Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
In intent to commit the crime, there must be criminal intent; in intent to perpetrate the act, it is
enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. (Elenita C. Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No.
190889, January 10, 2011)
2. Although Republic Act No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating
penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied. The penalty for Other Acts of Child
Abuse is prision mayor in its minimum period. Although R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in the
Revised Penal Code for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be
applied.
3. MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA.
a. In mala in se, the act committed in inherently wrong or immoral; in mala prohibita, the act is merely
prohibited by law;
b. In mala in se, good faith is a proper defense; in mala prohibita, good faith is not a defense;
c. In mala in se, the stages of execution under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code is considered in
arriving at the proper penalty to be imposed; in mala prohibita, they are not;
d. In mala in se, the degree of participation of the offenders under Title Two of the Revised Penal Code
is taken into consideration on the imposition of penalty; in mala prohibita, it is not;
e. In mala in se, the modifying circumstances are appreciated in determining the penalty imposable; in
mala prohibita, they are not;
f. In mala in se, generally, the crimes are punished under the Revised Penal Code; in mala prohibita,
generally, the crimes are punished under special penal laws.
4. Special laws which are intended merely as amendments to certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code
are mala in se and still subject to its provision.
5. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent as held in the case of Estrada v
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001. Hence, the application of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecute under the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly
that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by
his criminal intent. x x x
____________________________________________
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, ACT NO. 4103
as amended
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1999, 1994, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988]
- If a special law adopted penalties from the RPC, ISLAW will apply just as it would in felonies.
ex. RA 7610 although a special law, adopted the penalty defined in RPC.
When ISLAW is not applicable?
1. Offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Habitual delinquents.
6. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence.
7. Those granted with conditional pardon and who violated the terms of the same.
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year.
9. Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this Act.
o The imposition of indeterminate sentence is mandatory in criminal cases.
o The law is not applicable if the penalty is destierro. Why? It does not involve imprisonment.
*NOTE:
- Rules of offsetting are not applicable in crimes punished under a special law. The presence of any
generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstances will not affect the proper imposition of the
penalty.
- If the maximum term arrived and it does not exceed 1 year, ISLAW will not apply.
- If the sentence is imprisonment of 12 years and I day in violation of Comprehensive Drugs Act, the
same is not correct as ISLAW mandates the Court to set the minimum and maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be
imposed even if the penalty imposed is originally an indivisible penalty?
Yes. The ISLAW is applicable because the penalty which has been originally an indivisible penalty
(reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal)
by virtue of the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. (People vs. Allen Udtojan
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227: July 20, 2011)
_____________________________________________
PROBATION LAW
[BAR Q. 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1990, 1986]
REMINDERS ON DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1. Sentenced to serve more than 6 years –
Exceptions:
a. Under violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, accused FIRST-TIME OFFENDER may avail of
suspended sentence. If there is a violation of any conditions, the court shall pronounce
judgment of conviction. The court, however, may in its discretion: place the accused on
probation (even if the sentence provided for under this Act is higher than that provided
under existing law on probation).
b. Principle in PP vs. Arnel Colinares:
Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply fro
probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation.
The Court, however, convicted Arnel of the wrong crime, frustrated homicide that
carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. How can the Court expect him to feel penitent
over a crime, which as the Court now finds, he did not commit? He only committed
attempted homicide with its maximum penalty of 2 years and 4 months.
At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right and imposed on
Arnel the correct penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months maximum, he would
have had the right to apply for probation.
2. National Security and Public Order - Probation is not applicable when the accused is convicted of
INDIRECT ASSAULT (It is a crime against PUBLIC ORDER).
3. Previous Conviction of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two
hundred pesos.
Ex. A person convicted for another crime with a penalty of 30 days imprisonment or not
exceeding 1 month does not disqualify him from applying for probation.
What is the period of probation?
a. sentenced to a term of 1 year – shall not exceed 2 years;
b. sentenced to a term of more than 1 year imprisonment – shall not exceed 6 years.
_____________________________________________
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Republic Act No. 3019
[BAR Q. 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2003, 2000, 1999, 1997, 1991, 1990, 1988, 1985]
Sec.3(e). Causing Any Undue Injury To Any Party, Including The Government, Or Giving Any Private Party
Any Unwarranted Benefits, Advantage Or Preference In The Discharge Of His Official Administrative Or
Judicial Functions Through manifest Partiality, Evident Bad Faith Or Gross Inexcusable Negligence. This
Provision Shall Apply To Officers and Employees Of Offices Or Government Corporations Charged With
The Grant Of Licenses Or Permits Or Other concessions.
In order to hold a person liable under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, the following elements must
concur:
1. the offender is a public officer;
2. the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial functions;
3. the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
4. the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. (Sison v. People, 614 SCRA 670, March 9, 2010)
- Proof of any of these three (manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence) in
connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 is enough to convict a
person with violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. (Sison v. People, March 9, 2010)
- “Partiality” is synonymous with “bias” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are
wished for rather than as they are.” (Sison v. People, March 9, 2010)
- Manifest Partiality exists when the accused has a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to
favor one side or one person rather than another. It is synonymous with bias, which excites a disposition
to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. (Reyes v. People, August 4,
2010)
- Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or to
cause damage. It contemplates a breach of sworn duty through some perverse motive or ill will. (Reyes
v. People, August 4, 2010)
- Gross inexcusable negligence does not signify mere omission of duties nor plainly the exercise of less
than the standard degree of prudence it refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the
slightest case, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected. (Sistoza v. Desierto, 388 SCRA 307)
There are two ways by which Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be violated –
a. the first mode: by causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or
b. the second mode: by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference
In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or
benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.
Ex. The private suppliers, which were all personally chosen by respondent, were able to
profit from the transactions without showing proof that their prices were the most beneficial to the
government.
To hold a person liable under this section, the concurrence of the following elements must be established,
viz:
1. that the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;
2. that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official
duties or in relation to his or her public positions;
3. that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; and
4. that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.
Sec. 3(g). Entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
Elements under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019:
To be indicted of the offense under Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019, the following elements must be
present:
a. that the accused is a public officer;
b. that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
c. that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government (Guy
v. People, 582 SCRA 108, March 20. 2009)
A private person shall be held liable together with the public officer if there is an allegation of conspiracy.
The lack of public bidding alone does not automatically equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the
government.
Sec. 3 (h). Directly or directly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction
in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by
the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
The essential elements of the violation of said provision are as follows:
1. That the accused is a public officer;
2. That he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction. He either:
a. intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such interest; or
b. is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by law. (Teves v. The
Commission on Elections, 587 SCRA 1, April 28, 2009)
_____________________________________________
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
Republic Act No. 9165
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, 1992]
B. DEFENSES IN BP. 22
WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES IN B.P. 22?
1. The presentation of the registry card, with an unauthorized signature, does not meet the required
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner received such noticed, especially considering that
he denied receiving it. (Suarez v. People 555, SCRA 238, June 19, 2008)
2. Presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is not conclusive as it may be rebutted by full
payment. (Tan vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank 552 SCRA 532, April 23, 2008)
3. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check
was dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to
pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment.
4. Prescription is a proper defense. The prescriptive period is 4 years reckoned from the lapse of the
five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor within which to make good the check.
5. Forgery of the signature appearing on the check (Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA 89)
An agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30,
2009)
LACK OF VALUABLE CONSIDERATION is not A PROPER DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF B.P. 22.
(Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola 591 SCRA 466, June 30, 2009) NOVATION is not A PROPER
DEFENSE IN B.P. 22.