REVIEW OF TOP 25 ISSUES/CONCEPTS IN CRIMINAL LAW (1979-2006 BAR EXAMINATIONS)

by: Prof. RAMON S. ESGUERRA

LECTURE OUTLINE
I.

PROXIMATE CAUSE
Discussion: o Proximate Cause, defined. o Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Case: Quinto vs. Andres (2005) o Causal Relationship between offense and resulting injury

II.

STAGES

OF

COMMISSION
Stages,

Discussion: o Attempted, Frustrated and Consummated defined. o Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Cases: People vs. Caballero (2003) o Offenses in the attempted stage. o o People vs. Aca-ac (2001) No crime of frustrated theft. Valenzuela vs. People (2007) No crime of frustrated theft.
AND/OR

III.

PROPOSAL

CONSPIRACY

Discussion: o When proposal and/or conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable. o Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Cases: People vs. Bello (2004) o Conspiracy predominantly a state of mind; established by direct proof o o People vs. Ramos (2004) Act of one is the act of all. People vs. Comadre (2004) Conspiracy never presumed; must be proven with clear and conclusive proof

2 IV.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Discussion: o Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); o Self-Defense; Defense of Relative; Defense of Strangers Battered Woman Defense (RA No. 9262; People vs. Genosa [2004]) Avoidance of a Greater Evil; Exercise of Lawful Right/Duty; Obedience to Lawful Order;

o o o

Cases: Marzonia vs. People (2006) o Excessive means in repelling unlawful aggression o o o o People vs. Dijan (2002) Number and nature of inflicted wounds negate self-defense People vs. Enfectana (2002) Burden of proving self-defense Ty vs. People (2004) Greater evil feared should be actual, not speculative Mamagun vs. People (2007) Burden of proving self-defense

V.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Discussion: o Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); o Insanity; o Minority; Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA No. 9344; People vs. Llave [2006]) o Accident; o Irresistible Force; o Uncontrollable Fear of Equal/Greater Injury; Cases: People vs. Madarang (2000) o Insanity not presumed o People vs. Agliday (2001) Nature of gun used negates accident

VI.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Discussion: o Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Types of aggravating circumstances (Generic, Specific, Qualifying and Inherent) o Advantage of public position; o Insult to/contempt with public authorities; o Disregard of Age, Rank, Sex o Abuse of confidence; ungratefulness; o Presence of the Chief Executive or place of worship; o Nighttime, Uninhabited place, band; o On occasion of an epidemic, calamity or any misfortune;

3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Aid of armed men; Recidivism; Habituality; Price, Reward or Promise; Great waster and ruin; Evident Premeditation; Craft, fraud or disguise; Superior strength; Treachery; Ignominy; Unlawful entry; Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or window; Aid of minor/motor vehicle; Cruelty.

Cases: People vs. Antonio (2002) o Aggravating circumstances must be alleged o o o o People vs. Mendoza (2000) Effect of treachery in homicide cases People vs. Villamor (2002) Misuse of public position/issued firearm People vs. Taboga (2002) Disregard for rank, age, sex should be intentional People vs. Tano (2000) Structure not totally used as a residence not considered dwelling People vs. Silva (2000) When nighttime is aggravating People vs. Molina (2000) How recidivism is proven People vs. Cajara (2000) When habituality is present People vs. Silva (2000) When nighttime is aggravating People vs. Mondijar (2002) Elements of evident premeditation People vs. Rendaje (2000) What constitutes treachery People vs. Sansaet (2002) Mere superiority in numbers People vs. Catian (2002) Elements of cruelty

o o o o o

o o o VII.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Discussion:

4 o o o o o o o o o o o Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Ordinary Mitigating vs. Privileged Mitigating Incomplete justifying/exempting circumstance; Offender over 70 yrs old; Praeter Intentionem (No intent to commit so grave a wrong); Sufficient Provocation; Immediate vindication of a grave offense; Passion/Obfuscation; Voluntary Surrender; Physical handicap; Illness diminishing capacity to act; Analogous to the afore-mentioned.

Cases: Romera vs. People (2004) o When two mitigating circumstances arise from the same set of facts o People vs. Callet (2002) Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong determined by the circumstances surrounding the attack People vs. Dawaton (2002) Effect of offer to plea guilty to a lesser offense different from the one charged People vs. Labeo (2002) Passional obfuscation, explained

o VIII.

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

Discussion: o Who are criminally liable (Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code) Principals (Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code) Accomplices (Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code) Accessories (Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code) Cases: People vs. Dacillo o Principal by direct participation, requirements o o People vs. Pilola (2003) Accessories, requirements. People vs. Mariano (2000) Exemption from liability under Art. 20 of the RPC

IX.

COMPLEX CRIMES
Discussion: o Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code) Compound Crime; Complex Crime Proper; Special Complex Crime; o Plurality of Offenses Cases: People vs. Comadre (2004) o Effect of single criminal impulse

5 Monteverde vs. People (2002) Elements of a complex crime

o X.

DEATH PENALTY
Discussion: o Heinous Crimes Act (Republic Act No. 7659) When Death was Mandatory; When Death may be Imposed; o Anti-Death Penalty Law (Republic Act No. 9346) Effect of the ban vs. death penalty Cases: People vs. Bon (2006) o Effect of anti-death penalty law on Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code o People vs. Villanueva (2007) Effect of ban vs. death penalty on the damages awarded by the Court to the private offended party.

XI.

INDETERMINATE [ISL]

SENTENCE

LAW

Discussion: o Act No. 4103: Purpose of ISL; Minimum and Maximum Terms; Disqualified Offenders Cases: People vs. Angeles (2006) o How to determine the minimum and maximum penalties to be served by the convict o People vs. Asuela (2002) May those convicted of an offense punished by reclusion perpetua to death avail of the ISLs privileges?

XII.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Discussion: o Article 89, et. seq. of the Revised Penal Code Total Extinguishment; Partial Extinguishment

XIII. PROBATION
Discussion: o Presidential Decree No. 968 Probation, defined. When to apply for probation; When to grant probation; Effectivity/Conditions of probation; Disqualified Offenders Cases: Pablo vs. Castillo (2000) o Previous conviction, defined within the context of PD 968

6 Lagrosa vs. People (2003) o A person who appeals his conviction for purposes of reducing the penalty to that which is within the probationable limit may still apply for probation.

XIV.

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
Discussion: o Articles 171-172 of the Revised Penal Code: Falsification of Public Documents Falsification of Private Documents Cases: Santos vs. Sandiganbayan (2000) o Untruthful statements in the narration of facts, requirements o o Acuna vs. Deputy Ombudsman (2005) Material Fact in perjury People vs. Choa (2003) Perjury subsists despite withdrawal of the petition or document wherein the untruthful statements were made

XV. MALVERSATION
Discussion: o Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code How malversation is committed; Cases: Quinon vs. People (2002) o Accountable Officer, explained o Sarigumba vs. Sandiganbayan (2005) What constitutes malversation Morong Water District vs. Deputy Ombudsman (2000) Effect of lack of demand in malversation cases

XVI. PARRICIDE
Discussion: o Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code Cases: People vs. Ayuman (2004) o Relationship of the offender to the victim a key element of parricide

XVII. MURDER
Discussion: o Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code Presence of Qualifying Circumstances Treachery, superior strength, armed men; Price, reward or promise; Great waste and ruin;

7 Public Calamity/Misfortune; Evident Premeditation; Cruelty/Scoffing at the corpse

Cases: People vs. Mallari (2003) o Deliberately killing someone using a car as a weapon is murder o People vs. Whisenhunt (2002) Mutilating and butchering the victims corpse constitutes scoffing; Killing is qualified to Murder

XVIII. HOMICIDE Discussion: o Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code Cases: Rivera vs. People (2006) o Intent to kill essential in homicide

XIX. RAPE
Discussion: o Article 266-A to D of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); Rape Shield Law (RA No. 8505; People vs. Cabalquinto (2006); People vs. Agsaoay [2004]) Cases: People vs. Oga (2004) o Guidelines in reviewing rape cases o o o o o o o People vs. Jalosjos (2001) Statutory rape, explained People vs. Plurad (2002) Effect of multiple (gang) rape People vs. Taboga (2002) Disregard for rank, age, sex should be intentional People vs. Dela Torre (2004) Rape committed by a woman People vs. Soriano (2002) Rape by sexual assault; use of an object (finger) People vs. Arnaiz (2006) Effect of delay in reporting rape cases People vs. Teodoro (2006) Rape need not be proven by medico-legal report; the latter only corroborative People vs. Lining (2002) Forcible abduction absorbed in rape People vs. Bautista (2004)

8 o Repudiation of sweetheart defense; Romantic relationship does not establish consent;

XX. THEFT
Discussion: o Articles 308-309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); o Fencing: Presidential Decree No. 1612; Francisco vs. People [2004]) Cases: People vs. Dela Cruz (2000) o Presumption of thievery - - possession of stolen goods o Valenzuela vs. People (2007) No frustrated theft; Either attempted or consummated only

XXI. QUALIFIED THEFT

Discussion: o Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code; o Related Laws Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (RA 6539); Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD 533); Heavier Penalties for Thefts by Employees and Laborers (PD 133); Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act (RA 7832); NB: Some LGUs have anti-Cable Television Theft Ordinances. Theft of Forestry Products (PD 330); Theft of Minerals/Ores (PD 581); Cases: Roque vs. People (2004) o Theft by bank teller considered Qualified Theft o o Astudillo vs. People (2006) Grave abuse of confidence, requirements People vs. Bustinera (2004) Carnapping vs. Qualified Theft

XXII. ESTAFA
Discussion: o Article 315-316 of the Revised Penal Code; Cases: Lee vs. People (2005) o Conversion/Misappropriation, explained o o People vs. Hernandez (2002) Estafa may coincide with Illegal recruitment Pablo vs. People (2004) Deceit/False Pretense, explained

9 SYNDICATED ESTAFA/Economic Sabotage (Presidential Decree No. 1689) - - Ponzi scheme; Pyramid Scams Cases: People vs. Balasa (1998) o Soliciting funds from and eventually defrauding the general public constitutes syndicated estafa amounting to economic sabotage

XXIII.

BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

Discussion: o Batas Pambansa No. 22: Modes of committing violations of BP 22; Presumptions/Evidentiary Rules Cases: Bernardo vs. People (2007) o Rule of Preference in BP 22 violations; Court may impose imprisonment or a fine o Macalalag vs. People (2006) Only a full payment of the face value of the second check at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could exonerate one from criminal liability.

XXIV. ILLEGAL POSSESSION

OF

FIREARMS/AMMUNITION

Discussion: o Presidential Decree No. 1866; o Republic Act No. 8294; When illegal possession of firearms per se punishable; Effect of using an illegal firearm to commit a crime;

is

Cases: People vs. Garcia (2002) o The accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime was committed by the person arrested." Palaganas vs. Court of Appeals (2006) o use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, not a generic aggravating circumstance

XXV. DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT Discussion: o Republic Act No. 9165 Important Terms/Definitions; Prohibited Acts; Attempt/Conspiracy To Violate RA 9165; Plea Bargaining; Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law; Drug Use as a Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance; Drug Testing; Drug Rehabilitation;

10

Cases: People vs. Tiu (2003) o Elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs; what must be proven People vs. Balag-ey (2004) o Possession a necessary element of sale of prohibited drug; exceptions to the general rule Suson vs. People (2006): o Absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. People vs. Jubail (2004): o Buy bust money or the informant need not be presented during trial; However, where the informant is the only eyewitness to the illegal transaction, his testimony is essential and his non-presentation would be fatal to the prosecutions cause. People vs. Nicolas (2007): o Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation.