Post Nego

Post-Negotiable Instruments Law Topics (Fundamentals of
Criminal law, BP 22, Estafa,

AMLA and PDIC)
Prepared by: Atty. Edison James F. Pagalilauan
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal law is that branch of law, which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
Theories in criminal law
1. Classical theory – The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. It is
endeavoured to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty, and there is scant regard to
the human element.
NOTE: The RPC is generally governed by this theory.
2. Positivist theory – The basis of criminal liability is the sum of the social, natural and economic phenomena to which
the actor is exposed. The purposes of penalty are prevention and correction. This theory is exemplified in the provisions
regarding impossible crimes (RPC, Art. 4), the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty (RPC,
Art. 13, par 7,) and habitual delinquency [RPC, Art. 62(5]).
3. Eclectic or Mixed theory – It is a combination of positivist and classical thinking wherein crimes that are economic
and social in nature should be dealt in a positive manner, thus, the law is more compassionate. Ideally, the classical
theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made to work on economic and social crimes.
4. Utilitarian or Protective theory– The primary purpose of punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should
direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers since criminal law is directed against acts or omissions which
the society does not approve. Consistent with this theory is the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense
regardless of malice or criminal intent.
Legal basis for inflicting punishment

The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power of the State. It is the injury inflicted to the
public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and not the injury to the individual.
Sources of criminal or penal laws
1. The Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Act No. 3815) and its amendments;
2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Assembly, the Batasang Pambansa, and Congress of the Philippines;
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law by President Marcos; and
4. Penal Executive Orders issued during President Corazon Aquino’s term.
Basic maxims in criminal law
1. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same) – No matter
how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime.
https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Page 1 of 46
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal) – This is true to
a felony characterized by dolo, but not to a felony resulting from culpa.
3. Doctrine of Pro Reo – Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations,
one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender
will be adopted.
4. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my will is not my act) – Whenever a
person is under a compulsion of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to do an act against his will, in which that act
produces a crime or offense, such person is exempted in any criminal liability arising from said act.
Doctrine of Pro Reo in relation to Article 48 (Penalty for complex crimes) of the RPC
Following the Doctrine of Pro Reo, crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC are complexed and punished with a single penalty
(that prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the
accused who commits two crimes with a single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes
are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004).
Classifications of crime
1. As to the manner or mode of execution (RPC, Art. 3)

a. Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate intent
b. Culpa or those committed by means of fault
2. As to the stage of execution (RPC, Art. 6)

a. Consummated
b. Frustrated
c. Attempted
3. As to gravity (RPC, Art. 9)

a. Light felonies
b. Less grave felonies
c. Grave felonies
4. As to nature
a. Mala in se
b. Mala prohibita
5. As to count
a. Compound
b. Composite or special complex
c. Complex, under Art. 48 of the RPC
d. Continued
e. Continuing
6. As to division
a. Formal felonies – those which are always consummated (e.g. physical injuries).
b. Material felonies – those which have various stages of execution.
c. Those which do not admit of the frustrated stage (e.g. rape and theft).
Special law
It is a penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the RPC. They are statutes enacted by the
Legislative branch, penal in character, which are not amendments to the RPC.
BASIS MALA IN SE MALA

PROHIBITA

Page 2 of 46
As to their There must be Sufficient that
concepts a criminal the prohibited
intent. act was done.
Wrong from its Wrong merely
very nature. because
prohibited by
statute.
Wrong from its Wrong merely
very nature. because
prohibited by
statute.
Criminal intent Criminal intent
governs. is not
necessary.
Generally Generally
punished involves
under the violation of
RPC. special laws.
NOTE: Not all
violations of
special laws
are mala
prohibita. Even
if the crime is
punished
under a special
law, if the act
punished is
one which is
inherently
wrong, the
same is malum
in se, and,
therefore, good
faith and the
lack of criminal
intent are valid
defenses
unless they are
the products of
criminal
negligence or
culpa.
Mitigating and Such
aggravating circumstances
circumstances are not
are appreciated
appreciated in unless the
imposing the special law has
penalties. adopted the
scheme or
scale of
penalties
under the
RPC.
As to legal (a) Good faith (a) Good faith
implication (b) lack of or
criminal intent; (b) lack of
or criminal intent
(c) negligence are not valid
are valid defenses;
defenses. it is enough
that the
prohibition was
voluntarily

Page 3 of 46
violated.
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

When the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation but only for the application of the law.
However, if there is ambiguity:
1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
2. In the interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling.
Three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine criminal law
1. Generality
GR: The criminal law of the country governs all persons who live or sojourn within the country regardless of their race,
belief, sex, or creed.
XPNs:
a. Treaty stipulations and international agreements, e.g. RP-US Visiting Forces Accord.
b. Laws of Preferential Application, e.g. RA 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the
Republic and its inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines.
c. The principles of public international law.
d. Members of the Congress are not liable for libel or slander in connection with any speech delivered on the floor of the
house during a regular or special session (1987 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 11).
Examples:
i. Sovereigns and other Chiefs of States.
ii. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’ affaires.
Only the heads of the diplomatic missions, as well as members of the diplomatic staff, excluding the members of
administrative, technical and service staff, are accorded diplomatic rank. Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial
representatives of foreign nation are not diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country where
they are assigned (Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003).
2. Territoriality
GR: The penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory.
XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC
1. Should commit and offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned
in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations.
3. Prospectivity/Irretrospectivity
GR: Acts or omissions classified as crimes will be scrutinized in accordance with the relevant penal laws if these are
committed after the effectivity of those penal laws.
XPN: Whenever a new statute dealing with a crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused.
The retroactive effect shall benefit the accused even if at the time of the publication of the law, a final judgment has
been pronounced and the convict is already serving his sentence.
XPNs to the XPN: The new law cannot be given retroactive effect even if favorable to the accused:
a. When the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions (Tavera v. Valdez,
G.R. No. 922, November 8, 1902).
b. When the offender is a habitual criminal (RPC, Art. 22).
Kinds of acts which are punishable

Page 4 of 46
1. External– Mere criminal thoughts are not felonious.
2. Voluntary– Both dolo and culpa have to be voluntary.
Crime may be committed without criminal intent

A crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is:
1. A negligent felony, wherein intent is substituted by negligence or imprudence
2. A malum prohibitum.
Motive
It is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired result.
Motive as determinant of criminal liability

GR: Motive is not an element of a crime and becomes immaterial in the determination of criminal liability.
XPNs: Motive is material when:
1. The acts bring about variant crimes;
2. The identity of the accused is doubtful;
3. The evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial;
4. There is a need to determine whether direct assault is present, as in offenses against person in authority when the
assault is committed while not being in the performance of his duties;
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing; and
6. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons.
NOTE: Good faith is not a defense to the prosecution of a malum prohibitum.
Causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended
1. Mistake in identity (error in personae)– The offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another.
In this situation the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime
Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead.
NOTE: There are only two persons involved: the actual but unintended victim, and the offender.
2. Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus)– A person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that
blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim and the actual victim are both at the scene of the
crime. (A, shot at B, but because of lack of precision, hit C instead).
NOTE: There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim, and the actual victim.
3. Injurious consequences are greater than that intended (praeter intentionem)– The injury is on the intended
victim but the resulting consequence is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It is essential that there is a notable
disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted.
This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender. (A, without intent to kill, struck the
victim on the back, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head on the pavement.)
NOTE: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Art. 13.
The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional felony or dolo. These situations do not arise out
of criminal negligence
Q: A and B went on a drinking spree. While they were drinking, they had some argument so A stabbed B
several times. A’s defense is that he had no intention of killing his friend and that he did not intend to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed. Is praeter intentionem properly invoked?
A: NO, praeter intentionemis improperly invoked because it is only mitigating if there is a notable disparity between the
means employed and the resulting felony. The fact that several wounds were inflicted on B is hardly compatible with the
idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Mistake of fact
Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not,
however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. It is necessary that had the facts been true as the
accused believed them to be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender must believe that he is performing a lawful act.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious
act.
NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felonies.

Page 5 of 46
Requisites of mistake of fact
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful; and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
---
Q: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room
and placed a chair against the door. After going to bed, he was awakened by someone who was trying to open
the door. He called out, “Who is there?” twice but received no answer. He then said, “If you enter the room, I
will kill you.” At that moment, he was struck by the chair. Believing he was being attacked, he took a kitchen
knife and stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Is he criminally liable?
A: NO. There was mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in
killing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1; self-defense (U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910).
Proximate cause
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred(People v. Villacorta, G.R.
No. 186412, September 7, 2011).
As a rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the
felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony.
Requisites of proximate cause

1. The direct, natural, and logical cause;
2. Produces the injury or damage;
3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; and
4. Without which the result would not have occurred
Q: Cruz and Villacorta were regular customers at Mendeja’s store. At around two o’clock in the morning of
January 23, 2002, while Cruz was ordering bread at Mendeja’s store, Villacorta suddenly appeared and, without
uttering a word, stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruz’s body using a sharpened bamboo stick. When Villacorta
fled, Mendeja chased Villacorta but failed to catch him. When Mendeja returned to her store, she saw Aron
removing the broken bamboo stick from Cruz’s body. Mendeja and Aron then brought Cruz to Tondo Medical
Center and was treated as an outpatient. Cruz was later brought to the San Lazaro Hospital on February 14,
2002, where he died the following day of tetanus infection secondary to stab wound. What is the proximate
cause for the death of Cruz?
A: The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. There had been an interval of
22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when Cruz was rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting
symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus infection from the stabbing, then the symptoms
would have appeared a lot sooner than 22 days later. Cruz’s stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its
subsequent infection with tetanus might have been the proximate cause of Cruz’s death. The infection of Cruz’s stab
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his death
(People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011).
STAGES OF EXECUTION
ART. 6, RPC
Stages in committing a crime

1. Internal Acts– mere ideas in the mind of a person, not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would
constitute a crime
2. External Acts – include (a) preparatory acts and (b) acts of execution
a. Preparatory acts–those that do not have a direct connection with the crime which the offender intends to commit.
These are ordinarily not punishable except when expressly provided for or when they are considered in themselves as
independent crimes. (e.g. Possession of picklocks under Art. 304, which is a preparatory act to the commission of
robbery under Arts. 299 and 302).
b. Acts of execution– those punishable under the Revised Penal Code
Classifications of felonies according to the stage of execution

1. Consummated

Page 6 of 46
2. Frustrated
3. Attempted
Purpose of the classification of felonies

To bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.
NOTE: The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages may not apply to all kinds of
felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division.
Phases of felony
1. Subjective phase – that portion of execution of the crime starting from the point where the offender begins up to that
point where he still has control over his acts. If the subjective phase has not yet passed, the felony would be a mere
attempt. If it already passed, but the felony is not produced, as a rule, it is frustrated.
NOTE: If it reaches the point where he has no more control over his acts, the subjective phase has passed.
2. Objective phase – results of the acts of execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
If the subjective and objective phases are present, then is the felony is consummated.
Consummated felony
A felony is consummated when all the acts necessary for its accomplishment and execution are present.
Frustrated felony
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result,
but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
---
Q: X stabbed Y in the abdomen, penetrating the liver and chest of Y. Y was rushed to the hospital and was given
immediate medical treatment. Is X liable for consummated homicide?
A: NO, because the prompt medical treatment received by the offended party saved his life (People v. Honrada, G.R.
No. 112178-79, April 21, 1995).
---
---
Q: A, a doctor, conceived the idea of killing his wife B, and to carry out his plan, he mixed arsenic with the soup
of B. Soon after taking the poisonous food, A suddenly had a change of heart and washed out the stomach of
B. A also gave B an antidote. Is A liable for frustrated parricide?
A: NO, the cause which prevented the consummation of the crime was not independent of the will of the perpetrator. It
cannot be considered attempted parricide, because A already performed all acts of execution. A can only be liable for
physical injuries.
Crimes which do not admit of a frustrated stage
1. Rape – the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, the slightest penetration to the female organ
consummates the felony.
2. Corruption of public officers – mere offer consummates the crime.
3. Physical injury – consummated at the instance the injuries are inflicted.
4. Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual congress.
5. Theft– the essence of the crime is the taking of property belonging to another. Once the thing has been taken, or in
the possession of another, the crime is consummated.
Attempted felony
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony, by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
NOTE: The word directly, emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the
overt act performed by the offender not the felony he has in his mind.
Overt acts
Overt acts are some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere
planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated
by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.

Page 7 of 46
Indeterminate offense
It is where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature and relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
---
Q: A person enters the dwelling of another. However, at the very moment of his entry and before he could do
anything, he is already apprehended by the household members, can he be charged with attempted robbery?
A: NO. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although he may have planned to do so. Instead, he
may be held liable for trespassing.
Q: One night Jugeta with his cohorts had gone to the residence of the victim where they violated his domicile
by first pulling off the sack that covers their nipa hut where they slept. The victim pleaded to accused-Jugeta to
stop but the latter instead fired a shot wherein the victim used his body to cover his family. Jugeta still fired
volleys of shots which landed fatally on the body of the daughters of the victim. The two daughters expired
upon arrival in the hospital. Is Jugeta liable for double murder and multiple attempted murder?
A: YES. Notwithstanding the other crimes JUGUETA committed, he is also liable for multiple attempted murder since
the design of the crime was to neutralize the entire family instead of the two daughters specifically. They have
commenced all the acts of execution but was not able to push through due to reasons unknown to them (People v.
Jugeta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016).
---
Criteria involved in determining the stage (whether it be in attempted, frustrated or consummated stage) of the
commission of a felony
1. The manner of committing the crime;
2. The elements of the crime; and
3. The nature of the crime itself.
The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies on whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony.
Literally, under the article, if the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a
consequence but the felony was not realized, then the crime is already in the frustrated stage.
If the offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution
due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, then it is an attempted felony.
NOTE: The SC held that in case of killing, whether parricide, homicide or murder, the killing will be in the frustrated
stage if the injury sustained is fatal, sufficient to bring about death but death did not supervene because the immediate
medical intervention. If the wound inflicted was not fatal, the crime is only in its attempted stage because the offender
still has to perform another act in order to consummate the crime (People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, February 4,
2010).
Circumstances affecting criminal liability (JEMA)

1. Justifying circumstances;
2. Exempting circumstances;
3. Mitigating circumstances;
4. Aggravating circumstances
Justifying circumstances
They are those acts of a person said to be in accordance with law, such that a person is deemed not to have committed
a crime and is therefore free from both criminal and civil liability. They are:
1. Self-defense;
2. Defense of relatives;
3. Defense of stranger;
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury;
5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office; and
6. Obedience to an order of a superior.
SELF-DEFENSE
ART. 11(1), RPC
Rights included in self-defense
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the
enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes:
1. Defense of the person’s home;
2. Defense of rights protected by law; and
3. The right to honor;

Page 8 of 46
NOTE: Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his
dignity. It is a serious, personal attack (Rugas v. People, G.R. No. 147789, January 14, 2004).
4. The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with an
attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present (People
v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983); and
NOTE: However, if A snatches the watch of B inside a running passenger jeep, and then B punches A to protect the
possession of his watch, and A fell from the running jeep, his head hitting a hard pavement causing his death, B is not
liable criminally for the defense of his property rights, there was no attack against the B’s person.
5. Self-defense in libel – Physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at the person’s good name, and while
the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.
NOTE: What is important is not the duality of the attack but whether the means employed is reasonable to prevent the
attack.
Reason for justifying self-defense

It is impossible for the State to protect all its citizens. Also, a person cannot just give up his rights without resistance
being offered.
Effects of self-defense
1. When all the elements are present – the person defending himself is free from criminal liability and civil liability.
2. When only a majority of the elements are present – privileged mitigating circumstance, provided there is unlawful
aggression.
Nature of self-defense
The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is self-defense he thereby admits
being the author of the death of the victim, thus it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to
the satisfaction of the court (People v. Del Castillo et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012).
Requisites of self-defense
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
No transfer of burden of proof when pleading self-defense

The burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the
end of the proceedings. It is the burden of evidence that is shifted to the accused to satisfactorily establish the fact of
self-defense. In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation
that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof (People v. Del Castillo et al., G.R. No.
169084, January 18, 2012).
But in case of an agreement to fight, self-defense is not feasible as in case of a fight, the parties are considered
aggressors as aggression is bound to arise in the course of the fight.
Nature of the unlawful aggression

For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an “actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent
danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude” and the accused must present proof of positively strong
act of real aggression (People v. Sabella y Bragais, G.R. No. 183092, May 30, 2011; People v. Campos and Acabo,
G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 2011).
NOTE: There is no unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight and the challenge to fight has been
accepted. But aggression which is ahead of a stipulated time and place is unlawful.
Elements of unlawful aggression

There are three elements of unlawful aggression:
1. There must be a physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful (People v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011).

Page 9 of 46
Lawful aggression
Lawful aggression means the fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner.
Example of lawful aggression
The act of a chief police who used violence by throwing stones at the accused when the latter was running away from
him to elude arrest for a crime committed in his presence, is not unlawful aggression, it appearing that the purpose of
the peace officer was to capture the accused and place him under arrest (People v. Gayrama, G.R. Nos. L-39270 and
L-39271, October 30, 1934).
NOTE: If a public officer exceeded his authority he may become an unlawful aggressor.
Two kinds of unlawful aggression

1. Actual or material unlawful aggression which means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive
act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury; and
2. Imminent unlawful aggression which is an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist
in a mere threatening attitude (People v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011).
Kind of threat that will amount to unlawful aggression

In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes
actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger––not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when
the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14,
2011 reiterating People v. Gabrino and People v. Manulit).
Test for unlawful aggression in self-defense

The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put
in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself (People v. Mapait, ibid.).
Effect if there was a mistake of fact on the part of the accused

In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful
aggression.
Example: There is self- defense even if the aggressor used a toy gun provided that the accused believed it to be a real
gun.
Person who employed the unlawful aggression
In order to constitute an element of self-defense, the unlawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly, from the
person who was subsequently attacked by the accused (People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 31010, September 26, 1929).
---
Q: A claims that the death of B was an accident and his act was just for self-defense when his revolver
accidentally hit the victim while he was struggling the same with his real enemy, C. Is his contention correct?
A: NO. In this case, A was not repelling any unlawful aggression from B, thereby rendering his plea of self-defense
unwarranted. His act amounted to aberratio ictus (Matic v. People, G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011).
---
Requisites to satisfy the “reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it”
1. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor;
2. Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of both the offender and defender; and
3. Place and occasion of the assault.
NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not
required or material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. This is because the person assaulted
does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose the weapon used. What the law requires
is rational equivalence.
Factors taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of means employed by the person
defending himself
1. Means were used to prevent or repel;
2. Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it; and
3. Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to the force of the
aggressor.
Instances when there can be lack of sufficient provocation on the person defending himself
1. No provocation at all was given to aggressor by the person defending himself;
2. Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient;

Page 10 of 46
3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself;
4. Even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not the proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression; and
5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission.
Lack of the sufficient provocation

Sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending himself, and it must immediately precede the
aggression.
Control of blows of person defending himself

The person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his blow. The killing of the unlawful
aggressor may still be justified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time when the elements of complete self-
defense are still present.
---
Q: A, unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then took out his gun which caused A to run away. B, after treating
his wounds, pursued A and shot him. Can B invoke self-defense?
A: NO. The unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists. When the aggressor runs away, the one making a
defense has no more right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor. In order to justify homicide on the ground of
self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by
the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.
---
NOTE: The aggression ceases except when retreat is made to take a more advantageous position to insure the
success of the attack which has begun, as unlawful aggression still continues.
Q: One night, Lina, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of
her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Lina let him have sex
with her. After the act, the man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it
dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious, Lina took out Tito's gun and shot the man.
Charged with homicide, Lina denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? (BAR
1998, 2000)
A: NO, Lina's claim that she acted in defense of honor is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had
already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful
aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Self-defense vis-à-vis RETALIATION

Retaliation SELF-
DEFENSE
In self-defense, the In retaliation, the
unlawful aggression still inceptual unlawful
existed when the aggression had already
aggressor was injured ceased when the
or disabled by the accused attacked him.
person making the
defense.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
ART. 12, RPC
The following are exempted from criminal liability
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval;
2. A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under RA 9344;
3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
child shall be subject to appropriate proceedings in accordance with RA 9344;
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without the fault or
intention of causing it;
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force;
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury; and
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Mitigating Circumstances
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty.
One single act cannot be made the basis of more than one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a mitigating circumstance
arising from a single act absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances arising from the same act.

Page 11 of 46
UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD
ART. 13(2), RPC
Coverage
Offenders who are:
1. Over 15 but under 18 years old who acted with discernment; and
2. Over 70 years old
NOTE: It is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be determined.
15 and under Exempting

circumstance.
Over 15 under 18 Exempting
circumstance, if he
acted without
discernment.
Mitigating
circumstance, if he
acted with
discernment.
18 to 70 Full criminal
responsibility.
Over 70 Mitigating
circumstance; no
imposition of death
penalty; execution of
death sentence if
already imposed is
suspended and
commuted.
NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)

ART. 13(3), RPC
Basis
The basis is diminution of intent.
It is necessary that there be a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed by the offender
compared to that of the resulting felony. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, the
circumstance of praeter intentionem cannot be availed.
Not applicable to felonies by negligence

It is not applicable to felonies by negligence because the offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is
replaced by negligence or imprudence.
Factors in order to ascertain the intention

1. The weapon used;
2. The part of the body injured;
3. The injury inflicted; and
4. The manner it is inflicted.
This provision addresses the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the offender executes or commits
the criminal act and not during the planning stage.
Not applicable when the offender employed brute force

If the rapist choked the victim, the choking contradicts the claim that he had no intention to kill the girl.

Page 12 of 46
Effect if the victim does not die in crimes against persons
The absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. It is only
mitigating when the victim dies.
Mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated

The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be
appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce
the death of the victim (People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
NOTE: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be raised as a mitigating circumstance under the Anti-
Hazing Law.
SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION

ART. 13(4), RPC
Basis
The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.
Threat need not be offensive and positively strong

Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat to inflict real injury becomes an
unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and thus, no longer a mitigating circumstance.
Provocation
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
anyone.
Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation

1. Provocation must be sufficient;
2. It must originate from the offended party; and
3. It must be immediate to the act.
Sufficiency depends on:

1. The act constituting the provocation
2. The social standing of the person provoked
3. Time and place the provocation took place
“Sufficient threat or provocation as a mitigating circumstance” vis- à-vis “Threat or provocation as an element
of self- defense”
As an element of self-defense it pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending himself while as a mitigating
circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party (People v. CA, G.R No. 103613, Feb. 23,
2001).
Q: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. Can Petra avail of the mitigating
circumstance?
A: NO. There is no mitigating circumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not Thomas.
The liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar as it concerns the harm inflicted on the person who made the
provocation, but not with regard to the other victims who did not participate in the provocation (US v. Malabanan, G.R.
No. 3964, November 26, 1907).
Reason why the law require that “provocation must be immediate to the act,” (i.e., to the commission of the
crime by the person who is provoked)
If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited the accused to the commission
of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-control. Moreover, the law presupposes that
during that interval, whatever anger or diminished self-control may have emerged from the offender had already
vanished or diminished.
As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the
provocation or threat, he is acting under a diminished self-control. This is the reason why it is mitigating. However, there
are two criteria that must be taken into consideration:
1. If there is a material lapse of time and there is no finding that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged
and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime, then the criterion to be used is based on time element.
2. However, if there is that time element and at the same time, there is a finding that at the time the offender committed
the crime, he is still
suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him, then, he will still get the benefit of this mitigating

Page 13 of 46
circumstance.
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

ART. 13(5), RPC
Basis
The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby, diminishing the exercise of his will power.
NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person. It concerns the good names and reputation of the individual (U.S. v.
Ampar, G.R. No. 12883, November 26, 1917).
Requisites of vindication of a grave offense

1. Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree; and
2. A felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
“Offense” contemplated
The word offense should not be construed as equivalent to crime. It is enough that a wrong doing was committed.
Factors to be considered in determining whether the wrong is grave or not

1. Age;
2. Education; and
3. Social status.
Lapse of time allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense
The word “immediate” in par. 5 is not an accurate translation of the Spanish text which uses the term “proxima.” A lapse
of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense. It is enough that:
1. The offender committed the crime;
2. The grave offense was done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister, whether
natural, adopted or legitimate; and
3. The grave offense is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime.
Where four days elapsed from the knowledge of the supposed sexual assault and the attack, there was sufficient time to
regain composure and self-control. Thus, there was no “immediate vindication of a grave offense” (People v. Rebucan.
G.R. 182551, July 27, 2011).
Circumstances of VINDICATION OF
sufficient threat or GRAVE OFFENSE
provocation vis-à-vis
vindication of a grave
offense SUFFICIENT
THREAT OR
PROVOCATION
It is made directly only The grave offense may

to the person committing be committed also
the felony. against the offender’s
relatives mentioned in
the law.
The cause that brought The offended party must
about the provocation have done a grave
need not be a grave offense against the
offense. offender or his relatives
mentioned in the law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the
provocation or threat grave offense may be
immediately preceded proximate which admits
the act. There must be of interval of time
no interval of time between the grave
between the provocation offense committed by
and the commission of the offended party and
the crime. the commission of the
crime of the accused.

Page 14 of 46
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT
ART. 13(7), RPC
Basis
The basis is the lesser perversity of the offender. The offender is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he
has done which thereby saves the government the effort, time and expenses to be incurred in searching for him.
Mitigating circumstances under this paragraph

1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents; and
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
When both are present, they should have the effect of two independent mitigating circumstances.
Requisites of voluntary surrender

1. Offender had not been actually arrested;
2. Surrender was made to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and
3. Surrender was voluntary.
Surrender considered as voluntary

Surrender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit himself unconditionally to the
person in authority or his agent. Whether a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and
irrelevant. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and
the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts.
NOTE: If after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive, and then
he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim, voluntary surrender is mitigating, however, if after committing
the crime, the offender did not flee and instead he went with the responding law enforcers meekly, voluntary surrender
is not applicable.
“Spontaneous”
It emphasizes the idea of inner impulse acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention
alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender.
Requirement that the accused surrender prior to the order of arrest

The law does not require that the accused surrender prior to the order of arrest. What matters is the spontaneous
surrender of the accused upon learning that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him and that voluntary
surrender is obedience to the order of arrest issued against him (People v. Cahilig, G.R. No. 46612, October 14, 1939).
Person in authority
He is one directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some
court/government/corporation/board/commission.
Agent of a person in authority

He is a person who, by direct provision of law, or by election, or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with
the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property and any person who comes to the
aid of persons in authority.
Q: If the accused escapes from the scene of the crime in order to seek advice from a lawyer, and the latter
ordered him to surrender voluntarily to the authorities, which the accused followed by surrendering himself to
the municipal mayor, will his surrender be considered mitigating?
A: YES, because he fled to the scene of a crime not to escape but to seek legal advice.
Physical defect
A person’s physical condition, such as being deaf and dumb, blind, armless, cripple, or stutterer, whereby his means of
action, defense or communication with others are restricted or limited. The physical defect that a person may have must
have a relation to the commission of the crime.
Requisites of physical defect

Page 15 of 46
1. The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect; and
2. Such physical defect restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
Q: Suppose X is deaf and dumb and he has been slandered, he cannot talk so what he did was, he got a piece
of wood and struck the fellow on the head. X was charged with physical injuries. Is X entitled to a mitigating
circumstance by reason of his physical defect?
A: YES, the Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only way to vindicate himself is
to use his force because he cannot strike back by words.
---
NOTE: The law says that the offender is deaf and dumb, meaning not only deaf but also dumb, or that he is blind,
meaning in both eyes, but even if he is only deaf and not dumb, or dumb but not deaf, or blind only in eye, he is still
entitled to a mitigating circumstance under this article as long as his physical defects restricts his means of
communication, defense, communication with his fellowmen.
ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

ART. 13(9), RPC
Basis
The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent.
Requisites of illness of the offender

1. Illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of will power; and
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender the consciousness of his acts.
If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the offender’s will power but deprives him of the consciousness of his
acts, it becomes an exempting circumstance to be classified as insanity or imbecility.
NOTE: Polio victim in his younger days of limping while he walks cannot claim mitigating circumstance in the crime of
oral defamation.
Aggravating circumstances
Those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime:
1. Serve to have the penalty imposed in its maximum period provided by law for the offense; or
2. Change the nature of the crime.
Basis
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:
1. The motivating power itself;
2. The place of commission;
3. The means and ways employed;
4. The time; and
5. The personal circumstances of the offender or the offended party
Night time
Night time or nocturnity is a period from after sunset to sunrise, from dusk to dawn. It is necessary that the commission
of the crime was commenced and completed at night time.
Darkness of the night makes nighttime an aggravating circumstance. Hence, when the place of the crime is illuminated
or sufficiently lighted, nighttime is not aggravating. It is also necessary that the commission of the crime was begun and
completed at night time. Hence, where the series of acts necessary for its commission was begun at daytime and was
completed that night (People v. Luchico, G.R No. 26170, December 6, 1926), or was begun at night and consummated
the following day (U.S. v. Dowdell, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 4191, July 18, 1908), the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
was not applied.
NOTE: Even if the offender sought nighttime, the moment the scene of the crime has been illuminated by any light,
nighttime will not be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Recidivist
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio
The law considers this aggravating circumstance because when a person has been committing felonies embraced in
the same title, the implication is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any
specialization.

Page 16 of 46
Requisites
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the RPC; and
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense.
REITERACION RECIDIVISM
It is necessary that the It is enough that a final
offender shall have judgment has been
served out his rendered in the first
sentence for his first offense.
offense.
Previous and Offenses should be
subsequent offenses included in the same
must not be embraced title of the RPC.
in the same title of the
RPC.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
ART. 14 (13), RPC
Basis
The basis has reference to the ways of committing the crime.
Essence
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
upon reflection to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Requisites
1. Determination – the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. Preparation – an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. Time – a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Reason for requiring sufficient time

The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the
consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his conscience and better judgment to overcome
his evil desire.
Bouncing check
A check is considered a bouncing check when upon its presentment for payment, it is dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds or when the account of the drawer is already closed.
Presentment for payment

Presentment for payment means using the check as substitute for money. It is actually converting the check into legal
tender or money. The payee either deposits it or encashes it over the counter. Presentment can only be made on the
due date of the check.
Persons liable under B.P. 22

1. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue
that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would
have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment; or
2. Having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to
keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of 90 days
from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank (Sec.1).
Elements for violation of B.P. 22 (par. 1)

Page 17 of 46
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check;
2. The check is drawn or issued to apply on account or for a valuable consideration;
3. The person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and
4. At the time, the check was presented for payment at due date, the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been dishonoured for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
NOTE: Knowledge of insufficiency of funds is a state of mind, hence, the hardest element to prove.
Elements for violation of B.P. 22 (par. 2)

1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check;
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a
period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon; and
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Q: A and B agreed to meet at the latter’s house to discuss B’s financial problems. On his way, one of A’s car
tires blew up. Before A left the meeting, he asked B to lend him money to buy a new spare tire. B had
temporarily exhausted his bank deposits leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however a replenishment of his
account soon, B, issued a postdated check with which A negotiated for the new tire. When presented, the
check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal case against A and B. what would be the
criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain.
A: A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for his car, may only be prosecuted for estafa if he
was aware at the time of such negotiation that the check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not
criminally liable.
B, who accommodated A with his check, may nevertheless be prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having issued the check,
knowing at the time of issuance that he has no funds in the bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e. for
value. B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in
issuing the check negotiated. Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to help A. Criminal intent or dolo is absent.
---
Effect when the check was presented for payment on the 96th day after its due date
If the payee presented the check and it bounced, even if the payee sends a written notice of dishonor to the drawer, the
payee would not be entitled to a presumption that the drawer had knowledge that he has no funds when the check was
issued. The said presumption can only be utilized during the 90-day period.
Stolen check cannot give rise to a violation of B.P. 22

A stolen check cannot give rise to a violation of B.P. 22 because the check is not drawn for a valuable consideration.
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

Necessity of actual knowledge of insufficiency of funds in B.P. 22
Knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit in the drawee bank for the payment of a check upon its presentment is an
essential element of the offense. There is a prima facie presumption of the existence of this element from the fact of
drawing, issuing or making a check, the payment of which was subsequently refused for insufficiency of funds. It is
important to stress, however, that this is not a conclusive presumption that forecloses or precludes the presentation of
evidence to the contrary (Lim Lao v. CA, G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997).
Notice of dishonor is an indispensable requisite for prosecution

Sec. 3 of B.P. 22 requires that the holder of the check of the drawee bank, must notify the drawer of the check that the
same was dishonored, if the same is presented within 90 days from the date of the issuance, and upon notice, the
drawer has five days within which to make arrangements for the payment of the check or pay the same in full.
NOTE: There can be no prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds if no notice of dishonor was actually
sent to or received by the petitioner. The notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party of the drawee bank (Lim
Lao v. CA).
Sufficiency of verbal notice of dishonor

Verbal notice of dishonour is NOT sufficient. The notice of dishonor must be in writing; a verbal notice is not enough. A
mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law (Damasang v. CA).
Receipt the notice from the drawee bank by the payee

Upon receipt of the notice of dishonor, the payee as the offended party, or the drawee bank will send a notice in writing

Page 18 of 46
to the drawer informing the latter of such dishonor and giving the drawer five (5) banking days to make good the check
from receipt of the notice of dishonor, the notice of dishonor may be sent by the payee/offended party or the drawee
bank.
Presumption of knowledge of the drawer of insufficiency of funds

If the drawer receives the written notice of dishonor and still fails to make good the check within the given period, a
presumption arises that at the time the drawer issued the check, he had knowledge that he does not have sufficient
funds.
Probative value of the unpaid or dishonoured check with stamped information “re: refusal to pay”
Such is prima facie evidence of:
1. The making or issuance of the check;
2. The due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonour thereof; and
3. The fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason stamped on the check.
Remedy of the payee when drawer goes into hiding to avoid receiving the written notice of dishonor
The payee may have a witness to testify that a copy of the written notice of dishonor was left at the house of the drawer
and that would be sufficient written notice of dishonor.
Prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds
GR: There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was presented within 90 days
from the date appearing on the check and was dishonored.
XPNs:
1. When the check was presented after 90 days from date
2. When the maker or drawer:
a. Pays the holder of the check in cash, the amount due within five banking days after receiving notice that such check
has not been paid by the drawee
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five banking days after notice of non-
payment.
---
Q: Evangeline issued checks to accommodate and to guarantee the obligations of Boni in favour of another
creditor. When the checks issued by Evangeline were presented for payment, the same was dishonored for the
reason “Account Closed”. She was then convicted of three counts of violation of B.P. 22. On appeal, she
contended that the prosecution failed to prove that she received any notice of dishonor of the subject checks
from the drawee bank. Thus, according to her, in the absence of such notice, her conviction under B.P. 22 was
not warranted for there was no bad faith or fraudulent intent that may be inferred on her part. May Evangeline
be held liable for violation of B.P. 22 even in the absence of notice of dishonor?
A: NO. In order to create the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be
shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount
of the check or arrange for its payment. It is only then that the drawer may be held liable for violation of the subject law.
In order to be punished for the acts committed under B.P. 22, it is required there under that not only should the accused
issue a check that is dishonored but likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.
(Cabrera v. People, G.R. No. 150618, July 24, 1989)
---
Dishonor of the check due to a stop payment order
If the stop payment is reasonable and with a just cause, there can be no violation of B.P. 22. If it is unreasonable, there
can be a violation of B.P. 22.
Indispensable proof in the guilt of the accused under B.P. 22
It is indispensable that the checks issued be offered in evidence because the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of
the check, not the non-payment of an obligation
---
Q: Suppose X draws 10 checks, all of which bounced for insufficiency of funds, what is X’s criminal liability
under B.P. 22?
A: X would be liable for 10 counts of violation of B.P.22. Such offense is malum prohibitum. It is a special law. As such,
there will be as many as crimes committed as there are number of checks involved.
---
Liability of drawer in cases of checks issued in payment of instalments
When checks are issued in payment of installments covered by promissory notes and said checks bounced, the drawer
is liable if the checks were drawn against insufficient funds, especially when the drawer, upon signing of the promissory
note, closed his account. Said check is still with consideration (Caram Resources v. Contreras, A.M. No. MTJ-93-849,
October 26, 1994).
Liability of a person who issues guarantee checks which were dishonored in violation of the purpose of the law

Page 19 of 46
The mere issuance of any kind of check regardless of the intent of the parties, i.e. where the check was intended merely
to serve as guaranty deposit, but which check is subsequently dishonored makes the person who issued the check
liable for BP 22 (Lazaro v. CA, et.al., G.R. No. 105461, November 11, 1993).
---
Q: Suppose guarantee checks were issued for the lease of certain equipment but later their equipment was
pulled out. Is the drawer liable?
A: In the case of Magno v. CA, G.R. No. 95542, June 26, 1992, the accused issued a check of warranty deposit for
lease of certain equipment. Even knowing that he has no funds or insufficient funds in the bank, he does not incur any
liability under B.P. 22, if the lessor of the equipment pulled out the loaned equipment. The drawer has no obligation to
make good the check because there is no more deposit or guaranty.
---
Violation of B.P. 22 in case of a check drawn against a dollar account
A check drawn against a dollar account in a foreign country is still violative of the provisions of B.P. 22 so long as the
check is issued, delivered or uttered in the Philippines, even if the same is payable outside of the Philippines (De Villa v.
CA, G.R. No. 83959, April 8, 1991).
B.P. 22 vis-à-vis
Estafa
B.P. 22 ESTAFA
Malum prohibitum. Malum in se.
Crime against public Crime against
interest. property.
Deceit not required. Deceit is an element.
Punishes the making The act constituting
or drawing of any the offense is
check that is postdating or issuing a
subsequently check in payment of an
dishonoured, whether obligation when the
issued in payment of offender has no funds
an obligation or to in the bank or his
merely guarantee an funds deposited
obligation. therein were not
Issuance of a check sufficient to cover the
not the non-payment of amount of the check.
obligation is punished.
Violated if check is Not violated if check is

Page 20 of 46
issued in payment of a issued in payment of a
pre-existing obligation. pre-existing obligation.
Damage not required. There must be

damage.
Drawer is given 5 Drawer is given 3 days

banking days to make to make arrangements
arrangements of of payment after
payment after receipt receipt of notice of
of notice of dishonour. dishonour.

SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
__________________________________________________________
SWINDLING (ESTAFA)
ART. 315
Elements of estafa in general

1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit – This covers the three different ways
of committing estafa under Art. 315, thus:
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or
c. Through fraudulent means
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.
Illustration: When the accused deceived the complainants into believing that there were indeed jobs waiting for them
in Taiwan, and the latter sold their carabaos, mortgaged or sold their parcels of land and even contracted loans to
raise the P40,000.00 placement fee required of them by the accused, the assurances given by the latter made the
complainants part with whatever resources they had, clearly establishing
deceit and damage which constitute the elements of estafa under PD 115 (Trust Receipts Law):
a. The failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents, or instruments covered
by a trust receipt, to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or
b. The failure to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with
the terms of the trust receipt.
Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Art. 315 (1)
1. Under paragraph (a):
a. Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of value;
b. He alters its substance, quantity, or quality; and
c. Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
A money market transaction however partakes of the nature of a loan, and non‐payment thereof would not give rise
to criminal liability for estafa through misappropriation or conversion. In money market placements, the unpaid
investor should institute against the middleman or dealer, before the ordinary courts, a simple action for recovery of
the amount he had invested, and if there is allegation of fraud, the proper forum would be the SEC (Sesbreno v. CA,
G.R. No. 84096, January 26, 1995).
3. Under paragraph (c):
a. The paper with the signature of the offended party is in blank;
b. Offended party delivered it to the offender;
c. Above the signature of the offended party, a document is written by the offender without authority to do so; and
d. The document so written creates a liability of, or causes damage to, the offended party or any third person.
---
Q: Is the accused’s mere failure to turn over the thing delivered to him in trust despite demand and the duty
to do so, constitute estafa under Art. 315 par 1 (b)?
A: NO. The essence of estafa under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received, to the prejudice of the owner thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the
property of another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment. The failure to account, upon demand, for funds or
property held in trust is a mere circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. In other words, the demand for the return
of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation. However, this presumption is rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to
produce the thing delivered in trust, he may not be held liable for estafa. In the case at bar, however, since the
medical representative failed to explain his inability to produce the thing delivered to him in trust, the rule that “the
failure to account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation”
applies without doubt (Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 132422, March 30, 2004).
---
---

Page 21 of 46
Q: Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in jewelry. Rosa agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet
for Victoria on a commission basis, on condition that, if these items cannot be sold, they may be returned to
Victoria forthwith. Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia with the
understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items to Victoria. Aurelia dutifully returned the bracelet
to Victoria but sold the ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to herself, and issued a check to Victoria which
bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC, insisting that delivery to a third person of
the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa. Is Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the
circumstances?
A: NO, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she received the jewelry from Victoria under an
obligation to return the same or deliver the proceeds thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she gave them to
Aurelia specifically to be returned to Victoria. The misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent the showing of
any conspiracy between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held criminally liable for Aurelia's acts.
2. Under paragraph (b):

a. Money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
b. There is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such
receipt;
c. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
d. There is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.
NOTE: The fourth element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the
defendant.
Illustration: The accused received in trust the money from the complainants for the particular purpose of investing the
same with the Philtrust Investment Corp. with the obligation to make delivery thereof upon demand but failed to
return the same despite demands. It was admitted that she used the money for her business. Accused is guilty of
estafa through misappropriation (Fontanilla v. People, G.R. No. 120949, July 5, 1996).
Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article 315 (2)
1. Under paragraph (a) –
a. Using fictitious name;
b. Falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; or
c. By means of other similar deceits.
2. Under paragraph (b) – Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
3. Under paragraph (c) – Pretending to have bribed any government employee, without prejudice to the action for
calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender.
4. Under paragraph (d) – postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation.
5. Under paragraph (e) –
a. By obtaining food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or
apartment house without paying therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or the manager thereof;
b. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the use of any false pretense; or
c. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his baggage from any of said establishments after obtaining
credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein, without paying therefor.
Elements of estafa under par. 2 (d) of Art. 315
1. The postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;
2. Lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and
3. Damage to the payee (People v. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011).
Application of Article 315 (2) (d)

Article 315 (2) (d) applies when:
1. Check is drawn to enter into an obligation
2. Obligation is not pre‐existing
NOTE: The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is encashed with the bank or exchanged for cash,
the crime is estafa thru falsification of a commercial document.
Illustration: The accused must be able to obtain something from the offended party by means of the check he issued
and delivered. Thus, if A issued a check in favor of B for a debt he has incurred a month or so ago, the dishonor of
the check for insufficiency of funds in the bank does not constitute Estafa. But if A told B to deliver to him P10,000
and he would issue in favor of B a check in the sum of P11,000 as it was a Sunday and A needed the cash urgently,
and B gave his P10,000 having in mind the profit of P1,000 when he encashed the check on Monday and the check
bounced when deposited, A can be held liable for Estafa. In such case, it was clear that B would have not parted with
his P10,000 were it not for the issuance of A’s check.
Good faith as a defense
The payee’s knowledge that the drawer has no sufficient funds to cover the postdated checks at the time of their

Page 22 of 46
issuance negates estafa.
Effect of failure to comply with a demand to settle the obligation
The effect of failure to comply with a demand to settle the obligation will give rise to a prima facie evidence of deceit,
which is an element of the crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or fraudulent act as stated in the second
sentence of paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the RPC (People v. Montaner, ibid.).
---
Q: Can the fact that the accused was not the actual maker of the check be put up as a defense?
A: NO. In the case of People v. Isleta, et.al. and reiterated in the case of Zalgado v. CA it was held that the appellant
who only negotiated directly and personally the check drawn by another is guilty of estafa because he had “guilty
knowledge that at the time he negotiated the check, the drawer has no sufficient funds.” (Garcia v. People, G.R. No.
144785, September 11, 2003).
---
Elements of Estafa through fraudulent means under Article 315 (3)
1. Under paragraph (a) –
a. Offender induced the offended party to sign a document.
b. Deceit was employed to make him sign the document.
c. Offended party personally signed the document.
d. Prejudice was caused.
Illustration: A induced an illiterate owner who was desirous of mortgaging his property for a certain amount, to sign a
document which he believed was only a power of attorney but in truth it was a deed of sale. A is guilty of Estafa
under par. 3(a) and the damage could consist at least in the disturbance in property rights (U.S. v. Malong, GR. No.
L-12597, August 30, 1917).
2. Under paragraph (b) – Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game;
3. Under paragraph (c) –

a. Offender removed, concealed or destroyed.
b. Any court record, office files, documents or any other papers.
c. With intent to defraud another.
Illustration: When a lawyer, pretending to verify a certain pleading in a case pending before a court, borrows the
folder of the case, and removes or destroys a document which constitutes evidence in the said case, said lawyer is
guilty of estafa under par. 3(c).
---
Q: What does fraud and deceit in the crime of estafa mean?
A: In Alcantara v. CA, the Court, citing People v. Balasa, explained the meaning of fraud and deceit, viz.:
Fraud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to
another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all
multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an
advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning,
dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated.
Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations,
or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury (Lateo y Eleazar v. People, G.R. No. 161651, June 8, 2011).
---
Demand as a condition precedent to the existence of estafa
GR: There must be a formal demand on the offender to comply with his obligation before he can be charged with
estafa.
XPN:
1. When the offender’s obligation to comply is subject to a period, and
2. When the accused cannot be located despite due diligence.
Novation theory
Novation theory contemplates a situation wherein the victim’s acceptance of payment converted the offender’s
criminal liability to a civil obligation. It applies only if there is a contractual relationship between the accused and the
complainant.
Effect of novation or compromise to the criminal liability of a person accused of estafa
Novation or compromise does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. So, partial payment or extension of time
to pay the amount misappropriated or acceptance of a promissory note for payment of the amount involved does not
extinguish criminal liability, because a criminal offense is committed against the people and the offended party may
not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense. In order that
novation of contract may relieve the accused of criminal liability, the novation must take place before the criminal
liability is incurred; criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contact for it is a public
offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State at its own volition.

Page 23 of 46
Payment of an obligation before the institution of the complaint
Payment of an obligation before the institution of the complaint does not relieve the offender from liability. Mere
payment of an obligation before the institution of a criminal complaint does not, on its own, constitute novation that
may prevent criminal liability. The criminal liability for estafa already committed is not affected by the subsequent
novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the State (Milla v. People,
G.R. No. 188726, January 25, 2012).
Distinctions between Robbery, Theft, and Estafa

ROBBERY THEFT ESTAFA
Only personal Only personal Subject matter may

property is property is be real property.
involved. involved.
Taking is by Taking is not Taking is not by

means of by means of means of force upon
force upon force upon things or violence
things or things or against or
violence violence intimidation of
against or against or persons.
intimidation of intimidation of
persons. persons.
Penalty does Penalty Penalty depends on

not depends on the amount involved.
necessarily the amount
depend on the involved.
amount
involved.
Offender Offender Offender receives

takes the takes the the property.
property property
without the without the
consent of the consent of the
owner by owner and
using threats, without using
intimidation or threats,
violence. intimidation or
violence.
NOTE: The crime is theft even if the property was delivered to the offender by the owner or possessor, if the latter
expects an immediate return of the property delivered, that is, he delivered only the physical or material possession of
the property (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. 16961, September 19, 1921). However, if what was delivered was juridical
possession of the property, that is, a situation where the person to whom it was delivered can set off his right to possess
even as against the owner, and the latter should not be expecting the immediate return of the property, the
misappropriation or taking of that property is estafa (U.S. v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 6748, March 16, 1912).
---
Q: A, intending to redeem certain jewels gave the pawnshop tickets to B, her servant so that the latter might
take care of them temporarily. One week later, B met C, who got the tickets and refused to return them alleging
that the tickets were of no value notwithstanding the demands made by B. Later, C redeemed the jewels without
the knowledge and consent of A or B. What crime did C commit?
A: The complex crime of theft and estafa, because the former is a necessary means to commit the latter. C, with intent
to gain, took the pawnshop tickets without the consent of either A or B. This is theft. By redeeming the jewels by means
of the pawnshop tickets, he committed estafa using a fictitious name (People v. Yusay, G.R. No.L-26957, September 2,
1927).
---
Estafa with abuse of MALVERSATION
confidence vis-à-vis
Malversation ESTAFA
WITH ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE
Funds or property are Involves public funds or
always private. property.
Offender is a private Offender is usually a

Page 24 of 46
individual or even a public officer is
public officer who is not accountable for public
accountable for public funds or property.
funds or property.
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by
misappropriating, appropriating, taking or
converting or denying misappropriating or
having received money, consenting, or, through
goods or other personal abandonment or
property. negligence, permitting
any other person to
take the public funds or
property.
Offenders are entrusted
with funds or property.
Continuing offenses.
Estafa through false pretense made in writing is only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex crime of estafa through
falsification.
Estafa vis-à-vis INFIDELITY IN THE
Infidelity in the CUSTODY OF
custody of document DOCUMENTS
ESTAFA
Private individual was Public officer entrusted
entrusted with the with the document.
document.
Intent to defraud. No intent to defraud.
Separate charges of estafa and illegal recruitment
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042,
in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. We explicated in
People v. Cortez and Yabut that: In this jurisdiction, it is settled that the offense of illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where
the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar
conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that one’s
acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale,
and vice versa (People v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011).
---
Q: In providing the penalty, may the Court validly provide penalties for crimes against property based on the
current inflation rate computing from the time the case was filed?
A: NO. There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to
impose on crimes against property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value of money
eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties because that would constitute
judicial legislation.
Verily, the primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers
by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or supervise
legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the
law a construction which is repugnant to its terms (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014).
---
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
ART. 316
Other forms of swindling
1. Conveying, selling, encumbering, or mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the owner of the same.
Elements:
a. Thing be immovable;
b. Offender who is not the owner of said property should represent that he is the owner thereof;
c. Offender should have executed an act of ownership (selling, leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the real property);
and
d. Act is made to the prejudice of the owner or of a third person.
There must be existing real property in order to be liable under this Article. If the real property is inexistent, the offender
will be liable for estafa under par. 2(a).
2. Disposing real property knowing it to be encumbered even if the encumbrance be not recorded. (BAR 1998)

Page 25 of 46
Elements:
a. That the thing disposed of is real property;
If the thing encumbered is a personal property, it is Art. 319 (selling or pledging personal property) which governs and
not this Article.
b. Offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not;
Encumbrance includes every right or interest in the land which exists in favor of third persons
c. There must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance; and
d. Act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another.
If the loan had already been granted before the property was offered as a security, Art. 316 (2) is not violated.
3. Wrongful taking of personal property from its lawful possessor to the prejudice of the latter or a third person;
Elements
:
a. Offender is the owner of personal property;
b. Said personal property is in the lawful possession of another;
c. Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor; and
d. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third person.
4. Executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another.
5. Accepting any compensation given to him under the belief that it was in payment of services or labor when he did not
actually perform such services or labor.
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT

RA 9344, AS AMENDED BY RA 10630
IN RELATION TO PD 603
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND TREATMENT OF CHILD BELOW AGE OF
AGE BRACKET
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
TREATMENT
15 years old or
below.
Exempt. The child shall be
subjected to an
intervention
program.
Above 15 but
below 18, who
acted without
discernment.
Exempt. The child shall be
subjected to an
intervention
program.
Above 15 but
below 18, who
acted with
discernment.
Not
exempt.
Such child shall be
subjected to the
appropriate
proceedings in

Page 26 of 46
accordance with
RA 9344.
NOTE: The exemption from criminal liability in the
cases specified above does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.
Neglected child
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to
fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide,
murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal
detention where the victim is killed or raped,
robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson,
rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is
killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No.
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of
imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child
under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and
shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’
called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and
Support Center (IJISC)(Sec. 20, RA 10630).
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to
fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an
offense for the second time or
oftener: Provided, That the child was previously
subjected to a community-based intervention
program, shall be deemed a neglected child under
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall
undergo an intensive intervention program
supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer: Provided, further, That, if the
best interest of the child requires that he/she be
placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the
child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written
authorization for the voluntary commitment of the
child: Provided, finally, That if the child has no
parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to
execute the written authorization for voluntary
commitment, the proper petition for involuntary
commitment shall be immediately filed by the
DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 603, as amended.”(Sec. 20-B, RA 10630).
Penalty for an offender over 15 but below 18
No penalty is prescribed, unless he acted with
discernment. In that case, the offender shall
undergo diversion programs under RA 9344.
Diversion Program
Diversion Program refers to the program that the
child in conflict with the law is required to undergo
after he/she is found responsible for an offense
without resorting to formal court proceedings,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Where the imposable penalty for the crime
committed is not more than six (6) years of
imprisonment, the law enforcement officer or
Punong Barangay with the assistance of the
local social welfare and development officer or
other members of the LCPC shall conduct
mediation, family conferencing and
conciliation;
2. In victimless crimes where the imposable
penalty is not more than six (6) years of
imprisonment, the local social welfare and
development officer shall meet with the child
and his/her parents or guardians for the
development of the appropriate diversion and
rehabilitation program; and

Page 27 of 46
3. Where the imposable penalty for the crime
committed exceeds six (6) years of
imprisonment, diversion measures may be
resorted to only by the court.
Intervention
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the child to
commit an offense. It may take the form of an
individualized treatment program which may
include counseling, skills training, education, and
other activities that will enhance his/ her
psychological, emotional and psycho-social wellbeing.
An intervention program covering at least a
3-year period shall be instituted in LGUs from the
barangay to the provincial level.
Automatic suspension of sentence as provided
for in Sec. 38 of RA 9344
Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense is found guilty
of the offense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability which may have
resulted from the offense committed. However,
instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction,
the court shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of
application: Provided, however, that suspension of
sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already 18 years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering
the various circumstances of the child, the court
shall impose the appropriate disposition measures
as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles
in Conflict with the Law (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC,
November 24, 2009).
No suspension of sentence when the accused
was a minor during the commission of the crime
and was already beyond the age of 21yrs. old at
the time of pronouncement of his guilt.
While Sec. 38 of RA No. 9344 provides that
suspension of sentence can still be applied even if
the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen
(18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the
same law limits the said suspension of sentence
until the child reaches the maximum age of
21. Hence, the accused, who is now beyond the age
of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the
provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his
suspension of sentence, because such is already
moot and academic (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No.
186227, July 20, 2011 reiterating People v. Sarcia).
LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS

(R.A. 1405, AS AMENDED)
PURPOSE
The purposes of RA 1405 are:
1. Encourage deposit in banking institutions; and
2. Discourage private hoarding so that banks may lend such funds and assist in the economic development of the
country.
PROHIBITED ACTS
The following are the prohibited acts in RA 1405:
1. Examination/inquiry/looking into all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
(including investment in bonds issued by the government) by any person, government official or office (RA 1405, Sec.
2).
2. Disclosure by any official or employee of any banking institution to any unauthorized person of any information

Page 28 of 46
concerning said deposit (RA 1405, Sec. 3).
ACTS NOT COVERED BY THE PROHIBITION

Non-bank official or employee is not covered by the prohibition. Neither is disclosure by a bank official or employee of
information about bank deposit in favor of a co-employee in the course of the performance of his duties covered by the
prohibition.
Q: Manosa, a newspaper columnist, while making a deposit in a bank, overheard a pretty bank teller informing
a co-employee that Gigi, a well-known public official, has just a few hundred pesos in her bank account and
that her check will in all probability bounce. Manosa wrote this information in his newspaper column. Thus,
Gigi filed a complaint with the City Fiscal of Manila for unlawfully disclosing information about her bank
account.
a. Will the said suit prosper? Explain your answer.
b. Supposing that Gigi is charged with unlawfully acquiring wealth under R.A. 1379 and that the fiscal issued a
subpoena duces tecum for the records of the bank account of Gigi. May Gigi validly oppose the said issuance
on the ground that the same violated the law on secrecy of bank deposits? Explain your answer.
A:
a. NO. The suit will not prosper. It is clear as provided in section 3 of R.A. 1405 that it shall be unlawful for any official or
employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in section two of the said law
any information concerning said deposits. Manosa, as a columnist, is not one of those persons contemplated under the
law. Furthermore, he merely overheard what
appeared to be a vague remark of the bank teller therefore is not in a sense an inquiry or a disclosure.
b. NO. Gigi cannot oppose the said issuance because the law provides as an exception from the coverage of R.A. 1405
that upon order of a competent court in cases of anti-graft and corruption cases, the examination of the deposits may be
allowed.
DEPOSITS COVERED
1. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions found in the Philippines; or
2. Investments in bonds issued by the Philippine government, its branches, and institutions. (R.A. 1405, Sec. 2)
3. Trust accounts are included in the scope of the law.
Meaning of the phrase "of whatever nature and kind"

R.A.1405 is no longer limited to deposits governed by the law on loans giving rise to creditor-debtor relationship but it
covers fund of whatever nature so long as the bank may use and utilize it in authorized loans.
Trust funds covered by the term “deposit”
The money deposited under the trust agreement (“Trust account”) is intended not merely to remain with the bank but to
be invested by it elsewhere. To hold that this type of account is not protected by R.A. 1405 would encourage private
hoarding of funds that could otherwise be invested by banks in other ventures, contrary to the policy behind the law
(Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 157294-95, November 30, 2006).
NOTE: Despite such pronouncement that trust funds are considered deposits, trust funds remain not covered by PDIC.
Confidentiality granted by RA 1405 does NOT extend to Letters of Credit and Trust Receipts
The confidentiality granted by the law does NOT extend to other documents and records like L/C’s, TR’s, bank drafts
and promissory notes (Opinion of the Secretary of Justice No. 5, Series of 1982; Opinion of the Secretary of Justice No.
126, Series of 1989).
EXCEPTIONS
Instances where examination or disclosure of information about deposits can be allowed
1. Upon written consent of the depositor (RA 1405,Sec. 2)

2. In cases of impeachment (ibid)
3. Upon order of competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials (ibid)
4. In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation (ibid)
5. Upon order of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in respect of the bank deposits of a decedent for the purpose of
determining such decedent’s gross estate (NIRC, Sec. 6[F][1])
6. Upon the order of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in respect of bank deposits of a taxpayer who has filed an
application for compromise of his tax liability by reason of financial incapacity to pay his tax liability (ibid)
7. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to inquire into bank deposits of a specific taxpayer upon request
for tax information from a foreign tax authority pursuant to an international convention or agreement on tax matters to
which the Philippines is a party (ibid)
8. In case of dormant accounts/deposits for at least 10 years under the Unclaimed Balances Act (Act No. 3936, Sec. 2)
9. The prohibition against examination of bank deposit does not preclude its garnishment to satisfy a judgment against
the depositor (Oñate v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 107303, February 21, 1994)

Page 29 of 46
10. Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) may require the production of bank records material to its
investigation (Opinion of the Secretary of Justice, February 27, 1987)
11. The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) may inquire into any deposit with any bank in case of violation of the
RA 9160 or the AMLA if there is probable cause that it is related to an unlawful activity (RA 9160, as amended, Sec. 11)
12. The PDIC and the BSP may examine deposit accounts and all information related to them in case of a finding of
unsafe or unsound banking practices (RA 3591, as amended, Sec. 8)
13. With court order:
a. In cases of unexplained wealth under Sec. 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (PNB v. Gancayco, L-18343,
September 30, 1965)
b. In cases filed by the Ombudsman and upon the latter’s authority to examine and have access to bank accounts and
records (Marquez v. Desierto, GR 138569, September 11, 2003)
14. Without court order: If the AMLC determines that a particular deposit or investment with any banking institution is
related to the following (HK-MADS):
a. Hijacking,
b. Kidnapping,
c. Murder,
d. Destructive Arson, and
e. Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
f. Acts of Terrorism or in violation of Human Security Act.
15. In case the law is repealed, superseded or modified by any law to the contrary.
Q: The Bank Secrecy Law (RA 1405) prohibits disclosing any information about deposit records of an individual
without court order except -
a. in an examination to determine gross estate of a decedent.
b. in an investigation for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.
c. in an investigation by the Ombudsman.
d. in an impeachment proceeding (2012 Bar)
A: C. In order that the Ombudsman may inspect a bank deposit:

1. there must be a case pending in court,
2. the account must be clearly identified,
3. the inspection must be limited to the subject matter of the pending case,
4. the inspection may cover only the account identified, and
5. the bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection (Marquez v. Desierto,
G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001; Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay, G.R. No. 137538, September 3, 2001).
Q: GP is suspected jueteng lord who is rumored to be enjoying police and military protection. The envy of
many drug lords who had not escaped the dragnet of the law, GP was summoned to a hearing of the Committee
on Racketeering and Other Syndicated Crimes of the House of Representatives, which was conducting
congressional investigation-in aid of legislation on the involvement of police and military personnel, and
possibly even of local government officials, in the illegal activities of suspected gambling and drug lords.
Subpoenaed to attend the investigation were officers of certain identified banks with a directive to them to
bring the records and documents of bank deposits of individuals mentioned in the subpoenas, among them GP.
GP and the banks opposed the production of the bank records of deposits on the ground that no such inquiry
is allowed under the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405 as amended). Is the opposition of GP and the
banks valid? Explain.
A: YES. The opposition is valid. GP is not a public official. The investigation does not involve one of the exceptions to
the prohibition against the disclosure of any information concerning bank deposits under the Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits. The Committee conducting the investigation is not a competent court or the Ombudsman authorized under
the law involving such disclosure.
Q: An insurance company is deluded into releasing a check to A for P35th o pay for Treasury Bills (T-Bills)
which A claims to be en route on board an armored truck from a government bank. The check is delivered to A
who deposits it to his account with XYZ bank before the insurance company realizes it as a scam. Upon such
realization, the insurance company files an action against A for recovery for the amount defrauded and obtains
a writ of preliminary attachment. In addition to the writ, the Bank is also served a subpoena to examine the
account records of A. The Bank declines to provide any information in response to the writ and moves to
quash subpoena in invoking secrecy of bank deposits under R.A. 1405 and a) not respond to the writ b) quash
the subpoena for examination?
A: YES. Whether the transaction is considered a sale of money placement does not make the money subject matter of
litigation within the meaning of Section 2 of R.A. 1405 which prohibits the disclosure or inquiry into bank deposits except
“in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation” nor will it matter whether the money
was “swindled”.

Page 30 of 46
Foreign currency deposits
Foreign currency deposits are covered by R.A. 6426 otherwise known as the “Foreign Currency Deposits Act”.
Secrecy of foreign currency deposits
GR: Foreign currency deposits cannot be inquired or looked into. All foreign currency deposits are absolutely
confidential (RA 6426, Sec. 8).
RA 6426 is a special law designed especially for foreign currency deposits in the Philippines. RA 1405 which covers all
bank deposits in the Philippines is the general law which does not nullify the special law on foreign currency deposits.
The surety which issued a bond to secure the obligation of the principal debtor cannot inquire into the foreign currency
deposits of the debtor even if its purpose is to determine whether or not the loan proceeds were used for the purpose
specified in the surety agreement. The foreign currency deposits cannot be examined without the written consent of the
depositor. The subpoena issued by the bank should be quashed because foreign currency deposits are not subject to
court order except for violation of the anti-money laundering law (GSIS v. Court of Appeals GR 189206, June 8, 2011, in
Divina, 2014).
XPNs:
1. The depositor has given his written permission (ibid.)
2. Where the funds deposited in a joint foreign currency savings account belonged exclusively to one of the depositors
and were held in trust for him by the other depositor and the other depositor unilaterally closed the joint account and
transferred the funds to her personal account, the latter cannot invoke the exemption from court processes under RA
6426 because she is not the owner of the deposit in the account. Consequently, the depositor who owned the funds can
have her enjoined from making withdrawals from her personal account (Van Twest v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
106235, February 10, 1994).
3. A father who sued his daughter for illegally withdrawing funds from his foreign currency deposit and transferring to
another bank in the name of her sister, can inquire into the deposit of the sister, because the money deposited belongs
to him (China Banking Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 140687, December 18, 2006).
4. The exemption from court process of foreign currency deposits under RA 6426 cannot be invoked by a foreign
transient who raped a minor, escaped and was held liable for damages to the victim. The garnishment of his foreign
currency deposit should be allowed to prevent an injustice and for equitable grounds. The law was enacted to
encourage foreign currency deposit and not to benefit a wrongdoer (Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 94723, August 21, 1997).
5. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is authorized to inquire into bank deposits of the following:
a. A decedent to determine his estate; and
b. Any taxpayer who has filed for an application for compromise of his tax liability
c. A specific taxpayer upon request for tax information from a foreign tax authority pursuant to an international
convention or agreement on tax matters to which the Philippines is a party. (NIRC, Sec. 6 [f])
6. AMLC may inquire into any deposit with a bank or financial institution in case of violation of RA 9160 if there is
probable cause that it is related to an unlawful activity (RA 9160, Sec. 11).
7. Upon ex parte application by a law enforcer authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council, the justices of the CA
designated as special court to handle anti-terrorism cases may authorize the examination of deposits in a financial
institution upon finding probable cause of the commission of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism (RA 9372, Sec.
27-28).
8. PDIC and BSP may examine deposit accounts and all information related to them in case of a finding of unsafe or
unsound banking practices (RA 3591, as amended, Sec. 8).
9. AMLC can investigate (a) any property of funds related to financing terrorism; (b) property or funds of any person if
there is probable cause to believe he is committing or attempting or conspiring to commit terrorism or financing terrorism
(RA 10168, Sec. 10).
Q: Michael withdrew without authority funds of the partnership in the amounts of P500th and US$50th for
services he claims rendered for the benefit of the partnership. He deposited the P 500th in his personal peso
current account with Prosperity Bank and the US$50th in his personal foreign currency savings account with
Eastern Bank. The partnership instituted an action in court against Michael, Prosperity, and Eastern to compel
Michael to return the subject funds to the partnership and pending litigation to order both banks to disallow
any withdrawal from his accounts. At the initial hearing of the case, the court ordered Prosperity to produce the
records of his Michael’s peso current account and Eastern to produce the records of his foreign currency
savings account. Can the court compel Prosperity and Eastern to disclose the bank deposits of Michael?
Discuss fully. (1995 Bar)
A: YES, with regard to Michael’s peso current account. This is pursuant to Section 2 of RA 1405 which allows the
disclosure of bank deposits in case where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation. However with regard
to his foreign currency savings account, the disclosure cannot be allowed. Pursuant to the Foreign Currency Law, the
exemption to the prohibition against disclosure of information concerning foreign bank deposits is to acquire the written
consent of the depositor.
Q: A, an individual, secured a loan from XYZ Company. C, a surety company, issued a bond to further secure
the obligation. A has dollar deposits with ABC Bank. Can C inquire to ABC Bank about the foreign currency
deposits of A to determine whether or not the loan proceeds were used for the purpose specified in their surety
agreement?
A: NO. The surety company which issued the bond cannot inquire into the foreign currency deposits. It cannot be
examined without the consent of the depositor except in certain situations like violation of anti-money laundering law
(GSIS v. CA, G.R. No. 189206, June 8, 2011).

Page 31 of 46
Q: X, a private individual, maintains a dollar deposit with ABC Bank. X is suspected to be the leader of a Kidnap
for Ransom Gang and he is suspected of depositing all ransom money in said deposit account which are all in
US Dollars. The police want to open said account to know if there are really deposits in big amounts. Which
statement is most accurate?
a. The same rules under Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act will apply.
b. An approval from the Monetary Board is necessary to open the account.
c. Because the deposit is in US Dollars, it is covered by the Foreign Currency Deposit Act which allows
disclosure only upon the written permission of the depositor.
d. Approval from the Court is necessary to order disclosure of the account (2012 Bar).
A: C. The deposit, being in US Dollars, is covered by the Foreign Currency Deposit Act which allows disclosure only
upon the written permission of the depositor.
A bank can be compelled to disclose the records of the accounts of a depositor under the investigation for
unexplained wealth
Since cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery and dereliction of duty, no reason is seen why it
cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. In this connection, inquiry into illegally acquired
property in anti-graft cases extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held or recorded in the name of
other persons. This is also because the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, bank deposits shall be taken into
consideration in determining whether or not a public officer has acquired property manifestly out of proportion with his
lawful income (PNB v. Gancayco, G.R. No. L-18343, September 30, 1965).

In an action filed by the bank to recover the money transmitted by mistake, the bank is allowed to present the
accounts which it believed were responsible for the acquisition of the money
RA 1405 allows the disclosure of bank deposits in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation. In
an action filed by the bank to recover the money transmitted by mistake, necessarily, an inquiry into the whereabouts of
the amount extends to whatever is concealed by being held or recorded in the name of the persons other than the one
responsible for the illegal acquisition.
Q: Socorro received $10,000 from a foreign bank although she was entitled only to $1,000. In an apparent plan
to conceal erroneously sent amount, she opened a dollar account with her local bank, deposited $ 10,000 and
issued 4 checks in the amount of $2,000 and 1 check for $1,000 each payable to different individuals who
deposited the same in their respective dollar accounts with different local banks. The sender bank then brought
a civil suit before the RTC for the recovery of erroneously send amount. In the course of trial, the sender
presented testimonies of bank officials to show that the funds were, in fact, deposited in a bank by Socorro and
paid out to several persons, who participated in the concealment and dissipation of the amount that Socorro
had erroneously received. Socorro moved to strike out the testimonies from the record invoking the law on
secrecy of bank deposits. If you were the Judge, would you issue and order to strike them out? Why? (1992
Bar)
A: If I am the judge I would not issue an order to strike them out. The testimonies of the bank officials showing that the
funds were in fact deposited in a bank by Socorro and paid out to several persons, who participated in the concealment
and dissipation of the amount that Socorro had erroneously received, were presented in the course of the trial.
Therefore, the said testimonies must be considered as involved in the litigation. In the case of Mellon Bank v. Magsino,
G.R. No. 71479, October 18, 1990, it was held that R.A. 1405 allows the disclosure of bank deposits in cases where the
money deposited is the subject matter of litigation. In an action filed by a bank to recover money it transmitted by
mistake, necessarily, an inquiry to its whereabouts of the amount extends to whatever concealed by, being held or
recorded in the name of the persons other than the one responsible for illegal acquisition. Hence, in the case at bar, the
disclosure should be allowed and it should not be subject to an order to strike out.
Q: The Law in Secrecy of Bank Deposits provides that all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions are absolutely confidential in nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any
person, government official, bureau or office. However, the law provides exceptions in certain instances. Which
of the following may not be among the exceptions:
1. In cases of impeachment
2. In cases involving bribery
3. In cases involving BIR inquiry
4. In cases of anti-graft and corrupt practices
5. In cases where the money involved is the subject of litigation.
Explain your answer or choice briefly

A: Under Section 6 (F) of the NIRC, the CIR can inquire into the deposits of a decedent for the purpose of determining
the gross estate of such decedent. Apart from this case, a BIR inquiry into bank deposits cannot be made. Thus,
exception 3 may not be always applicable. Turning to exception 4, an inquiry into bank deposits is possible only in
prosecutions for unexplained wealth under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, according to the Supreme Court in
the cases of Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco, G.R. No. L-18343, September 30, 1965 and Banco Filipino Savings
and Mortgage Bank v. Purisima, G.R. No. L-56429, May 28, 1988. However, all other cases of anti-graft and corrupt
practices will not warrant an inquiry into bank deposits. Thus, exception 4 may not always be applicable. Like any other

Page 32 of 46
exception, it must be interpreted strictly. Exceptions 1, 2 and 5, on the other hand, are provided expressly in the Law on
Secrecy of Bank Depositors. They are available to depositors at all times.
Q: Miguel, a special customs agent is charged before the Ombudsman with having acquired property out of
proportion to his salary, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Ombudsman issued a
subpoena duces tecum to the Banco De Cinco commanding its representative to furnish the Ombudsman
records of transactions by or in the name of Miguel, his wife and children. A second subpoena was issued
expanding the first by including the production of records of friends of Miguel in said bank and in all its
branches and extension offices, specifically naming them, Miguel moved to quash the subpoenas arguing that
they violate the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law. In addition, he contends that the subpoenas are in the nature of
– fishing
expedition or general warrants and are constitutionally impermissible with respect to private individuals who
are not under investigation. Is Miguel’s contention tenable?
A: NO. The contention of Miguel is not tenable. In the case of Banco Filipino v. Purisima, it was held that the inquiry into
illegally acquired property-or property not legitimately acquired- extends to cases where such property is concealed by
being held or recovered in the name of other persons. This proposition is made clear by RA 3019 which quite
categorically states that the term “legitimately acquired property of a public officer or employee shall not include property
unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name of, or held by,
respondent’s spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives or any other persons. To sustain the petitioner’s theory, and
restrict the inquiry only to property held by or in the name of the government official or employee, or his spouse and
unmarried children is unwarranted in the light of the provisions of the statutes in question, and would make available to
persons in government who illegally acquire property an easy and fool-proof means of evading investigation and
prosecution; all they have to do would be to simply place the property in possession or name of persons other than their
spouse and unmarried children. This is an absurdity that we will not ascribe to the lawmakers.
GARNISHMENT OF DEPOSITS,
INCLUDING FOREIGN DEPOSITS
Garnishment of a bank deposit does not violate the law
The prohibition against examination or inquiry does not preclude its being garnished for satisfaction of judgment. The
disclosure is purely incidental to the execution process and it was not the intention of the legislature to place bank
deposits beyond the reach of judgment creditor (PCIB v. CA, G.R. No. 84526, January 28, 1991).
Garnishment of foreign currency deposits
GR: Foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any
court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever (RA 6426, Sec 8).
XPN: The application of Sec. 8 of RA 6426 depends on the extent of its justice. The garnishment of a foreign currency
deposit should be allowed to prevent injustice and for equitable grounds, otherwise, it would negate Article 10 of the
New Civil Code which provides that “in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail (Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. 94723, August
21, 1997).
The foreign currency deposit of a transient foreigner who illegally detained and raped a minor Filipina can be
garnished to satisfy the award for damages to the victim
The exemption from garnishment of foreign currency deposits under R.A. 6426 cannot be invoked to escape liability for
the damages to the victim. The garnishment of the transient foreigner’s foreign currency deposit should be allowed to
prevent injustice and for equitable grounds. The law was enacted to encourage foreign currency deposit and not to
benefit a wrongdoer (Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. 94723, August 21, 1997).
Penalties for violation of R.A. 1405
1. Imprisonment of not more than five (5) years
2. Fine of not more than P20,000.00
3. Both, in the discretion of the court (RA 1405, Sec. 5).
Q: R.A. 6832 creating a Commission to conduct a Thorough Fact-Finding Investigation of the failed Coup d’etat
of December 1989, recommend measures to prevent the occurrence of similar attempts at a violent seizure of
power and for other purposes, provides that the Commission may ask the Monetary Board to disclose
information on and/or to grant authority to examine any bank deposits, trust or investment funds, or banking
transactions in the name of and/or utilized by a persons, natural or juridical, under investigation by the
Commission, in any bank or banking institution in the Philippines, when the Commission has reasonable
ground to believe that said deposits, trust or investment funds, or banking transactions have been used in
support or in furtherance of the objectives of the said coup d’etat. Does the above provision not violate the Law
on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405)?
A: The above provision does not violate RA 1405 because the enactment of RA 6832 is valid exercise of police power.
RA 1405 is in itself a statutory enactment which can be validly modified, amended or repealed by a subsequent law. The
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act did not amount to a contract between the depositors and depository banks within the
meaning of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. Even if it did, the police power of the State is superior to the
non-impairment clause.
1
DEFINITION AND NATURE OF
LETTER OF CREDIT

Page 33 of 46
Letter of Credit (L/C)
It is any arrangement, however named or described, whereby the issuing bank acting at the request and on the
instructions of a customer (applicant) or on its own behalf, binds itself to: (PAN)
1. Pay to the order of, or accept and pay drafts drawn by a third party (Beneficiary), or
2. Authorize another bank to pay or to accept and pay such drafts, or
3. Authorizes another bank to Negotiate, against stipulated documents.
Provided, the terms and conditions of the credit are complied with (Uniform Customs & Practice for Documentary
Credits, Art. 2).
PURPOSE OF LETTER OF CREDIT
The use of credits in commercial transactions serve to reduce the risk of non-payment of the purchase price under the
contract for the sale of goods. However, letters of credit are also used in non-sale settings where they serve to reduce
the risk of non-performance. Generally, credits in the non-sale settings have come to be known as “standard credits”
(Transfield Philippines, Inc. vs. Luzon Hydro Corp., GR. No. 146717, November 22,2004).
Nature of Letters of Credit as a Financial Device
A letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient a relatively safe mode of dealing with
sales of goods to satisy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is
paid, and a buyer, who wants to have in control of the goods before paying. The use of credits in commercial
transactions serves to reduce the risk of nonpayment of the purchase price under the contract of sale of the goods and
to reduce the risk of non-performance of an obligation in a non-sale setting (Transfield Philippines, Inc. vs. Luzon Hydro
Corp., GR. No. 146717, November 22,2004).
Q: Letters of Credit are financial devices in commercial transactions which will ensure that the seller of the
goods is sure to be paid when he parts with the goods and the buyer of the goods gets control of the goods
upon payment. Which statement is most accurate?
A: The use of the Letter of Credit serves to reduce the risk of nonpayment of the purchase price in a sale transaction.
Non-payment of the buyer of its obligation under the Letter of Credit does not give the bank the right to take
possession of the goods covered by the Letter of Credit
The opening of a L/C does not vest ownership of the goods in the bank in the absence of a trust receipt agreement. A
letter of credit is a mere financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing
with the sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods
before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying (Transfield Philippines, Inc. v.
Luzon Hydro Corporation, G.R. No. 146717, November 22, 2004).
LAWS GOVERNING LETTERS OF CREDIT
Letter of credit is governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice for documentary Credits issued by the
International Chamber of Commerce (Metropolitan Waterworks vs. Daway, G.R. No. 160723, July 21, 2004).
NOTE: The law on contracts and damages shall also apply to provide remedies to the party aggrieved by the breach of
the main contract although such breach will not affect the obligation of the bank to pay the beneficiary or its right to
obtain reimbursement from the applicant of the letter of credit if the terms of the letters of credit have been complied
with.
DURATION OF LETTERS OF CREDIT
1. Upon the period fixed by the parties; or
2. If none is fixed, one year from the date of issuance.
Q: Rodzssen Supply, Inc. (Rodzssen) applied for and obtained an irrevocable 30-day domestic Letter of Credit
from Far East Bank and Trust Company Inc. (FEBTC) on January 15, 1979, in favor of Ekman and Company Inc.
(Ekman), in order to finance the purchase of five units of hydraulic loaders in the amount of P190,000.
Originally set to expire on February 15, 1979, the subject Letter of Credit was amended several times to extend
its validity until October 16, 1979. Three units of the hydraulic loaders were
delivered to Rodzssen for which FEBTC on March 26, 1979, paid Ekman the sum of P114,000.00, which amount
Rodzssen paid FEBTC before the expiry date of the LC. FEBTC paid Ekman for the last two hydraulic loaders
on March 14, 1980 or five months after the expiration of the Letter of Credit. Was FEBTC justified in paying
Ekman?
A: NO. Clearly, the bank paid Ekman when the former was no longer bound to do so under the subject Letter of Credit.
The subject Letter of Credit had become invalid upon the lapse of the period fixed therein. Thus, respondent should not
have paid Ekman; it was not obliged to do so. (Rodzssen Supply Co. Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No.
109087. May 9, 2001)
Incidents in the life of a Letter of Credit (CAIS-ERR)
1. Contract of Sale between the buyer and seller
2. Application for L/C by the buyer with the bank
3. Issuance of L/C by the bank
4. Shipping of goods by the seller
5. Execution of draft and tender of documents by the seller
6. Redemption of draft (payment) and obtaining of documents by the issuing bank
7. Reimbursement to the bank and obtaining of documents by the buyer
ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF A LETTER OF CREDIT

Page 34 of 46
1. Issued in favor of a definite person.
2. Limited to a fixed or specified amount, or to one or more amounts, but with a maximum stated limit (Code of
Commerce, Art. 568).
NOTE: If any of these essential conditions is not present, the instrument is merely considered as a letter of
recommendation.
KINDS OF LETTER OF STANDBY L/C
CREDIT
COMMERCIAL L/C
Involves the payment of Involves non-sale
money under a contract transactions.
of sale.
Payable upon the Payable upon
presentation by the certification by the
seller-beneficiary of beneficiary of the
documents that show applicant’s non-
he has taken affirmative performance of the
steps to comply with the agreement. The
sales agreement documents that
accompany the
beneficiary's draft must
consummated, because the bank may grant the debtor extension of time to pay such debt. (Belman Inc. v. Central
Bank, supra.)
Courts cannot order the release to the applicant of the proceeds of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit without the
consent of the Beneficiary
Such order violates the irrevocable nature of the L/C. The terms of an irrevocable letter of credit cannot be changed
without the consent of the parties, particularly the beneficiary thereof (Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration v. De Los
Angeles, G.R. No. L-27829, August 19, 1988).
PARTIES TO A LETTER OF CREDIT
Parties to a Letter of Credit transaction
1. Applicant/Buyer/Importer/Account Party – procures the letter of credit, purchases the goods and obliges himself to
reimburse the issuing bank upon receipt of the documents of title. The applicant has no obligation to reimburse the
issuing bank if the latter pays without the stipulated documents or in case of discrepant documents, unless the applicant
waives the discrepancy. He has the right to have the marginal deposit deducted from the principal obligation under the
L/C and to have the interest computed only on the balance and not on the face value thereof.
2. Issuing Bank – one which, whether a paying bank or not, issues the L/C and undertakes to pay the seller upon receipt
of the draft and proper documents of title from the seller and to surrender them to the buyer upon reimbursement. After
due payment, issuing bank is entitled to reimbursement as a matter of right. Reimbursement includes debiting the bank
account of the applicant, if any. The failure of the beneficiary to present the draft to the applicant does not affect the right
of the issuing bank to reimbursement.
3. Beneficiary/Seller/Exporter – in whose favor the instrument is executed. One who delivers the documents of title and
draft to the issuing bank to recover payment. He has a prestation to do under the main contract but his failure to fulfill
his obligation under the main contract does not negate his right to payment from the issuing bank as long as he is able
to submit the required documents and comply with the terms of the credit, without prejudice to his liability
against the account party under the law on contracts and damages.
The number of parties may be increased. The following additional parties may be:
1. Advising/notifying bank – the correspondent bank (agent) of the issuing bank and determines the apparent
authenticity of the L/C. it assumes no liability except to notify and/or transmit to the beneficiary the existence of the L/C
(FEATI Bank and Trust Company v. CA, G.R. No. 94209).
2. Confirming bank –lends credence to the L/C issued by a lesser known bank as if it were the one that issued the letter
of credit. Its obligation is similar to the issuing bank. Thus, beneficiary may tender documents to the confirming bank
and collect payment. It collects fees for such engagement and obtains reimbursement from the issuing bank (ibid).
3. Paying bank – bank on which the drafts are to be drawn, which may be the issuing bank, the advising bank or
another bank not in the city of the beneficiary (ibid).
4. Negotiating bank – buys or discounts a draft under the letter of credit. Its liability is dependent upon the stage of the
negotiation. If before negotiation, it has no liability with respect to the seller but after negotiation, a contractual

Page 35 of 46
relationship will then prevail between the negotiating bank and the beneficiary (ibid).
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES

Three (3) distinct but intertwined contracts in a Letter of Credit transaction
1. Between the applicant/buyer/importer/account party and the beneficiary/seller/exporter - The applicant is the one who
procures the letter of credit and obliges himself to reimburse the issuing bank upon receipt of the documents of title
while the beneficiary is the one who in compliance with the contract of sale ships the goods to the buyer and delivers
the documents of title and draft to the issuing bank to recover payment for the goods. The relationship between them is
governed by the law on sales if
it is a commercial L/C but if it is a stand-by letter of credit it is governed by the law on obligations and contract.
2. Between the issuing bank and the beneficiary/ seller/exporter - The issuing bank is the one that issues the letter of
credit and undertakes to pay the beneficiary upon strict compliance of the latter to the requirements set forth in the letter
of credit. On the other hand, the beneficiary surrenders document of title to the bank in compliance with the terms of the
L/C. Their relationship is governed by the terms of the L/C.
3. Between the issuing bank and the applicant/ buyer/importer - The applicant obliges himself to reimburse the issuing
bank upon receipt of the documents of title. Their relationship is governed by the terms of the application and
agreement for the issuance of the L/C by the bank.
NOTE: By the Doctrine of Independence, the relationship among: a) the issuing bank and the beneficiary; b) the issuing
bank and the applicant; and c) the beneficiary and the applicant while interrelated are separate, distinct and
independent of one another.
An Issuing Bank is not a guarantor
The concept of guarantee vis-a-vis the concept of irrevocable L/C is inconsistent with each other. L/Cs are primary
obligations and not security contracts and while they are security arrangements, they are not converted thereby into
contracts of guaranty (MWSS v. Hon. Daway, G.R. No.160732, June 21, 2004).
The liability of issuing bank is primary and solidary. Neither is the issuing bank entitled to the benefit of excussion.
Entitlement of a bank to reimbursement
Once the issuing bank shall have paid the beneficiary after the latter’s compliance with the terms of the L/C, the bank is
entitled to reimbursment. Presentment for acceptance to the customer/applicant is not a condition sine qua non for
reimbursement (Prudential Bank v. IAC, G.R. No. 74886, December 8, 1992).
Consequence of payment upon an expired Letter of Credit
An issuing bank which paid the beneficiary upon an expired L/C can recover the payment from the applicant which
obtained the goods from the beneficiary to prevent unjust enrichment (Rodzssen Supply Co. v. Far East Bank and Trust
Co, G.R. No. 109087, May 9, 2001).
DEFINITION/CONCEPT OF A
TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION
Trust Receipt (TR) transaction
It is any transaction between the entruster and entrustee:
1. Whereby the entruster who owns or holds title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or
instrument (GDI), releases the same to the possession of entrustee upon the latter’s execution of a TR agreement.
2. Wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the GDI in trust for the entruster and, in case of default:
a. to sell or otherwise dispose such GDI with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds to the extent of the
amount owing to it or
b. to turn over the GDI itself if not sold or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in
the TR.
A TR is a commercial document whereby the bank releases the goods in the possession of the entrustee but retains
ownership thereof while the entrustee shall sell the goods and apply the proceeds for the full payment of his liability with
the bank. It is a security arragement to which a bank acquires ownership of the imported personal property (Garcia vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119845, July 5, 1996). It is a document which expresses a security transaction where the
lender, having no prior title to the goods on which the lien is to be constituted, and not having possession over the same
since possession thereof remains in the borrower, lends him money to the borrower on security of the goods which
borrower is privileged to sell, clear of the lien, and with an agreement to pay all or part of the sale proceeds to the lender
(Metropolitan Bank vs. Go, G.R. No. 155647, November 23, 2007).
Two views regarding Trust Receipts
1. As a commercial document - the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated GDI in trust for the entruster and to
sell or otherwise dispose of GDI with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds if they are unsold or not
otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the TR (P.D. 115, Sec. 4).
2. As a commercial transaction – It is a separate and independent security transaction intended to aid in financing

Page 36 of 46
importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds (Nacu v. CA, G.R. No. 108638, March 11, 1994).
A Trust Receipt is not a negotiable instrument

Like L/C’s, TR’s are not negotiable instruments. The presumption of consideration under the negotiable instrument law
may not necessarily be applicable to trust receipts (Lee v. CA, supra).
SUBJECTS OF A TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (GDI)
1. Goods – shall include chattels and personal property other than money, things in action, or things so affixed to land
as to become a part thereof (P.D. 115, Sec. 3 [d]). Goods must be object of lawful commerce.
2. Documents – written or printed evidence of title to goods (P.D. 115, Sec. 3 [a]). E.g. L/C.
3. Instruments – negotiable instruments; certificates of stock, or bond or debenture for the payment of money issued by
a corporation, or certificates of deposit, participation certificates or receipts, credit or investment instruments of a sort
marketed in the ordinary course of business or finance (P.D. 115, Sec. 3 [e]). E.g. checks, drafts, promissory notes, bills
of exchange.
PARTIES TO A TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION

1. Entruster - A lender, financer or creditor. Person holding title over the GDI subject of a TR transaction; releases
possession of the goods upon execution of TR (P.D. 115, Sec. 3[c]).
2. Entrustee - A borrower, buyer, importer or debtor. He is the person to whom the goods are delivered for sale or
processing in trust, with the obligation to return the proceeds of sale of the goods or the goods to the entruster (P.D.
115, Sec. 3[b]).
TRANSACTIONS NOT CONSIDERED AS A TRUST RECEIPT

1. A sale by a person in the business of selling for profit who retains general property rights in the GDI.
2. Where the seller retains title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price (P.D. 115, Sec. 4).
The sale of goods by a person in the business of selling goods, for profit, who at the outset of the transaction, has as
against the buyer, general property rights in such goods, or who sells goods to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other
interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute as trust receipt transaction. There is no
trust receipt, notwithstanding the label, if goods offered as security for a loan accommodation are goods sold to the
debtor unde a supposed trust receipt transaction (Sps. Dela Cruz vs. Planters Products, Inc., G.R. No. 158649,
February 18, 2013, in Divina, 2014).
3. If the entrustee is already the owner or in possession of the goods before delivery of the loan and execution of the
trust receipt transaction, the transaction shall be considered a simple loan even though the parties may have
denominated the agreement as one of TR. To be in the nature of TR, the entruster should have financed the acquisition
or importation of the goods. The funds should have been delivered before or simultaneously with delivery of the goods.
4. Where the entruster bank knew even before the execution of the trust receipt agreements that the construction
materials covered were never intended by the entrustee for resale or for the manufacture of items to be sold (Hur Tin
Yang v. People, supra).
Q: C contracted D to renovate his commercial building. D ordered construction materials from E and received
delivery thereof. The following day, C went to F Bank to apply for a loan to pay the construction materials. As
security for the loan, C was made to execute a trust receipt. One year later, after C failed to pay the balance on
the loan, F Bank was charged with violation of the Trust Receipts Law. Will the case against C prosper? Reason
briefly.
A: The case of estafa against C will not prosper. PD 115 does not apply in this case because the proceeds of the loan
are used to renovate C's commercial building. TR transactions are intended to aid in financial importers and retail
dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise and who
may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased.
The transactions contemplated under the Trust Receipts Law mainly involved acquisition of goods for the sale thereof.
The transaction is properly called a simple loan with the trust receipt as merely a collateral or security for the loan (Ng
vs. People, supra).
Q: Supermax is a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business. On various occasions,
Metrobank extended several commercial letters of credit to Supermax. These commercial credits were used by
Supermax to pay for delivery of several construction materials to be used in their construction business.
Thereafter, Metrobank required Hur Tin Yang, as representative and Vice- President for Internal Affairs of
Supermax, to sign 24 trust receipts as security for the construction materials. When 24 TRs fell due and despite
the receipt of demand letter, Supermax failed to pay or deliver the goods or proceeds to Metrobank. As the
demands fell on deaf ears, Metrobank filed a complaint for estafa against Hur Tin Yang.
Hur Tin Yang, while admitting signing the trust receipts, argued that said trust receipts were demanded by
Metrobank as additional security for the loans extended to Supermax for the purchase of construction
equipments and materials, and that Metrobank knew all along that the construction materials subject of the TRs
were not intended for resale but for personal use of Supermax relating to its construction business.
Is Hur Tin Yang not guilty of estafa?
A: YES. In the instant case, the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts reveal that the dealing between Hur Tin

Page 37 of 46
Yang and Metrobank was not a TR transaction but one of simple loan. His admission – that he signed the TRs on behalf
on Supermax,
which failed to pay the loan or turn over the proceeds of the sale or the goods to Metrobank upon demand – does not
conclusively prove that the transaction was, indeed, a trust receipts transaction. In contract to the nomenclature of the
transaction, the parties really intended a contract of loan. The Court, in Ng vs. People, and Land Bank of the Philippines
v. Perez ,cases which are in all four corners the same as the instant case, ruled that the fact that the entruster bank
knew even before the execution of the trust receipt agreements that the construction materials covered were never
intended by the entrustee for resale or for the manufacture of items to be sold is sufficient to prove that the transaction
was a simple loan and not a trust receipts transaction.
When both parties enter into an agreement knowing fully well that the return of the goods subject of the trust receipt is
not possible even without any fault on the part of the trustee, it is not a trust receipt transaction penalized under Sec.
13 of PD 115 in relation to Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC, as the only obligation actually agreed upon by the parties
would be the return of the proceeds of the sale transaction. This transaction becomes a mere loan, where the
borrower is obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods (Hur Tin Yang vs. People,
supra).
LOAN/SECURITY FEATURE
TWO FEATURES OF A TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION
1. Loan feature - is brought about by the fact that the entruster financed the importation or purchase of the goods under
TR (Sps. Vintola vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, G.R. No. 73271, May 29, 1987).
2. Security feature - property interest in the GDI to secure performance of some obligation of the entrustee or of some
third persons to the entruster (Rosario Textile Mills Corp. v. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, G.R. No.
137232, June 29, 2005).
EFFECTS OF THE DUAL FEATURES OF A TRUST RECEIPT

1. The entrustee cannot absolutely be relieved of the obligation to pay his loan just because he surrendered the goods
to the entruster if the entruster refuses to accept and subsequently deposited them in the custody of the court (Sps.
Vintola vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, supra).
2. The entrustee cannot be relieved of his obligation to pay the loan in favor of the entruster bank in case of loss or
destruction of the GDI (Rosario Textile Mills Corp. vs. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, supra).
3. Where the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to satisfy the loan executed by the entrustee, the entruster bank can
institute an action to collect the deficiency (Landl Co. vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. G.R. No. 159622, July 30,
2004).
4. Repossession by the entruster of the GDI does not amount to dacion en pago. The repossession of the goods by the
entrustee was merely to secure the payment of its obligation to the entrustor and not for the purpose of transferring
ownership in satisfaction of the obligation (PNB vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-46658 May 13, 1991).
OWNERSHIP OF THE GOODS, DOCUMENTS, AND INSTRUMENTS UNDER A TRUST RECEIPT

Real owner of the articles subject of the Trust Receipt transaction
The real owner of the articles subject of the TR is the entrustee who binds himself to hold the designated GDI. The
entruster merely holds a security interest. If under the trust receipt, the bank is made to appear as the owner, it was but
an artificial expedient, more of legal fiction than fact, for if it were really so, it could dispose of the goods in any manner it
wants, which it cannot do, just to give consistency with purpose of the trust receipt of giving a stronger security for the
loan obtained by the importer. To consider the bank as the true owner from the inception of the transaction would be to
disregard the loan feature thereof (Rosario Textile Mills Corp. vs. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, supra).
The entrustee, however, cannot mortgage the goods because one of the requisites of a valid mortgage is that the
mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the property mortgaged or must have free disposal thereof. Entrustee is not
the absolute owner of the goods under trust receipt nor has free disposal thereof.
The entruster is not responsible as principal or vendor under any sale or contract to sell made by the entrustee.
RIGHTS OF THE ENTRUSTER
1. To be entitled to the Proceeds from the sale of the GDI to the extent of the amount owing to him.
2. To the Return of the GDI in case of non-sale and enforcement of all other rights conferred to him in the TR.
3. May Cancel the trust and take possession of the goods, upon default or failure of the entrustee to comply with any of
the terms and conditions of the TR (P.D. 115, Sec. 7).
4. To Sell the goods with at least five day notice to the entrustee and apply the proceeds in payment of the obligation.
Entrustee liable to pay deficiency, if any.
VALIDITY OF THE SECURITY INTEREST AS AGAINST THE CREDITORS OF THE ENTRUSTEE/ INNOCENT
PURCHASERS FOR VALUE
Entruster has a better right over the goods than that of the creditors of the entrustee
The entruster’s security interest in goods, documents, or instruments pursuant to the written terms of a TR shall be valid
as against all creditors of the entrustee for the duration of the TR agreement (P.D. 115, Sec. 12).
The security interest of the entruster over the goods under the trust receipt is superior to the monetary claims of the
laborers of the entrustee.
Purchaser in good faith can defeat the rights of the entruster over the goods

Page 38 of 46
A purchaser in good faith acquires the goods, documents or instruments free from the entruster's security interest (P.D.
115, Sec. 11).
OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY
OF THE ENTRUSTEE
Obligations and Liabilitites of the Entrustee (HR-IKRO)
1. To Hold GDI in trust for the entruster and to dispose of them strictly in accordance with the terms of TR;
2. To Receive the proceeds of the sale for the entruster and to turn over the same to the entruster to the extent of
amount owing to the latter;
3. To Insure GDI against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or other casualties;
4. To Keep GDI or the proceeds thereof, whether in money or whatever form, separate and capable of identification as
property of the entruster;
5. To Return GDI to the entruster in case they could not be sold or upon demand of the entruster; and
6. To Observe all other conditions of the TR (P.D. 115, Sec. 9).
NOTE: Not all obligations of the entrustee are criminal in nature. The gravamen of the criminal offense under the trust
receipts law is the failure of the entrustee to deliver the proceeds of the sale to the entruster up to the extent of the
entrutee's obligations or the return of the same in case of non-sale.
PAYMENT/DELIVERY OF PROCEEDS OF SALE OR DISPOSITION OF GOODS, DOCUMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS
Disposition of the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments
The proceeds of the sale of GDI shall be applied in the following (SDP):
1. Expenses of the Sale;
2. Expenses Derived from re-taking, keeping and storing the GDI; and
3. Principal obligation (P.D. 115, Sec. 7).
NOTE: Full payment of the loan or delivery of the sale proceeds equivalent to the full amount of the obligation
extinguishes both criminal and civil liabilities of the entrustee. In case of deficiency, the entrustee shall be liable thereon.
However, any excess shall belong to him.
RETURN OF GOODS, DOCUMENTS OR
INSTRUMENTS IN CASE OF NON-SALE
Obligation of the Entrustee in case the goods, documents or instruments were not sold
The entrustee should return the GDI to the entruster (P.D. 115, Sec. 4).
The return of the GDI in case of non-sale extinguishes only the criminal liability of the entrustee unless he pays in full his
loan obligation. The consequent acquittal of the entrustee in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate
civil action to enforce the civil liability of the entrustee.
The failure to turn over goods or proceeds realized from the sale thereof is a criminal offense under Art. 315(l) (b) of
RPC (estafa) except if he disposed of the goods in accordance with the terms.
Q: CCC Car, Inc. obtained a loan from BBB Bank, which fund was used to import ten (10) units of Mercedes
Benz S class vehicles. Upon arrival of the vehicles and before release of said vehicles to CCC Car, Inc. X and Y,
the President and Treasurer, respectively, of CCC Car, Inc. signed the Trust Receipt to cover tha value of the ten
(10) units of Mercedes Benx S class vehicles after which, the vehicles were all delivered to the Car display
room of CCC Car, Inc. Sale of the vehicles were slow, and it took a month to dispose of the ten (10) units. CCC
Car, Inc. wanted to be in business and to save on various documentations required by the bank, decided that
instead of turning over the proceeds of the sales, CCC Car Inc. used the proceeds to buy another ten (10) units
of BMW 3 series.
a. Is the action of CCC Car, Inc. legally justified? Explain your answer.
b. Will the corporate officers of CCC Car, Inc. be held liable under the circumstances? Explain your answer.
A:
a. NO. It is the obligation of the entrustee, CCC Car, Inc. to receive the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by the
trust receipts in trust for the entruster and to turn over the same to him th extent of the obligation (P.D. 115, Sec. 4)
B. YES. Failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods shall constitute the crime of estafa. If
the violation is committed by a juridical entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or
other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the
criminal offense. Hence, the corporate officers are criminally liable for the violation of the law being he human agent
responsible for the same (P.D. 115, Sec. 13).
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF GOODS,

DOCUMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS
Entrustee shall bear the loss of the goods, documents, or instruments which are the subject of a Trust Receipt
Loss of the GDI which is the subject of a TR, pending their disposition, irrespective of whether or not it was due to the
fault or negligence of the entrustee, shall not extinguish his obligation to the entruster for the value thereof (P.D. 115,
Sec. 10).
RES PERIT DOMINO IN TRUST RECEIPT
Principle of Res Perit Domino is not a valid defense against an Entrustee in cases of loss or destruction of the goods,
documents, or instruments secured by a Trust Receipt. For the principle of res perit domino to apply the entrustee must

Page 39 of 46
be the owner of the goods at the time of the loss. A TR is a security agreement, pursuant to which a bank acquires a
‘security interest’ in the goods. It secures an indebtedness and there can be no such thing as security interest that
secures no obligation. If under a trust receipt transaction, the entruster is made to appear as the owner, it was but an
artificial expedient, more of legal fiction than fact, for if it were really so, it could dispose of the goods in any manner it
wants. Thus, the ownership of the goods remaining with the entrustee, he cannot be relieved of the obligation to pay
his/her loan in case of loss or destruction (Rosario Textile Mills vs. Home Bankers Association, supra).
PENAL SANCTION IF OFFENDER IS A CORPORATION
ELEMENTS ESTAFA IN TRUST RECEIPT
In order that the entrustee may be validly prosecuted for estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, in relation
with Sec. 13 of PD 115, the following elements must be established (R-MAD):
1. The entrustee Received the subject goods in trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to remit the proceeds
thereof to the entruster, or to return the goods if not sold;
2. The entrustee Misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale;
3. The entrustee performed such acts with Abuse of confidence to the damage and prejudice of
entruster; and
4. A Demand was made on the entrustee by entruster for the remittance of the proceeds or the return of the unsold
goods (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Perez, GR No. 166884, June 13, 2012).
NOTE: If proof as regards the delivery of GDI to the accused (entrustee) is insufficient, estafa cannot lie (Ramos vs. CA,
G.R. No. L-3992-25, August 21, 1987).
Compliance with the obligation under the Trust Receipt agreement vis-a-vis criminal liability
1. If compliance occurred before the criminal charge- there is no criminal liability.
2. If compliance occurred after the charge even before conviction- the criminal action will not be extinguished.
P.D. 115 does not violate the prohibition in the Constitution against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt
What is being punished is the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of
another regardless of whether the latter is the owner or not. It does not seek to enforce payment of the loan. Thus, there
can be no violation of a right against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt (People vs. Nitafan, G.R. No. 81559, April
6, 1992).
Q: Is lack of intent to defraud a bar to the prosecution of these acts or omissions? (2006 Bar)
A: NO. The mere failure to account or return gives rise to the crime which is malum prohibitum. There is no requirement
to prove intent to defraud (Ching vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317, February 6, 2006).
Penal sanction is not available if the goods are not intended for sale or resale
To be a TR transaction, the goods must be intended for sale or resale. The Supreme Court, in one case, held that the
trial court erred in ruling that the agreement in the case was a TR transaction because the goods involved were
intended to be used in the fabrication of steel communication towers.
The Court further ruled that, “the true nature of a trust receipt transaction can be found in the ‘whereas’ clause of PD
115 which states that a trust receipt is to be utilized ‘as a convenient business device to assist importers and merchants
solve their financing problems.’ Obviously, the State, in enacting the law, sought to find a way to assist importers and
merchants in their financing in order to encourage commerce in the Philippines.”
The principle is of course not limited in its application to financing importations, since the principle is equally applicable
to domestic transactions. Regardless of whether the transaction is foreign or domestic, it is important to note that the
transactions discussed in relation to trust receipts mainly involved sales (Ng vs. People, G.R. No. 173905, April 23,
2010).
In another case it was held that when both parties enter into an agreement knowing that the return of the goods subject
of the trust receipt is not possible even without any fault on the part of the entrustee, it is not a trust receipt transaction
penalized under Section 13 of P.D. 115; the only obligation actually agreed upon by the parties would be the return of
the proceeds of the sale transaction. The transaction becomes a mere loan, where the borrower is obligated to pay the
bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods (LBP vs. Perez, supra).
PENAL SANCTION WHEN THE OFFENDER IS A CORPORATION
Though the entrustee is a corporation, nevertheless, the law specifically makes the officers, employees or other officers
or persons responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities of such corporation and/or board of
directors, officers, or other officials or employees responsible for the offense.
If the crime is committed by a corporation or other juridical entity, the directors, officers, employees or other officers
thereof responsible for the offense rshall be charged and penalized for the crime, precisely because of the nature of the
crime and the penalty therefor. A corporation cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized for a
crime punishable by imprisonment (Ching vs. Secretary of Justice, supra).
Rationale behind the accountability of the officers of the corporation
The rationale is that such officers or employees are vested with the authority and responsibility to devise means
necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable; thus, they have a
responsible share in the violations of the law (ibid).
NOTE: An officer of a corporation who signed a TR cannot hide behind the cloak of the separate corporate personality
of the corporation, where “he is the actual, present and efficient actor.” Corporate officers or employees, through whose
act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, are individually guilty of the crime. The principle applies
whether or not the crime requires the consciousness of wrongdoing (Ching vs. Secretary of Justice, supra).
Q: The President of Novachem, Crisologo, applied for commercial letters of credits from private respondent
Chinabank to finance the purchase of 1,600 kgs. of amoxicillin trihydrite micronized from Hyundai Chemical
Company in South Korea and glass containers from San Miguel Corporation. Subsequently, Chinabank issued

Page 40 of 46
Letters of Credit. After petitioner received the goods, he executed for and in behalf of Novachem the
corresponding trust receipt agreements in favour of Chinabank.
On January 2004, Chinabank, through its staff assistant, filed before the City Prosecutor’s Office a Complaint-
Affidavit charging Crisologo for violation of P.D. No. 115 in relation to Article 315 of RPC for his purported
failure to turn-over the goods or the proceeds from the sale thereof. RTC rendered a Decision acquitting
Crisologo of criminal charges. It however adjudged him civilly liable to Chinabank. On appeal of the civil
aspect, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. It noted that the Crisologo signed the “Guarantee Clause” of the
trust receipt agreements in his personal capacity and even waived the benefit of excussion against Novachem.
As such, he is personally and solidarily liable with Novachem. Is the decision of CA correct?
A: YES. Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law explicitly provides that if the violation or offense is committed by a
corporation, as in this case, the penalty provided for under the law shall be imposed upon the directors, officers,
employees or other officials or person responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the
criminal offense.
In this case, Crisologo was acquitted of the charge for violation of the Trust Receipts Law in relation to Article 315 of the
RPC. As such, he is relieved of the corporate criminal liability as well as the corresponding civil liability arising
therefrom. However, as correctly found by the RTC and CA, he may still be held liable for the trust receipts and L/C
transactions he had entered into in behalf of Novachem.
Settled is the rule that debts incurred by directors, officers, and employees acting as corporate agents are not the direct
liability but of the corporation they represent, EXCEPT if they contractually agree/stipulate or assume to be personally
liable for the corporate’s debts, as in this case. The RTC and CA correctly adjudged petitioner personally and solidarily
liable with Novachem for the obligations secured by the subject trust receipts based on the finding that he signed the
guarantee clauses therein in his personal capacity an even waived the benefit of excussion (Crisologo vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 199481, December 3, 2012).
REMEDIES AVAILABLE
DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO NEGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE ENTRUSTEE
(CoCo CaCo No LP)
1. Compliance with the terms of the TR either by payment, return of the proceeds or return of the goods (P.D. 115, Sec.
13).
2. Consignment.
3. Cancellation of the TR agreement and taking into possession of the goods by the entruster.
NOTE: Repossession of the goods will extinguish only the criminal liability.
4. Compromise by parties before filing of information in court. Compromise of estafa case arising from TR transaction,
after the case has been filed in court does not amount to novation and does not erase the criminal liability of the
accused (Ong vs. CA, G.R. No. L-58476, September 2, 1983).
5. Non-receipt of the goods by the entrustee or where proof of delivery of goods to the accused is insufficient. (Ramos
vs. CA, supra).
6. Loss of goods without fault of the entrustee.
7. The transaction does not fall under PD 115 (Colinares vs. CA, G.R. No. 90828, September 5, 2000, Consolidated
Bank and Trust Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 114286, April 19, 2001).
NOTE: In these cases, the execution of a TR was made after the goods covered by it had been purchased, making the
buyer the owner thereof. The transaction does not involve a TR but a simple loan even though the parties denominate
the transaction as one of a TR.
PDIC Law
(i) The term insured bank means any bank the deposits of which are insured in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.
“(j) The term insured deposit means the amount due to any bonafide depositor for legitimate deposits in an insured bank
as of the date of closure but not to exceed Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). Such amount shall be
determined according to such regulations as the Board of Directors may prescribe. In determining such amount due to
any depositor, there shall be added together all deposits in the bank maintained in the same right and capacity for his or
her benefit either in his or her own name or in the name of others. A joint account regardless of whether the conjunction
‘and’, ‘or’, ‘and/or’ is used, shall be insured separately from any individually-owned deposit account: Provided, That (1) if
the account is held jointly by two or more natural persons, or by two or more juridical persons or entities, the maximum
insured deposit shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are individuals, juridical persons or entities, unless
a different sharing is stipulated in the document of deposit, and (2) if the account is held by a juridical person or entity
jointly with one or more natural persons, the maximum insured deposit shall be presumed to belong entirely to such
juridical person or entity: Provided, further, That the aggregate of the interest of each co-owner over several joint
accounts, whether owned by the same or different combinations of individuals, juridical persons or entities, shall
likewise be subject to the maximum insured deposit of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00): Provided,
furthermore, That the provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, no owner/holder of any passbook, certificate
of deposit, or other evidence of deposit shall be recognized as a depositor entitled to the rights provided in this Act
unless the passbook, certificate of deposit, or other evidence of deposit is determined by the Corporation to be an
authentic document or record of the issuing bank: Provided, finally, That in case of a condition that threatens the

Page 41 of 46
monetary and financial stability of the banking system that may have systemic consequences, as defined in Section 22
hereof, as determined by the Monetary Board, the maximum deposit insurance cover may be adjusted in such amount,
for such a period, and/or for such deposit products, as may be determined by a unanimous vote of the Board of
Directors in a meeting called for the purpose and chaired by the Secretary of Finance, subject to the approval of the
President of the Philippines.
“SEC. 19. Whenever an insured bank shall have been closed by the Monetary Board pursuant to Section 30 of Republic
Act No. 7653, or upon expiration or revocation of a bank’s corporate term, payment of the insured deposits on such
closed bank shall be made by the Corporation as soon as possible either (1) by cash or (2) by making available to each
depositor a transferred deposit in another insured bank in an amount equal to insured deposit of such depositor:
Provided, however, That the Corporation, in its discretion, may require proof of claims to be filed before paying the
insured deposits, and that in any case where the Corporation is not satisfied as to the validity of a claim for an insured
deposit, it may require final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction before paying such claim: Provided,
further, That failure to settle the claim, within six (6) months from the date of filing of claim for insured deposit, where
such failure was due to grave abuse of discretion, gross negligence, bad faith, or malice, shall, upon conviction, subject
the directors, officers or employees of the Corporation responsible for the delay, to imprisonment from six (6) months to
one (1) year: Provided, furthermore, That the period shall not apply if the validity of the claim requires the resolution of
issues of facts and or law by another office, body or agency including the case mentioned in the first proviso or by the
Corporation together with such other office, body or agency.”
“SEC. 20. The Corporation, upon payment of any depositor as provided for in Section 19 of this Act, shall be subrogated
to all rights of the depositor against the closed bank to the extent of such payment. Such subrogation shall include the
right on the part of the Corporation to receive the same dividends and payments from the proceeds of the assets of
such closed bank and recoveries on account of stockholders’ liability as would have been payable to the depositor on a
claim for the insured deposits: Provided, That such depositor shall retain his or her claim for any uninsured portion of his
or her deposit, which legal preference shall be the same as that of the subrogated claim of the Corporation for its
payment of insured deposits. All payments by the Corporation of insured deposits in closed banks partake of the nature
of public funds, and as such, must be considered a preferred credit in the order of preference under Article 2244 (9) of
the New Civil Code.”
Summary
J owns three accounts in Union Bank. First account contains P278,000. Second contains P420,000 and third is
P1,000,000 in three different branches. How much will be the coverage?
A: P500,000 because the coverage is per bank, not per branch nor account.
J has an individual account worth P348,000. She also has a joint account with her boyfriend worth P900,000. How much
is the insurance coverage?
A: P848,000 because a joint account is insured separately with an individual account.
When will PDIC law come in?
In case of insolvency of the bank.

Page 42 of 46
Page 43 of 46
Page 44 of 46
Page 45 of 46


Page 46 of 46

Post Nego

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Post Nego

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Post-Negotiable Instruments Law Topics (Fundamentals of

Criminal law, BP 22, Estafa,

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW

Theories in criminal law

NOTE: The RPC is generally governed by this theory.

Legal basis for inflicting punishment

Sources of criminal or penal laws

Basic maxims in criminal law

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

1. As to the manner or mode of execution (RPC, Art. 3)

2. As to the stage of execution (RPC, Art. 6)

3. As to gravity (RPC, Art. 9)

BASIS MALA IN SE MALA

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

Three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine criminal law

Kinds of acts which are punishable

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

2. Voluntary– Both dolo and culpa have to be voluntary.

Crime may be committed without criminal intent

Motive as determinant of criminal liability

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Requisites of proximate cause

Stages in committing a crime

b. Acts of execution– those punishable under the Revised Penal Code

Classifications of felonies according to the stage of execution

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Purpose of the classification of felonies

Crimes which do not admit of a frustrated stage

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Circumstances affecting criminal liability (JEMA)

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Reason for justifying self-defense

No transfer of burden of proof when pleading self-defense

Nature of the unlawful aggression

Elements of unlawful aggression

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Two kinds of unlawful aggression

Kind of threat that will amount to unlawful aggression

Test for unlawful aggression in self-defense

Effect if there was a mistake of fact on the part of the accused

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Lack of the sufficient provocation

Control of blows of person defending himself

Self-defense vis-à-vis RETALIATION

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

15 and under Exempting

NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)

Not applicable to felonies by negligence

Factors in order to ascertain the intention

Not applicable when the offender employed brute force

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

Mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated

SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION

Threat need not be offensive and positively strong

Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation

Sufficiency depends on:

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/52977743_25017221298…oh=4dc12a01c53bf9852af06fe6e68e99af&oe=5C86FA91&dl=1 10/03/2019, 9H38 PM

VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

Requisites of vindication of a grave offense

Factors to be considered in determining whether the wrong is grave or not