: University of the Philippines College of Law Pre-Week Reviewer CRIMINAL LAW TEAM Overall Head Cant R Jimenez Criminal Law Marianne Vitug, Head lrish Alimpotos, Contributor Genesis Leat, Contributor Andrea Alegre, Contributor Cathy Pedrosa, Contributor Kevin Ferrer, Contributer Criminat Law 2 Lee Yarcia, Head _ Tatiana Avila, Contributor Kai Lopez, Cont iCRIMINAL LAW 1 Qi Police officers formed a buy-dust team upon receipt ofa report of legal activities of Pagkalinawan. He was arrested after sachets of shabu were recovered from him. Pagkalinawan insists that what actually happened was an instigation and not a buy-bust operation. He claimed that there was no Edmationce with the law as to the proper requirements for a valid buy-bust operation. Is Pangkatinawan correct One forn method undertaken ntrapment is the buy-bust operation. it is legat and has been proved to be an effective apprehending drug pedkiters, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is tn the instant case, the evidence cteariy shows that the potice officers used entrapment, not instigation, to Capture appetiant in the act of setting a dangerous drug. It was the confidential informant who made initial contact with appettant when he introduced PO! Memoracion as a buyer for shabu. Appellant immediately teak the PhP SOO duy-bust money from PO! Memoracion and showed him three pieces of sachet containing shabu. and asked him te piek one, Once PO! Memoracion got the shabu, he gave the Bre-arranged signal and appellant was arrested, The facts categcrically show a typical buy-bust Gberation as a form of entrapment, The police officers conduct was within the acceptable standards for the fair and honorable administration of justice. Contrary to appetiant’s argument that the acts of the informant and the poseur-buyer in. ne that they were in need of shady instigated or induced him to violate the Anti-Drugs Law, et q from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a by law and does not pis has cpersion invalidLaw_oc NAL LAW PRE-WEEK Q4: While on board Philippine Airline Flight AB-1234, which was awaiting take-off at Heathrow International Airport, Dennis, 2 public officer at the Department of National Defense, sent several confidential military documents containing plans for covert operations in Mindanao, to the Abu Sayaff Group. The email was intercepted by NBI cyberoperatives, but only after transmission of ten documents. He was arrested upon his arrival at NAIA. His counsel, Atty. You, claimed that the act did ot fall upon the territorial application of Philippine criminal laws. Rule on the matter. & Atty. You is incorrect. Extraterritorial application of the Revised Pena: Code applies when being public officers or employees, the defendant should commit an offense in the exercise of [his] functions, or commit an offense on a Philippine ship oF airship, cr commit any crimes against national security and the laws of cations. His acts constituted a violation of Art. 229, revelation of secrets by a public officer. 5: Differentiate a matum prohibitum offense from a malum in se offense. ‘Wrong from its very nature ‘Wrona because it is prohibited by law for public good, welfare or interest fs Good faith is # valid defense, untess it was Good faith is not a valid defense ~ incurred only’ Soe - Not affected by mitigating and aggravating _ circumstances (unless provided for by special aw Degree of participation not taken into eee er el neeeca potent ioeUP LAW BOC Q7: After being prodded by her boyfriend of ten years, Maria agreed to the suggestion that they take a video of their intimate act in her boyfriend's cellphone. Alter taking a video, the boyfriend's phone ‘malfunctioned and in panic, he ended up sharing their video in social media Has a crime been committed by John? ‘A: Yes. It is unlawful to publish or broadcast of a video coverage or recordings of a sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device Notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s under the Anti-Pi,oto and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. Being a malum prohititum, intent is immaterial. Q8: Christian had his Laptop stolen by an unknown malefactor one week before his thesis deadline. Out of desperation, he stole his iriend Matthew's laptop when the latter left it in the Siprary while he swent out for tunch. Upon opening the laptop, Christian discovers that it was the exact one he had lost. Christian commit any crime? ‘Aces. Christian committed the impossible crime of theft. An impossible crime is that which is committed ‘against persons or property with evil intent, but whose accomplishment is inherently impossible, either legally or physically, or the means effected are inadequate or ineffectual. The fact that Christian stole his ‘own laptop, thus making the ciime of theft legally impossible, does not exculpate him. Q9: Ronald snuck into the house of his grandmother to steal some jewelry and cash in order to pay off ~ = his tuition loans. To carry out fis criminal intent, he brought a gun with no bullets so as only to scare his grandmother into cooperating. When he pointed it at her, she got a heart attack and died on the ‘spot. Is Ronald liable for her death?UP LAW BOC bk (as. Rodil had a penchant for ed his breaking point, he took a fon resulted ity the death of veated that Rodil be insulting, berating and cursing at his oppone! absolved by virtue of self-defense? A: No. The requisites of self-defense are unlawful © employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. There can be accepted, as in this case, wherein Rodil responded to Mario's Q13: Enumerate and explain the three phases of the “battered woman syndrome, ‘A: As discussed In People v. Genoso, the three phases o: the "battered weman syndromes are {He (NsiOH bullding phase, the acute battering incident, and the tranquil phase. In the tension-building phase, only minor battering occurs, such as verbal or slight physical abuse, The acute battering incident | characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes even death, ducing which time the woman Has ‘no control. The tranquil phase is the least violent stage, wherein the batterer tries to make UP for his acts while the woman convinces herself that the abuse will never happen agai 14: SPO1 Albaire was determined te catch Abigail, a notorious drug dealer whom he had been tracking for more than a year. To do 50, he set up a buy-bust via an informant wherein he acted as a poseur-buyer. Duriny the meetup, he offered to buy and Abigak agreed to sell 100 grams of sh Ye When she handed him the plastic bag of shabu and accepted the Bits as payment, SPO? Albair: ane ‘nis companions arrested her. Abigail claimed she was instigates into committing the crime, SPOT Albaira argued that it was a valid entrapment operation. Decide. Ae: a J aia L's a seeIn this case, Noel had already bee: to surrender. ‘ole after the latter had scored the winning shot in the championship # ther Inter-Dorangay hasketball tournament. In order to get back at her, Zoe waited for her 2MENSIRE OF Her wed mouse with the intent of breaking her leg so that she won't be able to play maak sSeasOn. On that Gay, Nicole worked overtime and happened to get home at 9 PM. Zoe was Sarged with serioes physical Injeries. Nicole claimed that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime ‘Smenuitti he appreciated. Is Nicole correct? A< Mw. Phe Dopravating cin umstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated when the place of the crime is Mumminaes Sy Uoht. Moreover, noctumnity must be especially sought for in order to facilitate the SQommission of the cries, such that the offender took advantage of the darkness to perpetrate the felony. Zee waited for Nicote wes, sieottime, but only because it just so happened that the latter arrived late SroHm MORK, She ic not take caey out her criminal intent purposefully seeking out nighttime. SS Peter was res from his job as manager by his boss Joseph and was given one month to clear out ‘iS nslonpings anc finis> um his paperwork. Peter took it very personally, as he had been working at {Oe Same company for ower Swe Gacades. On his last day, he put arsenic in the green smoothie Joseph ‘Saute to work every Gay and Kept in the office refrigerator. However, it was their officemate Daryt wh wnties up comsuming She poisoned smoothie. He thereafter died. Given the one-month span of ‘Sime Peter hea Sm carrying cut his clan, is evident premeditation present in this scenario?UP LAW BOC Q21: Distinguish pardon from amnesty. AAAS A Any crime | Potitical offenses Exercised after a person is convicted | May be exercised before trial or investigation Looks forward and relieves offender from the | Looks backward and abolishes the offense consequences of the offense; Does not itself (as if not committed); Does not extinguish civil liability extinguish civil tlabitity A: [Note: need not expressiy restore the right to hold cublic office or the right of suffrage (Risus-Vidal v. COMELEC)] | Being a private act of the President, mustbe | Being a proclamation by the Chief Executive ) pleaded and proven by the person to be | with the concurrence of Congress, need not be percared proven since itis a public act of which courts = should take judicial notice Q22: Faye and her group called the Katiwetes were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, after they had attempted to overthrow the national government and killed several government officials in the process. They forwarced the defense that they could only be charged with _simpie rebellion, their acts of murder having been absorbed as a means of committing the said (offense, and should therefore be enthtad to bail. Are they correct? The cime of rebellon ‘cannot be complexed with the crime of murder or any other crime in People v. Hernandez and affirmed by Enrile v. Salazar. Doing so pie pe ented tbat.‘i Was sentenced to a penalty of 1 year of imprisonment. May na the pendency of his appeal? May he file an appeal during ation? Discuss and differentiate these remedies and their the pendency 0! effects. A Ristin's apptication for probation dwiing the pendency of his appeal shall be considered as a withdrawal of Ns appeal, pursuant to Section 4 of PO 968 (Probation Law), Justin cannot file an appeal Gueing the pendency of his apptication for probation, as the same provision provides that the filing of an pplication for probation constitutes a waiver of the right to appeat G26: Grasya wes apprebended by SPOS Excudtero after she was caught sniffing rugby on the streets on Kondo. Grasya claimed to be 1 years ote, arguing that she was thus exempt from criminal lability. It tamed out that Grasya was a feunelting with no birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or any other Bestiuent document that woulst prove Net minority, Can Grasya stil claim the exempting circumstance ‘Of minority? Whe has the burden of proving her age? EEXes she can SAR claim the exempting cieumstance in her favor. Uneler Section 7 of RA 9344, the child x conftict wath the law enjoys the presumption of minority, The burden of disproving minority therefore les with the one contesting the ctalm, who must then file a case in a summary proceeding for the etermination of age pricr to the fKing of the information, White minority is primary preven by a birth Certificate, Daptismai certificate or ‘Sey other pertinent document, in the absence of such, age may be Based on information from the chite Nimselt or herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the chitd and other relevant evidence. _- Q27: What is a status offense?UP LAW BOC RMINAL LAW PRE-WEEK Q30: Neil and Mark were convicted by final judgment of robbery. While serving sentence for such offense, Neil was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm and Mark was caught stealing. Both were found guilty of the charges. Who between the two can be subjected to the aggravating circumstance of habituality? Explain. A: Mark, because the accused is on trial for an offense; he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty; and he was convicted of the new offense. It cannot be applied to Neil because if the second offense or crime is punishabie under a special law, it is no longer considered under reiteracion because Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the RFC are not applicable to special law crimes. CRIMINAL LAW 2 Q31: Albert was arrested in a buy-bust operation. The police informant initially brokered the sale of shabu. The poseur-buyer PO1 Paz handed the marked money to Albert in exchange for one heat-seaied plastic sachet of suspected shabu. The back-up arresting office SPO1 Reyes then arrested Albert. Upon 3 {risking Albert, PO1 Paz recovered three more heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu. PO! Paz placed the sachet he purchased from Albert in his right pocket and the three other sachets in his left pocket. Albert and the four sachets seized from him were then brought to the City Police Station, PO! Paz taped the sachets. He then marked the sachet from his right pocket with his initials, "WB." He marked the sachets from his left pocket as "WB-1," "WB-2,"" "WB-3." When the contents of the sachet were + tested, they yielded positive results for shabu. Given the facts, what defense strategy can be taken? A: Section 2i of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 19640 provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered druys and/or ___ drug paraphernalia. It requires the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs to,_-_-hinwarranted Denetits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. violation of the LGC, The third element is also present since the negotiated contract was overpriced by Q34 Chiistina, a pop star, was at the NAIA arrival lounge when a ified purse as containing digs. When she» drug-sniffing dog id Ss searched, 15 gr she de charged with importation of drugs? Explain ine were found in her purse As No. In order to establish the crime of importation of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that the dangerous drugs are brought to the Philippines from a foreign country, In this case, it was not stated Whether the arrival tounge is in the domestic or international terminal of NAIA and whether or not Christina is an airplane passenger, who just arrived form a foreign country. The crime committed is possession of dangerous drugs. QS: Coco, the procurement oificer for the Municipality of San Manuel, entered into a negotiated Contract of sale for schoot desks and chairs with Bucco without the authority of the Sangguniang Bayen in the amount of 1 million pesos, With the assistance of Coco, Bucce successfully received Payment from the Municipatity of San Manuel despite non-delivery of the school desks and chairs. Further, twas later found that the purchase was overpriced by 500,000 pesos. 's Bucco guilty of a crime? As Yes, Bucco is guilty of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, The elements of the crime are the following: 1) ‘The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2) He must ave acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3) That his ‘action caused undue lnjury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party ‘On the first element, Coco was a public officer at the time the contract was entered into. Although Bucco vis a private individual, settied is the rule that private persons when acting in conspiracy with public ‘officers, may be indicted and be held liable for offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019. As to the second element, Coce entered into a negotiated contract without the authority of the Sangguniang Bayan in undue injury to the government. to catch a bus on her way home with eight other people on ‘over by a passenger utility jeep driven by Hilton. ‘ sen peels emceewment has 1 A: Aracetis RA buy bust operation is a vatid form of entrapment Rute N3, Sec, S{a) of the ROC, as the ktea to anctioned under commit a Gime comes not from the police officers but from the accased himself, The accused fs caught in the act and nus apprehended on the spot. From the Marcetne): © Duy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does nol make the arrest illegal (People v. Marceting) Q38: POT Mare and POT Rey, were in front of a sarlssarl store conducting anti-drug surveillance spank ant then Nell approached them and asked, “Gusto mong umiskorng shabu?” POT Marc replied, cies apron Ko be?” Nelt then brought cut two plastic bage containing shabe ond terrace police police officers introduced themselves as cops and arrested Megat possession of dangerous drugs. What crime did Neil officers, 200 ang isa, Upon hearing this, the Neil. RTC heta Neit guilty for the crime of comma? A: Net is g intended to funds were utilized for ‘ely payment for medicine. Aga did not to cover the costs of medicine advanced were to the unpaid accounts but the ‘The elements common to alt acts of malversation under Article 217, public officer (b) he had custody oF control of funds or; property by reason of hese funds or property were public funds or property for which he vas < oF consented or through abandonment or fourth etement is missing in the case at bar. D assist his coC CRMINAL LAW PR otive of the attack is the performance of official duty. Justo v. Court of Appeals Q42: The prosecution alleged that four police officers in a checkpoint spotted a swerving vehicle, Griven by Sydeco. Sydeco was signaled to stop by police officers at a checkpoint. The police officers asked that he open the vehicle's door and alight for a body and vehicle search. He refused and instead opened his wincow and uttered “plain view lang”. The policemen and accused him of being drunk, Bointing to 3 cases of empty beer bottles in the trunk of the vehicle. Separate Informations were filed against Sydeco for violation of Section 56(f) of RA 4136 (Land Transportaticn and Traffic Code) for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor, and violation Of Article 151 of the RPC for resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such Person. Is Syxdeco guilty as charged. A: No. Syceco is not guilty. The police officers did not demand the presentation of the driver's license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under the particular premises by Sec. 29 of RA 4136. {in fine, at the time of his apprehension, or when he was signaled to stop, to be precise, petitioner has not committed any crime or suspected of having committed one. “Swerving,” as ordinarily understood, refers to a movement wherein a vehicle shifts from a lane to another or to turn aside from a direct course of action or movement. The act may become punishable when there is 2 sign indicating that swerving is, Prohibited or where swerving partakes the nature of reckless driving, a concept defined under RA 4136. ‘To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence _the operation of a motor vehicle, and a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. ESydeco v. People, GR. No. 202692, November 12, 2014, Velasco, J.] accused were caught in a buy-bust operation. During trial, the police officer identified ‘the four (4) PnP 500-bill marked money used, and the the rugs confiscated from ants. Buan explained during his testimony that the boodle money placed in- arked money the buy- bust tezm used was unavailable as it had been> LAW BOC SONAL LAW PRE-WEEK Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. However, th knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under hi: character of the drug. In this case, although the three sachets contai Possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had knowledge of its ex easy access to the shabu, because they conspired to engage i Botoon, G.R. No, 184599 | November 24, 2010,, Velasco, J.] ining shabu the illegal busin Q45: After the illegal drags were seized from Barba, PO2 Rabina marked the plastic sachets with his initials, POT Almacen marked the tooter in the same manner. The seized aluminum foil was marked AA, presumably after PO2 Arulfo Aquillon (AA) but there is no testimony on this. Can Barba he neld guilty of selling prohibited drugs beyond reasonable doubt? A: No. Barba is ;i0t guilty of selling prohibited drugs beyond reasonable doubt. Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken chain of evidence may in some instances be excuised, there should be 2 justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with ‘their testimonies. Here, however, no explanation was proffered as to wny key individuals who had custody ‘over the drugs at certain periods were not identified and/or not presented as witnesses. Uncertainty. ‘therefore, arises if the drugs and paraphernalia seized during the buy-bust operation on January 2003 \were the same specimens presented in court in December of that same ye: The very identity of the illegal drug is in question because of the absence of key prosecution witnesses. No ‘one knows if the drug seized at the time of the buy-bust operation is the same drug tested and later Kept ‘as evidence against Barba. Though there was a stipulation during trial that the specimens submitted as evidence yielded positive for shabu, this only tcuches on one link in the chain of custody. Thus, given the ‘aiture of the prosecution to identify the continuous whereabouts of such fungibie pieces of evidence, we al Je that alt elements of thé crime have been established beyond reasonable doubt. ae aadUP LAW B0¢ latter is criminal. A for from a plunder case, thus prosecution for plunder, furtherance of the acquisitic determine, by preponderanc! to his legitimate income, it bei Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348, O. Q47: What are the elements of the crime of illegal sate A: For the prosecution of illegal sate of drugs ti identity of the buyer and seller, the ob and its payment. What is material is the proo! that the transac ihe presentaton before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the campus Setict Arricte Repubtic Act No. 9165] Q48: What are the elements of illegal possession of 2 araiilbites drug? A: For conviction of illegal possession of 3 prohibitert cmup 20 lie, the following ements most be ‘established: (1) the accused was in possession of am item or an cbiect ideetitied tp be = prohibited or au (2) such possession is not authorined Sy lax: and () the accused was eely anc ‘consciousty aware of being in possession of the drug. Necaitiy, exclusive pessessiam af the prohibited drug ACES a mtn ae Bek 2)UP LAW BO% Q5O: What is the chain of custody rule? A: The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to suppor’ a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time itis offe in evidence. Q51: Accused-appellant Monongan was a minor or 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, Should minority be considered a mitigating circumstance in determining the penalty for viletion of the RA 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2092. A: Yes. Pursuant to Sec. 98 of RA 9165, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided ir: the same law shalt be reclusion perpetua to death when the offender is a minor; and (b) that the penalty showtd be graduated since the said provision adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penat Code. ‘The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can now be appreciated in: fixing the penalty that ‘should be imposed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penatty of reclusion perpetua without considering the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetvia, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged ~ mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Q52. Detine a drug syndicate, ‘syndicate is any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or joining together with of committing any offense prescribed under RA 9165. In determining) whether or not the /person hetonging to an urganized/syndicated crime group, ar a group or as a drug syndicate.QS4: Is the tai the buy-bust te 254 the buy-bust team nediately mark the seized drugs casts doubt as to the Identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated? A: No. The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(), Art. Il of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an accuseds arrest iilegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmor importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. [People v Resurreceion G.R. No. 186380, OCTOBER 12, 2009, Velasco,-Ir,, J] QSS; Ruzol was the mayor of General Nakar, Quezon from 2001 to 2004. He issued two hundred twenty-one (221) permits to transport salvaged forest products . On the basis of the issued Permits to Transport, 221 Informations for viotation of Art. 177 of the RPC or for Usurpation of Authority or Oftici Functions were fited against Ruzol for taking advantage of nis official. po: offense in relation to his office by willfully, unlawfully and criminally, issuing permit to transport ‘Several forest products under the pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do ‘so because such authority properly betongs to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Ruzol contends that as Chief Executive of the municipatity of Generat Nakar, Quezon, he is authorized to issue permits to transport forest products pursuant to RA No. 7160 or the Locat Government Code.The Sandiganbayan convicted Ruzol for the offense of Usurpation of Official Functions as defined and penatized under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. Is the Sandiganbayan correct? ANo itis not correct. The DENR is not the sole government agency vested with the authority to issue ‘Permits relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest products, considering that, pursuant to the _ general welfare clause, LGUs may atso exercise such authority. Also, as can be gleaned from the records, ‘the permits to transport were meant to complement and not to replace the Wood Recovery Permit issued ‘In effect, Ruzol required the issuance of the subject permits under his authority a5 ‘of the official functions granted to the DENR. The records are ‘that Ruzol made representations or false pretenses that said permits could ‘excuse not to obtain, the Wood Recovery Permit from the ENR.© the accountable officer. The al he Chairperson of the COA to Provincial Treasurer of Sulu to remit premium/loans, repayments/state insurance, Medicare and Pag-ibig.”" -eing informed of the conduct of the audit, an assertion which was not refuted by be concluded then that Pescadera was not given an opportunity to explain why the remitted. Without a formal demand, the prima facie presumption of conversion 2 applied. demand i lement of the crime of malversation, it is a requisite for the application of the sumption. Without this resumption, the accused may stil! be proved guilty under Art. 217 based on Grext evidence of malversation. In this case, the prosecution failed to do so. There is no proof that Pescaders misappropriated the amount for his personal use. The Slements of Art. 217 are: (I) the offender is a public officer, (2) he or she has custody or control of the fends or property by reason of the duties of his office, (3) the funds or property are public funds or roperty for which the offender is accountable, and, most importantly, (4) the offender has appropriated, ‘taken, misappropriated or consented, or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person stoke them. The last and most important element of maiversation was not proved in this case, There is ‘pe proof that Pescagere used the GSIS contributions for his personat benefit. The prosecution merely ‘atied on the presumption of malversation which we have already disproved due to lack of notice. Henci he oresecution shouid have proven actual misappropriation by the accused. Pescadera, however, =mphasized thet the CSIS premiums were applied in the meantime to the salary differentials and loan ‘obligations ef Sulu, that is, the GSIS premiums were appropriated to another public use. Thus, there was ‘pe misappropriation of the public funds for his own benefit. And since the charge lacks one element, we ‘si aside the conviction of Pescadera. '2 Special Collecting Officer of the National,Food Authority, was convicted of the crime jon of public funds. Wa-acon asserts that the unremitted amounts for the rice stocks and om the empty sacks were not used for his personal use and therefore, the | that the accused appropriated, took, or misappropriated public funds e proven. Is Wa-acon correct? csUP LAW Box Can private individuals commit a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019? A: Yes. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019. [Uyboco v. People, G.R. No. 2703, December 10, 2014, Velasco, Jr, J.] Q59: Does the failure of a public officer to include several properti SALN amount to grave misconduct? ‘A: No, The omission to includ several properties in the SALN by itself does not amount to grave ‘misconduct. To constitute misconduct, the complained act/s or omission must have a direct relation and. bbe linked to the performance of official duties. Owning properties disproportionate to one’s salary and not declaring them in the corresponding SALNs cannot, without more, be classified as grave mi failure tc file a truthful SALN puts in doubts the integrity of the officer and would normally amount to dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements; otherwise, the government employee may only be liable for negligence, not for dishonesty. In addition, only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the income of the public officer/employee and income from other sources, and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions, does he or she become susceptible to dishonesty. {Aguilar v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 197307, February 26, 2014, Velasco, Jr, J.) Q60: When is treachery, as a qualifying circumstance for murder, present? A: Two elements must be present for treachery to exist: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a pac ‘to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular ‘methods, Rion Gi attack etnpiovesdt by him. (eadpla v: Lagmany G.R./ Noy 197807 April 16, its commission without risk le v, Dela Cruz, G.R. No.UP LAW BOC Q63: How should the sweetheart theory be raised as a defense in a crime of rape? A: Sweetheart theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence of some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like. Even supposing that the sweetheart theory is true, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will for love is not a license for lust. [People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 187075, July 5, 2010, Velasco, Jt, J-} Q64: Is the defense of erectile dysfunction sufficient to exculpate an accused in a crime of rape? A: No. As a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical question that should be satisfactorily established with the ald of an expert and competent testimony.Impotency as a defense in rape cases ‘must likewise ve proved with certainty to cvercome the presumption in favor of potency. While Cruz was indeed diagnosed as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this does net preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA. Erectile dysfunction or ED can be a total inability to achieve erection, an inconsistent ability to do so, of a tendency to sustain only brief erections. These variations make defining ED and estimating its incidence difficult. The testimony of the doctor who examined Cruz in 200! did not specify what kind of ED Cruz was suffering from. Cruz's impotency cannot, therefore, be considered as completely eliminating the Possibility of sexual intercourse. Q65: Canrape be committed even without any penile penetration of the vagina? ‘on rape now includes sexual assault. With its expanded definition, rape can now be u ieseault by inssition ae saa Ate 6 boli vertiet craps oie mosite Ba i he is en nt that aeQ68: Tulfo, in his articles, labeled Atty. So as an e rupt public official who had acquired ill-gotten wealth through his w ns. Tulfo argued that th articles were qualified privileged communication as they were fair comment matters of public interest and thus, a valid defense for libel. Is Tulfo correct AA: No. Tutto offered no proof for his accusations. He claimed to have a source in the Sureau of Customs ‘and relied only on this source for his columns, but did no further research on his story. The records of the cease are bereft of any showing that Atty. So was indeed the wilain Tulfo him to be. Tulfo atticles related no specific details or acts committed to prove Atty. So was indeed a corrupt public official These columns were unsubstantiated attacks on At mmnot be countenanced as being brivileged simply because the target was a public o! Atthough wider latitude is given to defamatory utterances against public officials in connection with oF relevant to their performance of official duties, or against public officials in zelation to matters of public Interest involving them, such defamatory utterances do not automatically fall within the ambit of ‘constitutionally protected speech.Jourvalists still bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing {thelr profession, even when writing about public figures or matters of public interest ‘O69: In his SALN, Jason, who is a first cousin of Mayor Tan, answered NO to the question if he has --retatives in the government service within the fourth degree of consanguinity. 's Jason guilty of falsification of public documents? "A. Yes, since he made an untruthful statement therein asin fact he was related to the municipal M3¥or —— within the fourth: of y.In Dela Cruz v. Mudtong, it was held that one is guilty of Sa degree of consanguinity. v. aeUP LAW BOC Ra Q73: How does RA No. 3019 define “family relations” and “close personal relation”? A amily relation” refers to the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity n the third civil degree. “Close personal relation” includes close personal relationship, social and fraternal connections, and Professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to a public officer. 74: Miss Tong Pats, a public officer, allegedly refused to attend to the appointment papers of Mr. Em Pleyado unless she was given bribe money. He reported the matter to the police and an operation was launched to catch Tong Pats in flagrante. Tong Pats and Em Pleyado met and sat at a cafeteria table, and he gave her marked money under the table. When she took hold of tiie money, law enforcement Agents immediately swooped in and arrested her. Can Miss Tong Pats be held liable for the crime of indirect bribery? A: No. The essential element of indirect bribery is the acceptance by the public officer of the material gift ‘or consideration. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other circumstance or act to show such acceptance is not sufficient. To hold otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public. officers by simply putting within their physical custody some gift, money, or other property. [Formitteza v. Sundiganbayan, (1988) Q75: Juan ingles is the station commander of the Daangmahaba police station. By reason of his function as station commander, he was issued firearms and ammunition for which he duly signed Memorandum Receipts. When he was transferred to the Daangmalalim police station, his successor, Fausto Lakas, found out that Ingles did not turn over the firearms that were issued to him. Lakas sent government property placed in his ‘To be tiable for matversation, ar accountable officer need not be a is the nature of the duties that he performs and that as part of, and ick or money, which he is bound 2 pare peel aoeuP LAW B0c MINAL Q78:1n the case above, is Nieto guilty of homicide or murd A: He is guilty of murder because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. This is shown by the fact that Nieto approached and struck Trudeau from behind, a course of action that directly and specially “insure[s] its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which” Trudeau might have taken. There is no incompatibility between the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, because even if there was no alevosia for purposes of killing, there was still alevosia for purposes of causing physical injury. (People v. Cagoco, 1933) Q79: Pioto and Kristina are husband and wife. One day, Piolo walked in on Kristina having sex with his kumpare, John Lloyd. John Lloyd pulled out his revolver. Piolo ran and went to the house of his friend Weng Weng, shout thirty minutes avay, to borrow the latter's firearm. He then returned home but found the house empty. He went to the sari-sari store in the ccrner, knowing that John Lloyd frequents ‘that place. He found John Lloyd there and fired at him thrice, killing him. The prosecution arg} Art. 247, or death under exceptional circumstances, cannot be invoked because the act did not immediately follow Piclo's discovery. Is the prosecution correct? A: No. Piolo can still invoke Art. 247. The elements are: (1) a legally married person catches his spouse having sex with another person and (2) he kills either or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. ‘Both elements are present, notwithstanding that it took some time between the discovery and the act, because the act must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Piolo. Art. 247 _ Coes not require that the killing be immediately after the discovery, only that the killing be the proximate of the outrage that overwhelmed the accused. (People v. Abarca, (1987) fight. Diego and severat other witnesses were able to pinpoint Boots, a ised the injury to Diego. Can Diego file a complaint against BootsUP LAW BOC Q83: Jack asked Rose to marry him, but the latter refused. He threatened to kill himselt if Rose would continue to reject him. (0) What offense can Jack be charged with, if any? ‘A: Jack can be charged with an act of violence against Rose. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling a woman's actions or decisions is considered an act of Violence under Sec. 5 of R.A. 9262. (2) Who can fite a criminal complaint against Jack? A; Any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime may file @ complaint. Violence against women znd their children is considered a public offense. [R.A. 9262, Sec. 25] Q84: Khatniss, a 17-year-old resident of Tondo, was arrested while caught in the act of sniffing rugby. ‘She had previously participated in a treatment program for her addiction. Can she now be prosecuted for the offense?UPLAWBOC - four men previously attempted to commit simitar robberies indiscriminately. The crime committed in this case's robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. (People v. Pulusan, May 21, 1996 87: Mely was the treasurer in Lucky Nine Credit Corp., a money lending institution. Felicisimo was an investor in the corporation and was issued 23 checks representing his investment plus interest ve per Usual practice in money placement transactions. When the checks were presented for payment, they were dishonored for the reason “account closed.” Felicisimo made several oral demande on LNCC but they were frustrated. Thus he sued Mely for violation of BP 22. Mely posits that before the signatory te @ bouncing corporate check can be held liable, all the elements of the crime of violation of BP 22 must first be proven against the corpora.ion since it was LMC owned the current accounts upon which the checks were drawn. The corporation must first be declared to have committed the violation before the ability attaches to the signatories of the checks. Is the contention of Mely correct? A: No, she is not correct. The third Paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 reads: “Where the check is drawn by a Corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such Grawer shall be liable under this Act.” This provision recognizes the reality that a corperation can only act through its officers. Hence, its wording is unequivocal and mandatory - that the person who actually ‘signed the corporate check shall be held liable for a violation of BP 22. This provision does not contain any condition, qualification or limitation. (Mitra v. People) A; The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft every ccused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical ion of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the furicical hi of the same constitutes estafa. (Santos v. People, Jan. 29, 1990) cunt for partnership funds give set esata? SeeUP LAW CRMINAL LAW (292: May the same person be held liable for abandonment of one's own victim? A: NO. Art. 275 (2) RPC provides that the assistance to another whom he has accider Accidental injury, not an intentional on one who is lable is “anyone who shall fail to help or render ;ntally wounded or injured. This is inapplicable since it speaks of Q93: Carto was hired by a terrorist group to create chaos in Metro M: n imalls and train stations, causing over a hundred casualties. Afraid that he'll get caught, he Confessed his crime to his adopted brother, Manuel who agreud to hide him in exchange for twenty Percent of what he received from the terrorist group. fanila. He thereafter set up bombs Should Manuet be penalized for concaating Carlos? A; Yes. Aithough, under the Human Security Act, no penalty shall be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, the exemption does not apply to those who Profited from the crime. Q94: Maria was the corperate socretary of ABC Food Corp., a vegetable distributor. Her husband Pedro was President and majority shareholder of the corporation. Maria appropriated money paid to the ABC Food Corp. by its customers, as a result of which ABC Food Corp. filed a case of estafa against Maria. Maria interposed a defense that the complaint must fail because she is exempted from criminal liability, being Pedro's spouse. in article 332, the offender and complainant must be "spouses, ascendants Haunives by afin in the same line." The complainant in this case, the party . and not Maria's husband.PLAW EC his clement. Hence, adopted children are not included, if the killing is not parricide or infantic ‘Witt the qualifying circumstance of superior strenath, the crime committed is murder Q97; Angelo, a 7-year-old orphan, was legally adopted by Joselito and Maria in Manila. The spouses subsequently brought Angelo to their home in Brgy. Mambulok in Joto, Sulu. When Angelo turned 8, he was sent by his adoptive parents to a training school where he was taught how to use guns and ‘Make explosives in preparation for deployment to engage in combat with the military enemies. On his Oth birthday, Angeto was sent out on a mission to kill. Angelo took the life of 3 soldiers. What are his adoptive parents’ criminal liability, if any? Exptain & Jose and Maria are guilty of violating Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208 as amended by RAIOIEA) which punishes persons who “recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed Nes in the Phitippines or abroad” Q98: Cristy was in the house of Darla for a dinner party when the latter got a call from Kris who was ‘Very upset with James at the time. Cristy got curious why Darla was whispering quite intensely, so she ‘surreptitiously when in the guest room and listened in using an extension tine. Cristy found out in the ‘conversation that Bimby was actually the sor of Benigno, not of Kris. The following day, Cristy wrote ah expose in her column detailing the fitiation of Bimby and Benigno. \s Cristy liable under Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA 4200)? S Th Se ‘not en to that The phrase “device or arrangement” in Sec. 1 of RA 4200, although exclusive s ‘should be construed to comprehend ae peste See ature, that which iid be tantamount to tapping the mi telephone. sedans rise in favor of the accused. In case of doubt, theUP LAW BOC WEEK Q100: C, a 4-year old child, disappeared while playing with other children in their neighborhood in a subdivision in Quezon City. The other children told E, C’s mother, that a woman (later identified to be D) took C (who resisted) and boarded a jeepney. Several days later, E got an information that a child was sold to a doctor in Rizal. According to the doctor, D told her that the child (C) was her daughter and she had to give her away because she was already widowed and cannot take care of her four children. Del Socorro asked for Php 1500 as a donation to enabte her to open a small sari What crime was committed? A: The crime committed is child trafficking under RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) defined as engaging in trade and deating with children including, but ot limited to, the act of buying and selling of a chitd for money, or for any other consideration, or barter. derived from the case of People v. Dei Socorro, Kab. 15, 1930. Hlowever, since the Case was decided before RA 7610, which was approved in 1992, the accused was charged and held liable for kidnapping) G101: J brought her sick 7-month oid baby, A, to the hospital owned by doctors V and C. As J however, did not have enough money to pay the hospital bill and confided that no one would take care of the thild at home because she was working. After soine time, J stopped visiting her daughter and nothing ‘was heard of her. Efforts to get in touch with J were unsuccessful as she left no address or number where she can be reached. Later. V and C decided to entrust A te 2 guardian who wo=ld take care of _ her. After 5 years, J returns to claim her child back. V and C then helped J determine A’s whereabouts | discovered that the guardian was already abroad with A but the guardian refused to give A back d to do so. For V and C's failure to bring A back to J, J now files a criminal case forUPLAW BO. -RMINAL LAW PRE-WEEK 103: X, ¥ and Z, armed with pistols and hand grenades, entered the store owned by B and announced 2 robbery. They demanded money and threatened to kill 8 and the latter's two minor children, C and D (who were with B in the store during that time). B then put all the cash kept in the cash register in bag and handed the same to X. The robbers also divested B of his phone. The robbers, dissatisfied, demanded an additional Php 100,000 but B said he did not have that amount. They then held B, C and. D, and E (an employee in the store) hostage inside the store and closed its doors and windows. After almost four hours, police officers and soldiers surrounded the store and demanded that X, Y and Z ing the hostages inside. Accompanying the authorities was the Mayor who offered Php SOK. The robbers sent E to get the money. E was later taken back inside the store after the money was taken. Despite several j-leas and ultimatums, the robbers refused to surrender prompting the police and soldiers to take action and shots were fired by both sides. In the resulting altercation, D Sustained injuries in her leg so bad that it had to be amputated. ‘What was the crime cominitted by X, Y, and Z? A: In this case, the crime committed was robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegat detention (Article 295 (3) with Article 267, RPC). In this case, there was taking of personal belonging to ‘another, consisting of the money from the cash register and B's phone, as well as the Php SOK offer of the Mayor after E was made to get the money and hand it over to the accused. “The complexing is under Articie 48 since the detention of the victims was not mere incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the ater. This s so because the detention was made to ‘extort more /{com the authorities, and not just because the accused were trapped by the police nor were ‘held as security against the iatter. The: detention was not meraly a matter of restraint to ae Ce ts of serious illegal detention are also present. The victims wer cee ihe were miners (C and 0). The-contiouing detention was as0 for ithe det ; and the authorities who came to their rescue, (People