You are on page 1of 11

1. Mala in se vs. Mala Prohibita associates to come to Manila to bring the money out of the Philippines.

Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a complaint against

Padilla vs Dizon
Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.
Facts: Respondent Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision, the tourist and
Issue: Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross
accused, Lo Chi Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate
incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding that the accused, Lo
the law. He also directed the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of
Chi Fai, for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must
US$3,000.00 under Central Bank Circular No. 960.
establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law.
Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila International Airport
Ruling: Yes. Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and
while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange
foreign currency instruments found in the possession of Lo Chi Fai when he
instruments out of the country.
was apprehended at the airport and the amounts of such foreign exchange
An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec. did not correspond to the foreign currency declarations presented by Lo Chi
6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 with a penal sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD Fai at the trial, and that these currency declarations were declarations
NO. 1883. belonging to other people.

Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 provides that no person shall take out In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to justify the
or transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form release of US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon again diplayed gross
out of the Philippines without an authorization by the Central Bank. Tourists incompetence and gross ignorance of law. There is nothing in the Central
and non-resident visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign Bank Circular which could be taken as authority for the trial court to release
exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange the said amount of US Currency to Lo Chi Fai.
brought in by them. Tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing
with them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign
currencies shall declare their foreign exchange in the form prescribed by the
Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the Philippines.
Estrada vs SANDIGANBAYAN GR148560 Nov. 19, 2001
Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1883 provides that any person who shall engage in the trading
FACTS: Estrada challenged the validity of RA 7659 (an act defining and
or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing laws or rules
penalizing the crime of plunder) as being invalid for abolishing the element of
and regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the crime of
mens rea in crimes already punishable under the RPC, all of which are
blackmarketing of foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
purportedly clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to due
temporal (minimum of 12 years and 1 day and maximum of 20 years) and a
process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
fine of no less than P50,000.00.
him. Specifically he challenged Sec.4 on the rule of evidence which states that
At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from “for purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary
Hongkong, that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of
business in the country with his business associates, and that he and his the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth,
business associates declared all the money they brought in and all it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or
declarations were handed to and kept by him. Because of the revolution criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy”
taking place in Manila during that time, Lo Chi Fai was urged by his business
ISSUE: is the contention of Estrada correct? providing that the government shall assume the liabilities of PIATCO in the
event that the latter defaults specifically Article IV, Section 4.04 in relation to
RULING: NO. Plunder is mala in se which requires proof of criminal intent.
Article I, Section 1.06 of the ARCA which term is more beneficial to PIATCO
Sec. 4 only means to say that where the charge is conspiracy to commit
and in violation of the BOT law, and manifestly and grossly
plunder, the prosecution need not prove each and every criminal act done to
disadvantageous to the government of the Republic of the Philippines.
further the scheme or conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal cats indicative of the overall ISSUE: Can the crime of violating Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 be committed by
unlawful scheme or conspiracy. As far as constituting the pattern concerned, private individuals?
however, the elements of the crime must be proved and the requisite mens
RULING: No. The first element of the crime is that the accused must be a
rea must be shown. public officer who enters into a contract on behalf of the government. The
The legislative declaration in RA 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense philosophy behind this is that the public officer is duty bound to see to it that
implies that it is a malum in se. for when the acts punished are immoral or the interest of the government is duly protected. Thus, should the contract
or transaction entered into by such public officer is manifestly or grossly
inherently wrong, they are mala in se and does not matter that such acts are
disadvantageous to the governments interests, the public officer is held liable
punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate
for violation of Section 3(g), whether or not this public officer profited or will
crimes are mainly mala in se. profit thereby.
In Luciano v. Estrella, Justice Reyes held that the act treated in Section 3(g)
Go vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, Sept 3, 2007 (MR) partakes of the nature of malum prohibitum; it is the commission of that act
as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that
FACTS: Petitioner, Henry Go, a private individual, stands charged with determines whether or not the provision has been violated. An act which is
violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, the clear terms of which declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely
punishes public officers who, on behalf of the government, enter into immaterial. Section 3(g), however, applies restrictively only to public officers
contracts or transactions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the entering into a contract on behalf of the government manifestly or grossly
government, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. disadvantageous to the government. The criminal liability of the public
officers for violation of Section 3(g) is separate and distinct from the liability
Background: On or about November 26, 1998, or sometime prior or of private persons under Section 4(b) of Republic Act No. 3019. In other
subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of words, notwithstanding the allegation of conspiracy to violate Section 3(g),
this Honorable Court, the accused VICENTE C. RIVERA, JR., Secretary of the the liability of private individuals who participated in the transaction must be
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), committing the established under the appropriate provision which is Section 4(b), for
offense in relation to his office and taking advantage of the same, in knowingly inducing or causing the public officers to commit Section
conspiracy with accused HENRY T. GO, Chairman and President of the 3(g) where criminal intent must necessarily be proved. This is in clear
Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO), did then and there recognition that Section 3(g), a malum prohibitum,specifically applies to
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter into an Amended and Restated public officers only. It is well-settled that penal statutes are strictly construed
Concession Agreement (ARCA), after the project for the construction of the against the State and liberally for the accused, so much so that the scope of
Ninoy Aquino International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) was awarded a penal statute cannot be extended by good intention or by implication. The
Information lumping petitioner with a public official for conspiracy to violate
to Paircargo Consortium/PIATCO, which ARCA substantially amended the
Section 3(g), is totally infirm. The acts for which private persons can be
draft Concession Agreement covering the construction of the NAIA IPT III
charged together with the public officials are enumerated in the last
under Republic Act 6957 as amended by Republic Act 7718 (BOT Law) paragraph of Section 3 and Section 4, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Republic Act
No. 3019. If warranted, petitioner Go should be charged for violation
of Section 4(b) in relation to Section 3(g).
Crime charged: child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610

RTC: found and declared the petitioner guilty of child abuse as charged
CA: affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty
G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged and that
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of even assuming that he was guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he
child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the had merely acted to protect her two minor daughters (ONLY SLIGHT PHYSICAL
laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the INJURIES; PENALTY IS MITIGATED)
accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is
punished under the Revised Penal Code. HELD: Although the Court affirms the factual findings of fact by the RTC and
the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand
and slapped Jayson on the face, it disagrees with their holding that his acts
FACTS: On May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older constituted child abuse within the purview of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act
brother, both minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro No. 7610.
Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in front of Bongalon’s
house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at
Jayson and called him “sissy”; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of
Roldan and called them names like “strangers” and “animals”; that Bongalon hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and
struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face; dignity” of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to
that Bongalon then went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on
Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative
take on Bongalon; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety
Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also underwent medical of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of
treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital; that the Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his selfcontrol, he lacked that specific
doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
Jayson suffered contusions. as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.
Bongalon denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He
explained that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after his minor
daughters had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo,
and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at every doubt is resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the
and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to Court should consider all possible circumstances in his favor. Considering that
restrain his sons from harming his daughters. Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention, the
petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the The COMELEC First Division disqualified petitioner from running for
Revised Penal Code. the position of member of House of Representatives and ordered the
cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy. Upon MR, COMELEC en banc
denied the motion saying that since petitioner lost in the last 14 May 2007
The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from congressional elections, it thereby rendered the instant MR moot and
one day to 30 days of imprisonment. In imposing the correct penalty, academic.
however, the Court has to consider the mitigating circumstance of passion or
Issue: Whether petitioner’s violation of Section 3(h), R.A. No. 3019 involves
obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the Revised Penal Code, because the
moral turpitude?
petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise
of his will power. It is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, Ruling:
the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and intent.
Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen,
Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period in the absence of any
or to society in general.
aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion.
Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to The essential elements of the violation of said provision are as
the penalty imposed not exceeding one year, the petitioner shall suffer a follows: 1) The accused is a public officer; 2) he has a direct or indirect
straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor. financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction; 3) 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.

Edgar Teves v. Comelec & Herminio Teves Thus, there are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct
or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or
Facts: transaction may violate Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019. The first mode is when the
Petitioner was a candidate for the position of Representative of the 3rd public officer intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection
legislative district of Negros Oriental during the May 14, 2007 with his financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or
elections. Respondent Herminio G. Teves filed a petition to disqualify transaction. The second mode is when he is prohibited from having such an
petitioner on the ground that in Teves v. Sandiganbayan he was convicted of interest by the Constitution or by law.
violating Section 3(h), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and In Teves v. Sandiganbayan, petitioner was convicted under the
Corrupt Practices Act, for possessing pecuniary or financial interest in a second mode for having pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit which is
cockpit, which is prohibited under Section 89(2) of the Local Government prohibited under Sec. 89(2) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Code (LGC) of 1991.
The evidence for the prosecution has established that petitioner
Respondent alleged that petitioner is disqualified from running for public Edgar Teves, then mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental, owned the cockpit in
office because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude which question. Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves over the cockpit
carries the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. were transferred to his wife, still he would have a direct interest thereon
because, as correctly held by respondent Sandiganbayan, they remained 2. Relation of RPC to SPL
married to each other from 1983 up to 1992, and as such their property
Sanchez vs People
relation can be presumed to be that of conjugal partnership of gains in the
absence of evidence to the contrary. Hence, his interest in the Valencia Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse in
Cockpit is direct and is, therefore, prohibited under Section 89(2) of the LGC an Information[6] dated August 29, 2001 which reads:
of 1991.
The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, hereby accuses
However, conviction under the second mode does not Leonilo Sanchez alias Nilo of Lajog, Clarin, Bohol of the crime of Other Acts of
automatically mean that the same involved moral turpitude. A Child Abuse, committed as follows:
determination of all surrounding circumstances of the violation of the statute
must be considered. Besides, moral turpitude does not include such acts as That on or about the 2nd day of September, 2000 in the municipality of Clarin,
are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
positively prohibited, as in the instant case. Court, acting as a Family Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
abuse, exploit and/or to inflict other conditions prejudicial to the child's
The Court clarified that not every criminal act, however, involves development, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abuse
moral turpitude. It is for this reason that "as to what crime involves moral physically one [VVV],[7] a sixteen (16) year old minor, by hitting her thrice in
turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine." In resolving the foregoing the upper part of her legs, and which acts are prejudicial to the child-victim's
question, the Court is guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala in development which acts are not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as
se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not. amended, but the same are covered by Art. 59, par. 8 of P.D. No. 603 as
amended; to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the amount
Moral turpitude implies something immoral in itself, regardless of
to be proved during the trial.
the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not be merely mala
prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act The appellant argues that the injuries inflicted by him were minor in nature
itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral that it is not prejudicial to the child-victim’s development and therefore P.D.
turpitude. Consequently, considering all circumstances, the Court held that No. 603 is not applicable and he should be charged under the Revised Penal
petitioner’s conviction does not involve moral turpitude. Code for slight physical injuries.
The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not Issue: Whether or not P.D. 603 as amended is applicable to the case at hand.
illegal per se. While it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the
people, there is nothing in the Constitution categorically proscribing or Ruling: In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 and
penalizing gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning it at all. It is left to Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides:
Congress to deal with the activity as it sees fit. SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. —

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's
development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No.
603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 10(a) in relation to
enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four Sections 3(a) and 3(b) No. 1 of Rep. Act No. 7610 and Sec. 59(8) of PD 603,
distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and amended.
(d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.
The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately
defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three People vs. Saley
acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the child’s
development. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, an accused can be FACTS: Antonine Salye aka Annie Saley was found by the trial court guilty
prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act beyond reasonable doubt of eleven counts of estafa punishable under the
No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need RPC and six counts of illegal recruitment, one commited in large scale,
not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have proscribed by the Labor Code.
resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the ISSUE: Does a conviction under the Labor code for illegal recruitment bar
development of the child is different from the former acts. punishment for the offender for Estafa under the RPC?
Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word “or” is a RULING: NO. Conviction for these various offenses under the Labor Code
disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from does not bar the punishment of the offender for estafa. Illegal recruitment is
other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be construed in the sense which a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent of the accused is not
it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of “or” in Section 10(a) of Republic Act necessary for conviction while estafa is malum in se which requires criminal
No. 7610 before the phrase “be responsible for other conditions prejudicial intent to warrant conviction.
to the child’s development” supposes that there are four punishable acts
therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child
exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the
child’s development. The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted, as People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (Long case)
petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three other acts, because
an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision does not warrant SUMMARY: Appeal of a drug pusher convicted under RA 6425 before the
such construal. amendment, appealed after the amendment. Amendment modifies old
penalties that does not make sense in Court and thus Court had to construct
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be considered as and set out correct penalties based from the amendments.
child abuse but merely as slight physical injuries defined and punishable
under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant conveniently forgets FACTS: Accused Martin Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4,
that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He
extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As defined in sold tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer.
the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the same is The confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a total of 3.8 grams, when subjected to
habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within this definition. We, laboratory examination, were found positive for marijuana.
therefore, cannot accept appellant's contention.
Simon denied the accusation against him, claiming that on the day of
question, he was picked up by the police at their house while watching TV.
He was told that he was a pusher so he attempted to alight from the jeep but
he was handcuffed instead. When they finally reached the camp, he was harmonize such conflicting provisions in order to give effect to the whole law,
ordered to sign some papers and, when he refused, he was boxed in the the court hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where the quantity of
stomach eight or nine times by Sgt. Pejoro. He was then compelled to affix the drugs involved is less than the quantities stated in the first paragraph shall
his signature and fingerprints on the documents presented to him. He denied range from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
knowledge of the marked money or the 4 teabags of dried marijuana leaves, perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule in criminal law
and insisted that the marked money came from the pocket of Pejoro. that all doubts should be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.
Moreover, the reason why he vomited blood was because of the blows he
suffered at the hands of Pejoro. The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act
No. 7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal
Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of Romana Pangan Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and
District Hospital, declared that she treated appellant for three days due to effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence,
abdominal pain, but her examination revealed that the cause for this ailment the court have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law
was appellant’s peptic ulcer. She did not see any sign of slight or serious to arrive at prision correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same
external injury, abrasion or contusion on his body. in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is
now in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to
Simon was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to determine the minimum, the court applied first part of the aforesaid Section
pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and to pay the costs. 1 which directs that “in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished
by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the
Simon then seek the reversal of the judgement accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
ISSUE: Was the conviction of Simon correct? imposed under the rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
RULING: To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be offense.”
clearly and unmistakably established. To sell means to give, whether for Mitigating and aggravating circumstances under RPC not applicable to Special
money or any other material consideration. It must, therefore, be established Laws. However, SC states that this is because of Special Laws who impose
beyond doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea bags of own penalties and do not depend on RPC for them. In this amendment and
marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in case, penalty depends on RPC thus mitigating/aggravating circumstances
exchange for two twenty-peso bills. applies only as to:

After careful review, the Court held that there were 2 tea bags of marijuana While not squarely in issue in this case, but because this aspect is
that was sold and there were 2 other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, involved in the discussion on the role of modifying circumstances, we
Simon should be charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of marijuana only. have perforce to lay down the caveat that mitigating circumstances
should be considered and applied only if they affect the periods and
However, there is an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty the degrees of the penalties within rational limits(if penalty derived
of reclusion perpetua by reason of its dual imposition, that is, as the from RPC)...cannot be below prison correcional.
maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also
as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is 750 grams or As per amendment, penalty is dependent on quantity of drugs sold which is
more. The same error has been committed with respect to the other now only 2 teabags (3.8g). SC interpreted amendment further as:
prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said Section 20 (RA 6425). To
if the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be
imposed shall be prision correccional; from 250 to 499 grams, prision Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the
mayor; and 500 to 749 grams, reclusion temporal. Proceeds or Instrument of the Crime. — The penalties for offenses
under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15
Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to Special Laws where penalty is derived and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs
from RPC as per sec 1 of said law. Thus, minimum should be the one lower involved is in any of the following quantities:
than minimum, which in this case would be arresto mayor (6 mo).
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a
minimum sentence within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower 5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana
to prision correccional which is the maximum range have fixed through the
application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty xxx xxx xxx
to the law, the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto
mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional. Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
Notes: DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW (RA 6425) amended by RA 7659


Sec. 13. Ladonga vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 141066, Feb. 17, 2005

Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425, as

amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby
amended to read as follows: FACTS:

Evangelina and Adronico Ladonga and spouse, conspiring and knowing fully
xxx xxx xxx
well that they did not have sufficient funds deposited with the United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), drew and issue UCPB Check No. 284743
Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion postdated July 7, 1990 in the amount of P9,075.55), payable to Alfredo
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand Oculam, and thereafter, without informing the latter that they did not have
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, sufficient funds deposited with the bank to cover up the amount of the check,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pass on, indorse, give
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited and deliver the said check to Alfredo by way of rediscounting of the
drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. aforementioned checks; however, upon presentation of the check to the
drawee bank for encashment, the same was dishonored for the reason that
xxx xxx xxx the account of the accused had already been closed, to the damage and
prejudice of Alfredo.
Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond B.) B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application
reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Adronico applied for probation of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P.
which was granted. On the other hand, petitioner brought the case to the Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are
Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Indeed, in the recent
for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable case of Yu vs. People the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on
to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law; moreover, she is not a signatory of the subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22.
checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof.
The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy in this case is
ISSUE: analogous to the application of the provision on principals under Article 17
in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a
a.) Whether conspiracy is applicable in violations of Batas Pambansa
criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and
Bilang 22, by invoking art. 10 of RPC?
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes
b.) Whether or not the cases cited by the CA in affirming in toto the
secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. BUT In the present case,
conviction of petitioner as conspirator applying the suppletory
character of the RPC to special laws like BP 22 is applicable? the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Conspiracy must be established, not
by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.

Evangeline Ladonga is ACQUITTED of the charges against her under B.P. Blg.
A.) YES. Some provisions of the Revised Penal Code, especially with the 22 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable
addition of the second sentence in Article 10, are applicable to special laws. It doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.
submits that B.P. Blg. 22 does not provide any prohibition regarding the
applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code to it.
People v. Luisito Bustinera

Article 10 of the RPC reads as follows: ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the Facts:
provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver. It was agreed
punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., after which
Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should he would return it to ESC Transport's garage and remit the boundary fee in
specially provide the contrary. the amount of P780.00 per day. On December 25,1996, appellant admittedly
reported for work and drove the taxi, but he did not return it on the same day
he was supposed to. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. On January
The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides that offenses which 9, 1997, Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport and revealed that the taxi had
in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject to the been abandoned. ESC was able to recover. The trial court found him guilty
provisions of the RPC, while the second makes the RPC supplementary to such beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
Issue: Which law should be applied, the RPC or “The Anti-Carnapping Law”?
belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon
things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. Car napping is essentially
The Anti-Carnapping Law should be applied. the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in
theft, robbery and car napping being the same. From the foregoing, since
Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the appellant is being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the
Revised Penal Code, as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. anti-car napping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would
However, Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by apply
Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as "AN ACT
PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING." When statutes are in pari The designation in the information of the offense committed by
materia or when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the same appellant as one for qualified theft notwithstanding, appellant may still be
class of persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular subject convicted of the crime of carnapping. For while it is necessary that the
matter, or have the same purpose or object, the rule dictates that they statutory designation be stated in the information, a mistake in the caption
should be construed together interpretare et concordare leges legibus, est of an indictment in designating the correct name of the offense is not a fatal
optimus interpretandi modus. Every statute must be so construed and defect as it is not the designation that is controlling but the facts alleged in
harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of the information which determines the real nature of the crime.

The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of

Go-Tan vs Tan
the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2)
that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent Facts: On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan
to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) (Steven) were married.[3] Out of this union, two female children were born,
that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or Kyra Danielle[4] and Kristen Denise.[5] On January 12, 2005, barely six years
intimidation of persons or force upon things. into the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Protective Order (TPO)[6] against Steven and her parents-in-law,
Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present:
Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She
(1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed
alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal,
with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor
psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5,
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of
paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i)[7] of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,[8]
coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
fish taken from a fish pond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the
of 2004.
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO & JUANITA,
On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No.6539, as amended
defines "car napping" as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." The
elements of car napping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which Ruling: The Court rules in favor of the petitioner.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''[v]iolence against women and their
children'' as any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a
woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical,
sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats
of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation
of liberty. While the said provision provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of
conspiracy under the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal
Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a
particular matter.

the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied

suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47
that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions of
the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No.
9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is
shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent
or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the
conspirators are principals.