as a separate DISGUISE


aggravating; circumstance. (People vs.
Failorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004) If the accused covers his face with a
handkerchief when he treacherously killed the
Treachery may still be appreciated victim, the crime committed is murder
even when the victim was forewarned of qualified by treachery and aggravated by
danger to his person. What was decisive was disguise (People vs. Firing, G.R. No. 45053,
that the execution of the attack made it October 19, 1936).
impossible for the victim to defend himself or
to retaliate (People vs Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. NIGHTTIME
186119, October 27, 2009).
Thus, treachery absorbs nighttime
Treachery is not a qualifying where had it not been at night the offender,
circumstance but a generic aggravating with his cohorts, would not have been able to
circumstance to robbery with homicide approach the deceased without the latter's
although said crime is classified as a crime becoming aware of his presence and guessing
against property and a single and indivisible? his intention; If they were able to catch victim
crime (People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 188601, completely unawares, it was due to the
June 29,2010). darkness of the night which covered them
(People vs. Gumarang, GR N. 46413, October
As the killing, in this case, is 6, 1939).
perpetrated with both treachery and by means
of explosives, the latter shall be considered as As a general rule, nighttime is
a qualifying circumstance since it is the aggravating because the darkness of the night
principal mode of attack. Reason dictates that facilitated the commission of the crime or
this- attendant circumstance should qualify the insured impunity. Thus, nighttime cannot
offense while treachery will be considered aggravate the crime if it is committed in a
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance lighted place although at the wee hours of the
(People vs. Barde G.R. No. 183094, night (People vs. Clarifto, G.R. NO. 134634,
September- 22, 2012) July 31, 2001).

IGNOMINY The darkness of the night and "not


nighttime per se" is important in appreciating it
After killing the victim, the accused as modifying circumstance (People vs.
severed his sexual organ. Should ignominy be Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004).
appreciated? No. For ignominy to be
appreciated, it is required that the offense be But if the offender purposely selected
committed in a manner that tends to make its the wee hour of the night when neighbors and
effect more humiliating, thus adding to the occupants of the house including the victim
victim's moral suffering. Where the victim was were sleeping to facilitate the commission of
already dead when his body or a part thereof the crime or to afford impunity, nighttime is
was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken appreciable even if the place of commission is
against the accused (People vs. Cachola, G.R. lighted. (People vs. Demate, G.R. No. 132310,
Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004) January 20, 2004, En Banc).

EMPLOYMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN (See People vs. Ventura and Ventura,


DEFENSE G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per
Curiam)
If the employment of means to
weaken the defense of the victim renders the ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
victim defenseless, treachery absorbs
circumstance of employing means to weaken The fact that there were two persons
defense (People vs. Tunhawan, G.R. NO. I- who attacked the victim does not per se
81470, October 27,1988). establish that the crime was committed with
abuse of superior strength, there being no
proof of the relative strength of the aggressors
and the victim. The evidence must establish

Page 27 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

that the assailants purposely sought the No. 176527, October 9, 2009,
advantage, or that they had the deliberate Justice Brion).
intent to use this advantage (People vs.
Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010). Evident premeditation is not presumed
from mere lapse of time. The prosecution is
Abuse of superior strength is an burdened to prove that the malefactors had
aggravating circumstance if the accused decided to commit a crime and performed an
purposely uses excessive force out of "act manifestly indicating that the offender had
proportion to the means of defense available clung" to a previous determination to kill. It
to the person attacked, or if there is notorious must be shown that there was a period
inequality of forces between the victim and sufficient to afford full opportunity for
aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of meditation and reflection, a time adequate to
superior strength (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. allow the conscience to overcome the
No. 169084, January 18, 2012; People vs. resolution of the will, as well as outward acts
Bracia, G.R. No. 174477, October 2, 2009, showing the intent to kill. The premeditation
Justice Brion). to kill should be plain and notorious. In the
absence of clear and positive evidence proving
The victim need not be completely this aggravating circumstance, mere
defenseless in order for the said aggravating presumptions and inferences thereon, no
circumstance to be appreciated (People vs. matter how logical and probable, would not
Paling, G.R. No. 185390 March 16, 2011) be enough (People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R.
No. 111098-99, April 3, 2003,).
lf the victim is completely defenseless,
treachery should be appreciated. When the Accused incensed at seeing the victim
circumstance of abuse of superior strength molesting his younger sister went to a
concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed notorious toughie in the area, and with two
in the latter (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. cohorts, proceeded to the house of the victim
182551, July 27, 2011). to confront him but failed to see the victim.
Thus, they positioned themselves in the alley
An attack made by a man with a near the house and waited for victim. When
deadly weapon upon an unarmed and the victim arrived, they killed him. Should
defenseless woman constitutes abuse of that evident premeditation be appreciated? No.
superiority which his sex and the weapon used The prosecution failed to prove that the four
in the act afforded him, and from which the intended to kill victim and if they did intend to
woman was unable to defend herself (People kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how
vs. Dionesio, G.R. No. 133445, February the malefactors intended to consummate the
27,2003) crime; Except for the fact that the offender and
his three companions waited in an alley for
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION Dario to return to his house, the prosecution
failed to prove any overt acts on the part of
For evident premeditation to be the offender and his cohorts showing that that
appreciated, the prosecution must show the theyhad clung to any plan to kill the victim
following: (People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R. No. 111098-
99, April 3, 2003,) Comment: It is possible
(1) the time the accused determined to that the criminal resolution of the accused is
commit the crime; merely to confront or take revenge short of
killing.
(2) an act manifestly indicating that
the accused clung to this Accused told witness that they were
determination; and "going to kill the doctor". After less than thirty
minutes, the accused killed the victim, who is a
(3) a sufficient lapse of time between doctor. Evident premeditation should not be
the resolve to kill and its execution appreciated. The span of time (less than thirty
that would have allowed the killer minutes), from the time the accused showed
to reflect on the consequences of their determination to kill the victim up to the
his act (People vs. Villasan, G.R. time they shot the victim, could not have
afforded them full opportunity for meditation

Page 28 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

and reflection on the consequences of the AID OF ARMED MEN


crime they committed (People vs. Patelan,
G.R. No. 182918, June 6, 2011). Aid of armed men or persons affording
immunity requires:
Unlike evident premeditation, there is
no requirement for conspiracy to exist that (1) That the armed men are
there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to accomplices who take part
afford full opportunity for meditation and minor capacity, directly or
reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the indirectly (People vs. Lozano,
very moment the plotters agree, expressly or G.R. Nos. 137370-71,
impliedly, to commit the subject felony September 29, 2003, En Banc)
(People vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July and
6,2011).
(2) That the accused availed
DISREGARD OF SEX: himself of their aid or relied
upon them when the crime
Robbery with homicide is essentially a was committed. Thus, this
felony against property. The aggravating circumstance should not be
circumstance of disregard of the victim's age is appreciated were armed men
applied only to crimes against persons and acted in concert to ensure the
honor. Moreover, the bare fact that the victim commission of the crime
is a woman does not per se constitute (People vs. Carino, G.R. No.
disregard of sex. For this circumstance to be 131117, June 15, 2004). In
properly considered, the prosecution must conspiracy, all conspirators are
adduce evidence that in the commission of the liable as principals. They are
crime, the accused had particularly intended to not accomplices.
insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the CRUELTY
victim, in this case, the appellant killed the
victim because the latter started to shout. The test in appreciating cruelty as an
There was no intent to insult nor commit aggravating circumstance is whether the
disrespect to the victim on account of the accused deliberately and sadistically
latter's sex (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, augmented the wrong by causing another
April 13, 2004). wrong not necessary for its commission and
inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or
The circumstances of disregard of sex, outraged or scoffed at his/her person or
age or rank should be taken singly or together. corpse. The victim in this case was already
But the circumstance of dwelling should be weak and almost dying when appellant Bonito
considered independently from the inserted the cassava trunk inside her private
circumstance of disregard of age, sex and rank organ. What appellant Bonito did to her was
since these circumstances signify different totally unnecessary for the criminal act
concepts. In the latter, the disrespect shown by intended and it undoubtedly inhumanly
offender pertains to the person of the increased her suffering (People vs. Bernabe,
offended due to her rank, age and sex. In the G.R. No. 185726. October 16, 2009).
former, the disrespect pertains to the dwelling
of the offended party due to the sanctity of The crime is not aggravated by cruelty
privacy which the law accords it. (People vs. simply because the victim sustained ten stab
Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29,1981, En wounds, three of which were fatal. For cruelty
Banc) to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance there must be proof that, in
Disregard of rank and dwelling were inflicting several stab wounds on the victim,
appreciated independently. In robbery with the perpetrator intended to exacerbate the
violence and intimidation against persons, pain and suffering of the victim. The number
dwelling is aggravating because in this class of of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof
robbery, the crime may be committed without of cruelty (Simangan vs. People, G.R. No.
the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the 157984. July 8, 2004).
offended party's house(People vs. Evangelio,
G.R. No. . 181902, August 31,2011).

Page 29 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES commission of the offense and becomes a co-


principal; while in entrapment, ways and
Q. What are alternative circumstances? means are resorted for the purpose of trapping
and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution
Alternative circumstances are those of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar to
which must be taken into consideration as prosecution and conviction of the law breaker
aggravating or mitigating according to the
but in the case of instigation, the accused must
nature and effects of the crime and the other
be acquitted.
conditions attending its commission.
Criminal participator - Criminal
Under Article 15 of the RPC, the participator is the offender who participated in
alternative circumstances are:
committing a crime by indispensable or
dispensable act. He performed an act, which is
1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and not constitutive of felony but intended to give
3. The degree of instruction and moral or material aid to the chief actor.
education of the offender. With conspiracy - If there is conspiracy,
the criminal participator or cooperator is a
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
principal by direct participation. The act of the
Q. Define absolutory cause. Give chief actor is considered the act of the criminal
examples of absolutory causes. participator.

Instigation means luring the accused


Absolutory causes are those where the
into a crime that he, otherwise, had no
act committed is a crime but for reasons of
intention to commit, in order to prosecute
public policy and sentiment, there is no
penalty imposed. him. It differs from entrapment which is the
Examples of absolutory causes are: employment of ways and means In order to
trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the
a. Spontaneous desistance (Article 6); criminal intent to commit an offense originates
b. Accessories who are exempt from from the inducer and not from the accused
criminal liability by reason of who had no intention to commit and would
relationship (Article 20); not have committed it were it not for the
c. Attempted and frustrated light felonies prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the
(Article 7); criminal intent or design originates from the
d. Slight and less serious physical injuries accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate
inflicted under exceptional
the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses
circumstances (Article 247);
and schemes.45 Instigation results in the
e. Persons exempt from criminal liability
for theft, swindling and malicious acquittal of the accused, while entrapment
mischief by reason of relationship may lead to prosecution and conviction
(Article 332); (People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 180919, January
f. Marriage by the offender to the 9, 2013).
offended party in cases of seduction,
A police officer's act of soliciting drugs
abduction, acts of lasciviousness
applicable to co-principals, accomplices from appellant during the buy-bust operation,
and accessories after the fact. In case of or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is
rape, the absolutory cause only apples not prohibited by law and does not invalidate
to the offender who married the the buy-bust operation (People vs. Espiritu,
offended party (Article 344); and supra).
g. Instigation.
Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor is
Q. Distinguish instigation from the person who actually committed the crime.
entrapment He is the one who committed or omitted the
act, which causes the criminal result. HeIt is
In instigation the instigator practically immaterial whether appellant acted as a
induces the would-be offender into the principal or as an accomplice because the

Page 30 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

conspiracy and his participation therein have Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:
been established. In conspiracy, the act of one
Is the act of all and the conspirators shall be 1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF
held equally liable for the crime (People vs. SUFFERING, without affecting the
Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5,2010). integrity of the human personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE to the
Without conspiracy - If there is no offense different crimes must be
conspiracy, criminal participator may be held punished with different penalties.
liable as principal by indispensable 3. Must be PERSONAL no one should
cooperation, accomplice or accessory be punished for the crime of another.
depending upon the nature and time of 4. Must be LEGAL it is the consequence
of a judgment according to law.
participation. A criminal participator may
5. Must be CERTAIN no one may
participate in the commission of the crime by
escape its effects.
previous, simultaneous and/or subsequent acts. 6. Must be EQUAL for all.
Previous or simultaneous acts To 7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.
hold a person liable as an accomplice, two
PURPOSES
elements must concur: (1) community of
design, which means that the accomplice
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
knows of, and concurs with, the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation; (1) RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the
and (2) the performance by the accomplice of penalty is commensurate with the gravity
previous or simultaneous acts that are not of the offense. It permits society to exact
indispensable to the commission of the crime proportionate revenge, and the offender
(Maliao vs. People, G.R. No..278G5S, M* 52, to atone for his wrongs.
2009}. If there Is community of design, but his
previous (U.S. vs. Ibanez, G.R. No. 6003, (2) CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as
August 07, 1011') or simultaneous (People vs. shown by the rules which regulate the
Degoma, G.R. No. 89404-05, May 22, 1992) execution of the penalties consisting in
participation is indispensable to the deprivation of liberty.
commission of the crime, he Is liable as (3) SOCIAL DEFENSE shown by its inflexible
principal by indispensable cooperation. severity to recidivist and habitual
delinquents.
Subsequent acts - The criminal
participator by subsequent acts is liable as an CLASSIFICATIONS
accessory. An accessory does not participate in
the criminal design, nor cooperate in the MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
commission of the felony, but, with
knowledge of the commission of the crime, he (a) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES those expressly
subsequently takes part by any of the three imposed by the court in the judgment of
modes under Article 19.The liability of conviction.
accessory and principal should also be
(b) ACCESSORY PENALTIES those that are
considered as quasi-collective. It is quasi-
deemed included in the imposition of the
collective in the sense that the principal and principal penalties.
the accessory are liable for the felony
committed but the penalty for the latter is two SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES those imposed in
degrees lower than that for the former lieu of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment in
case of inability to pay the fine.
PENALTIES
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE
Penalty - is the suffering that is inflicted by the IMPRISONMENT
State for the transgression of a law.
If the law was amended to change the
penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion
perpetua, the amendatory law, being more

Page 31 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

lenient to the accused than the previous law, successive service of sentences is subject to the
should be accorded retroactive application. three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua is a lighter Three-fold rule - The maximum period of the
penalty than life imprisonment. (People vs. imprisonment that convict must suffer in
Pang, G.R. No. 176229, October 19,2011) serving multiple penalties must not exceed
threefold the length of time corresponding to
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him. "A" was sentenced to suffer penalty of 7
RA 9165 provides that illegal years of prision mayor for serious physical
possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu injuries, 6 years of prision correccional for
is penalized with imprisonment of 12 years and qualified less serious physical injuries, 5 years
1 day to 20 years. The court sentenced the of prision correccional for robbery and 5 years
accused to suffer a straight penalty of of prison correccional for theft. The total
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day. Is the duration of the penalties imposed on him is 23
penalty imposed by the court correct? No. The years. The most severe penalty imposed on
indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that if it him is 7 years of prision mayor. Thus,
is a case of a special law, the accused shall be threefold the length of time corresponding to
sentenced "to an indeterminate sentence, the the most severe of the penalties is 21 years. "A"
maximum term of which shall not exceed the will be imprisoned for 21 years because of the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum three-fold rule.
shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same." (Asiatico vs. People, Forty-year limitation rule - The maximum
G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011) period of the imprisonment that convict must
suffer in serving multiple penalties must not
THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION exceed forty years. "A" was sentenced to suffer
RULE three penalties of 15 years of reclusion
temporal for three counts of homicide and the
Simultaneous service - When the culprit penalty of 10 years of prision mayor for
has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serious physical injuries. The total duration of
serve them simultaneously if the nature of the the penalties imposed on him is 55 years. The
penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could most severe penalty imposed on him, is 15
serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine, years of reclusion temporal. Thus, threefold
prision correctional and perpetual absolute the length of time corresponding tothe most
disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil severe of the penalties is 45 years. "A" will be
interdiction. In sum, while lingering in prison, imprisoned for 40 years because of the forty
convict could pay fine, return the property year limitation rule.
confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or
to act function as a public officer. In Rodriguez Article 70 provides that "the maximum
vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-35386, i duration of the convict's sentence shall not be
September 28,1972,En Banc - Penalties which more than threefofd the length of time
could be served simultaneously with other corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties, are perpetual or temporary absolute penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty
disqualification, perpetual or temporary special to which he may be liable shall be inflicted
disqualification, public censure, suspension after the sum total of those imposed equals the
from public office and other accessory said maximum period. Such maximum period
penalties. There are only two modes of serving shall in no case exceed forty years." Applying
two or more (multiple) penalties: said rule, despite the four penalties of reclusion
simultaneously or successively. Successive perpetua for four counts of qualified theft,
service - When the culprit has to serve two or accused-appellant shall suffer imprisonment for
more penalties, he shall serve them successively a period not exceeding 40 years (People vs.
if the nature of the penalties will not permit Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011).
simultaneous service. Convict must serve
multiple penalties successively: (1) where the
penalties to be served are destierro and
imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to
be served are imprisonment. However, the

Page 32 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

REVISED PENAL CODE the act of Castro of inviting Atibula to


Reference: Lexoterica Atienzas party, without any other proof of
Castros participation, was instrumental or, at
2014 Cases the very least, reasonably connected to
Atienza and his own alleged participation in
Topic: Cyberlibel; only the author of the the above-stated crimes.
libelous statement or article penalized.
Topic: Complex crime of carnapping with
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. homicide; when present; proof required.
The Secretary of Justice, et al,
G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014. People of the Philippines v.
Joel Aquino y Cendana,
Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014.
Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the
Penal Code, already punishes it. In effect, To prove the special complex crime of
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 or the carnapping with homicide, there must be
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, merely proof not only of the essential elements of
affirms that online defamation constitutes carnapping, but also that it was the original
similar means for committing libel. But the criminal design of the culprit and the killing
Supreme Courts acquiescence goes only was perpetrated in the course of the
insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the commission of the carnapping or on the
author of the libelous statement or article. occasion thereof. The appellate court correctly
Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, observed that the killing of Jesus cannot
unheard of when the penal code provisions on qualify the carnapping into a special complex
libel were enacted. The culture associated with crime because the carnapping was merely an
internet media is distinct from that of print. afterthought when the victims death was
The internet is characterized as encouraging a already accomplished. Thus, appellant is guilty
freewheeling, anything goes writing style. In a only of simple carnapping.
sense, they are a world apart in terms of
quickness of the readers reaction to Topic: Homicide; guilt beyond reasonable
defamatory statements posted in cyberspace, doubt; non-identification and non-
facilitated by one-click reply options offered presentation of the weapon.
by the networking site as well as by the speed
with which such reactions are disseminated Ricardo Medina, Jr. y Oriel v.
down the line to other internet users. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014.
Topic: Conspiracy; direct proof.
The non-identification and non-presentation of
Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v. the weapon actually used in the killing did not
People of the Philippines, diminish the merit of the conviction primarily
G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014 because other competent evidence and the
testimonies of witnesses had directly and
While direct proof is not essential to establish positively identified and incriminated Ricardo
conspiracy as it may be inferred from the as the assailant of Lino. Hence, the
collective acts of the accused before, during establishment beyond reasonable doubt of
and after the commission of the crime which Ricardos guilt for the homicide did not require
point to a joint purpose, design, concerted the production of the weapon used in the
action, and community of interests, records killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its
are, however, bereft of any showing as to how findings on the culpability of Ricardo the trial
the particular acts of petitioners figured into court clearly looked at, considered and
the common design of taking out the subject appreciated the entirety of the record and the
volume and inserting the falsified documents evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used
therein. It would be a stretch to conclude that was not indispensable considering that the

Page 33 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

finding of guilt was based on other evidence In Laurel v. Abrogar, the Supreme Court (SC)
proving his commission of the crime. reviewed the existing laws and jurisprudence
on the generally accepted concept of personal
Topic: Homicide; guilt beyond reasonable property in civil law as anything susceptible
doubt; non-identification and non- of appropriation. It includes ownership of
presentation of the weapon. telephone services, which are protected by the
penal provisions on theft. SC therein upheld
Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. the Amended Information charging the
People of the Philippines petitioner with the crime of theft against PLDT
G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014. inasmuch as the allegation was that the former
was engaged in international simple resale
The petitioners intent to kill was clearly (ISR) or the unauthorized routing and
established by the nature and number of completing of international long distance calls
wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave
prove intent to kill in crimes against persons frequency and connecting these calls directly to
may consist, among other things, of the means the local or domestic exchange facilities of the
used by the malefactors; the conduct of the country where destined. SC reasoned that
malefactors before, at the time of, or since PLDT encodes, augments, enhances,
immediately after the killing of the victim; and decodes and transmits telephone calls using its
the nature, location and number of wounds complex communications infrastructure and
sustained by the victim. facilities, the use of these communications
facilities without its consent constitutes theft,
Topic: Libel; elements. which is the unlawful taking of telephone
services and business. SC then concluded that
Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. the business of providing telecommunications
The Secretary of Justice, et al, and telephone services is personal property
G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014. under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
and that the act of engaging in ISR is an act of
The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of subtraction penalized under said article.
a discreditable act or condition concerning Furthermore, toll bypass operations could not
another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) have been accomplished without the
identity of the person defamed; and (d) installation of telecommunications equipment
existence of malice. There is actual malice or to the PLDT telephone lines.
malice in fact when the offender makes the
defamatory statement with the knowledge Topic: Political offense doctrine; concept.
that it is false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not. The reckless Saturnino C. Ocampo v.
disregard standard used here requires a high Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al,
degree of awareness of probable falsity. There G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014.
must be sufficient evidence to permit the
conclusion that the accused in fact entertained Under the political offense doctrine, common
serious doubts as to the truth of the statement crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
he published. Gross or even extreme offense, are divested of their character as
negligence is not sufficient to establish actual common offenses and assume the political
malice. complexion of the main crime of which they
are mere ingredients, and, consequently,
Topic: Personal property; concept of. cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense, or complexed with the same,
World Wide Web Corporation, et al. v. to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.
People of the Philippines, et al./Planet Internet Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by
Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance being absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus,
Telephone Company when a killing is committed in furtherance of
,G.R. Nos. 161106/161266, January 13, 2014. rebellion, the killing is not homicide or

Page 34 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

murder. Rather, the killing assumes the prosecution was able to prove the existence of
political complexion of rebellion as its mere all above elements beyond the shadow of a
ingredient and must be prosecuted and doubt. Accordingly, the penalty of reclusion
punished as rebellion alone. perpetua was properly meted out.

Topic: Qualifying circumstance; treachery; Topic: Rape; impregnation not an element of


when present. rape.

People of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi,


Joel Aquino y Cendana G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.
G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014.
It is not absurd nor contrary to human
The essence of treachery is the sudden and experience that AAA gave birth ten (10)
unexpected attack by the aggressor on an months after the alleged sexual assault as there
unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real may be cases of long gestations. In any event,
chance to defend himself. Even when the SC dismissed appellants contention as
victim was forewarned of the danger to his immaterial to the case at bar because
person, treachery may still be appreciated since jurisprudence reveals that impregnation is not
what is decisive is that the execution of the an element of rape. It is well-entrenched in
attack made it impossible for the victim to case law that the rape victims pregnancy and
defend himself or to retaliate. Records disclose resultant childbirth are irrelevant in
that Jesus was stabbed by the group on the determining whether or not she was raped.
lateral part of his body while he was under the Pregnancy is not an essential element of the
impression that they were simply leaving the crime of rape. Whether the child which the
place where they had a shabu session. Judicial rape victim bore was fathered by the accused,
notice can be taken that when the tricycle or by some unknown individual, is of no
driver is seated on the motorcycle, his head is moment. What is important and decisive is
usually higher or at the level of the roof of the that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
side car which leaves his torso exposed to the victim against the latters will or without her
passengers who are seated in the side car. consent, and such fact was testified to by the
Hence, there was no way for Jesus to even be victim in a truthful manner.
forewarned of the intended stabbing of his
body both from the people seated in the side Topic: Rape; one count for each separate act
car and those seated behind him. Thus, the of sexual assault.
trial courts finding of treachery was affirmed.
People of the Philippines v.
Topic: Qualified rape; elements. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez,
G.R. No. 190632, February 26, 2014
People of the Philippines v.
Rolando Bautista Iroy, The appellant, citing People v. Aaron, insists
G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010 that he cannot be convicted of three (3) counts
of rape despite the three (3) penetrations
To convict appellant for the offense, the because he was motivated by a single criminal
prosecution must allege and prove the intent. However, it appears from the facts that
ordinary elements of (1) sexual congress, (2) the appellant thrice succeeded in inserting his
with a woman, (3) by force and without penis into the private part of AAA. The three
consent; and in order to warrant the (3) penetrations occurred one after the other
imposition of the death penalty, the additional at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein the
elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen appellant would rest after satiating his lust
years of age at the time of the rape, and (5) upon his victim and, after he has regained his
the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, strength, he would again rape AAA. Hence, it
illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. In this can be clearly inferredfrom the foregoing that
case, the Supreme Court ruled that the when the appellant decided to commit those

Page 35 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

separate and distinct acts of sexual assault utmost care and caution; and (3) the evidence
upon AAA, he was not motivated by a single of the prosecution must stand or fall on its
impulse, but rather by several criminal intent. own merits; and cannot draw strength from
Hence, his conviction for three (3) counts of the weakness of the defense. So, when a
rape is indubitable. The three insertions into woman says that she has been raped, she says
AAA were in satiation of successive but distinct in effect all that is necessary to show that the
criminal carnality. Therefore, the appellants crime of rape was committed. In a long line of
conviction for three counts of rape is proper. cases, the Supreme Court has held that if the
testimony of the rape victim is accurate and
Topic: Rape; sweetheart theory. credible, a conviction for rape may issue upon
the sole basis of the victims testimony. This is
People of the Philippines v. because no decent and sensible woman will
Mervin Gahi publicly admit to being raped and, thus, run
G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014 the risk of public contempt unless she is, in
fact, a rape victim.
For the sweetheart theory to be believed when
invoked by the accused, convincing evidence Topic: Rape; two modes of committing rape.
to prove the existence of the supposed
relationship must be presented by the People of the Philippines v.
proponent of the theory. For the BernabePareja y Cruz
[sweetheart] theory to prosper, the existence G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014.
of the supposed relationship must be proven
by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or
adduce such evidence renders his claim to be the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the
self-serving and of no probative value. For the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual
satisfaction of the Court, there should be a violence on sex-related orifices other than a
corroboration by their common friends or, if womans organ is included in the crime of
none, a substantiation by tokens of such a rape; and the crimes expansion to cover
relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures gender-free rape. The transformation mainly
and the like. In the present case, although it is consisted of the reclassification of rape as a
a person other than the accused who is crime against persons and the introduction of
claiming to be the victims sweetheart and the rape by sexual assault as differentiated from
father of her child, such an assertion must the traditional rape through carnal
nonetheless be believably demonstrated by the knowledge or rape through sexual
evidence. The defense failed to discharge the intercourse. Thus, under the new provision,
burden of proving that AAA and Jackie Gucela rape can be committed in two ways: 1. Article
had any kind of romantic or sexual 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through
relationship which resulted in AAAs sexual intercourse, also known as organ rape
pregnancy. or penile rape. The central element in rape
through sexual intercourse is carnal
Topic: Rape; three guiding principles in rape knowledge, which must be proven beyond
prosecutions. reasonable doubt. 2. Article 266-A paragraph
2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called
People of the Philippines v. instrument or object rape, or gender-free
Aurelio Jastiva rape. It must be attended by any of the
G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014. circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a)
to (d) of paragraph.
he 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

Page 36 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

==== Amistoso was charged before the RTC of


REVISED PENAL CODE Masbate City, Branch 48, with the rape of his
2010 - 2013 Cases daughter, AAA, alleged to be 12 years old at
the time of the incident. The Information
Topic: Self-defense. specifically charged Amistoso with statutory
rape under Article 266-A, par. (1)(d) of the
People of the Philippines Vs. RPC, as amended.
Vergara & Inocencio,
G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013 The CA in its decision dated August 25, 2011,
affirmed Amistosos conviction of qualified
Anent accused-appellant Vergaras claim of rape.
self-defense, the following essential elements
had to be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on Insisting upon his innocence, Amistoso
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity appealed to this Court. In its Decision dated
of the means employed to prevent or repel January 9, 2013, the Court affirmed with
such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient modification the judgment of conviction
provocation on the art of the person resorting against Amistoso, expressly making him liable
to self-defense. However, the most important for interest on the amounts of damages
of all the elements is unlawful aggression on awarded.
the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression
must be proved first in order for self-defense However, in a letter dated February 7, 2013,
to be successfully pleaded, whether complete Ramoncito Roque, Officer-in-Charge, Inmate
or incomplete. Documents and Processing Division of the
Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court that
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical Amistoso had died on December 11, 2102 at
assault, or at least a threat to inflict real the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), Muntinlupa
imminent injury, upon a person. In case of City. Roque attached to his letter a photocopy
threat, it must be offensive and strong, of the Death Report by Marylou V. Arbatin,
positively showing the wrongful intent to MD, Medical Officer III, NBP, stating that
cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, Amistoso, 62 yrs old, died at about 5pm, on
unexpected or imminent dangernot merely December 11, 2012 of Cardio Respiratory
threatening and intimidating action. It is Arrest. Roques letter was received by the
present only when the one attacked faces real Court on February 12, 2013.
and immediate threat to ones life. In the
present case, the element of unlawful Yet on February 22, 2013, the Public
aggression is absent. By the testimonies of all Attorneys Office (PAO), which represented
the witnesses, the victims actuations did not Amistoso and which was apparently unaware
constitute unlawful aggression to warrant the of its clients demise, still filed a Motion for
use of forces employed by accuse-appellant Reconsideration of the Courts Decision dated
Vergara. The records reveal that the victim had January 9, 2013.
been walking home albeit drunk when he
passed by accused-appellants. However, there Article 89 of the RPC provides:
is no indication of any untoward action from
him to warrant the treatment that he had by Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally
accused-appellant Vergaras hands. extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
Topic: Death extinguishing criminal liability
1. By the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties and as to pecuniary
People of the Philippines Vs.
penalties, liability therefor is
Anastacio B. Amistoso,
extinguished only when the death of
G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013 the offender occurs before final
judgment. xxx xxx xxx

Page 37 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

In People vs. Bayotas, the Court laid down the 1155 of the Civil Code that should
rules in case the accused dies prior to final thereby avoid any apprehension on a
judgment: possible privation of right by
prescription.
1. Death of the accused pending appeal
of his conviction extinguishes criminal Given the foregoing, it is clear that the death
liability as well as the civil liability of the accused pending appeal of his
based solely thereon. As opined by conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as
Justice Regalado, in this regard, the well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the
death of the accused prior to final criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as
judgment terminates his criminal there is no longer a defendant to stand as the
liability and only the civil liability accused, the civil action instituted therein for
directly arising from and based solely recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
on the offense committed, i.e., civil extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal
liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. case. Undeniably, Amistosos death on
December 11, 2012 preceded the promulgation
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability by the Court of its Decision on January 9,
survives notwithstanding the death of 2013. When Amistoso died, his appeal before
accused, if the same may also be the Court was still pending and unresolved.
predicated on a source of obligation The Court ruled upon Amistosos appeal only
other than delict. Article 1157 of the because it was not immediately informed of
Civil Code enumerates these other his death. Amistosos death on December 11,
sources of obligation from which the 20102 renders the Courts Decision dated
civil liability may arise as a result of the January 9, 2013, even though affirming
same act or omission: Amistosos conviction, irrelevant and
a. Law ineffectual. Moreover, said Decision has not
b. Contracts yet become final, and the Court still has the
c. Quasi-contracts jurisdiction to set it aside.
d. Xxx
e. Quasi-delicts Topic: Malversation.

3. Where the civil liability survives, as Major Joel Cantos Vs.


explained in Number 2 above, an People of the Philippines.
action for recovery therefor may be G.R. No. 184908, July 3, 2013
pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
property; Presumption of malversation. - Any
Criminal Procedure as amended. This
public officer who, by reason of the duties of
separate civil action may be enforced
his office, is accountable for public funds or
either against the executor/
property, shall appropriate the same or shall
administrator or the estate of the
take or misappropriate or shall consent,
accused, depending on the source of
through abandonment or negligence, shall
obligation upon which the same is
permit any other person to take such public
based is explained above.
funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
4. Finally, the private offended party
malversation of such funds or property, shall
need not fear a forfeiture of his right
suffer:
to file this separate civil action by
Xxxx
prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and
5. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in
prior to its extinction, the private-
its medium and maximum periods, if
offended party instituted together
the amount involved is more than
therewith the civil action. In such case,
twelve thousand pesos but is less than
the statute of limitations on the civil
twenty-two thousand pesos. If the
liability is deemed interrupted during
amount exceeds the latter, the penalty
the pendency of the criminal case,
shall be reclusion temporal in its
conformably with provisions of Article

Page 38 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

maximum period to reclusion nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or
perpetua. property to personal use, then that
presumption would be at an end and the
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall prima facie case is effectively negated. In this
also suffer the penalty of perpetual special case, however, petitioner failed to overcome
disqualification and a fine equal to the amount this prima facie evidence of guilt. He failed to
of the funds malversed or equal to the total explain the missing funds in his account and to
value of the property embezzled. The failure restitute the amount upon demand. His claim
of a public officer to have duly forthcoming that the money was taken by robbery or theft
any public funds or property with which he is is self-serving and has not been supported by
chargeable, upon demand by any duly evidence. In fact, petitioner even tried to
authorized officer, shall be prima facie unscrew the safety vault to make it appear that
evidence that he has put such missing funds or the money was forcibly taken. Moreover,
property to personal use. (As amended by RA petitioners explanation that there is a
1060). possibility that the money was taken by
another is belied by the fact that there was no
Thus, the elements of malversation of public sign that the steel cabinet was forcibly opened.
funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal The SC also took note of the fact that it was
Code are: 1. that the offender is a public only petitioner who had the keys to the steel
officer; 2. that he had the custody or control cabinet. Thus, the explanation set forth by
of funds or property by reason of the duties of petitioner is unsatisfactory and does not
his office; 3. that those funds or property were overcome the presumption that he has put the
public funds or property for which he was missing funds to personal use.
accountable; and 4. that he appropriated,
took, misappropriated or consented or, Malversation is committed either intentionally
through abandonment or negligence, or by nengligence. The dolo or culpa present
permitted another person to take them. in the offense is only a modality in the
The Sandiganbayan did not commit a perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode
reversible error in its decision convicting charged differs from the mode proved, the
petitioner of malversation of public funds The same offense of malversation is involved and
Supreme Court (SC) noted that all the above- conviction thereof is proper. All that is
mentioned elements are here present. necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that
Petitioner was a public officer occupying the the accountable officer had received public
position of commanding Officer of the funds, that he did not have them in his
22nd FSU of the AFP Finance Center, PSG. By possession when demand thereof was made,
reason of his position, he was tasked to and that he could not satisfactorily explain his
supervise the disbursement of the Special Duty failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal
Allowances and other Maintenance Operating misappropriation by the accused is hardly
Funds of the PSG personnel, which are necessary as long as the accused cannot exlain
indubitably public funds for which he was satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts.
accountable. Petitioner in fact admitted in his
testimony that he had complete control and Topic: Murder.
custody of these funds. As to the element of
misappropriation, indeed petitioner failed to People of the Philippines Vs.
rebut the legal presumption that he had Dearo, et. al.,
misappropriated the fees to his personal use. In G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013
convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites
the presumption in Article 217 of the Revised
We also find that the qualifying circumstance
Penal Code, as amended, which states that the
of treachery was properly appreciated by the
failure of a public officer to have duly
RTC and the CA. There is treachery when the
forthcoming any public funds or property with
offender commits any of the crimes against
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any
persons, employing means, methods or forms
duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence
in the execution thereof that tend directly and
that he has put such missing fund or property
especially to ensure its execution, without risk
to personal uses. The presumption is, of
to himself arising from the defense that the
course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if petitioner is
offended party might make. We have ruled
able to present adequate evidence that can
that treachery is present when an assailant

Page 39 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

takes advantage of a situation in which the Topic: Rape


victim is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or
has just awakened. People of the Philippines Vs.
Jojie Suansing,
It has been established by the prosecution, and G.R. No. 189822, September 2, 2013
even confirmed by the defense, that the
victims were sleeping when they were shot. To
Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from
be precise, it was Emeterio who was asleep
mental retardation is rape since she is
when he was shot, considering that the
women were able to cry for help before the incapable of giving consent to a sexual act.
rapid firing that silenced them. In any case, it Under these circumstances, all that needs to be
was clear that the women were in no position proved for a successful prosecution are the
to defend themselves, having been rudely facts of sexual congress between the rapist and
awakened by the shooting of their companion. his victim, and the latters mental retardation.
The fact that they shouted for help also Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as
showed their loss of hope in the face of what amended by RA 8353 states that:
was coming rapid gunfire from long firearms.
Evident premeditation further aggravates the Article 266-A. Rape: When And How
crime of murder committed by appellants. Committed. - Rape is committed:
"The essence of evident premeditation is that
the execution of the criminal act must be 1) By a man who shall have carnal
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon knowledge of a woman under any of
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, the following circumstances:
during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a) Through force, threat, or
a calm judgment." Evidence shows that Luague intimidation;
had a grudge against Porferia, and that their b) When the offended party is
last confrontation occurred a day before the deprived of reason or otherwise
shooting. The involvement of appellants unconscious;
Dearo and Toledo was shown by the c) By means of fraudulent machination
testimony of Jose Santiago that the two were or grave abuse of authority; and
with Luague three days before the shooting. d) When the offended party is under
Appellant Dearo then vowed to kill Emeterio. twelve (12) years of age or is
These uncontroverted pieces of evidence demented, even though none of the
clearly showed the instances when appellants circumstances mentioned above be
resolved to commit the felony. The space of present.
time from the resolution to the actual
execution allowed them to contemplate on For the charge of rape to prosper, the
the matter, or maybe even reconsider. That
prosecution must prove that (1) the offender
they did not reconsider is shown by the case
had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2)
before us now.
through force or intimidation, or when she
Thus, it has been established that appellants was deprived of reason or otherwise
killed Emeterio, Porferia and Analiza. unconscious, or when she was under 12 years
Appreciating treachery as a qualifying of age or was demented. From these requisites,
circumstance, the crime is properly it can thus be deduced that rape is committed
denominated as murder. Article 248 of the the moment the offender has sexual
Revised Penal Code(RPC) punishes murder intercourse with a person suffering from
with reclusion perpetua to death. With the mental retardation. Carnal knowledge of a
further appreciation of evident premeditation woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A
as generic aggravating circumstance, (xxx mental condition of retardation deprives the
source text unreadable xxx) However, since complainant of that natural instinct to resist a
the imposition of the death penalty has been
bestial assault on her chastity and
prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, the
womanhood. For this reason, sexual
penalty that shall be imposed on appellants is
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for intercourse with one who is intellectually weak
parole. to the extent that she is incapable of giving
consent to the carnal act already constitutes

Page 40 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

rape, without requiring proof that the accused the next setting. In its Order19 dated June 27,
used force and intimidation in committing the 2006, the trial court reset the hearing of the
act. Only the facts of sexual congress between case to allow the prosecution to present
the accused and the victim and the latters evidence with respect to AAAs Certificate of
mental retardation need to be proved. Live Birth. However, up until the prosecution
Knowledge of the offender of the mental rested its case, nobody was presented to testify
on AAAs Certificate of Live Birth. Records
disability of the victim during the rape qualifies
show that the prosecution presented only
and makes it punishable by death.
AAA and Dr. Imperial as its witnesses. Dr.
Paragraph 10, Article 266-B of the RPC, as Imperial never testified on AAAs age. On
amended, provides: the other hand, AAA even testified on the
witness stand that she does not know her age.
Article 266-B. Penalty. xxx
Clearly, the prosecution failed to prove the
The death penalty shall also be minority of AAA.
imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following The same is true with respect to the other
aggravating/qualifying circumstances: qualifying circumstance of relationship. The
prosecution likewise miserably failed to
xxxx establish AAAs relationship with the
appellant. Although the Information alleged
10) When the offender knew of the that appellant is the common-law husband of
mental disability, emotional disorder AAAs mother, AAA referred to appellant
and/or physical handicap of the as her step-father.
offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime. Even the RTC interchangeably referred to
appellant as the common-law husband of
Thus, knowledge of the offender of the mental AAAs mother as well as the step-father of
disability of the victim during the commission AAA. Moreover, the RTC failed to cite any
of the crime of rape qualifies and makes it basis for its reference to appellant as such. In
punishable by death. fact, the RTC Decision is bereft of any
discussion as to how it reached its conclusion
Topic: Rape. that appellant is the common-law husband of
AAAs mother or that AAA is his step-
People of the Philippines Vs. daughter.
Marciano Cial,
G.R. No. 191362, October 9, 2013 The CA committed the same error.
Notwithstanding appellants claim that he is
married to AAAs mother, it went on to
We find however that both the trial court and
declare, without any explanation or
the CA erred in convicting appellant of the
justification, that appellant is the common-law
crime of qualified rape. According to both
husband of AAAs mother.
courts, the twin qualifying circumstances of
The terms common-law husband and step-
minority and relationship attended the
father have different legal connotations. For
commission of the crime. We rule otherwise.
appellant to be a step-father to AAA, he
must be legally married to AAAs mother.
In its Formal Offer of Evidence, the
Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances
prosecution mentioned AAAs Certificate of
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt just
Live Birth. Also attached to the Folder of
like the crime itself. In this case, the
Exhibits marked as Exhibit B is AAAs
prosecution utterly failed to prove beyond
Certificate of Live Birth showing that AAA
reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances
was born on October 31, 1991. However,
of minority and relationship. As such,
upon closer scrutiny, we note that the said
appellant should only be convicted of the
Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or
crime of simple rape, the penalty for which
offered during the trial of the case. During the
is reclusion perpetua.
March 28, 2006 hearing, the prosecution
manifested before the RTC that it will be
presenting AAAs Certificate of Live Birth at

Page 41 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Topic: Qualified rape. convincingly established. Dukilman hinges his


argument on the fact that he was not one of
People of the Philippines Vs. those arrested during the rescue operation
Marvin Cayanan, based on the testimony of Inspector Ouano.
G.R. No. 200080, September 18, 2013 On the other hand, Ronas and Evad base their
argument on the fact that they had no
participation whatsoever in the negotiation for
A review of the CA decision shows that it did
the ransom money. The Supreme Court held
not commit any reversible error in affirming
otherwise. Although Dukilman was not one of
Cayanans conviction. Record shows that
those apprehended at the cottage during the
Cayanan forced AAA to have sex with him on
rescue operation, the testimony of Police
February 1, 2001 and threatened her and her
Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that
family with physical harm. The testimony of
he was one of the four people apprehended
Adriano, meanwhile, corroborated AAAs
when the police intercepted the Tamaraw FX
testimony that Cayanan forcibly took her by
at the Nichols Tollgate. Likewise, the
the school campus gate on February 26, 2001
testimony of Police Inspector Ouano
and thereafter raped her. The defense failed to
sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad
show any reason why the prosecutions
were two of those who were arrested during
evidence should not be given weight or credit.
the rescue operation. It has been held that to
Moreover, the claim that they were
be a conspirator, one need not participate in
sweethearts does not justify the commission of
every detail of the execution; he need not
the crimes. For the Court to even consider
even take part in every act or need not even
giving credence to the sweetheart defense, it
know the exact part to be performed by the
must be proven by compelling evidence. The
others in the execution of the conspiracy.
defense cannot just present testimonial
Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the
evidence in support of the theory.
act of all the conspirators. Further, proof of
Independent proof is required such as
the conspiracy need not rest on direct
tokens, mementos, and photographs. And
evidence, as the same may be inferred from
while Cayanan produced two love letters
the collective conduct of the parties before,
allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly
during or after the commission of the crime
sustained the finding of the RTC that these
indicating a common understanding among
letters were unauthenticated and therefore,
them with respect to the commission of the
bereft of any probative value.
offense. The testimonies, when taken together,
reveal the common purpose of the accused-
The Court, however, finds that Cayanan
appellants and how they were all united in its
should be convicted only of Qualified Rape in
execution from beginning to end. There were
Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001. Forcible
testimonies proving that (1) before the
abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if
incident, two of the accused-appellants kept
the real objective of the accused is to rape the
coming back to the victims house; (2) during
victim. In this case, circumstances show that
the kidnapping, accused-appellants changed
the victims abduction was with the purpose of
shifts in guarding the victim; and (3) the
raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged her
accused appellants were those present when
into the tricycle, he took her to several places
the ransom money was recovered and when
until they reached his sisters house where he
the rescue operation was conducted. Seeing
raped her inside the bedroom. Under these
that conspiracy among Gambao, Karim,
circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible
Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen,
abduction.
Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established
beyond reasonable doubt based on the
Topic: Kidnapping for ransom.
proffered evidence of the prosecution, the act
of one is the act of all the conspirators.
People of the Philippines Vs.
Halil Gambao, Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements
G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013 required, in accordance with Article 18 of the
Revised Penal Code, in order that a person
Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas and Evad may be considered an accomplice, namely, (1)
argue in their respective briefs that conspiracy, that there be community of design; that is
insofar as they were concerned, was not knowing the criminal design of the principal by

Page 42 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

direct participation, he concurs with the latter xxxx


in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the
execution by previous or simultaneous act, (d) By postdating a check, or issuing a
with the intention of supplying material or check in payment of an obligation
moral aid in the execution of the crime in an when the offender had no funds in the
efficacious way; and (3) that there be a bank, or his funds deposited therein
relation between the acts done by the were not sufficient to cover the
principal and those attributed to the person amount of the check. The failure of the
charged as accomplice. drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to cover his check
The defenses raised by Perpenian are not within three (3) days from receipt of
sufficient to exonerate her criminal notice from the bank and/or the payee
liability. Assuming arguendo that she just came or holder that said check has been
to the resort thinking it was a swimming party, dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge funds shall be prima facie evidence of
of the criminal design of the principals when deceit constituting false pretense or
she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A fraudulent act.
rational person would have suspected
something was wrong and would have In order to constitute estafa under this
reported such incident to the police. statutory provision, the act of postdating or
Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and issuing a check in payment of an obligation
to add to that, she even spent the night at the must be the efficient cause of the defraudation.
cottage. It has been held before that being This means that the offender must be able to
present and giving moral support when a obtain money or property from the offended
crime is being committed will make a person party by reason of the issuance of the check,
responsible as an accomplice in the crime whether dated or postdated. In other words,
committed. It should be noted that the the Prosecution must show that the person to
accused-appellants presence and company whom the check was delivered would not
were not indispensable and essential to the have parted with his money or property were
perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; it not for the issuance of the check by the
hence, she is only liable as an offender.
accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by
the ruling in People v. Clemente, et al., where The essential elements of the crime charged are
it was stressed that in case of doubt, the that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in
participation of the offender will be payment of an obligation contracted at the
considered as that of an accomplice rather time the check is issued; (b) lack or
than that of a principal. insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
(c) damage to the payee thereof. It is the
Topic: Estafa / Swindling. criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a
check that is punishable, not the non-payment
People of the Philippines Vs. of a debt. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists
Gilbert Reyes Wagas, by law upon proof that the drawer of the
G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013 check failed to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three days from
receipt of the notice of dishonor.
Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, provides:
It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty
of estafa as charged, must have used the check
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person
in order to defraud the complainant. What the
who shall defraud another by any of the
law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas
punished by:
could not be held guilty of estafa simply
xxxx
because he had issued the check used to
defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still
2. By means of any of the following
clearly show that it had been Wagas as the
false pretenses or fraudulent acts
drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means
executed prior to or simultaneously
of the check.
with the commission of the fraud:

Page 43 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Thirdly, Ligaray admitted that it was Caada Are the elements of estafa under paragraph
who received the rice from him and who 2(a) present in the above-quoted Information?
delivered the check to him. Considering that Arguably so, because the accused represented
the records are bereft of any showing that to the injured party that he would be
Caada was then acting on behalf of Wagas, delivering the commission to Mr. Banaag; and
the RTC had no factual and legal bases to because of this representation, KN Inc. turned
conclude and find that Caada had been over checks payable to Mr. Banaag to the
acting for Wagas. This lack of factual and legal accused. In turn, the accused rediscounted the
bases for the RTC to infer so obtained despite checks for money, to the detriment of both
Wagas being Caadas brother-in-law. Mr. Banaag and KN Inc. However, this set of
facts seems to miss the precision required of a
Nevertheless, an accused, though acquitted of criminal conviction. Estafa under paragraph
estafa, may still be held civilly liable where the 2(a) is swindling by means of false pretense,
preponderance of the established facts so and the words of the law bear this out:
warrants. Wagas as the admitted drawer of the
check was legally liable to pay the amount of Article 315.
it to Ligaray, a holder in due xxxx
course. Consequently, we pronounce and hold 2. By means of any of the following
him fully liable to pay the amount of the false pretenses or fraudulent acts
dishonored check, plus legal interest of 6% per executed prior to or simultaneously
annum from the finality of this decision. with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
Topic: Estafa. pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property,
Fernando M. Espino Vs. credit, agency, business or imaginary
People of the Philippines, transactions, or by means of other
G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013 similar deceits. x x x.

In this case, there was no use of a fictitious


The crime charged was estafa under Article
name, or a false pretense of power, influence,
315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
qualifications, property, credit, agency, or
Its elements are as follows: (1) that money,
business. At the most, the situation could be
goods, or other personal properties are
likened to an imaginary transaction, although
received by the offender in trust, or on
the accused was already trusted with the
commission, or for administration, or under
authority to deliver commissions to Mr.
any other obligation involving the duty to
Banaag. The pretense was in representing to
make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2)
the injured party that there was a deliverable
that there is a misappropriation or conversion
commission to Mr. Banaag, when in fact there
of such money or property by the offender or
was none.
a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the
misappropriation or conversion or denial is to
Instead of unduly stretching this point, the
the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a
Court deems it wiser to give the offense its
demand made by the offended party on the
true, formal name that of estafa through
offender. However, the crime the accused was
abuse of confidence under paragraph 1(b).
convicted of was estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are
Paragraph 1(b) provides liability for estafa
as follows: (1) that there is a false pretense,
committed by misappropriating or converting
fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that
to the prejudice of another money, goods, or
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
any other personal property received by the
means is made or executed prior to or
offender in trust or on commission, or for
simultaneously with the commission of the
administration, or under any other obligation
fraud; (3) that the offended party relies on the
involving the duty to make delivery of or to
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
return the same, even though that obligation
means, that is, he is induced to part with his
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
money or property because of the false
or by denying having received such money,
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
goods, or other property. This at least, is very
and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.

Page 44 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

clearly shown by the factual allegations of the


Informations. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that
the accused may still be charged with the crime
Topic: Bigamy. of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent
declaration of the nullity of the second
James Walter Capili Vs. marriage, so long as the first marriage was still
People of the Philippines, subsisting when the second marriage was
G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013 celebrated.

In Jarillo v. People, the Court affirmed the


In essence, the issue is whether or not the
accuseds conviction for bigamy ruling that the
subsequent declaration of nullity of the second
crime of bigamy is consummated on the
marriage is a ground for dismissal of the
celebration of the subsequent marriage
criminal case for bigamy.
without the previous one having been
We rule in the negative.
judicially declared null and void, viz.:
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines
The subsequent judicial declaration of the
and penalizes the crime of bigamy as follows:
nullity of the first marriage was immaterial
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the
Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of
crime had already been consummated.
prision mayor shall be imposed upon
Moreover, petitioners assertion would only
any person who shall contract a
delay the prosecution of bigamy cases
second or subsequent marriage before
considering that an accused could simply file a
the former marriage has been legally
petition to declare his previous marriage void
dissolved, or before the absent spouse
and invoke the pendency of that action as a
has been declared presumptively dead
prejudicial question in the criminal case. We
by means of a judgment rendered in
cannot allow that.
the proper proceedings.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
The elements of the crime of bigamy,
petitioners marriage to [private complainant]
therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally
had no bearing upon the determination of
married; (2) the marriage has not been legally
petitioners innocence or guilt in the criminal
dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
case for bigamy, because all that is required for
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed
the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he
marriage be subsisting at the time the second
contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
marriage is contracted.
and (4) that the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one
validity.
which is void or voidable, shall be deemed
valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
In the present case, it appears that all the
proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner
elements of the crime of bigamy were present
eventually obtained a declaration that his first
when the Information was filed on June 28,
marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both
2004.
the first and the second marriage were
subsisting before the first marriage was
It is undisputed that a second marriage
annulled.
between petitioner and private respondent
was contracted on December 8, 1999 during
In like manner, the Court recently upheld the
the subsistence of a valid first marriage
ruling in the aforementioned case and ruled
between petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili
that what makes a person criminally liable for
contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably,
bigamy is when he contracts a second or
the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
bigamous nature of the second marriage
a valid first marriage. It further held that the
between petitioner and private respondent.
parties to the marriage should not be
Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of the
permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
second marriage for being bigamous in nature
for the same must be submitted to the
does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for
judgment of competent courts and only when
the crime of bigamy.

Page 45 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010
be held as void, and so long as there is no such To reiterate the elements of a violation of
declaration the presumption is that the Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, violation thereof
marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a exists where: (1) a person makes or draws and
second marriage before the judicial declaration issues a check to apply on account or for
of the first marriage assumes the risk of being value; (2) the person who makes or draws and
prosecuted for bigamy.
issues the check knows at the time of issue that
he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
Finally, it is a settled rule that the criminal
culpability attaches to the offender upon the with the drawee bank for the full payment of
commission of the offense, and from that the check upon its presentment; and (3) the
instant, liability appends to him until check is subsequently dishonored by the
extinguished as provided by law. It is clear drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
then that the crime of bigamy was committed credit, or would have been dishonored for the
by petitioner from the time he contracted the same reason had not the drawer, without any
second marriage with private respondent. valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of payment.
nullity of petitioners second marriage does
not impede the filing of a criminal charge for Topic: Bigamy; defense of nullity of prior
bigamy against him. marriage
Topic: Arson; objective of arson; distinguished
Cenon R. Teves v.
from homicide/murder.
People of the Philippines and Danilo R.
Bongalon
People of the Philippines Vs.
G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011
Ferdinand T. Baluntong,
G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010
The Supreme Court debunked petitioners
contention that he cannot be charged with
In cases where both burning and death occur,
bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of
in order to determine what crime/crimes
his first marriage. The FamilyCode has settled
was/were perpetrated whether arson,
once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence
murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de
on the matter. A declaration of the absolute
rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required
malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the
either as a cause of action or a ground for
burning of the building or edifice, but death
defense.
results by reason or on the occasion of arson,
the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
Where the absolute nullity of a previous
homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes
hand, the main objective is to kill a particular
of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis
person who may be in a building or edifice,
acceptable in law for said projected marriage
when fire is resorted to as the means to
to be free from legal infirmity is a final
accomplish such goal the crime committed is
judgment declaring the previous marriage
murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is,
void. The Supreme Court noted that in
likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact
petitioners case the complaint was filed before
the offender has already done so, but fire is
the first marriage was declared a nullity. It was
resorted to as a means to cover up the killing,
only the filing of the Information that was
then there are two separate and distinct crimes
overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his
committed homicide/murder and arson.
first marriage. Following petitioners argument,
even assuming that a complaint has been
Topic: Batas Pambansa Bilang 22; elements.
instituted, such as in this case, the offender can
still escape liability provided that a decision
Eumelia R. Mitra vs.
nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the
People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S.
filing of the Information in court.Such cannot
Tarcelo
be allowed. To do so would make the crime

Page 46 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

of bigamy dependent upon the ability or G.R. No. 175784, August 25, 2010.
inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor Ayochoks death on January 15, 2010, during
to immediately act on complaints and the pendency of his appeal, extinguished not
eventually file Informations in court. only his criminal liability for the crime of
murder committed against SPO1 Claudio N.
Topic: Composite crime; defined Caligtan, but also his civil liability arising solely
Composite crime and compound crime from or based on his crime. Under Article
differentiated 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal
liability is totally extinguished by the death of
People v.Villaflores, the convict, as to the personal penalties; and
G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012 as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the
The felony of rape with homicide is a offender occurs before final judgment. Thus,
composite crime. A composite crime, also the death of the accused pending appeal of his
known as a special complex crime, is conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
composed of two or more crimes that the law and the civil liability based solely thereon.
treats as a single indivisible and unique offense
for being the product of a single criminal Topic: Criminal liability; effect of death
impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific pending appeal
penalty provided by law and differs from a
compound or complex crime under Article 48 People of the Philippines v.
of the Revised Penal Code, which states that Saturnino Dela Cruz, et al.,
[w]hen a single act constitutes two or more G.R. No. 190610, April 25, 2012.
grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing On 29 July 2009, a Notice of Appeal was filed
the other, the penalty for the most serious by Brillantes through counsel before the
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied Supreme Court. While this case is pending
in its maximum period. appeal, the Prisons and Security Division
Officer-in-Charge informed the Court that
There are distinctions between a composite accused-appellant Brillantes died while
crime, on the one hand, and a complex or committed at the Bureau of Corrections on 3
compound crime under Article 48 of the January 2012 as evidenced by a copy of death
Revised Penal Code, on the other hand. In a report signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospitals
composite crime, the composition of the Medical. Hence, the issue here is the effect of
offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or death pending appeal of the conviction of
compound crime, the combination of the accused-appellant Brillantes with regard to his
offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, criminal and pecuniary liabilities.
grave and/or less grave, or one offense being
the necessary means to commit the other. For The Revised Penal Code is instructive on the
a composite crime, the penalty for the matter. It provides in Article 89(1) that
specified combination of crimes is specific; for criminal liability is totally extinguished by the
a complex or compound crime, the penalty is death of the convict, as to the personal
that corresponding to the most serious offense, penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties,
to be imposed in the maximum period. A light liability therefor is extinguished only when the
felony that accompanies a composite crime is death of the offender occurs before final
absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the judgment. It is plain that both the personal
commission of a complex or compound crime penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary
may be the subject of a separate information. penalty of fine of Brillantes were extinguished
upon his death pending appeal of his
Topic: Criminal Liability; effect of death of conviction by the lower courts. There is no
accused pending appeal civil liability involved in violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
People vs. Jaime Ayochok y Tauli, No private offended party is involved as there

Page 47 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

is in fact no reference to civil liability in the the offended party of the money swindled by
decision of the trial court. The appeal of the accused does not extinguish the criminal
Brillantes culminating in the extinguishment of liability of the latter. Also, as held in People v.
his criminal liability, however, does not have Moreno and in People v. Ladera, criminal
any effect on his co- accused De la Cruz who liability for estafa is not affected by
did not file a notice of appeal. compromise or novation of contract, for it is a
public offense which must be prosecuted and
Topic: Continued crimes; foreknowledge to punished by the Government on its own
prove single intent motion even though complete reparation
should have been made of the damage
Santiago Paera v. suffered by the offended party. Similarly in
People of the Philippines the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust
G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011 Company v. Tonda, the Supreme Court ruled
that in estafa, reimbursement of or
Petitioners theory, fusing his liability to one compromise as to the amount misappropriated
count of Grave Threats because he only had a after the commission of the crime affects only
single mental resolution, a single impulse, and the civil liability of the offender, and not his
single intent to threaten the Darongs assumes criminal liability.
a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of
Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicentes presence Topic: Criminal Liability; self-defense; doctrine
near the water tank in the morning of 8 April of rational equivalence.
1999. The records, however, belie this
assumption. Moreover, petitioner went to the Ladislao Espinosa vs. People of the Philippines,
water tank not to execute his single intent to G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010
threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but
to investigate a suspected water tap. Not The doctrine of rational equivalence
having known in advance of the Darongs presupposes the consideration not only of the
presence near the water tank at the time in nature and quality of the weapons used by the
question, petitioner could not have formed defender and the assailantbut of the totality
any intent to threaten any of them until of circumstances surrounding the defense vis--
shortly before he inadvertently came across vis the unlawful aggression. A perusal of the
each of them. Petitioners theory holds water facts shows that after petitioner was successful
only if the facts are altered that is, he in taking down private complainant Merto
threatened Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente at the former continued to hack the latter, who
the same place and at the same time. was, by then, already neutralized by the blow.

Topic: Novation; extinguishment of criminal This fact was clearly established by the
liability. testimony of Rodolfo Muya, who recounted
having seen the petitioner continuously
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. hacking the private complainant with the bolo
Rogelio Reynaldo and Jose C. Adrandea scabbard, even as the latter lay almost
motionless upon the muddy ground. Clearly,
G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010 this continuous hacking by the petitioner
constitutes force beyond what is reasonably
It is best to emphasize that novation is not required to repel the private complainants
one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised attackand is therefore unjustified.
Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal
liability. In a catena of cases, it was ruled that
criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a
compromise or novation of contract. In Firaza
v. People and Recuerdo v. People, the
Supreme Court ruled that in the crime of
estafa, reimbursement or belated payment to

Page 48 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Topic: Frustrated and attempted homicide without which the result would not have
distinguished occurred.

Giovani Serrano y Cervantes vs. The autopsy report indicated that the cause of
People of the Philippines, the victims death is multiple organ failure.
G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010 According to Dr. Wilson Moll Lee, the doctor
who conducted the autopsy, it can be surmised
Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a that multiple organ failure was secondary to a
felony is frustrated when the offender long standing infection secondary to a stab
performs all the acts of execution which would wound which the victim allegedlysustained.
produce the felony as a consequence but Thus, it can be concluded that without the stab
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by wounds, the victim could not have been
reason of causes independent of the will of the afflicted with an infection which later on
perpetrator. There is an attempt when the caused multiple organ failure that caused his
offender commences the commission of a death. The offender is criminally liable for the
felony directly by overt acts, and does not death of the victim if his delictual act caused,
perform all the acts of execution which should accelerated or contributed to the death of the
produce the felony by reason of some cause or victim.
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. In Palaganas v. People, the Topic: Perjury; elements.
Supreme Court made the following distinctions
between frustrated and attempted felony as EribertoMasangkay vs.
follows: (a) In frustrated felony, the offender People of the Philippines
has performed all the acts of execution which G.R. No. 164443, June 18, 2010.
should produce the felony as a consequence;
whereas in attempted felony, the offender For perjury to exist, (1) there must be a sworn
merely commences the commission of a felony statement that is required by law; (2) it must
directly by overt acts and does not perform all be made under oath before a competent
the acts of execution; (b) In frustrated felony, officer; (3) the statement contains a deliberate
the reason for the non-accomplishment of the assertion of falsehood; and (4) the false
crime is some cause independent of the will of declaration is with regard to a material matter.
the perpetrator; on the other hand, in The first three elements were proven in the
attempted felony, the reason for the non- instant case. However, the prosecution failed
fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident to establish the element of deliberate
other than the offenders own spontaneous falsehood. A conviction for perjury cannot be
desistance. obtained by the prosecution by merely
showing the inconsistent or contradictory
Topic: Proximate cause; definition. statements of the accused, even if both
statements are sworn. The prosecution must
Rodolfo Belbis Jr. y Competente and Alberto additionally prove which of the two
Brucales v. People of thePhilippines, statements is false and must show the
G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012 statement to be false by evidence other than
the contradictory statement.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument of
petitioners that the Court of Appeals failed to Topic: Qualified rape; elements
consider in its entirety the testimony of the
doctor who performed the autopsy. What People of the Philippines v.
really needs to be proven in a case when the DaniloPaculba,
victim dies is the proximate cause of his death. G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010
Proximate cause has been defined as that
cause, which, in natural and continuous Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
sequence, unbroken by any efficient amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
intervening cause, produces the injury, and 7659 provides that rape is committed by

Page 49 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

having carnal knowledge of a woman under Topic: Swindling; elements.


any of the following circumstances: (a) by
using force or intimidation; (b) when the Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas
woman is deprived of reason or otherwise vs. Court of Appeals,
unconscious; and (c) when the woman is G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010
under twelve years of age or is demented. The
crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code
perpetua. Under Paragraph 7(1) of Article 335, states that the penalty of aresto mayor in its
the death penalty shall also be imposed if minimum and medium periods and a fine of
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and not less than the value of the damage caused
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step- and not more than three times such value shall
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or be imposed upon any person who, knowing
affinity within the third civil degree, or the that a real property is encumbered, shall
common- law spouse of the parent of the dispose of the same, although such
victim. encumbrance be not recorded. For petitioners
to be convicted of the crime of swindling
Topic: Qualified theft; elements under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code, the prosecution had the burden to
Clay & Feather International, Inc., et al v. prove the confluence of the following essential
Alexander T. Lichaytoo and Clifford T. elements of the crime: (1) that the thing
Lichaytoo, disposed of be real property; (2) that the
G.R. No. 193105, May 30, 2011 offender knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
To constitute the crime of theft, defined and recorded or not; (3) that there must be express
penalized under Article 308 of the Revised representation by the offender that the real
Penal Code, the following elements must be property is free from encumbrance; and (4)
established that: (1) there be taking of personal that the act of disposing of the real property
property; (2) said property belongs to be made to the damage of another.
another; (3) the taking be done with intent to
gain; (4) the taking be done without the Topic: Serious illegal detention; elements.
consent of the owner; and (5) the taking be
accomplished without use of violence against People of the Philippines vs.
or intimidation of persons or force upon EgapMadsali, SajironLajim and MaronLajim
things. G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010

Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal
Revised Penal Code under the following detentionunder Article 267 of the Revised
circumstances: (1) if the theft is committed by a Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private
domestic servant; (2) if the theft is committed individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another
with grave abuse of confidence; (3) if the or in any other manner deprives the latter of
property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail his liberty; (3) the act of detention or
matter, or (c) large cattle; (4) if the property kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission
stolen consists of coconuts taken from the of the offense, any of the following
premises of a plantation; (5) if the property is circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping
fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or (6) if or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b)
property is taken on the occasion of fire, it is committed by simulating public authority;
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted
any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil upon the person kidnapped or detained or
disturbance. threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person
kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a
public officer. In the case at bar, the accused
who were private individuals, forcibly took
and dragged the victim, a minor, to the forest

Page 50 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

and held her captive against her will. The =======


crime of serious illegal detention consists not SPECIAL LAW
only of placing a person in an enclosure, but
also of detaining him or depriving him in any Topic: Accused; effects of escape of accused.
manner of his liberty. For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is People of the Philippines v.
restrained from going home. Its essence is the Asia Musa y Pinasilo, AraMonongan y Papao,
actual deprivation of the victims liberty, FaisahAbasy Mama, and Mike Solalo y Mlok
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012
the accused to effect such deprivation. In this
case, although the victim was not actually A review of the evidence on record shows that
confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly the chain of custody rule was sufficiently
restrained and deprived of her liberty, because observed by the apprehending officers. Thru
she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a the testimonies of the PO1 Memoracion and
piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to PO1 Arago, the prosecution was able to prove
physically drag her to the forest away from her that the shabu seized from accused Musa was
home. the very same shabu presented in evidence as
part of the corpus delicti. Hence, the fact that
Topic: Technical malversation; mala prohibita. the PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago did not
make an inventory of the seized items or that
Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. they did not take photographs of them is not
People of the Philippines fatal considering that the prosecution was able
G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012. to establish with moral certainty that the
identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the
Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith shabu was not jeopardized from the time of its
when he diverted the food intended for those seizure until the time it was presented in court.
suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries
of reconstruction projects affecting the homes Topic: Alibi; physical impossibility must be
of victims of calamities since, first, the idea of proved
using the Supplemental Feeding Program
(SFP) goods for the Core Shelter Assistance People of the Philippines v.
Program (CSAP) beneficiaries came, not Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz
from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013.
second, he consulted the accounting
department if the goods could be distributed For Jaymarts alibi to prosper, he must prove
to those beneficiaries. Having no criminal that not only was he somewhere else when
intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted Emmanuel was killed, but also that it was
of the crime of technical malversation. But physically impossible for him to have been at
criminal intent is not an element of technical the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility
malversation. The law punishes the act of refers to the distance between the place where
diverting public property earmarked by law or the appellant was when the rime transpired
ordinance for a particular public purpose to and the place where it was committed, as well
another public purpose. The offense is mala as the facility of access between the two
prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is places. Where there is the least chance for the
not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal accused to be present at the crime scene, the
offense because positive law forbids its defense of alibi must fail. Although Jaymart
commission based on considerations of public claimed that he was in Divisoria from 7:00
policy, order, and convenience. It is the a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on October 10, 2005,
commission of an act as defined by the law, Jaymart himself admitted that it would only
and not the character or effect thereof that take a five-minute tricycle ride to get from
determines whether or not the provision has Divisoria to Parola, where Emmanuel was
been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent shot.
is completely irrelevant.

Page 51 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Topic: BP 33 and consciously possessed the said drug.


Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes
Arnel U. Ty, et al vs. primafacie evidence of knowledge or animus
National Bureau of Investigation Supervising possidendisufficient to convict an accused in
Agent Marvin E. De Jemil,et al the absence of a satisfactory explanation of
G.R. No. 182147, December 15, 2010 such possession. Thus, the burden of evidence
is shifted to the accused to explain the absence
A single underfilling constitutes an offense of knowledge or animus possidendi.
under BP 33, as amended by PD 1865, which
clearly criminalizes these offenses. B.P. Blg. 33, Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust
as amended, criminalizes illegal trading, operations; distinction between entrapment
adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and and instigation
overpricing of petroleum products. Under this
general description of what constitutes criminal People of the Philippines v.
acts involving petroleum products, the DOE Noel Bartolome y Bajo,
Circular No. 2000-06-010 merely lists the G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013
various modes by which the said criminal acts
may be perpetrated, namely: no price display A buy -bust operation has been recognized in
board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of
incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from
LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG instigation, in that the accused who is
cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing otherwise not predisposed to commit the
color, no embossed identifying markings on crime is enticed or lured or talked into
cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering committing the crime. While entrapment is
LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of legal, instigation is not. One form of
LPG cylinders. These specific acts and omissions entrapment is the buy-bust operation. In
are obviously within the contemplation of the entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary
law, which seeks to curb the pernicious to render a buy-bust operation legitimate,
practices of some petroleum merchants. The especially when the buy-bust team is
Court made it clear that a violation, like accompanied to the target area by the
underfilling, on a per cylinder basis falls within informant.
the phrase of any act as mandated under Sec. 4
of BP 33, as amended. Ineluctably, the Topic: Instigation distinguished from
underfilling of one LPG cylinder constitutes a entrapment.
clear violation of BP 33, as amended. The
finding of underfilling by LPG Inspector Navio People of the Philippines v.
of the LPGIA, as aptly noted by Manila Simpresueta M. Seraspe,
Assistant City Prosecutor Catalo who January 2013
conducted the preliminary investigation, was
indeed not controverted by petitioners. Instigation means luring the accused into a
crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to
Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal possession commit, in order to prosecute him. It differs
of drugs. from entrapment which is the employment of
ways and means in order to trap or capture a
People of the Philippines vs. criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent to
Mario Miguel y Bernabe, et al., commit an offense originates from the inducer
G.R. No. 180505, June 29, 2010 and not from the accused who had no
intention to commit and would not have
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the committed it were it not for the prodding of
elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent
an item or object which is identified to be a or design originates from the accused and the
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not law enforcers merely facilitate the
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely apprehension of the criminal by using ruses

Page 52 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

and schemes. Instigation results in the acquittal of 2006, the age of a child may be determined
of the accused, while entrapment may lead to from the childs birth certificate, baptismal
prosecution and conviction. Here, the certificate or any other pertinent documents.
evidence clearly established that the police In the absence of these documents, age may be
operatives employed entrapment, not based on information from the child
instigation, to capture appellant and her himself/herself, testimonies of other persons,
cohorts in the act of selling shabu. It must be the physical appearance of the child and other
recalled that it was only upon receipt of a relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the
report of the drug trafficking activities of age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her
Espiritu from the confidential informant that a favor. Thus, pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the
buy-bust team was formed and negotiations RPC, the penalty next lower than that
for the sale of shabu were made. Also, prescribed by law is imposed. Based on Article
appellant testified that she agreed to the 61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the
transaction of her own free will when she saw penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to
the same as an opportunity to earn money. death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Notably too, appellant was able to quickly Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the
produce a sample. This confirms that she had a range of the penalty of imprisonment
ready supply of the illegal drugs. Clearly, she imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in
was never forced, coerced or induced through any of its periods, as the minimum period, to
incessant entreaties to source the prohibited reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the
drug for Carla and PO3 Cario and this she maximum period. Accordingly, his proper
even categorically admitted during her indeterminate penalty is from six years and
testimony. one day of prision mayor, as the minimum
period, to 14 years, eight months, and one day
Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody of reclusion temporal, as the maximum period.
rule; links to be established.
Topic: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines, Act), Suspension of sentence; minority
G.R. No. 188653. January 29, 2014.
People of the Philippines vs.
The links that must be established in the chain Allen UdtojanMantalaba,
of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the G.R. No. 186227, July 20,2011.
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the The appellant was 17 years old when the buy-
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of bust operation took place or when the said
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending offense was committed, but was no longer a
officer to the investigating officer; third, the minor at the time of the promulgation of the
turnover by the investigating officer of the RTCs Decision. It must be noted that RA 9344
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for took effect on May 20, 2006, while the RTC
laboratory examination; and fourth, the promulgated its decision on this case on
turnover and submission of the marked illegal September 14, 2005, when said appellant was
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the no longer a minor. In People v. Sarcia (G.R.
court. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA
20), it was held that while Section 38 of RA
Topic: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can
Act), Murder; penalty for minors; still be applied even if the child in conflict with
the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or
Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal vs. more at the time of the pronouncement of
People of the Philippines, his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits
G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010 the said suspension of sentence until the child
reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the
Under Section 7 of RA 9344, also appellant, who is now beyond the age of 21
known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act years can no longer avail of the provisions of

Page 53 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his did not depart from the parallelism in Ang and
suspension of sentence, because this has give credence to petitioners assertion that the
already become moot and academic. act of violence should be due to the sexual or
dating relationship.
Topic: RA 9262; violence against women and
children; crime of violence against women; Topic: Rape; statutory rape distinguished from
elements; crime of violence against women child abuse
need not be a consequence of an existing or
present dating relationship. People of the Philippines v.
Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran,
Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011
Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, AngelesCity,
January 2013 Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in
relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual
Petitioner here insists that the act abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender
which resulted in physical injuries to private should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but
respondent is not covered by RA 9262 because for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of
its proximate cause was not their dating the Revised Penal Code and penalized with
relationship. Instead, he claims that the offense reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the
committed was only slight physical injuries victim is 12 years or older, the offender should
under the Revised Penal Code which falls be charged with either sexual abuse under
under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
Court. The Supreme Court (SC) did not give 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised
credence to this argument. In Ang v. Court of Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be
Appeals, the SC enumerated the elements of accused of both crimes for the same act
the crime of violence against women through because his right against double jeopardy will
harassment, to wit: (1) The offender has or had be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected
a sexual or dating relationship with the twice to criminal liability for a single criminal
offended woman; (2) The offender, by himself act.
or through another, commits an act or series of
acts of harassment against the woman; and (3) Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a
The harassment alarms or causes substantial violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under
emotional or psychological distress to her. Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the Revised
Notably, while it is required that the offender Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be
has or had a sexual or dating relationship with complexed with an offense penalized by a
the offended woman for RA 9262 to be special law.
applicable, it is not indispensable that the act
of violence be a consequence of such Topic: Act of lasciviousness against a minor
relationship. Nowhere in the law can such under the Revised Penal Code and R.A. 7610
limitation be inferred. Hence, applying the rule
on statutory construction that when the law People of the Philippines v.
does not distinguish, neither should the courts, IrenoBonaagua y Berce,
then, clearly, the punishable acts refer to all G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011
acts of violence against women with whom
the offender has or had a sexual or dating Acts of lasciviousness as defined in Article 336
relationship. As correctly ruled by the Regional of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) has the
Trial Court, it is immaterial whether the following elements:
relationship had ceased for as long as there is
sufficient evidence showing the past or present (1) that the offender commits any act of
existence of such relationship between the lasciviousness or lewdness;
offender and the victim when the physical
harm was committed. Consequently, the SC

Page 54 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

(2) that it is done under any of the found by the CA, the accused is guilty of the
following circumstances: a) by using crime of acts of lasciviousness under Section
force or intimidation; or b) when the 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or c) when Topic: Differentiate trafficking and kidnapping
the offended party is under 12 years of
age; and; Human trafficking is the illegal trade of people
for sexual exploitation or forced labor. Victims
(3) that the offended party is another of human trafficking can be men, women or
person of either sex. child who are recruited, transported, or
otherwise taken by force because they are
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an vulnerable - they may be seeking a better life,
accused can be convicted of child abuse lack employment opportunities, come from an
through lascivious conduct committed against unstable home, or have a history of sexual
a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites abuse.
for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the RPC must be met in addition to the Kidnapping refers to transporting someone to
requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of another location without their consent, or in
R.A. 7610. the case of child abduction, without parental
consent. Kidnapping victims may be held in
To establish sexual abuse under Section 5, confinement without legal authority in
Article III of R.A. 7610, the following elements furtherance of another crime, or in many cases
must be present: (1) the accused commits the in connection with a child custody dispute
act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; between parents or family members.
(2) the said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other Topic: RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt
sexual abuse; (3) the child, whether male or Practices Act; Section 3(e); elements.
female, is below 18 years of age.
Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines,
Corollarily, Section 2(h) of the rules and G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9,
regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines 2010
lascivious conduct as [t]he intentional
touching, either directly or through clothing, To be found guilty under Section 3(e) of the
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any 3019), the following elements must concur: (1)
object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was
any person, whether of the same or opposite done in the discharge of the public officers
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, official, administrative or judicial functions; (3)
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire the act was done through manifest partiality,
of any person, bestiality, masturbation, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic negligence; and (4) the public officer caused
area of a person. any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or gave any unwarranted
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of benefits, advantage or preference. Among
the Court of Appeals (CA) that the accused these elements, the first element is a given
was guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness while the third element is in part dependent
under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. Undeniably, on the second element; the injury the
all the aforestated elements are present in petitioner suffered would be undue if the
Criminal Case No. 03-0255. The accused second element is present. The second and
committed the crime of lascivious acts by critical element provides the different modes
touching the breasts and licking the vagina of for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,
AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as that is, through manifest partiality, evident
established by her birth certificate. As correctly bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Page 55 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Topic: RA 3019 orAnti-Graft and Corrupt Topic: RA 3019 or Anti Graft Law; Section
Practices Act; Section 3(e); elements. 3(e); when private individuals included.

Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines, Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano v.


G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9, People of the Philippines,
2010 G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 While Section 3(e) does not contain a
may be committed in three ways, i.e., through reference to private individuals, private
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross individuals, under Section 4 (b) of the same
inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these law, may nonetheless be prosecuted under
three in connection with the prohibited acts Section 3(e) thereof if he knowingly induces or
mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is causes any public official to commit any of the
enough to convict. The term partiality under offenses defined in Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
the third element is synonymous with bias Clearly, the law punishes not only public
which excites a disposition to see and report officers who commit prohibited acts
matters as they are wished for rather than as enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those who
they while bad faith does not simply induce or cause the public official to commit
connote bad judgment or negligence; it those offenses. This is supported by Sec. 9,
imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral which includes private persons as liable for
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a violations under Sections. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of RA
breach of sworn duty through some motive or 3019.
intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud. Gross negligence has been so 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.

Topic: RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt


Practices Act; undue injury

Efren L. Alvarez vs. People of the Philippines,


G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011

The term undue injury in the context of


Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act punishing the act of causing
undue injury to any party, has a meaning
akin to that civil law concept of actual
damage. Actual damage, in the context of
these definitions, is akin to that in civil law.
Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that
except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by a party
as he has duly proved.

Page 56 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v.


CRIMINAL LAW Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August
BAR EXAM PRE-WEEK HANDOUT 18, 2006 )
Prepared by Justice Mario V. Lopez
(2) Falsification of a public document
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS RULE under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e)
of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements
The overbreadth and vagueness shows that there is neither identity nor
doctrines do not justify a facial review of the exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No
validity of penal statutes. A facial challenge double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a
against a criminal statute is allowed only as variance between the elements of the offenses
applied to a particular defendant which charged. The constitutional right against
considers extant facts affecting real litigants or double jeopardy protects from a second
on the basis of its actual operation to the prosecution for the same offense, not for a
parties. Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of different one. The differences between the
criminal statutes would result in a mass elements needed to establish the commission
acquittal of parties whose cases may not have of the two charges imply that the evidence
even reached the courts. Such invalidation required to prove the guilt or the innocence
would constitute a departure from the usual of the accused would likewise differ in each
requirement of "actual case and controversy" case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408
and permit decisions to be made in a sterile January 31, 2005)
abstract context having no factual
concreteness. (See Romualdez v. Comelec, (3) Direct bribery under the RPC and
G.R. No. 167011, December 11, 2008; and violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. There is
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network neither identity nor necessary inclusion
vs. Anti-terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, between the two offenses. While they have
October 5, 2010) common elements, not all the essential
elements of one offense are included among
When a penal statute encroaches upon or form part of those enumerated in the
the freedom of speech, a facial challenge other. (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos.
grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine 142369-70 April 13, 2007)
is acceptable. The inapplicability of the
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law
statutes are appropriate only insofar as these
doctrines are used to mount facial challenges Libel by means of writing or similar
to penal statutes not involving free speech. means is already punishable under the RPC.
(Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. Cybercrime Law merely establishes the
No. 203335, February 18, 2014) computer system as another means of
publication, hence, online libel is not a new
DOUBLE JEOPARDY crime.

There is no double jeopardy in the following: Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely


expands the scope of the Anti-Child
(1) Estafa through falsification of a Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to
public document under the RPC and violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section 1 For falsification of a public document to be established, the
3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: Section 3. Corrupt following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a
practices of public officers.In addition to acts public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes
advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a
or omissions of public officers already document by committing any of the modes of falsification. On
penalized by existing law, the following shall the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following
constitute corrupt practices of any public elements must be present: (1) that the accused are public
officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
officer and are hereby declared to be (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during
unlawful: x xx It is clear then that one may the performance of their official duties or in relation to their
be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party,
whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury
addition to a felony under the Revised Penal is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or
Code for the same delictual act, that is, either preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have
acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
concurrently or subsequent to being charged inexcusable negligence.

Page 57 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

include identical activities in cyberspace.


ACPAs definition of child pornography in fact Criminal intent is not an element of
already covers the use of electronic, technical malversation. The law punishes the
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any act of diverting public property earmarked by
other means. Thus, charging the offender law or ordinance for a particular public
under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA purpose to another public purpose. It is mala
would likewise be tantamount to a violation prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No.
of the constitutional prohibition against 192330, November 14, 2012)
double jeopardy. (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray
of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18,
2014)
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE

In crimes against property wherein the When death resulted, even if there
penalty is based on the value of the property, was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide,
the court cannot modify the range of not just physical injuries, since with respect to
penalties based on the current inflation crimes of personal violence, the penal law
rate.xxx The primordial duty of the Court is looks particularly to the material results
merely to apply the law in such a way that it following the unlawful act and holds the
shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial aggressor responsible for all the consequences
legislation and that in the course of such thereof (See Article 4 of the RPC). Here,
application or construction, it should not petitioner committed an unlawful act by
make or supervise legislation, or under the punching the victim who was much older than
guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, him. Even if he did not intend to cause the
distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give death of the victim, he must be held guilty
the law a construction which is repugnant to beyond reasonable doubt for killing him
its terms. The Court should apply the law in a because he is the cause of the cause of the evil
manner that would give effect to their letter caused. (Seguritan v. People, G.R. No.
and spirit, especially when the law is clear as 172896, April 19, 2010)
to its intent and purpose. xxx The remedy
here is to apply Article 5 of the RPC. The CONSPIRACY
court will impose the penalty, although
excessive, and recommend executive clemency Responsibility of a conspirator is not
thru the Department of Justice. (Corpuz v. confined to the accomplishment of a
People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014) particular purpose of conspiracy but extends
to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA growing out of the purpose intended. (People
v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)
When the acts complained of are
inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in All the conspirators are liable as co-
se, even if they are punished by a special law. principals regardless of the extent and
Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly character of their participation because the act
established with the other elements of the of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who
crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On among the appellants delivered the fatal blow
the other hand, in crimes that are mala is therefore no longer indispensable since in
prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the
immoral but become punishable only because criminal act of another.(People v. Agacer, G.R.
the law says they are forbidden. Here, No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for
tampering, increasing or decreasing the failing to inflict mortal wounds, both
number of votes received by a candidate in appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable
any election or refusal, after proper for attempted murder since they were shown
verification and hearing, to credit the correct to have acted in conspiracy with each other
votes or deduct such tampered votes is although Ventura did not directly participate
inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants'
in se requiring criminal intent of the accused. original objective may have only been the
(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was
March 14, 2006) correctly held liable for murder with appellant

Page 58 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No.
death who just shouted for help after seeing 177570, January 19, 2011)
his husband in mortal danger. (People v.
Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010) The elements of unlawful aggression
are: (a) there must be a physical or material
Accused-appellant who took no part attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must
in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the
the common criminal plan, is not liable for attack or assault must be unlawful. (People v.
carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that co- Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013)
conspirators are liable only for acts done in
pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts Retaliation is not the same as self-
done outside their contemplation or which defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was
are not the necessary and logical consequence begun by the injured party already ceased
of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit, when the accused attacked him; while in self-
G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4, defense the aggression still existed when the
2003) aggressor was injured by the accused. (People
v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23,
There was no evidence to prove that 2013)
all the appellants assisted Robito in killing
Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the DWELLING
contemplation of the co-conspirators or which
are not the necessary and logical consequence In robbery with violence and
of the intended crime do not affect the other intimidation against persons, dwelling is
accused. Co-conspirators are criminally liable aggravating because in this class of robbery,
the crime may be committed without the
only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy
necessity of tresspassing the sanctity of the
on how and what are the necessary and
offended party's house. (People v. Evangelio,
logical consequences of the intended crime. G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011)In robbery
(People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30, with force upon things, dwelling is inherent.
April 2, 2003)
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
SELF-DEFENSE
Evident premeditation may be
Accused-appellants' flight from the
neighborhood where the crimes were considered as present, even if a person other
committed, their concealing of the weapons than the intended victim was killed (or
used in the commission of the crimes, their wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that
non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and the conspirators were determined to kill not
their failure to surrender themselves to the only the intended victim but also anyone who
police authorities fully warranted the RTCs may help him put a violent resistance. Here,
rejection of their claim of self-defense and Raymundo Roque provided such violent
defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al., resistance against the conspirators, giving the
G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012) latter no choice but to eliminate him from
their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores,
The primordial element of self-defense G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing
is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583)
actual physical assault, or at least a threat to
inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In When it is not shown how and when
case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, the plan to kill was hatched or how much
positively showing the wrongful intent to time had elapsed before it was carried out,
cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. evident premeditation cannot be considered.
195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future It must appear not only that the accused
injury is not enough. The compulsion must be decided to commit the crime prior to the
of such a character as to leave no opportunity moment of its execution but also that this
for the accused for escape or self-defense in decision was the result of meditation,

Page 59 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

calculation, reflection or persistent Appellants and their co-accused


attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
July 18, 2013) boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his
group. As a result, two security escorts died
TREACHERY
while five (5) of them were wounded and
injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds
The idea of treachery does not apply
in different parts of their bodies. Each act by
when the killing is not premeditated or when
each gunman pulling the trigger of their
the accused did not deliberately choose the
respective firearms, aiming each particular
means he employed for committing the crime.
moment at different persons constitute distinct
(People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2,
and individual acts which cannot give rise to a
2011)
complex crime. Obviously, appellants and
their co-accused performed not only a single
The situation of the victim when
found shows without doubt that he was killed act but several individual and distinct acts in
while tied and blindfolded; hence, the the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48
qualifying aggravating circumstance of of the Revised Penal Code would not apply
treachery was present in the commission of for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not
the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. include single impulse. (People v. Nelmida,
178771, June 8, 2011) G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)

Treachery may be properly Distinctions between a composite


considered, even when the victim of the crime and a complex or compound crime
attack was not the one whom the defendant under Article 48:
intended to kill, if it appears from the
evidence that neither of the two persons In a composite crime, the composition
could in any manner put up defense against of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex
the attack or become aware of it. (People v. or compound crime, the combination of the
Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011) offenses is not specified but generalized, that
is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense
Treachery applies to robbery with being the necessary means to commit the
homicide as a generic aggravating other.
circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme
Court of Spain interpreting and construing the The penalty for a composite crime is
penal code, which are accorded respect and specific; for a complex or compound crime,
persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have the penalty is that corresponding to the most
consistently applied treachery as a generic serious offense, to be imposed in the
aggravating circumstance to robbery with maximum period.
homicide. It does not lose its classification as a
crime against property or as a special complex A light felony that accompanies a
crime because treachery is applied to the composite crime is absorbed; a light felony
constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the that accompanies the commission of a
constituent crime of "robbery". (People v. complex or compound crime may be the
Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003) subject of a separate information. (People v.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012)
Treachery is not present when the
killing is not premeditated, or where the If the falsification of a private
sudden attack is not preconceived and document is committed as a means to commit
deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
sudden infuriation on the part of the accused
falsification. If the estafa can be committed
as a result of a provocative act of the victim,
without the necessity of falsifying a document,
or when the killing is done at the spur of the
moment. (People v. Caaveras, G.R. No. the proper crime to be charged is
193839, December 27, 2013) estafa.(Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857,
September 15, 2006
ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE
DELITO CONTINUADO

Page 60 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.


Delitocontinuado exists when there is L-45674, May 13, 1983)
a plurality of acts performed during a period
of time; unity of penal provision violated; and FALSIFICATION
unity of criminal intent or purpose, which
means that two or more violations of the One is guilty of falsification in the
same penal provisions are united in one and accomplishment of his information and
same instant or resolution leading to the personal data sheet if he withholds material
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or facts which would have affected the approval
aim. of his appointment and/or promotion to a
government position. In other words, leaving
The informations should be a question blank in the PDS/SALN is
consolidated into a single information for they falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos.
charge what is known as delitocontinuado or 174730-37, February 9, 2011)
"continued crime" and sometimes referred to Conclusion of law is a determination
as "continuous crime." The informations by a judge or ruling authority regarding the
charged petitioner with performing a single law that applies in a particular case. It is a
criminal act that of her approving the proposition not arrived at by any process of
application for legalization of aliens not
natural reasoning from a fact or combination
qualified under the law to enjoy such
of facts stated but by the application of the
privilege. The informations reproduced
verbatim the allegation of the original artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On
information, except that instead of the word the other hand, a narration of facts is merely
"aliens" in the original information each an account or description of the particulars of
amended information states the name of the an event. It is a recital of things accomplished,
individual whose stay was legalized. of deeds, occurrence or happening.
Moreover, the informations aver that the
offenses were committed on the same period Disclosure or identification of relatives
of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. "within the fourth civil degree of
The strong probability even exists that the consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a
approval of the application or the legalization narration of facts. Statements concerning
of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a relationship is descriptive and may be proved
single stroke of the pen, as when the approval
as to its truth or falsity.
was embodied in the same document.
(Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266,
December 2, 1993) A certification that one was "eligible
or qualified is a conclusion of law although
When there is delito continuado, the it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is
crime cannot be splitted into two or more an expression of belief or mistake of
crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in. judgment.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES MALVERSATION

Penalty for the crime proved, not Malversation may be committed


either through a positive act of
charged, determines the applicable
misappropriation or passively through
prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused negligence. Even when the Information
has been found to have committed a lesser charges willful malversation, conviction for
offense includible within the graver offense malversation through negligence may still be
charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the
offense if it has already prescribed. To hold mode of commission of the offense. The dolo
otherwise would be to sanction a or the culpa present in the offense is only a
circumvention of the law on prescription by modality in the perpetration of the felony.
the simple expedient of accussing the (Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31,
defendant of the graver offense.(Damasco v. 2011)
Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988,
The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a

Page 61 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

public corporation or a government agency or of age as rape of a woman deprived of


instrumentality with juridical personality, reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932,
which does not fall within the constitutional October 19, 2011)
prohibition in Article XII, Section 16,
notwithstanding the amendments to its The degree of resistance that the
charter. Not all corporations, which are not victim may put up against the rapist need not
government owned or controlled, are ipso be tenacious. Article 266-D of the RPC
facto to be considered private corporations as provided presumptions that: Any physical
there exists another distinct class of overt act manifesting resistance against the act
corporations or chartered institutions which of rape in any degree from the offended
are otherwise known as public party, or where the offended party is so
corporations. These corporations are treated situated as to render her/him incapable of
by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the giving valid consent, may be accepted as
government which are not subject to the tests evidence in the prosecution of the acts
of ownership or control and economic punished under Article 266-A. (People v.
viability but to different criteria relating to Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012)
their public purposes/interests or The accused cannot be convicted of
constitutional policies and objectives and their rape through sexual assault, although proven
administrative relationship to the government during trial, if what was charged in the
or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy information is rape through carnal knowledge.
Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on This violated the constitutional right of the
Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011) accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. It is
In technical malversation, public fund proper to convict the accused of acts of
or property is considered appropriated if it lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in
had been earmarked by law or ordinance for rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051,
a specific expenditure. Here, there is no October 2, 2013)
technical malversation after the general
fund of the municipality, intended by internal Sexual assault is committed by
arrangement for use in paying a particular inserting the penis into another person's
road, was applied instead to the payrolls of mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v. object into the genital or anal orifice of
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, another person. It is also called "instrument or
November 19, 2013) object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the
narrower "homosexual rape."(People v.
RAPE Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11,
2013)
Medical evidence is dispensable and
merely corroborative in proving the crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259,
March 16, 2011)The presence of hymenal In rape with homicide, it is immaterial
lacerations is not a required element in the that the person killed is someone other than
crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No. the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog,
G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)
189821, March 23, 2011)
The phrase by reason of the rape
It is well-settled that being sweethearts obviously conveys the notion that the killing is
does not negate the commission of rape due to the rape, the offense the offender
because such fact does not give appellant originally designed to commit. The victim of
license to have sexual intercourse against her the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In
will, and will not exonerate him from the contrast, the legislative intent on the import
criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco, of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer
G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011) to a killing that occurs immediately before or
after, or during the commission itself of the
Court has consistently considered attempted or consummated rape, where the
carnal knowledge of a female mental victim of the homicide may be a person other
retardate with the mental age below 12 years than the rape victim herself for as long as the

Page 62 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

killing is linked to the rape became evident.


(People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April In robbery with homicide, the original
11, 2012) criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
KIDNAPPING occasion or by reason of the robbery. One
who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
In the crime of kidnapping and serious criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can
illegal detention, it matters not that no no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has
ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient materialized. (People v. Diu, et. al. G.R. No.
that a demand for it was made. (People v. 201449, April 3, 2013)
Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10,
2013) Whenever homicide has been
committed by reason of or on the occasion of
The essence of kidnapping is the actual the robbery, all those who took part as
deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled principals in the robbery will also be held
with indubitable proof of the intent of the guilty as principals of robbery with homicide
accused to effect the same. (Con-ui, et. al., although they did not take part in the
G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013)
homicide, unless it appears that they sought to
prevent the killing. (People v. Sugan, G.R. No.
KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
192789, March 23, 2011)
No matter how many rapes had been
committed in the special complex crime of There is no crime of robbery with
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is homicide committed by a band. If robbery
only one kidnapping with rape.(People v. with homicide is committed by a band, the
Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, indictable offense would still be denominated
2011)[N.B. The primary purpose is as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1)
kidnapping.] of the RPC. The element of band would be
appreciated as an ordinary aggravating
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE circumstance. (Id.)

Where the person kidnapped is killed CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE


in the course of the detention, regardless of
whether the killing was purposely sought or In proving the special complex crime
was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping of carnapping with homicide, there must be
and murder or homicide can no longer be proof not only of the essential elements of
complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as carnapping, but also that it was the original
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a criminal design of the culprit and the killing
special complex crime under the last was perpetrated "in the course of the
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. commission of the carnapping or on the
7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, occasion thereof.(People v. Nocum, et. al.,
April 4, 2011) G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013)

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE BIGAMY

Homicide is committed by reason or The crime of bigamy was already


on the occasion of robbery if its commission consummated the moment the accused
was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape contracted a second marriage without the
of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession previous one having been judicially declared
by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent null and void,.xxx[T]he subsequent judicial
discovery of the commission of the robbery; declaration of nullity of the first marriage
or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the would not change the fact that the accused
commission of the crime. As long as there is a contracted the second marriage during the
nexus between the robbery and the homicide, subsistence of the first marriage. (Montaez v.
the latter crime may be committed in a place Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22,
other than the situs of the robbery. (People v. 2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No.
Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012) 183805, July 3, 2013)

Page 63 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

not applicable when the penalty prescribed is


LIBEL not more than 1 year. In this case, straight
penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed.
Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if
the defamatory statement is made against a PROBATION
public official with respect to the discharge of
his official duties and functions and the truth
Accused who appeals may still apply
of the allegations is shown, the accused will be
for probation.(Colinares v. People, G.R. No.
entitled to an acquittal even though he does
not prove that the imputation was published 182748, December 13, 2011)Probation Law is
with good motives and for justifiable ends. not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v.
(Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)
14, 2011)
The Probation Law specifically
provides that the grant of probation suspends
the execution of the sentence. During the
period of probation, the probationer does not
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. serve the penalty imposed upon him including
No. 9344) the accessory penalties like disqualification to
run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec,
Automatic suspension of sentence
G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006)
should apply to a child in conflict with the
law regardless of the crime committed.
(People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
16, 2011)Suspension of sentence can still be (RA 3019)
applied even if the child in conflict with the
law is already eighteen (18) years of age or Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that
more at the time of the pronouncement of it shall be unlawful for a public officer to
his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches directly or indirectly request or receive any
the maximum age of 21. (People v. gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011) himself or for any other person, in connection
with any contract or transaction between the
Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the Government and any other party, wherein the
Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a public officer in his official capacity has to
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life intervene under the law. The term
imprisonment to death shall be reclusion transaction is limited only to contracts or
perpetua to death. This means that the transactions involving monetary consideration
penalty can now be graduated as it has where the public officer has the authority to
adopted the technical nomenclature of intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a
penalties provided for in the Revised Penal transaction under the law. (People v.
Code. (see RA 6425; Jose v. People, G.R. No. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December
162052, January 13, 2005) 11, 2013)

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW The good faith of heads of offices in


signing a document will only be appreciated if
Prescribed penalty refers to the initial they, with trust and confidence, have relied
on their subordinatesin whom the duty is
penalty as a general prescription for the
primarily lodged.The defense will not apply
felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the
when the accused is being held for gross and
penalty as modified after considering the inexcusable negligence in performing the
attending and modifying circumstances; duties primarily vested in him by law.
Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August
penalty chosen by the court from the 14, 2013)
imposable penalty.
The Court has already interpreted
Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to "undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual
6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is damage" must not only be capable of proof; it

Page 64 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

must be actually proved with a reasonable


degree of certainty. A finding of "undue The DOJ erred in charging the accused
injury" cannot be based on flimsy and non- with Rape in relation to Child Abuse under
substantial evidence or upon speculation, Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The
conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v. accused may be charged only for one and not
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and both crimes. If the victim is 12 years or older,
169000, November 27, 2013) the offender should be charged with either
sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under
Where a private person has been Article 266-A of the RPC.(Balois, et. al. v.
charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. Nos. 182130 and
of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom 182132, June 19, 2013)
he was alleged to have conspired, has died
prior to the filing of the information, the RA 7610 applies not only to a child
private person may be indicted alone. (People subjected to prostitution but also to a child
v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is
deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse"
Private persons may be charged with when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct
violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they under the coercion or influence of any
conspired with public officer. This is in adult.(Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389,
consonance with the avowed policy of the December 11, 2013)
Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracvticesAct which is
"to repress certain acts of public officers and COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS &
private persons alike which may constitute AMMUNITION (RA 10591)
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto. (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. The use of a loose firearm, when
Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013) inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610)
If the maximum penalty for the crime
Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in committed is lower, the penalty for illegal
child abuse cases. A child exploited in possession of firearm shall be imposed.
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual If the maximum penalty for the crime
intercourse with another person. It is mala committed is equal to that imposed for illegal
prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No. possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
198732, June 10, 2013) mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed in addition to the penalty for the
Intent to degrade the dignity of a
crime punishable under the Revised Penal
child is required in child abuse. Not every
Code or other special laws of which he/she is
instance of the laying of hands on a child
constitutes the crime of child abuse, except found guilty.
when it is intended to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the If the violation of this Act is in
child as a human being. (Bongalon v. People, furtherance of, or incident to, or in
G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013) connection with the crime of rebellion of
insurrection, or attempted coup d etat, such
It was not the intention of the framers violation shall be absorbed as an element of
of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses attempted coup d etat.
committed to children. Despite the passage of
R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good If the crime is committed by the
law. Thus, sexual assault committed against a person without using the loose firearm, the
minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized violation of this Act shall be considered as a
under RA 7610 which prescribed a higher distinct and separate offense.
penalty.(People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323,
March 16, 2011) An imitation firearm used in the
commission of a crime shall be considered a

Page 65 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

real firearm and the person who committed obviating switching, "planting" or
the crime shall be punished in accordance with contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People,
this Act. G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014)When
there is a search warrant, marking and
[N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was inventory shall be at the place where the
published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly, search was conducted. In a buy-bust
the old law which is more favorable to the
operation, the marking and inventory may be
accused should be applied to any violations
done immediately or at the nearest police
committed prior to its effectivity.]
station.

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS Non-compliance with the express


ACT (RA 9165) requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where
"Transport" means the movement of the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited
the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from
justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution
one place to another. Here, the accused
established that the integrity and evidentiary
were arrested inside a car which was not in value of the evidence seized had been
transit. The car was parked and stationary. preserved. (Id.)
The prosecution failed to show that any [N.B. Non-compliance with the chain
distance was travelled. The conclusion that the of custody rule affects the credibility of the
accused transported the drugs merely because evidence and will not invalidate arrest or
they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and render inadmissible the items seized.]
is mere speculation. (San Juan v. People, G.R.
No. 177191, May 30, 2011) It is settled that Section 86 of Republic
Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations
Transportation of Drugs is on account of the law enforcer's failure to
committed when the accused was maintain close coordination with the PDEA.
(People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11,
apprehended while boarding his flight with
2012)
drugs in his possession. While it may be
argued that appellant was yet to board the ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN &
aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)
drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied
that his presence at the airport at that "Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual
particular instance was for the purpose of act which may or may not result in the
transporting or moving the dangerous drugs bearing of a common child. On the other
from one place to another. (People v. Laba, hand, "Dating relationship" exists even
G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013) without a sexual intercourse taking place
between those involved.
Drug Selling is consummated upon
the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer While it is required that the offender
and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked has or had a sexual or dating relationship with
money. (People v. Hong Yen and Chua, G.R. the offended woman, it is not indispensable
No. 181826, January 9, 2013) that the act of violence be a consequence of
such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether
It is vital that the seized contraband is the relationship had ceased for as long as
immediately marked because succeeding there is sufficient evidence showing the past or
handlers of the specimens will use the present existence of such relationship between
markings as reference. The marking of the the offender and the victim when the physical
evidence serves to separate the marked harm was committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R.
evidence from the corpus of all other similar No. 193960, January 7, 2013)
or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are The law punishes "any act or series of
disposed at the end of criminal proceedings, acts" that constitutes violence against women.

Page 66 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015
Criminal Law
Compiled by: The Barristers Club

This means that a single act of harassment, circumstances of the case.


which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to protect If there is no case filed against a
women and children. Punishing only violence person whose account has been frozen within
that is repeatedly committed would license the period determined by the court, the freeze
isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A
No. 182835, April 20, 2010) person whose account has been frozen may
file a motion to lift the freeze order and the
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, court must resolve this motion before the
as amended) expiration of the freeze order. No court shall
issue a temporary restraining order or a writ
Money Laundering Offense of injunction against any freeze order, except
the Supreme Court.
Money laundering is committed by
any person who performs any of the Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits
punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,2
knowing that any monetary instrument or The AMLC may also inquire into or
property represents, involves, or relates to the examine any particular deposit or investment,
proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also including related accounts, with any banking
committed by any covered person who, institution or non-bank financial institution
knowing that a covered or suspicious upon order of any competent court based on
transaction is required under this Act to be an ex parte application when it has been
reported to the Anti-Money Laundering established that there is probable cause that
Council fails to do so. the deposits or investments are related to an
unlawful activity.
Prosecution of Money Laundering
Application to inquire into or examine
Any person may be charged with and any deposit or investment filed with the Court
convicted of both the offense of money of Appeals shall be acted upon within twenty-
laundering and the unlawful activity. The four (24) hours from filing.
prosecution of any offense or violation under
this Act shall proceed independently of any --GOD BLESS--
proceeding relating to the unlawful activity.
[N.B. Terrorism is one of the predicate crimes] Rather, as servants of God we commend
ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in
troubles, hardships and distresses; in hard
Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property work, sleepless nights through glory and
dishonor, bad report and good reportyet we
The AMLC may file an ex parte live on; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor,
petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet
there is probable cause that any monetary possessing everything. -- 2 Corinthians 6:4-10
instrument or property is in any way related
to an unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals
may issue a freeze order which shall be
effective immediately, and which shall not
exceed six (6) months depending upon the

2 (a) transacts said monetary instrument or property;


(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses
or uses said monetary instrument or property;
(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location,
disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect
to said monetary instrument or property;
(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering
offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c);
(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the
money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or
(c) above; and
(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.

Page 67 of 67
BAR OPERATIONS 2015