Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Punishable acts
Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished by Prision
Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another.
Destructive Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion
Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
4. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial,
administrative or other official proceedings.
Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
4. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The penalty in any case of arson shall be
imposed in its maximum period;
1. If committed with intent to gain;
4. If committed by a syndicate.
Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death
results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.
Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or
establishment.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual
value at the time of the issuance of the policy.
4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than
two fires have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the
control of the offender and/or insured.
5. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and
stored in a building or property had been withdrawn from the premises
except in the ordinary course of business.
(1) As to form:
(i) sexual intercourse or lascivious act including, but not limited to,
contact involving genital to genital, oral to genital, anal to genital, or
oral to anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(2) bestiality;
(3) masturbation;
(d) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to sell,
distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That possession of three (3) or
more articles of child pornography of the same form shall be prima facie
evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;
(k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in this section.
Conspiracy to commit any form of child pornography shall be committed
when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it; and
Punishable acts
"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or
in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows,
or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft.
Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence
of fencing.
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores,
establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of
anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before
offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from
the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General,
Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required
by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Punishable acts
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in
subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment
mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the
confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with
the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be
permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting
business in any form with the Government.
Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of
such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some
business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such
public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by
consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall
include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional
employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any
public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines,
the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction,
contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom
he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of
business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the
time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval
of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends
upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant
to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a
profession.
Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the
Congress during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any
personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and
particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously
approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term.
(a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished
Anti-Hazing Act of 2018
(Secs. 2 and 3, RA 8049, as amended by RA 11053)
Prohibited Acts
2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon:
a. All persons who actually planned or participated in the conduct of the hazing;
b. All officers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are actually present
during the hazing;
f. members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are present during the
hazing when they are intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or illegal
drugs;
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a fine of One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon all persons who are present in the
conduct of the hazing;
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal and fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon former officers, non-resident member, alumni of the
fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after the commission of any of the
prohibited acts proscribed herein, will perform any act to hide, conceal, or
5. The penalty of prision correcional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall intimidate, threaten, force, or employ, or administer any form of
vexation against another person for the purpose of recruitment in joining or
promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or organization. The persistent and
repeated proposal or invitation made to a person who had twice refused to
participate or join the proposed fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall be prima
facie evidence of vexation for purposes of this section; and
6. A fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the school if the
fraternity, sorority, or organization filed a written application to conduct an initiation
which was subsequently approved by the school and hazing occurred during the
initiation rites or when no representatives from the school were present during the
initiation as provided under Section 5 of this Act:
As Principal
"The owner or lessee of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as principal
and penalized under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, when such owner or lessee has
actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the law enforcement
authorities if they can do so without peril to their person or their family. If the hazing is
held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals and penalized under
paragraphs (a) or (b) hereof when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted
therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring or failed to
promptly report the same to the law enforcement authorities if such parents can do so
without peril to their person or their family.
As Accomplice
"The school authorities including faculty members as well as barangay, municipal, or city
officials shall be liable as an accomplice and likewise be held administratively accountable
for hazing conducted by the fraternities, sororities, other organizations, if it can be shown
that the school or barangay, municipal, or city officials allowed or consented to the
conduct of hazing, but such officials failed to take an by action to prevent the same from
occurring or failed to promptly report to the law enforcement authorities if the same can
be done without peril to their person or their family.
Jurisprudence:
DANDY DUNGO and GREGORIO SIBAL, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209464 July 1, 2015
Classes of direct participants are: the first class of principals would be the actual
participants in the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation
rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of
the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical
harm shall be liable as principals. The second class of principals would be the officers,
former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually
planned the hazing. The third class of principals would be the officers or members of an
organization group, fraternity or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the
hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat due to their indispensable cooperation
in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The next class of principals would
be the fraternity or sorority's adviser. The last class of principals would be the parents of
the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.
Anti-Hijacking Law
(Secs. 1 and 3, RA 6235)
Punishable Acts
Qualifying Circumstances
Any person violating any provision of the foregoing section shall be punished by an
imprisonment of not less than twelve years but not more than twenty years, or by a fine
of not less than twenty thousand pesos but not more than forty thousand pesos.
The penalty of imprisonment of fifteen years to death, or a fine of not less than twenty-
five thousand pesos but not more than fifty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any
person committing such violation under any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the
aircraft;
Jurisprudence
The act of the accused who compelled the pilot to change the course of the airplane from
Laoag to Amoy instead of directing it to Aparri and, in not complying with such illegal
requirement, the accused discharged various revolver shots, killing hi, could have been
punished under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6235, had this law been already in effect.
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
(Secs. 3 (a, b, d, f) and 4, RA 9995)
Prohibited Acts
1. To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act
or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the
naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the
consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have
a reasonable expectation of privacy;
The penalty of imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7)
years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not
more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the
court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4 of this Act.
Jurisprudence: No available
Anti-Plunder Act
(Secs. 1 and 2, RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659)
Punishable Acts
1. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives
by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt or criminal acts above in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million
pesos (P50,000,000.00),
2. Any person who participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder shall
likewise be punished.
Jurisprudence:
ESTRADA VS .SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 148560, November 19, 2001
Held: The Supreme Court held that plunder is malum in se which requires proof of
criminal intent. Moreover, the legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is
heinous offense implies that it is amalum in se. The predicate crimes in the case of
plunderinvolve acts which are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, and are committed
“wilfully, unlawfully and criminally” by the offender, alleging his guilty knowledge. This,
the crime of plunder is a malum in se.
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
(Sec. 3, RA 7877)
Punishable Acts
1. Any employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence
or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of
whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is liable for either work,
education or training-related sexual harassment.
2. Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as
herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it
would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in
any way would discriminate, deprive ordiminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing
labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for the employee.
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the
granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other
benefits, privileges, or consideration; or
Jurisprudence
Facts:
Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC,
filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched her shoulder, part of
her neck then tickled her ears. Rayala argued that his acts does not constitute sexual
harassment because for it to exist, there must be a demand, request or requirement of
sexual favor.
Issue:
Rulings:
Yes.
It is true that RA No. 7877 calls for a “demand, request or requirement of a sexual
favor.” But, it is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor
be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal
certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate
conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of
future privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones – all these
acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.
Discussion:
In the abovementioned case, the first element of the crime of sexual harassment is
present - that is, the offender has authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over victim
in a work, training, or education environment.
Considering that the offender was the chairman of NLRC where the complainant was
a Stenographer Reporter, the former had moral ascendancy over the latter. It is settled
that moral ascendancy is a critical element of sexual harassment under RA No. 7877.
Moreover, because of the acts of the offender, an intimidating and hostile environment
was felt by the complainant as, after the last incident, she filed for leave of absence and
requested transfer to another unit. Hence, the Court ruled that it is not essential that the
demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for
promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondent’s acts result in creating
an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
(Secs. 3 (a,b), 4 and 5, RA 9745)
Punishable Acts
1. The offender intentionally inflict torture (an act by which severe pain or sufferring,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person) on a person for the
purpose of either:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle
butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human excreta and
other stuff or substances not normally eaten;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of
pepper or other chemical substances on mucous membranes, or acids or spices directly
on the wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement, urine, vomit
and/or blood until the brink of suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign objects into the sex organ
or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body such as the genitalia, ear,
tongue, etc.;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory. alertness or will
of a person, such as:
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or reduce mental competency;
or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain symptoms of a disease; and
(1) Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with bodily harm, execution or other
wrongful acts;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or public humiliation of a detainee
or prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one place to
another, creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily executed;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the person's family, relatives or any
third party;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her in public
places, shaving the victim's head or putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member of his/her family;
and
1. Any person who actually participated or induced another in the commission of torture
or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the
execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal.
2. Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official
who issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever
purpose shall be held equally liable as principals.
3. The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate
senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable
as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have
led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by
his/her subordinates.
If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have
known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates
or by others within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission,
when he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as
principals.
4. Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge
that torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is being
committed and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice,
takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner:
(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment;
(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting m the escape of the principal/s in
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the official's public
functions.
Jurisprudence
"The spontaneous statement of the victim made to his live-in partner that he was hurt
by the police is part of the res gestae (Latin for things done) and consequently trustworthy,
because it was made under the external circumstances of physical and mental shock,
and under a stress of nervous excitement which stilled the reflective faculties of the
victim," the decision read.
The court also noted the results of the examination done by a Commission on Human
Rights medico-legal doctor on Corre's scars, "indicating the severity of the physical abuse
inflicted upon him, especially the electrocution."
"All told, accused Jimenez by his direct participation and in cooperation with his co-
policemen tortured, physically and mentally, the witness to extract confession from him,
thereby violating Section 4 (1)(3) Republic Act 9745 in relation to Section 14 (g) thereof,"
the court said.
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
(Secs. 3, 4 and 6, RA 9208, as amended)
Punishable Acts
1. ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS - Trafficking in persons is committed by any
person, natural or juridical, who, by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, shall:
(a) recruit; obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive a
person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or
sexual exploitation.
(b) introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading
him/her to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(d) undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or
sexual exploitation;
(f) adopt persons by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes or to facilitate the
same for purposes of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(g) adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(h) recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force,
fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of
organs of said person;
(i) recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor, maintain,offer, hire, provide, receive, or
adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad;
(j) recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or receive a
person by means defined in Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced labor, slavery,
debt bondage and involuntary servitude, including a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to
cause the person either:
(1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or services, he or she
or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(k) recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or
receive a child for purposes of exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to,
the act of buying and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes of
exploitation. Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of children shall include:
(1) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary servitude, debt
bondage and forced labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(2) The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography, or for pornographic performances;
(3) The use, procuring or offering of a child for the production and trafficking of
drugs; and
(4) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illegal activities or work which, by
its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm their health,
safety or morals; and
(l) organize or diect other persons to commit the offenses defined as acts of trafficking
under this Act.
However, the means to commit trafficking in person is not required if the victim is a
child.
If the victim is a child, any of the following acts shall also be deemed as attempted
trafficking in persons:
(a) Facilitating the travel of a child who travels alone to a foreign country or territory
without valid reason therefor and without the required clearance or permit from the
DSWD, or a writtenrmit or justification from the child’s parent or legal guardian;
(b) Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit of consent or a written consent for
adoption;
(c) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the purpose of selling the child;
(d) Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling the child; and
(e) Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody thereof through any means from
among hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and
low-income families, for the purpose of selling the child.
Accomplice Liability – Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts defined in this Act.
Accessories Liability – Whoever has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principal or as accomplices, take part in its
commission in any of the following manners:
(a) By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime;
(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling
certificates, registration stickers and certificates of any government agency which issues
these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with government regulatory and
pre-departure requirements for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at
international and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession
of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;
(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.
“(j) To utilize his or her office to impede the investigation, prosecution or execution of
lawful orders in a case under this Act.
trafficking:
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known
as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude
or debt bondage;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member
of the military or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended
party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Jurisprudence
Punishable Acts
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by
force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or
coercion;
Economic abuse are acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially
dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:
b. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use
and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
2. The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of
the following acts:
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which
the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the
woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against
the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with
the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or
conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to
her/his family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support
legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient
financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling
her actions or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity
which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through
intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child
against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or
pets of the woman or her child; and
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or
her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial
of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
3. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome (BWS), do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from
battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall
be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
Jurisprudence
Facts:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of
R.A. No. 9262. It is alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological
violence upon a woman with whom he has two children, resulting to mental and
emotional anguish and public humiliation by repeated verbal and emotional abuse
consisting of several bad and insulting utterance directed against the victim.
Issue:
Ruling:
In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed
that the victim is a woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling
and had two common children. The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s
physical and verbal abuse.
In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical
violence done by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the
crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar,
when the physical violence done, petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching, kicking
and stripping her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of physical violence, are
also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven that they resulted
in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional
suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be proven. In this instance,
the physical violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. As such,
whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical violence translates to
psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's mental or emotional well-
being.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
(Section 1, BP.22)
Punishable Acts
1.) 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.
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 ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Jurisprudence
In the case of MA. ROSARIO P. CAMPOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and FIRST WOMEN'S CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondents., G.R.
No. 187401, September 17, 2014, it states that to be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the
following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for value; (2) 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 (3) the
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or creditor
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the
bank to stop payment.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(Section 5, 11, 15 and 21, RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640)
Punishable Acts
1.) Unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act
as a broker in any of such transactions.
2.) Drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade.
3.) If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should
a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any
offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof.
4.) Organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed
in this Section.
5.) Unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy",
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid
diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly
designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to
Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
9.) Apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug, after a confirmatory test.
Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in Criminal Case No. 3489 for possession of
one piece of torn plastic sachet, containing residue of a crystalline substance
(allegedly shabu), a piece of small aluminum foil, a pair of small scissors, and 15 pieces
of used lighter all of which are intended to be used for smoking or introducing dangerous
drugs into the body of a person, in violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, the accused-appellants filed an appeal before the Court
of Appeals (CA) which, via a Decision dated June 17, 2010, affirmed the RTC Decision
as to the accused-appellants' conviction in Criminal Case No. 3490 but acquitted Roger
in Criminal Case No. 3489 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Issue:
I. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants
notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of custody and integrity of
the alleged seized illegal items.
II. Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appelants
despite the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:
On the first factual issue, the Court found that the records of the case and the testimonies
of witnesses belie the accused-appellants' contention.
On the second factual issue, the Court found the accused-appellants' claim not supported
by evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 17, 2010 is MODIFIED.
Accused-appellants ROGER POSADA and EMILY POSADA ARE FOUND GUILTY OF
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF TWELVE (12) SACHETS OF METHAMPETAMINE
HYDROCHOLORIDE OR SHABU, WITH A NET WEIGHT OF 0.4578 GRAMS AND ARE
HEREBY SENTENCED TO THE INDETERMINATE PENALTY OF TWELVE (12) YEARS
AND ONE (1) DAY, AS MINIMUM, TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8)
MONTHS, AS MAXIMUM AND A FINE OF P300,000.00.
Comprehensive Firearms & Ammunition Regulation Act
(Section 28 and R.A. 10591)
Punishable Acts
(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit
the target such as thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
Jurisprudence
JALAL BANGCOLA Y DIMALAANG ALYAS AKMAD, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 230434, August 09, 2017].
Facts:
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged the petitioner in the RTC with illegal possession
of firearms in violation of Section 28(g) of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act).
At around 8:30 in the morning of March 18, 2014, a confidential informant reported to the
District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Manila
Police District (MPD), the peddling of shabu by the petitioner along Palanca Street near
Isetann-Carriedo in Quiapo, Manila. PO3 Rizaldy Liangco, acting upon the instruction of
his superior officer, conducted tactical interrogation of the informant. Thereafter, the
DAID-SOTG set up a drug buy-bust operation after the informant had pinpointed the
location of the petitioner. For that purpose, the operatives of the DAID-SOTG positioned
themselves in the area in question, waiting for the transaction to push through. After the
petitioner had talked with the poseur-buyer and the transaction had been consummated
with the giving of the buy-bust money, the poseur-buyer flicked his cigarette to the
pavement as the pre-arranged signal. However, the petitioner noticed the movement of
the approaching back-up officers and tried to escape. Fortunately, PO2 Boco was able to
hold on to the petitioner with the aid of PO3 Pastor and PO3 Liangco. At that point, PO2
Pastor noticed the conspicuous bulge in the petitioner's waist, and ordered him to fall to
the ground. Once the latter complied, PO2 Pastor frisked him and in the process
recovered from the right side of his waist a firearm - specifically, a .45 caliber pistol with
seven rounds of ammunition. The officers then apprised him of his constitutional rights,
and brought him to their office.
The officers marked all items recovered from the petitioner, including the buy-bust
money, shabu, firearm and its ammunitions. In due time, they secured the certification
from the Firearms Explosives Office in Camp Crame, Quezon City to the effect that the
petitioner was not a registered firearm holder.
As stated, the RTC found and pronounced the petitioner guilty as charged.
On appeal, the petitioner branded his arrest as illegal because the Prosecution did not
establish the conduct of the buy-bust operation. He argued that because his arrest for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs was illegal, the product of the search conducted on him
was inadmissible against him.
The CA affirmed the petitioner's conviction, and observed that his violation of Republic
Act No. 10591 was an offense separate and distinct from his violation of Republic Act No.
9165.
Issues:
The petitioner continues to insist on his innocence, positing that the CA erred in affirming
his conviction.
HELD:
The appeal lacks merit. WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on
November 28, 2016, subject to the MODIFICATION that petitioner JALAL D.
BANGCOLA shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day of prision
mayor in its medium period, as the minimum, to 10 years, eight months and one day
of prision mayor in its maximum period, as the maximum; and ORDERS him to pay the
costs of suit.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
(Sections 4, 5 and 6, R.A. 10175)
Punishable Acts
Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and
systems:
(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without
right.
(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception made by technical means without right of any
non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including
electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole
or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent
that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this
Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with
intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under
this section.
(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to
profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such
a domain name is:
(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the
registrant, in case of a personal name; and
(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in
inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal
purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly
readable and intelligible; or
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-
related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or
dishonest design.
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer,
possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether
natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the
penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable
by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through
a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree
higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or administrative
announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets
or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held
liable.
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to
commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.
Jurisprudence
The Disini Case
The Supreme Court of Philippines declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as unconstitutional. It held that Section 4(c)(3)
violated the right to freedom of expression by prohibiting the electronic transmission of
the Supreme Court of Philippines declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 as unconstitutional. It held that Section 4(c)(3) violated the right
to freedom of expression by prohibiting the electronic transmission of unsolicited
commercial communications. It found Section 12 in violation of the right to privacy
because it lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness in collecting real-time computer
data. It struck down Section 19 of the Act for giving the government the authority to
restrict or block access to computer data without any judicial warrant. Solicited
commercial communications. It found Section 12 in violation of the right to privacy
because it lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness in collecting real-time computer
data. It struck down Section 19 of the Act for giving the government the authority to
restrict or block access to computer data without any judicial warrant.
Facts
The case arises out of consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court of the Philippines on
the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Act
No. 10175.The case arises out of consolidated petitions to the Supreme Court of the
Philippines on the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012, Act No. 10175.
The Petitioners argued that even though the Act is the government’s platform in
combating illegal cyberspace activities, 21 separate sections of the Act violate their
constitutional rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression and access to
information. The Petitioners argued that even though the Act is the government’s platform
in combating illegal cyberspace activities, 21 separate sections of the Act violate their
constitutional rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression and access to
information.
In February 2013, the Supreme Court extended the duration of a temporary restraining
order against the government to halt enforcement of the Act until the adjudication of the
issues. In February 2013, the Supreme Court extended the duration of a temporary
restraining order against the government to halt enforcement of the Act until the
adjudication of the issues.
Decision Overview
Justice Abad delivered the Court’s opinion. Justice Abad delivered the Court’s opinion.
The government of Philippines adopted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for the
purpose of regulating access to and use of cyberspace. Several sections of the law
define relevant cyber crimes and enable the government to track down and penalize
violators. The government of Philippines adopted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
for the purpose of regulating access to and use of cyberspace. Several sections of the
law define relevant cyber crimes and enable the government to track down and penalize
violators.
Among 21 challenged sections, the Court declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Act
as unconstitutional. Among 21 challenged sections, the Court declared Sections 4(c)(3),
12, and 19 of the Act as unconstitutional.
Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law enforcement without a court warrant “to collect
or record traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted
by means of a computer system.” Traffic data under this Section includes the origin,
destination, route, size, date, and duration of the communication, but not its content nor
the identity of users. Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law enforcement without a court
warrant “to collect or record traffic data in real-time associated with specified
communications transmitted by means of a computer system.” Traffic data under this
Section includes the origin, destination, route, size, date, and duration of the
communication, but not its content nor the identity of users.
The Petitioners argued that such warrantless authority curtails their civil liberties and set
the stage for abuse of discretion by the government. They also claimed that this provision
violates the right to privacy and protection from the government’s intrusion into online
communications. The Petitioners argued that such warrantless authority curtails their civil
liberties and set the stage for abuse of discretion by the government. They also claimed
that this provision violates the right to privacy and protection from the government’s
intrusion into online communications.
As to whether Section 12 violated the right to privacy, the Court first recognized that the
right at stake concerned informational privacy, defined as “the right not to have private
information disclosed, and the right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.” In
determining whether a communication is entitled to the right of privacy, the Court applied
a two-part test: (1) Whether the person claiming the right has a legitimate expectation of
privacy over the communication, and (2) whether his expectation of privacy can be
regarded as objectively reasonable in the society. As to whether Section 12 violated the
right to privacy, the Court first recognized that the right at stake concerned informational
privacy, defined as “the right not to have private information disclosed, and the right to
live freely without surveillance and intrusion.” In determining whether a communication
is entitled to the right of privacy, the Court applied a two-part test: (1) Whether the person
claiming the right has a legitimate expectation of privacy over the communication, and (2)
whether his expectation of privacy can be regarded as objectively reasonable in the
society.
The Court noted that internet users have subjective reasonable expectation of privacy
over their communications transmitted online. However, it did not find the expectation as
objectively reasonable because traffic data sent through internet “does not disclose the
actual names and addresses (residential or office) of the sender and the recipient, only
their coded Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.” The Court noted that internet users have
subjective reasonable expectation of privacy over their communications transmitted
online. However, it did not find the expectation as objectively reasonable because traffic
data sent through internet “does not disclose the actual names and addresses (residential
or office) of the sender and the recipient, only their coded Internet Protocol (IP)
addresses.”
Even though the Court ruled that real-time traffic data under Section 12 does not enjoy
the objective reasonable expectation of privacy, the existence of enough data may reveal
the personal information of its sender or recipient, against which the Section fails to
provide sufficient safeguard. The Court viewed the law as “virtually limitless, enabling
law enforcement authorities to engage in “fishing expedition,” choosing whatever
specified communication they want.” Even though the Court ruled that real-time traffic
data under Section 12 does not enjoy the objective reasonable expectation of privacy, the
existence of enough data may reveal the personal information of its sender or recipient,
against which the Section fails to provide sufficient safeguard. The Court viewed the law
as “virtually limitless, enabling law enforcement authorities to engage in “fishing
expedition,” choosing whatever specified communication they want.”
Accordingly, the Court struck down Section 12 for lack of specificity and definiteness as
to ensure respect for the right to privacy. Accordingly, the Court struck down Section 12
for lack of specificity and definiteness as to ensure respect for the right to privacy.
The Court first recognized that computer data constitutes a personal property, entitled to
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, the Philippines’
Constitution requires the government to secure a valid judicial warrant when it seeks to
seize a personal property or to block a form of expression. Because Section 19
precluded any judicial intervention, the Court found it unconstitutional. The Court first
recognized that computer data constitutes a personal property, entitled to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also, the Philippines’ Constitution requires
the government to secure a valid judicial warrant when it seeks to seize a personal
property or to block a form of expression. Because Section 19 precluded any judicial
intervention, the Court found it unconstitutional.
Human Security Act of 2007
(Secs. 3 to 6, RA 9372)
The Human Security Act of 2007 is an act to secure the State and to protect the people
from acts of “Terrorism”.
It condemns terrorism as inimical and dangerous to national security and to the welfare
of the people, thereby making terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, humanity,
and the law of nations.
TERRORISM refers to any act punishable under the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code and special penal laws which sows and creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand.
Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of
the Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
(2) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control
Act of 1990);
(3) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
(5) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974);
and,
(6) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms,
Ammunitions or Explosives)
PENALTIES
Crime of Terrorism (Section 3)
• Forty (40) years of imprisonment
• No parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, or known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism (Section 4)
When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same
• Forty (40) years of imprisonment
Accomplice (Section 5)
• Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code
or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the execution of
either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.
Accessory (Section 6)
• Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the RPC, takes part subsequent
to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting
the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the
body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or passing in the escape of the principal
or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
The New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (RA 10883) is a law which punishes carnapping in
the Philippines.
The new Anti-Carnapping Act or Republic Act 10883 repealed RA 6539 that was passed
in 1972.
CARNAPPING is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
by using force upon things. (Section 3a)
MOTOR VEHICLE refers to any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
power using the public highways.
Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Garcia and
Bernabe, G.R. No. 138470, 1 April 2003 that it does not matter if the person from whom
the motor vehicle was taken is not the owner thereof. What is simply required is that the
property taken does not belong to the offender.
PEOPLE v. GARCIA
FACTS:
Ferdinand Ignacio leased his Toyota Tamaraw FX to Joselito Cortez for 2 days at
P2,000.00 per day. Said vehicle was then rented to Garcia and Bernabe for P4,000.00
per day, to be paid upon their return from Bicol. Wilfredo Elis, driver of Cortez,
accompanied Garcia and Bernabe to leave for Bicol. After 4 days, however, Garcia and
Bernabe did not return. On the other hand, the Tarlac Police went to Anao, Tarlac to
confront 2 suspicious looking persons, thereafter identified as Garcia and Bernabe, who
were selling a Tamaraw FX for a mere P50,000.00 therein. Upon their arrival, however,
the two had already left for Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija. The Nueva Ecija Police,
coordinating with the Tarlac Police, saw Garcia and Bernabe, and asked them to present
documents evidencing their ownership of the Tamaraw FX. Due to their failure to present
such documents, they were brought to the police station in Moncada, Tarlac. Garcia and
Bernabe admitted to the Moncada Police that they attempted to sell the Tamaraw FX of
Ignacio. When Cortez visited the two in detention, Garcia admitted that they had stabbed
Elis because the latter did not want to coordinate with them, and dumped him along the
highway in San Rafael, Bulacan; Bernabe, on the other hand, did not deny nor affirm the
admission of Garcia.
RTC: Guilty of carnapping with homicide.
ISSUE:
W/N Garcia and Bernabe are guilty of carnapping with homicide. – YES.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS.
PRINCIPLES:
The elements of carnapping are:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle;
3. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself; and
4. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things.
Unlawful taking is the taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means
of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. Although the
possession of Garcia and Bernabe of the Tamaraw FX was initially lawful, the unlawful
killing of Elis for the purpose of taking the vehicle, since the latter refused to join the former
in their plan to appropriate the vehicle, radically transformed the character of said
possession into an unlawful one. This undoubtedly satisfied the element of unlawful taking
through violence.
The duration of the lease of the Tamaraw FX, whether for an indefinite period as
contended by the defense, or only for 4 days, as claimed by the prosecution, has no
bearing on the culpability of Garcia and Bernabe; what is decisive here is the purpose of
the two in killing Elis.
In crimes of unlawful taking of property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary
that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof; what is
simply required is that the property taken does not belong to the offender.
Furthermore, a person in possession of a stolen article is presumed guilty of having
illegally and unlawfully taken the same unless he can satisfactorily explain his possession
of the thing. Bernabe and Garcia, however, were unable to give a plausible explanation
why they still had the Tamaraw FX in their possession. Bernabe claims that they went to
Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija to have the dent on the vehicle repaired; Garcia, on the other
hand, testified that there was no such damage.
Any person who conceals carnapping shall be punished with imprisonment of six
(6) years up to twelve (12) years and a fine equal to the amount of the acquisition cost of
the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or any other part involved in the
violation; Provided, That if the person violating any provision of this Act is a juridical
person, the penalty herein provided shall be imposed on its president, secretary, and/or
members of the board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may have
directly participated in the violation.
Any public official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in
this Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission
of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding
paragraph, be dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited and shall be
permanently disqualified from holding public office.
Obstruction of Justice Law
(Sec. 1 PD 1829)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
The law covers the following acts of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases:
PENALTIES
The penalty is imprisonment, fine or both. Imprisonment ranges from 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 6 years (prision correccional in its maximum period). The fine ranges from
P1,000 – P6,000.
JURISPRUDENCE
In Posadas vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, 29 September 2000), certain officials of
the University of the Philippines (UP) were charged for violating PD 1829 (paragraph c).
The UP officers objected to the warrantless arrest of certain students by the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the Supreme Court, the police had no ground
for the warrantless arrest. The UP Officers, therefore, had a right to prevent the arrest of
the students at the time because their attempted arrest was illegal. The “need to enforce
the law cannot be justified by sacrificing constitutional rights.”
FACTS:
Venturina a member of Sigma Rho of UP was killed in a fight between Sigma Rho and
Scintilla Juris. Posadas (Chancellor of UP) asked the Director of NBI to assist in
determining the offender. Pursuant to the request Dizon (Chief of Special Operations)
and his men went to UP and on the basis of 2 positive identification by 2 alleged
eyewitness. Dizon attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag but was not able to do so due
to the Objection of Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu, Bentain, and Atty. Villamor on the
ground that the NBI did not have any warrant of arrests. Dizon filed a complaint in the
Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) against Posadas, Lambino, Torres-Yu, Bentain,
and Atty. Villamor for violation of PD 1829 for unlawfully obstructing the apprehension
and prosecution of Taparan and Narag. OSP recommended the dismissal of the case but
the Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special prosecutor to proceed. Posadas
contends not liable under PD 1829 since he claims that it does not cover a warrantless
arrest on mere suspicion.
ISSUE:
W/N there was probable cause for prosecuting Posadas for violation of PD 1829. – NO
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Ombudsman and his agents are hereby
prohibited from prosecuting petitioners for violation of P.D. No. 1829 §1(c) as a result of
the incident complained of in Criminal Case No. 22801 and the Sandiganbayan is
ORDERED to dismiss the information in Criminal Case No. 22801 against petitioners.
PRINCIPLES:
In order for a person to be liable for violation of PD 1829 there must be either a warrant
of arrest or there is a valid warrantless arrest. The absence of an arrest warrant, the
absence of knowledge or reasonable ground on the part of Posadas to believe that the
students had committed a crime, the absence of any law punishing refusal to attend an
investigation at the NBI, all show that there is no sufficient ground to charge the accused
with Obstruction of Justice.
That Posadas had a right to prevent the arrest of Taparan and Narag because their
attempted arrest was illegal.
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act
An act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse,
exploitation and discrimination, and for other purposes.
Definition of Terms
a. "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are
unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when
the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted
under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case
may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner
of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which
engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been
issued to said establishment.
a. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation
or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered
by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years
or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place,
hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage
parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who
is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social,
moral or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited by
this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding
paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine
of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That should
the perpetrator be an ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty
to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority over the minor.
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public
or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or
otherwise, including residential places, who allows any person to take along with
him to such place or places any minor herein described shall be imposed a penalty
of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate such a place or
establishment.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other
child to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles
248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and
serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is
under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under
Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for
the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree
higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under twelve (12) years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the care of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Jurisprudence
In Amployo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005, the three
elements of RA 7610 are present.
AMPLOYO v. PEOPLE
FACTS
Alvin Amployo was charged with violation of RA 7610 for touching, mashing and playing
the breasts of Kristine Joy Mosguera, an 8 year old Grade 3 pupil without her consent.
Amployo contends that the element of lewd design was not established since:
(1) the incident happened at 7am, in a street near the school with people around;
(2) the breast of an 8 year old is still very much underdeveloped; and
(3) suppose he intentionally touched her breast, it was merely to satisfy a silly whim.
He also argues that the resultant crime is only acts of lasciviousness under Art 336 RPC
and not child abuse under RA 7610 as the elements thereof had not been proved.
ISSUES
RULING
PRINCIPLES
Before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor
below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of Rep.
Act No. 7610.The first element is lewd design.
Lewd design was established. Amployo cannot take refuge in his version of the story as
he has conveniently left out details which indubitably prove the presence of lewd
design. It would have been easy to entertain the possibility that what happened was
merely an accident if it only happened once. Such is not the case, however, as the very
same petitioner did the very same act to the very same victim in the past.
The first element of RA 7610 obtains. Petitioner’s act of purposely touching Kristine Joy’s
breasts (sometimes under her shirt) amounts to lascivious conduct.