Ho 8 Pre Week Criminal Law PDF

2019 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW
PRE-WEEK Handout No. 8
REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK ONE)
When a criminal action is already filed in court, the private complainant loses the right or
absolute privilege to decide whether the charge should proceed.
In the case at bench, Rosario’s affidavit, which was executed during the pendency of the petition
for review before the CA, did not abate the proceedings. This properly springs from the rule that
in a criminal action already filed in court, the private complainant loses the right or absolute
privilege to decide whether the charge should proceed. Chua vs. People, 801 SCRA 436, G.R. No.
216146 August 24, 2016
An Affidavit of Desistance has been regarded as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily
be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration.
Regarding the affidavit of desistance, it must be stressed that, as a rule, it is viewed with suspicion
and reservation. It has been regarded as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured
from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration,
and attains no probative value in light of the alleged affiant’s testimony to the contrary. People
vs. Villalon, 808 SCRA 399, G.R. No. 215198 November 9, 2016
For conspiracy to exist, it must be proven or at least inferred from the acts of the alleged
perpetrator before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
We discern no showing from this allegation that Magcamit extorted money from Jaen, or that he
was among those who took part in the division of the money allegedly extorted from Jaen. For
conspiracy to exist, it must be proven or at least inferred from the acts of the alleged perpetrator
before, during, and after the commission of the crime. It cannot simply be surmised that
conspiracy existed because Magcamit was part of the team that took part in the buy-bust
operation which resulted in Jaen’s arrest. In other words, respondents failed to pinpoint
Magcamit’s participation in the extortion that would make him administratively liable. After
evaluating the totality of evidence on record, we find that the records are bereft of substantial
evidence to support the conclusion that Magcamit should be held administratively liable for
grave misconduct; Magcamit was dismissed from the service based on evidence that had not
been disclosed to him. By affirming this dismissal, the CA committed a grave reversible error.
Magcamit vs. Internal Affairs Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 781 SCRA 573, G.R.
No. 198140 January 25, 2016
0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 32
Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Conspiracy requires the same
degree of proof required to establish the crime — proof beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC did
not discuss its finding of conspiracy; it merely held that “both accused acted in concert towards
a common criminal goal.” Conspiracy was not also discussed by the CA. On the subject, the
appellate court only said that “[the] [a]ccused-[a]ppellant [Oscar] and [a]ccused Roel Gimpaya
acted in concert in killing the victim.” These pronouncements do not sufficiently establish that
there was a conspiracy between Oscar and Roel in the stabbing of the victim. The records are
also wanting of any indication of conspiracy. To determine if Oscar conspired with Roel, the Court
must examine the overt acts of accused-appellant before, during, and after the stabbing incident
and the totality of the circumstances. The inception and location of the stabbing incident must
also be considered. People vs. Gimpaya, 850 SCRA 510, G.R. No. 227395 January 10, 2018
Conspiracy does not have to be established by direct evidence since it may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused taken collectively.
Conspiracy happens “when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.” Furthermore, conspiracy does not have to be
established by direct evidence since it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused taken
collectively. However, it is necessary that a conspirator directly or indirectly contributes to the
execution of the crime committed through the performance of an overt act. The Sandiganbayan
found that there was a common design among the petitioners to make it appear that bidding
took place to effect the release of funds for the purchase of overpriced construction supplies and
materials. Granada vs. People, 818 SCRA 381, G.R. No. 184092, G.R. No. 186084, G.R. No.
186272, G.R. No. 186488, G.R. No. 18657 February 22, 2017
A co-conspirator does not have to participate in every detail of the execution; neither does he
have to know the exact part performed by the coconspirator in the execution of the criminal
act.
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated,
or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when these point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest. Where the acts of the accused collectively
and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of
the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident. A coconspirator does not have to participate
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 32
in every detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the
coconspirator in the execution of the criminal act. People vs. Suarez, 806 SCRA 694, G.R. No.
224889 October 19, 2016
Where conspiracy has been adequately proven, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation because, in contemplation of law,
the act of one is the act of all.
The combined efforts of the accused were perpetrated with concerted coordination, indicating
their common objective to inflict injury on Roger. Thus, conspiracy is present. The fact that Suarez
and Vicencio only delivered punches against Roger would not exculpate them from criminal
liability considering that their overt acts were crucial in the commission of the crime. Action in
concert to achieve a common design is the hallmark of conspiracy. Where conspiracy has been
adequately proven, as in the present case, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation because, in contemplation of law,
the act of one is the act of all. People vs. Suarez, 806 SCRA 694, G.R. No. 224889 October 19,
2016
Conspiracy should be understood on two (2) levels, i.e., a mode of committing a crime or a crime
in itself
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 377 SCRA 538 (2002), we explained that when conspiracy is charged
as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements must be set forth in the information, but
when it is not and conspiracy is considered as a mode of committing the crime, there is less
necessity of reciting its particularities in the information because conspiracy is not the gravamen
of the offense. Inocentes vs. People, 796 SCRA 34, G.R. Nos. 205963-64 July 7, 2016
Self-Defense
Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and offers exculpation from liability for crimes only if
satisfactorily proved. Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and offers exculpation from liability
for crimes only if satisfactorily proved. Having admitted the shooting of the victims, the burden
shifted to Bugarin to prove that he indeed acted in self-defense by establishing the following with
clear and convincing evidence: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 32
provocation on his part. Bugarin, however, miserably failed to discharge this burden. One who
admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving
the aforementioned elements. While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and
foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is
proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. Contrary to his claims, the evidence of the
case shows that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victims. His version of the
events was found to be less credible by the trial court. His testimony is incoherent, incredible,
and specious. On the other hand, the trial court found Maria Glen’s testimony to be more
convincing. As the lone surviving victim, she affirmed that Bugarin suddenly fired at them,
without any provocation on their part. As a rule, the appellate courts must give full weight and
respect to the determination by the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, sincethe trial judge
has the best opportunity to observe their demeanor. While it is true that this rule admits of
certain exceptions, none of such are extant in this case. People vs. Bugarin, 820 SCRA 603, G.R.
No. 224900 March 15, 2017
In invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in

invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. In
the case at bar, Bugarin likewise failed to sufficiently establish that Esmeraldo was actually
carrying three (3) firearms and that he attempted to pull out one of his guns to shoot him.
However, when asked what happened to the other firearms or where they went when Esmeraldo
pulled out one of the guns, Bugarin answered that he did not know. Also, Anecita herself testified
that she did not see Esmeraldo carrying anything. He merely held the railings of their gate when
Bugarin went out of their house and shot him. Indeed, nothing in this act would reveal that there
was unlawful aggression on Esmeraldo’s part. Maria Glen also never actually struck or attempted
to strike Anecita with the steel pipe. Neither can Cristito’s alleged act of trying to slap Bugarin
and thereafter staring at the wounded body of his son on the ground be considered unlawful
aggression that he must necessarily repel. Bugarin simply assumed and imagined that Cristito
would get his son’s gun to shoot him. People vs. Bugarin, 820 SCRA 603, G.R. No. 224900 March
15, 2017
Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), an imbecile or an insane person is exempt
from criminal liability, unless the latter had acted during a lucid interval.
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 32
To completely evade culpability, Verdadero raises insanity as a defense claiming that he had
suffered a relapse of his schizophrenia. Under Article 12 of the RPC, an imbecile or an insane
person is exempt from criminal liability, unless the latter had acted during a lucid interval. The
defense of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved for there is a presumption that the acts
penalized by law are voluntary. Verdadero vs. People, 785 SCRA 490, G.R. No. 216021 March 2,
2016
A showing that an accused is suffering from a mental disorder, however, does not
automatically exonerate him from the consequences of his act.
Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between

fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. A showing that an
accused is suffering from a mental disorder, however, does not automatically exonerate him from
the consequences of his act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
imputability. Verdadero vs. People, 785 SCRA 490, G.R. No. 216021 March 2, 2016
Proving insanity is a tedious task for it requires an examination of the mental state of the
accused.
In raising the defense of insanity, Verdadero admits to the commission of the crime because such
defense is in the nature of a confession or avoidance. As such, he is duty-bound to establish with
certainty that he was completely deprived, not merely diminished, of intelligence at the time of
the commission of the crime. Failing which, Verdadero should be criminally punished for
impliedly admitting to have stabbed Romeo to death. Proving insanity is a tedious task for it
requires an examination of the mental state of the accused. In People v. Opuran, 425 SCRA 654
(2004), the Court explained how one’s insanity may be established, to wit: Since insanity is a
condition of the mind, it is not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man can know what
is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person’s mind can only be measured
and judged by his behavior. Thus, the vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts,
by means of which we read the thoughts, motives, and emotions of a person, and then determine
whether the acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. Insanity is evinced by a
deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties which is manifested in language and
conduct. x x x Establishing the insanity of an accused often requires opinion testimony which may
be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused; has rational basis to
conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception; or is qualified as an expert,
such as a psychiatrist. Verdadero vs. People, 785 SCRA 490, G.R. No. 216021 March 2, 2016.
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 32
For the plea of insanity to prosper, the accused must present clear and convincing evidence to
support the claim.
In this jurisdiction, it had been consistently and uniformly held that the plea of insanity is in the
nature of confession and avoidance. Hence, the accused is tried on the issue of sanity alone, and
if found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial on the issue of guilt,
because the accused had already admitted committing the crime. This Court had also consistently
ruled that for the plea of insanity to prosper, the accused must present clear and convincing
evidence to support the claim. Insanity as an exempting circumstance is not easily available to
the accused as a successful defense. It is an exception rather than the rule on the human
condition. Anyone who pleads insanity as an exempting circumstance bears the burden of
proving it with clear and convincing evidence. The testimony or proof of an accused’s insanity
must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the
offense with which he is charged. People vs. Roa, 821 SCRA 453, G.R. No. 225599 March 22, 2017
Intoxication
For intoxication to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the intoxication of the accused

must neither be “habitual [n]or subsequent to the plan to commit [a] felony.” Moreover, it must
be shown that the mental faculties and willpower of the accused were impaired in such a way
that would diminish the accused’s capacity to understand the wrongful nature of his or her acts.
The bare assertion that one is inebriated at the time of the commission of the crime is insufficient.
There must be proof of the fact of intoxication and the effect of intoxication on the accused.
There is no sufficient evidence in this case that would show that petitioner was intoxicated at the
time of the commission of the crime. A considerable amount of time had lapsed from petitioner’s
drinking spree up to the burning of the nipa hut within which he could have regained control of
his actions. Hence, intoxication cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in this case.
Bacerra vs. People, 828 SCVRA 525, G.R. No. 204544 July 3, 2017
Voluntary surrender
Voluntary surrender, as a mitigating circumstance, requires an element of spontaneity. The

accused’s act of surrendering to the authorities must have been impelled by the acknowledgment
of guilt or a desire to “save the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his
[or her] search and capture.” Based on the evidence on record, there is no showing that
petitioner’s act of submitting his person to the authorities was motivated by an
acknowledgement of his guilt. Bacerra vs. People, 828 SCVRA 525, G.R. No. 204544 July 3, 2017
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 32
There is Evident Premeditation when there is evidence that the killing was preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent during the space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
It bears stressing that the Information for murder instituted in this case alleged only two
aggravating/qualifying circumstances in support thereof, to wit: evident premeditation and
treachery. But, as correctly found by both the RTC and the CA — with which finding we are in full
accord — the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation did not attend the
killing of the deceased Corazon because there is no evidence at all that the killing was preceded
by cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent during the space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. In fact, the prosecution here has adduced no
evidence at all to show that sufficient time had lapsed before appellant decided or determined
to commit the crime; nor that appellant, by some convincing act or action, had indeed clung to
his determination to kill the victim; let alone that sufficient time had indeed lapsed or transpired
between the decision to kill and its actual execution, to allow appellant time or opportunity to
reflect upon the consequences of his act. People vs. De la Cruz, 784 SCRA 327, G.R. No. 207389
February 17, 2016
A killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be treacherous.
All the circumstances in the record indicated that the killing of Ambrocio had been done in the
heat of the moment. It is quite clear that Benjamin, Jr. had not set out to kill Ambrocio when they
both agreed to meet in order to discuss their land dispute. The fact also remains that it was the
victim who had brought the gun to the meeting. In contrast, Benjamin, Jr. did not appear to have
prepared his own weapon to commit the crime. To establish the attendance of treachery in such
an environment, the State’s evidence must competently and convincingly show that the accused
made some preparation to kill the victim; hence, a killing done at the spur of the moment cannot
be treacherous. Even where the victim was shot from behind, if the shooting was done in the
course of a heated argument between the victim and the assailant, treachery should not be
appreciated, for in that situation, the assailant was filled with anger and rage and excitement,
and had no time to reflect on his actions; in other words, he could not be shown to have
consciously adopted the mode of attacking the victim from behind to facilitate the killing without
risk to himself. Rustia, Jr. vs. People, 805 SCRA 311, G.R. No. 208351 October 5, 2016.
Grant of probation suspends the imposition of the principal penalty of imprisonment as well as
the accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from the right to follow a
profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage.
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 32
The fact that respondent Roque was still a probationer when he applied for the position of Utility
Worker and accomplished his Personal Data Sheet did not disqualify him from applying for the
position. In Moreno v. Commission on Elections, 498 SCRA 547 (2006), the Court clarified that
the grant of probation suspends the imposition of the principal penalty of imprisonment as well
as the accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from the right to follow a
profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. It
held: In Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148 (1984), the Court declared that an order placing
defendant on probation is not a sentence but is rather, in effect, a suspension of the imposition
of sentence. We held that the grant of probation to petitioner suspended the imposition of the
principal penalty of imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties of suspension from public
office and from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage. We thus deleted from the order granting probation
the paragraph which required that petitioner refrain from continuing with her teaching
profession. Applying this doctrine to the instant case, the accessory penalties of suspension from
public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period imposed upon Moreno were
similarly suspended upon the grant of probation. It appears then that during the period of
probation, the probationer is not even disqualified from running for a public office because the
accessory penalty of suspension from public office is put on hold for the duration of the
probation. Clearly, the period within which a person is under probation cannot be equated with
service of the sentence adjudged. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law specifically provides that the grant
of probation suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation, the
probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him by the court but is merely required to
comply with all the conditions prescribed in the probation order. Re: Anonymous Letter
Complaint vs. Samson, 826 SCRA 92, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870 June 6, 2017
Upon Grant of Probation, the accessory penalty of suspension from the right to follow a
profession or calling was also suspended.
When respondent Roque was granted probation, not only was the imposition of the principal
penalty of imprisonment suspended, but the accessory penalty of suspension from the right to
follow a profession or calling was also suspended. Hence, respondent Roque retained the right
to seek employment and was, therefore, not disqualified to apply for the position of utility worker
in the court when he was still a probationer. However, respondent Roque had the obligation to
disclose the fact that he had been formally charged and convicted of an offense in his Personal
Data Sheet and cannot justify his nondisclosure of such fact by invoking the confidentiality of his
records under the Probation Law. Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint vs. Samson, 826 SCRA 92,
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870 June 6, 2017
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 32
REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK TWO)
Piracy
Section 2(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as follows: Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of
its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy.
People vs. Dela Peña, 853 SCRA 565, G.R. No. 219581 January 31, 2018
Philippine Waters Definition
Under Section 2(a) of PD 532, “Philippine waters” is defined as follows: All bodies of water, such
as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of the
Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other
waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the seabed,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction. x x x From this definition, it is clear that a river is considered part of Philippine waters.
People vs. Dela Peña, 853 SCRA 565, G.R. No. 219581 January 31, 2018
Parricide
Parricide is committed when:
a) a person is killed;
b) the deceased is killed by the accused;
c) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendants or other descendants, or the legitimate spouse of the
accused. People vs. Umapas, 821 SCRA 421, G.R. No. 215742 March 22, 2017
In parricide involving spouses, the best proof of the relationship between the offender and
victim is their marriage certificate.
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 32
In the instant case, the fact of Gemma’s death is incontestable. The fact that Gemma died on
December 5, 1998 was established by witnesses from both the prosecution and defense. As
additional proof of Gemma’s demise, the prosecution presented her Certificate of Death which
was admitted by the RTC.
Also, the spousal relationship between Gemma and the appellant is undisputed. Appellant
already admitted that Gemma was his legitimate wife in the course of the trial of the case. In
parricide involving spouses, the best proof of the relationship between the offender and victim
is their marriage certificate.
However, oral evidence may also be considered in proving the relationship between the two as
long as such proof is not contested, as in this case. Thus, having established the fact of death and
the spousal relationship between Gemma and the appellant, the remaining element to be proved
is whether the deceased is killed by the accused. People vs. Umapas, 821 SCRA 421, G.R. No.
215742 March 22, 2017
Murder
The elements of the crime of murder are as follows:
a) that the victim was killed;

b) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide;
c) that the accused killed the victim; and
d) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
248 of the RPC.
In the crime of Attempted Murder, the fact that petitioner was successful in blocking the blow
with his hand does not, in and of itself, mean that respondents could not have possibly killed
him.
In Rivera v. People, 480 SCRA 188 (2006), this court noted that the fact that the wounds sustained
by the victim were merely superficial and not fatal did not negate the liability of the accused for
attempted murder. The attack on the victim in Rivera was described as follows: In the present
case, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the intent of
petitioners to kill Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows. Even as
Ruben fell to the ground, unable to defend himself against the sudden and sustained assault of
petitioners, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on the
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 32
head, missed, but still managed to hit the victim only in the parietal area, resulting in a lacerated
wound and cerebral contusions.
The circumstances in Rivera are starkly similar with (though not entirely the same as) those in
this case. As in Rivera, several assailants took part in pummeling petitioner, and efforts were
made to hit his head with stones or pieces of hollow blocks. A difference is that, in this case,
petitioner managed to parry an attempted blow, thereby causing a fracture in his right hand,
instead of a more serious and, possibly fatal, injury on his head.
In any case, the fact that petitioner was successful in blocking the blow with his hand does not,
in and of itself, mean that respondents could not have possibly killed him. It does not negate any
homicidal intent. It remains that respondent Fuentes attempted to hit petitioner on the head
with a hollow block while respondents Calilan and Lindo made efforts to restrain petitioner.
Marasigan vs. Fuentes, 778 SCRA 645, G.R. No. 201310 January 11, 2016
Rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is committed through
sexual intercourse; often denominated as “organ rape” or “penile rape,” carnal knowledge is
its central element and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Rape can be committed either through sexual intercourse or sexual assault. Rape under
paragraph 1 of the above cited article is rape through sexual intercourse; often denominated as
“organ rape” or “penile rape,” carnal knowledge is its central element and must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in
subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. People vs. Marmol, 810 SCRA 379, G.R. No. 217379
November 23, 2016
Sexual assault is committed when the perpetrator commits the attending circumstances in
paragraph 1 and shall insert his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A is commonly known as rape by sexual assault. Under
any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1, the perpetrator commits this kind
of rape by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also called “instrument or object
rape,” also “gender-free rape.” People vs. Marmol, 810 SCRA 379, G.R. No. 217379 November
23, 2016
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 32
Statutory Rape. Sexual congress with a girl under twelve (12) years old is always rape.
Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape. In this type of rape, force and
intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether
carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will
of her own on account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her
presumed incapacity to discern evil from good. People vs. Suedad, 793 SCRA 31, G.R. No. 211026
June 8, 2016
Under Statutory Rape, the law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her
own on account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed
incapacity to discern good from evil.
Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is termed statutory rape
as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape
is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old.
Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only
subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law
presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender
years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from
evil. People vs. Brioso, 794 SCRA 562, G.R. No. 209344 June 27, 2016
Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration.
AAA’s testimony was corroborated by the findings of Dr. Manansala showing that AAA had
lacerations on her female anatomy. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best
evidence of forcible defloration. When the consistent and straightforward testimony of a rape
victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that
the essential requisites of carnal knowledge have been established. People vs. Suedad, 793 SCRA
31, G.R. No. 211026 June 8, 2016
The touching or entry of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum
of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape.
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 32
Carnal knowledge is proven by proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the
female organ; the touching or entry of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape. The alleged act of forced
coitus is actually a factual matter wherein the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused
largely depends on the victim’s testimony considering the intrinsic nature of the crime in which
only two persons are normally involved. People vs. Mendoza, 791 SCRA 195, G.R. No. 214349
April 20, 2016
The lone testimony of the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a
verdict of conviction.
When a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape has in fact been committed. Thus, the lone testimony of the victim in a prosecution for rape,
if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. The rationale is that, owing to the nature
of the offense, the only evidence that can be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is
usually only the offended party’s testimony. People vs. Umanito, 789 SCRA 408, G.R. No. 208648
April 13, 2016
The accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim’s sole testimony provided such
testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing.
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the
victim to testify about the commission of the crime. Thus, the accused may be convicted of rape
on the basis of the victim’s sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent
and convincing. Moreover, the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence
considering that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her
family to shame and perhaps ridicule. People vs. Menaling, 789 SCRA 421, G.R. No. 208676 April
13, 2016
In the crime of Rape, when the offender is the victim’s father, there need not be actual force,
threat or intimidation because the father’s moral ascendancy or influence substitutes for
violence and intimidation.
When the offender is the victim’s father, as in this case, there need not be actual force, threat or
intimidation because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own daughter,
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 32
his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation.
People vs. Mayola, 813 SCRA 489, G.R. No. 214470 December 7, 2016
In rape committed by a relative with moral ascendancy, such moral influence or ascendancy
substitutes for violence or intimidation.
In rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim’s father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-
law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.
Based on the testimony of AAA, there was carnal knowledge between her and appellant. This
was further corroborated by medical findings which showed vaginal lacerations. It was further
stipulated during pretrial that the appellant is AAA’s uncle by affinity and that she was fourteen
years old at the time of the rape incident. It was ruled in People v. Ofemiano, 611 SCRA 250
(2010), that “even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the
malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a
close kin, such as the victim’s father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother,
moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.” People vs. Fuentes, Jr.,
795 SCRA 529, G.R. No. 212337 July 4, 2016
The failure of the victim to shout or seek help does not negate rape.
Appellant questions the behavior of private complainant AAA as not being the proper behavior
of a victim of sexual abuse. Such contention deserves scant consideration. A person accused of a
serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for
failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the fact that
no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled
rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help does not negate rape. Even lack of resistance
will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was
intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative
such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common-law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes
the place of violence. People vs. Mayola, 813 SCRA 489, G.R. No. 214470 December 7, 2016
The delay in reporting the incident is also not a factor in diminishing the value of private
complainant AAA’s testimony.
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 32
In People v. Ogarte, 649 SCRA 395 (2011), this Court ruled that the rape victim’s deferral in
reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of the accusation, thus: The failure of
complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report
the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually
molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay
in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never
complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain,
rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats to
kill or hurt their victims. People vs. Mayola, 813 SCRA 489, G.R. No. 214470 December 7, 2016
Rape is qualified when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim
Article 266-B of the RPC provides that rape is qualified when certain circumstances are present
in its commission, such as when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Hence, in a conviction for
qualified rape, the prosecution must prove that (1) the victim is under eighteen years of age at
the time of the rape, and (2) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted)
of the victim. In other words, it is the concurrence of both the minority of the victim and her
relationship with the offender that will be considered as a special qualifying circumstance, raising
the penalty to the supreme penalty of death. Thus, it is imperative that the circumstance of
minority and relationship be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself; otherwise,
the crime shall be considered simple rape warranting the imposition of the lower penalty of
reclusion perpetua. If, at trial, both the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender
are not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the death penalty cannot be imposed. People vs.
Sariego, 785 SCRA 71, G.R. No. 203322 February 24, 2016
If the crime of Statutory Rape is accompanied by a qualifying circumstance as provided for

under Article 266-B of the RPC, the imposable penalty shall be death. However, kindly note that
RA No. 9346 debars the imposition of death penalty.
In the instant case, as the victim, AAA, is below seven (7) years old, or four (4) years old at the
time of the crime, the imposable penalty is death. The passage of Republic Act No. 9346 debars
the imposition of the death penalty without declassifying the crime of qualified rape as heinous.
Thus, the appellate correctly reduced the penalty from death If the crime of rape is committed
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 15 of 32
by a grandfather against his granddaughter under eighteen (18) years of age, the rape is qualified
pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
If committed by a grandfather against his granddaughter under eighteen (18) years of age, the
rape is qualified pursuant to Article 266-B of the same Code, to wit: x x x x The death penalty shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances: 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. x x x x Based on the foregoing
provisions, the elements of qualified rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) [done]
by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
rape; and (5) the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
People vs. Mendoza, 791 SCRA 195, G.R. No. 214349 April 20, 2016
Special complex crime of rape with homicide, Elements
In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the
appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by
means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge
by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. Accordingly, the
prosecution must necessarily prove each of the component offenses with the same precision that
would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. People vs. Balisong,
800 SCRA 211, G.R. No. 218086 August 10, 2016
Under the Sweetheart Theory, the mere fact that the accused and the victim were lovers should
not exculpate him from criminal liability for rape.
The sweetheart defense is not usually regarded with favor in the absence of strong
corroboration. This is because the mere fact that the accused and the victim were lovers should
not exculpate him from criminal liability for rape. In People v. Orquina, 390 SCRA 510 (2002), the
Court observed that an allegation of a “love relationship” between the parties, even if found to
be true, did not eliminate the use of force to consummate the crime because the gravamen of
rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her will and without her consent. As declared
in People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82 (1996): It should be borne in mind that love is not a license for
carnal intercourse through force or intimidation. Even granting that appellant and complainant
were really sweethearts, that fact alone would not negate the commission of rape. A sweetheart
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 16 of 32
cannot be forced to have sex against her will. From a mere fiancée, definitely a man cannot
demand sexual submission and, worse, employ violence upon her on a mere justification of love.
A man can even be convicted for the rape of his common-law wife. People vs. Claro, 822 SCRA
365, G.R. No. 199894 April 5, 2017
That the appellant and the victim had been sweethearts (Sweetheart Theory) was no excuse in
the eyes of the law for him to employ force and intimidation in gratifying his carnal desires.
Anent the sweetheart defense of the appellant, the CA and the trial court justly rejected it. Such
defense, being uncorroborated and self-serving, deserved scant consideration. Nonetheless, that
the appellant and the victim had been sweethearts was no excuse in the eyes of the law for him
to employ force and intimidation in gratifying his carnal desires. People vs. Domingo, 827 SCRA
170, G.R. No. 225743 June 7, 2017
Forcible Abduction is absorbed by Rape if the main intention of the perpetrator is Rape.
Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, the appellant should be convicted only of
rape. His forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his real objective
in abducting her was to commit the rape. Under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, the
elements of forcible abduction are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will; and (2) with lewd
designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when the
abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1)
by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. Although the
elements of forcible abduction obtained, the appellant should be convicted only of rape. His
forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his real objective in
abducting her was to commit the rape. Where the main objective of the culprit for the abduction
of the victim of rape was to have carnal knowledge of her, he could be convicted only of rape.
People vs. Domingo, 827 SCRA 170, G.R. No. 225743 June 7, 2017
There is Robbery with Homicide, when on occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the
crime of homicide, which is used in a generic sense, was committed.
To warrant a conviction for Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution must prove the confluence
of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 17 of 32
intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken thus belongs to another; (3) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in a generic sense, was committed. People
vs. Espia, 800 SCRA 170, G.R. No. 213380 August 10, 2016
In the crime of robbery with homicide, what is essential is that there is a direct relation or
intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or
subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.
When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible
felony of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it
clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. People vs. Espia, 800 SCRA 170, G.R.
No. 213380 August 10, 2016
In the crime of Robbery in Band, it is committed when four (4) or more malefactors take part in
the robbery.
Robbery is the taking, with the intent to gain, of personal property belonging to another by use
of force, violence or intimidation. Under Article 294(5) in relation to Article 295, and Article 296
of the Revised Penal Code, robbery in band is committed when four (4) or more malefactors take
part in the robbery. All members are punished as principals for any assault committed by the
band, unless it can be proven that the accused took steps to prevent the commission of the crime.
Even if the crime is committed by several malefactors in a motor vehicle on a public highway, the
crime is still classified as robbery in band, not highway robbery or brigandage under Presidential
Decree No. 532. It is highway robbery only when it can be proven that the malefactors primarily
organized themselves for the purpose of committing that crime. Amparo vs. People, 818 SCRA
431, G.R. No. 204990 February 22, 2017
Syndicated Estafa
The elements of Syndicated Estafa are as follows:
a) Estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal
Code is committed;
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 18 of 32
b) The Estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate; and

c) The defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders,
or members of rural banks, cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers’ associations, or
of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. Remo vs.
Devanadera, 813 SCRA 610, G.R. No. 192925 December 9, 2016
Syndicated Estafa is punishable by life imprisonment to death regardless of the value of the
damage or prejudiced caused.
The penalty for syndicated Estafa under PD No. 1689 is significantly heavier than that of simple
Estafa under Article 315 of the RPC. The penalty imposable for simple Estafa follows the schedule
under Article 315 and is basically dependent on the value of the damage or prejudice caused by
the perpetrator, but in no case can it exceed twenty (20) years imprisonment. Syndicated Estafa,
however, is punishable by life imprisonment to death regardless of the value of the damage or
prejudiced caused. Remo vs. Devanadera, 813 SCRA 610, G.R. No. 192925 December 9, 2016
Estafa is committed by a syndicate if the perpetrators of an Estafa are not only comprised of at
least five (5) individuals but must have also used the association that they formed or managed
to defraud its own stockholders, members or depositors.
Citing the text of Section 1 of PD No. 1689 as well as previous cases that applied the said law,
Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 691 SCRA 455 (2013), declared that in order to be considered as a
syndicate under PD No. 1689, the perpetrators of an Estafa must not only be comprised of at
least five individuals but must have also used the association that they formed or managed to
defraud its own stockholders, members or depositors.
Thus: On review of the cases applying the law, we note that the swindling syndicate used the
association that they manage to defraud the general public of funds contributed to the
association. Indeed, Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689 speaks of a syndicate formed with
the intention of carrying out the unlawful scheme for the misappropriation of the money
contributed by the members of the association. In other words, only those who formed [or]
manage associations that receive contributions from the general public who misappropriated the
contributions can commit syndicated Estafa. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) Hence, Galvez held that
since the directors therein were “outsiders” or were not affiliated in any way with the commercial
bank whose funds they allegedly misappropriated, they cannot be charged with syndicated Estafa
but only of simple Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. Dissecting the pronouncement in
Galvez for our present purposes, however, we are able to come up with the following standards
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 19 of 32
by which a group of purported swindlers may be considered as a syndicate under PD No. 1689:
1. They must be at least five (5) in number; 2. They must have formed or managed a rural bank,
cooperative, “samahang nayon,” farmers’ association or any other corporation or association
that solicits funds from the general public; 3. They formed or managed such association with the
intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme i.e., they
used the very association that they formed or managed as the means to defraud its own
stockholders, members and depositors. Remo vs. Devanadera, 813 SCRA 610, G.R. No. 192925
December 9, 2016
Acts of Lasciviousness
The Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are:
a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

b) the act is done under any of the following circumstances:
1) by using force or intimidation, or
2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
3) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
c) the offended party is another person of either sex.
In addition, such acts are punished as sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610, whose elements
under Section 5 of the law are namely: (1) the accused commits the acts of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Awas vs.
People, 828 SCRA 299, G.R. No. 203114 June 28, 2017
Acts of Lasciviousness as defined
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of
any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. Awas vs. People, 828 SCRA 299, G.R. No.
203114 June 28, 2017
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 20 of 32
There is no standard behavior for a victim of a crime against chastity. Behavioral psychology
teaches that people react to similar situations dissimilarly.
The failure of AAA to shout during the incident would not exculpate the petitioner. There is no
standard behavior for a victim of a crime against chastity. Behavioral psychology teaches that
people react to similar situations dissimilarly. AAA could have been submissive due to her tender
age, but the fact that she did cry after the incident was a true indication, indeed, that she had
felt violated. Worthy to note is that her own brother, upon noticing her crying, inquired why she
was crying, and she then told him that the petitioner had touched her vagina. Awas vs. People,
828 SCRA 299, G.R. No. 203114 June 28, 2017
Bigamy
Elements of Bigamy are:

a) that the offender has been legally married;
b) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
d) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
Vitangcol vs. People, 780 SCRA 598, G.R. No. 207406 January 13, 2016
If the defense raises that the first marriage is void, the absence of a Judicial declaration of
nullity is an essential element of the crime of bigamy.
Should the requirement of judicial declaration of nullity be removed as an element of the crime
of bigamy, Article 349 of Revised Penal Code becomes useless.
“[A]ll that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to contract a subsequent marriage and escape a
bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent
marriageis equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first.” Further, “[a]
party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite — usually the marriage
license — and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a judicial declaration
of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void.” Vitangcol vs. People, 780
SCRA 598, G.R. No. 207406 January 13, 2016
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 21 of 32
Libel
Elements of Libel are:
a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

b) publication of the charge;
c) identity of the person defamed; and
d) existence of malice.
To determine actual malice, a libelous statement must be shown to have been written or
published with the knowledge that it is false or in reckless disregard of whether it is false or not
Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm.
Malice is bad faith or bad motive and it is the essence of the crime of libel. To determine actual
malice, a libelous statement must be shown to have been written or published with the
knowledge that it is false or in reckless disregard of whether it is false or not. Reckless disregard
of what is false or not means that the defendant entertains serious doubt as to the truth of the
publication or possesses a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity. Ty-Delgado vs. House
of Representative Electoral Tribunal, 782 SCRA 117, G.R. No. 219603 January 26, 2016
Generally, the requirement of publication of defamatory matters is not satisfied by a

communication of such matters to an agent of the defamed person.
It is not amiss to state that generally, the requirement of publication of defamatory matters is
not satisfied by a communication of such matters to an agent of the defamed person. In this case,
however, the defamatory statement was published when copy of the Omnibus Motion was
furnished to and read by Michael, the son and representative of respondent Nezer in the estafa
complaint, who is clearly not an agent of the defamed person, ACP Suñega-Lagman. Belen vs.
People, 817 SCRA 370, G.R. No. 211120 February 13, 2017
A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the author has acted
in bad faith.
A communication is absolutely privileged when it is not actionable, even if the author has acted
in bad faith. This class includes allegations or statements made by parties or their counsel in
pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as
answers given by the witness in reply to questions propounded to them in the course of said
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 22 of 32
proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the
answers are responsive to the questions propounded to said witnesses. The reason for the rule
that pleadings in judicial proceedings are considered privileged is not only because said pleadings
have become part of public record open to the public to scrutinize, but also to the undeniable
fact said pleadings are presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in nature,
appropriate to the disposition of issues ventilated before the courts for proper administration of
justice and, therefore, of general public concern.
Moreover, pleadings are presumed to contain allegations substantially true because they can be
supported by evidence in good faith, the contents of which would be under scrutiny of courts
and, therefore, subject to be purged of all improprieties and illegal statements contained therein.
In fine, the privilege is granted in aid and for the advantage of the administration of justice.
While Philippine law is silent on the question of whether the doctrine of absolutely privileged
communication extends to statements in preliminary investigations or other proceedings
preparatory to trial, the Court found as persuasive in this jurisdiction the U.S. case of Borg v. Boas,
231 F.2d 788 (1956), which categorically declared the existence of such protection: It is hornbook
learning that the actions and utterances in judicial proceedings so far as the actual participants
therein are concerned and preliminary steps leading to judicial action of an official nature have
been given absolute privilege. Of particular interest are proceedings leading up to prosecutions
or attempted prosecutions for crime x x x [A] written charge or information filed with the
prosecutor or the court is not libelous although proved false and unfounded. Furthermore, the
information given to a prosecutor by a private person for the purpose of initiating a prosecution
is protected by the same cloak of immunity and cannot be used as a basis for an action for
defamation. Belen vs. People, 817 SCRA 370, G.R. No. 211120 February 13, 2017
There is Libel when defamatory statements, even within an Omnibus Motion, were made
known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written.
In claiming that he did not intend to expose the Omnibus Motion to third persons, but only
complied with the law on how service and filing of pleadings should be done, petitioner conceded
that the defamatory statements in it were made known to someone other than the person to
whom it has been written. Despite the fact that the motion was contained in sealed envelopes,
it is not unreasonable to expect that persons other than the one defamed would be able to read
the defamatory statements in it, precisely because they were filed with the OCP of San Pablo City
and copy furnished to Nezer, the respondent in the estafa complaint, and the Office of the
Secretary of Justice in Manila. Then being a lawyer, petitioner is well aware that such motion is
not a mere private communication, but forms part of public record when filed with the
government office. Inasmuch as one is disputably presumed to intend the natural and probable
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 23 of 32
consequence of his act, petitioner cannot brush aside the logical outcome of the filing and service
of his Omnibus Motion. Belen vs. People, 817 SCRA 370, G.R. No. 211120 February 13, 2017
Absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice, if
the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry.
The absolute privilege remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of malice, if
the same are relevant, pertinent or material to the cause in and or subject of the inquiry.
Sarcastic, pungent and harsh allegations in a pleading although tending to detract from the
dignity that should characterize proceedings in courts of justice, are absolutely privileged, if
relevant to the issues. As to the degree of relevancy or pertinency necessary to make the alleged
defamatory matter privileged, the courts are inclined to be liberal. The matter to which the
privilege does not extend must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the
controversy that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy and impropriety. In order that a
matter alleged in the pleading may be privileged, it need not, in any case, be material to the issue
presented by the pleadings; however, it must be legitimately related thereto or so pertinent to
the subject of the controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in the course of the trial.
What is relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer, and the words
are not be scrutinized with microscopic intensity, as it would defeat the protection which the law
throws over privileged communication. Belen vs. People, 817 SCRA 370, G.R. No. 211120
February 13, 2017
If the pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute, and alleges an irrelevant matter
which is libelous, he loses his privilege.
Petitioner should bear in mind the rule that the pleadings should contain but the plain and
concise statements of material facts and not the evidence by which they are to be proved. If the
pleader goes beyond the requirements of the statute, and alleges an irrelevant matter which is
libelous, he loses his privilege. The reason for this is that without the requirement of relevancy,
pleadings could be easily diverted from their original aim to succinctly inform the court of the
issues in litigation and pervaded into a vehicle for airing charges motivated by a personal rancor.
Granted that lawyers are given great latitude or pertinent comment in furtherance of the causes
they uphold, and for the felicity of their clients, they may be pardoned some infelicities of
language, petitioner would do well to recall that the Code of Professional Responsibility ordains
that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper. After all, a lawyer should conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues, and use only such temperate but strong language in his
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 24 of 32
pleadings or arguments befitting an advocate. Belen vs. People, 817 SCRA 370, G.R. No. 211120
February 13, 2017
SPECIAL LAWS
BP No. 22
To be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 22, the following essential elements must
be present:
a) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value;
b) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment; and
c) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment. Dela Cruz vs. People, 799 SCRA 216, G.R. No. 163494
August 3, 2016
A corporate officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when
he is convicted.
The only issue in the present case is whether or not respondents, as corporate officers, may still
be held civilly liable despite their acquittal from the criminal charge of violation of BP 22. The
Court rules in the negative, as this matter has already been settled by jurisprudence. In the case
of Gosiaco v. Ching, 585 SCRA 471 (2009), this Court enunciated the rule that a corporate officer
who issues a bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when he is convicted. In the
said case, the Court ruled that: When a corporate officer issues a worthless check in the corporate
name he may be held personally liable for violating a penal statute. The statute imposes criminal
penalties on anyone who with intent to defraud another of money or property, draws or issues
a check on any bank with knowledge that he has no sufficient funds in such bank to meet the
check on presentment. More over, the personal liability of the corporate officer is predicated on
the principle that he cannot shield himself from liability from his own acts on the ground that it
was a corporate act and not his personal act. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Duque,
818 SCRA 57, G.R. No. 216467 February 15, 2017
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 25 of 32
Once acquitted of the offense of violating Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22, a corporate officer is
discharged from any civil liability arising from the issuance of the worthless check in the name
of the corporation he represents.
It is clear that the civil liability of the corporate officer for the issuance of a bouncing corporate
check attaches only if he is convicted. Conversely, therefore, it will follow that once acquitted of
the offense of violating BP 22, a corporate officer is discharged from any civil liability arising from
the issuance of the worthless check in the name of the corporation he represents. This is without
regard as to whether his acquittal was based on reasonable doubt or that there was a
pronouncement by the trial court that the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Duque, 818 SCRA 57, G.R. No. 216467
February 15, 2017
Republic Act No. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
The following are the elements for violation of RA No. 3019:
a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official
functions (or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);
b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and
c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his
functions. Fuentes vs. People, 822 SCRA 509, G.R. No. 186421 April 17, 2017
Even private individuals may be held liable under Plunder and under RA 3019 if conspiracy with
a public officer exists.
It has been long-settled that while the primary offender in Plunder and violations under Section
3(e) of RA 3019 are public officers, private individuals may also be held liable for the same if they
are found to have conspired with said officers in committing the same. That a private individual,
such as Napoles, could not be charged for Plunder and violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
because the offenders in those crimes are public officers is a complete misconception. It has been
long-settled that while the primary offender in the aforesaid crimes are public officers, private
individuals may also be held liable for the same if they are found to have conspired with said
officers in committing the same. This proceeds from the fundamental principle that in cases of
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. In this case, since it appears that Napoles has acted in
concert with public officers in the systematic pillaging of Sen. Revilla’s PDAF, the Ombudsman
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 26 of 32
correctly indicted her as a coconspirator for the aforementioned crimes. Cambe vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 812 SCRA 537, G.R. Nos. 212014-15, G.R. Nos. 212427-28 December 6, 2016
Under Plunder, the identification in the information of such public official as the main plunderer
among the several individuals thus charged is necessary under the law itself.
Because plunder is a crime that only a public official can commit by amassing, accumulating, or
acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00, the
identification in the information of such public official as the main plunderer among the several
individuals thus charged is logically necessary under the law itself. In particular reference to
Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174, the individuals charged therein — including the petitioners
— were 10 public officials; hence, it was only proper to identify the main plunderer or plunderers
among the 10 accused who herself or himself had amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten
wealth with the total value of at least P50,000,000.00. Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, 823 SCRA
370, G.R. No. 220598, G.R. No. 220953 April 18, 2017
Carnapping (RA No. 10883)
Unlawful taking or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the
owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things
It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he
has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides
the presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. The prosecution was able to prove that
there was unlawful taking of the vehicle. The fingerprints, which was confirmed as identical with
Arcenal’s, found on the vehicle not only substantiated the testimonies of Flores and Meras that
he was indeed Alvin’s passenger but also established that he had possession of the said vehicle.
People vs. Arcenal, 821 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 216015 March 27, 2017
Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, which is an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful
taking of the motor vehicle.
Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term “gain” is
not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit, which in any other sense
may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 27 of 32
which was taken without the owner’s consent constitutes gain. Arcenal’s fleeing with Alvin’s
tricycle showed his intent to gain. That it was later abandoned does not negate his intent. People
vs. Arcenal, 821 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 216015 March 27, 2017
Possession of Dangerous Drugs
Elements of Possession of Dangerous Drugs are as follows:
a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or

regulated drug;
b) such possession is not authorized by law; and
c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
The prosecution has duly established all the elements of the two crimes charged. As culled from
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the PDEA officers caught appellant in flagrante delicto
selling shabu to a PDEA officer. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt
by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. After her
arrest, she was frisked and eight (8) plastic sachets of shabu were recovered in her possession.
People vs. Rivera, 797 SCRA 699, G.R. No. 208837 July 20, 2016
To discharge its overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the
State should establish all the elements of the sale and possession of shabu and prove the corpus
delicti.
In drug-related prosecutions, the State should not only establish all the elements of the sale and
possession of shabu under RA 9165, but also prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, to
discharge its overall duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The illegal
drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital for the
conviction of the accused. People vs. Quim, 793 SCRA 621, G.R. No. 213919 June 15, 2016
Along with the elements of the offense charged, the identity of the dangerous drug must be
established.
For prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 28 of 32
beyond reasonable doubt. It is of paramount importance that the identity of the dangerous drug
be so established, along with the elements of the offense charged. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt in these cases demands an unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in
court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him. Derilo vs. People, 789
SCRA 517, G.R. No. 190466 April 18, 2016
Elements for conviction for Sale of Shabu
a) the identities of the buyer and the seller,

b) the object of the sale and the consideration; and
c) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.
It is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court
the corpus delicti as evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions for the
sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus
delicti, the body of crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. People vs. Yepes, 788 SCRA
588, G.R. No. 206766 April 6, 2016
The moment the seller accepts the offer of the buyer and the buyer receives the drugs from the
seller, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is consummated.
The presence of the following elements required for all prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs has been duly established in the instant case:
a) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and

b) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
Appellant was apprehended, indicted and convicted by way of a buy-bust operation, a form of
entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing
the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. The commission of the offense of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction
which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The crime is
consummated at once at the point when the police officer has gone through the operation as a
buyer whose offer was accepted by the accused, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs
to the former. People vs. Enriquez, 794 SCRA 375, G.R. No. 214503 June 22, 2016
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 29 of 32
What is essential under Chain of Custody is the establishment that the substance bought during
the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.
It is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug that the drug, which is
the corpus delicti, be presented as evidence in court. Hence, the identity of the prohibited drug
must be established without any doubt. Even more than this, what must also be established is
the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered
in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. People vs.
Miranda, 781 SCRA 123, G.R. No. 205639 January 18, 2016
To ensure integrity of evidence presented, every link in the chain of custody, from the moment
the dangerous drug was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence must be testified upon.
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, the chain
of custody rule requires the prosecution to be able to account for each link in the chain of custody
of the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was
presented in court. Testimony must be presented on every link in the chain of custody, from the
moment the dangerous drug was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. People vs. Quim,
793 SCRA 621, G.R. No. 213919 June 15, 2016
The defense of denial and frame-up is disfavored by the Supreme Court since it can easily be
concocted and it is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.
Against the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, Belban merely denied the accusations
against him. We have invariably viewed with disfavor the defense of denial and frame-up because
it can easily be concocted and it is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for
violation of R.A. No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be
proved with strong and convincing evidence. The burden of proof is on Belban to defeat the
presumption that the police officers properly performed their official duties. He failed. No bad
faith was actually shown. He did not substantiate any illicit motive on the part of the police
officers, as to why, of all the allegedly numerous passengers who were also waiting for the bus
near the school canteen, they would choose to falsely implicate him in a very serious crime that
would cause his imprisonment for life. For this failure, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses deserve full faith and credit. People vs. Sic-open, 804 SCRA 94, G.R. No. 211680
September 21, 2016
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 30 of 32
Noncompliance with Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) may be excused if the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug were not
compromised.
As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug were not compromised,
noncompliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR may be excused. The Court, in People v. Asislo, 781
SCRA 131 (2016), People v. Mammad, 770 SCRA 598 (2015), Miclat, Jr. v. People, 656 SCRA 539
(2011) and People v. Felipe, 647 SCRA 578 (2011), to cite a few, sustained the conviction of the
accused despite the fact that the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug were not
immediately done at the place where it was seized/confiscated. Moreover, contrary to Belban’s
view, the apprehending team offered a satisfactory explanation. Chumanao reasonably stated
that they had a preliminary inventory of the seized items inside the car because it was too dark
at the time and they were being cautious of their own safety. Similarly, Mosing said that they
were not sure if there were other persons within the vicinity aside from the accused. As to the
apparent lack of any photograph at the scene of the crime, both Mosing and Asiong were uniform
in claiming that they forgot to bring a camera in Kibungan. People vs. Sic-open, 804 SCRA 94, G.R.
No. 211680 September 21, 2016
Fencing
The elements of Fencing are:

a) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
b) The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the aid crime;
c) The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything
of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
d) There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another. Lim vs.
People, 806 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 211977 October 12, 2016
The mother of a victim of acts of violence against women and their children is expressly given
personality to file a petition for the issuance of a protection order by Section 9(b) of the Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Law).
However, the right of a mother and of other persons mentioned in Section 9 to file such a petition
is suspended when the victim has filed a petition for herself. Nevertheless, in this case,
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 31 of 32
respondent Mendenilla filed her petition after her daughter’s complaint-affidavit had already
been dismissed. Pavlow vs. Mendenilla, 823 SCRA 499, G.R. No. 181489 April 19, 2017
Republic Act No. 9262 specifies three (3) distinct remedies available to victims of acts of violence
against women and their children
a) Criminal complaint;
b) Civil action for damages; and
c) Civil action for the issuance of a protection order. Pavlow vs. Mendenilla, 823 SCRA 499,
G.R. No. 181489 April 19, 2017
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 32 of 32

Ho 8 Pre Week Criminal Law PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Ho 8 Pre Week Criminal Law PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2019 BAR REVIEW CRIMINAL LAW

PRE-WEEK Handout No. 8

REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK ONE)

Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in

Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between

For intoxication to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the intoxication of the accused

Voluntary surrender, as a mitigating circumstance, requires an element of spontaneity. The

A killing done at the spur of the moment cannot be treacherous.

REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK TWO)

Philippine Waters Definition

Parricide is committed when:

The elements of the crime of murder are as follows:

a) that the victim was killed;

If the crime of Statutory Rape is accompanied by a qualifying circumstance as provided for

Special complex crime of rape with homicide, Elements

The elements of Syndicated Estafa are as follows:

b) The Estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate; and

The Elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are:

a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

Acts of Lasciviousness as defined

Elements of Bigamy are:

Elements of Libel are:

a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

Generally, the requirement of publication of defamatory matters is not satisfied by a

Republic Act No. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

The following are the elements for violation of RA No. 3019:

Carnapping (RA No. 10883)

Possession of Dangerous Drugs

Elements of Possession of Dangerous Drugs are as follows:

a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or

Elements for conviction for Sale of Shabu

a) the identities of the buyer and the seller,

a) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and

The elements of Fencing are:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen