of 54

Criminal Law Last Minute Tips

Published on 2 weeks ago | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 0 | Comments: 0
271 views

Comments

Content

CRIMINAL CRIMIN AL LAW LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS 1  Prepared by Prosecutor PHILGER NOEL B. INOVEJAS 2

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALA IN SE AND MALA M ALA PROHIBITA MALA IN SE

MALA PROHIBITA

Felo Feloni niou ous s acts acts comm commit itte ted d by Cons Consid ider ered ed wrong rong becau ecause se means of dolo or culpa as prohibited by special laws defined in RPC The The pros prosec ecut utio ion n 3 criminal intent.

must must

"ood faith is a defense #

they they

are are

prov prove e Crimin minal intent is not required; the prose prosecu cutio tion n need need only only to prove prove intent intent to perp perpetr etrate ate the act act that that the offen offender der did intend to commit an act and that act is prohibited by law. ! "ood faith or absence of criminal intent is not a valid defense. $

The following offenses are mala prohibita% violation of R.&. '(!) *+llegal Recruitment, - ouncing Chec/ Chec/s s 0aw 0aw *.P *.P.. )), )), ' R.&. R.&. 12$# 12$# *ange *angerous rous rugs rugs 0aw, 0aw, 1 P.. P.. 1#1#- *Regu *Regula latin ting g the 4ale 4ale of 2( 22 4ubdivision 0ots and Condominiums,  P.. 2$() *&nti5Fencing *&nti5Fencing 0aw,  R.&. ')') *444 0aw, 2) and P.. 2'$$ as amended by R.&. ')1! *+llegal Possession of Firearms and 67plosives,. 8hile mere possession possession without criminal intent is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi  or   or an intent to possess on the 23 part of the accused. 0ac/ of license to possess a firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of P.. 2'$$ as amended by Republic &ct 9o. ')1! or as a special aggravating circumstance in the felony of homicide or murder. 2! Possession Possession of dangerous dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence evidence of /nowledge /nowledge or animus possidendi possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory e7planation of such possession. &s a consequence consequence the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to e7plain the absence of /nowledge or animus possidendi. 2# :aving been caught in flagrante delicto *in possession of prohibited drugs, there is prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on accused5appellants part. 2$ The finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned by the appellant raised the presumption of /nowledge and standing alone was sufficient to convict. 28hen an accused accused is charged charged with illegal illegal possess possession ion or transpo transportat rtation ion of prohibit prohibited ed drugs drugs the ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently proof of ownership of the confiscated mari<uana is not necessary. 2' CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS +f a statute is clear plain and free from ambiguity it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is /nown as the plain5meaning rule or verba legis. +t is e7pressed e7pressed in the ma7im index animi sermo  or speech is the inde7 of intention. Furthermore Furthermore there is the ma7im verba legis non est recedendum  or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. 21

0egislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. 8here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous the law is applied according to its e7press terms and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation interpretation would be either impossible or absurb or would )( lead to an in<ustice. Penal statutes may not be enlarged by implication or intent beyond the fair meaning of the language language used; used; and and may not not be held held to includ include e offen offenses ses othe otherr than than those those which which are are clearl clearly y descr describe ibed d notw notwit iths hsta tand ndin ing g that that the the Cour Courtt may may thin thin/ / that that Congr ongres ess s shou should ld have have made made them them more more

comprehensive. 8ords and phrases in a statute are to be construed according to their common meaning and accepted usage. )2 Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat . & law should be interpreted with a view to upholding rather than destroying it. ))

The Courts function in the face of this seeming dissonance is to interpret and harmoni=e the Probation 0aw and the 0ocal "overnment Code. Interpretare Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus 23 interpretandi. Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the 4tate.

)!

>?bi le7 non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemos@ 7 7 7 if the law does not distinguish so 8e must no distinguish. )# Conformably Conformably with the principle principle of e7clusio e7clusio unius est e7clusio alterius the relationship of the offender offender as being <ust a step5grandfather of the victim cannot be deemed embraced by the enumeration *qualified rape,. )$ The particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be ta/en as detached and isolated e7pressions e7pressions but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fi7ing the meaning of any of its parts. )9egative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory. . . . the use of the term >[email protected] further emphasi=es its mandatory character and means that it is imperative operating to impose a duty which may be enforced. 7 7 7 &nd where the law does not distinguish the courts should not distinguish; where the law does not ma/e e7ception the court should not e7cept. )' GENERALITY The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones territory is immune from local <urisdiction e7cept to the e7tent agreed upon. )1

Penal laws are obligatory upon all who live or so<ourn in Philippine territory. 4ince the Constitution itself provides provides for the immunities from the general application application of our criminal laws which a 4enator or Aember of the :ouse of Representative Representatives s may en<oy en<oy it follows that any e7pansion of such immunities must similarly be based upon an e7press constitutional grant. 3( TERRITORIALITY Piracy falls under Title Bne of oo/ Two of the Revised Penal Code. &s such it is an e7ception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. 32 PROSPECTIVITY / EX POST FACTO LAW Favorabilia Favorabilia sunt amplianda amplianda adiosa restrigenda penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect 3) e7cept in the case of a habitual criminal as provided for in &rticle )) of the Revised Penal Code. 33

The following statutes have prospective application% R.&. -$#1 *eath Penalty 0aw, 3! Republic  Republic &ct 3# 9o. -'1( *+ncreasing the Penalty for "rave Coercion,  R.&. '3#3 *The 9ew Rape 0aw, 3$ 4upreme Court &dministrative Circular 9o. 2)5)((( *Re% Penalty for .P. )), 3- and R.&. 9o. -$12 *&n &ct 67panding the urisdiction of the Aunicipal Trial Courts,. 3' The following statutes have retroactive application% R.&. 13!! *uvenile ustice and 8elfare &ct of )(($, 31 the favorable provisions of R.&. -$#1 *eath Penalty 0aw, !( R& 13!$ *&nti5eath Penalty 0aw,!2 the Constitution !) and the favorable provision of R.&. ')1! *Firearms 0aw,. !3 +n People v. Rolando Dalde= ".R. 9o. 2)-$$3 Aarch 22 2111 the accused used an unlicensed firearm in the commission of four *!, counts of murder. R.&. ')1! was applied retroactively retroactively in favor of the accused who is not a habitual delinquent insofar as the use of unlicensed firearm is no longer considered a separate offense. :owever the provision of the R.&. ')1! that the use of unlicensed firear firearm m is consi consider dered ed as aggra aggrava vatin ting g circu circumst mstan ance ce was was not appl applied ied >retr >retroac oactiv tively [email protected]@ agains againstt the accused since the same has the effect of increasing the penalty * ex post facto ,.

comprehensive. 8ords and phrases in a statute are to be construed according to their common meaning and accepted usage. )2 Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat . & law should be interpreted with a view to upholding rather than destroying it. ))

The Courts function in the face of this seeming dissonance is to interpret and harmoni=e the Probation 0aw and the 0ocal "overnment Code. Interpretare Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus 23 interpretandi. Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the 4tate.

)!

>?bi le7 non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemos@ 7 7 7 if the law does not distinguish so 8e must no distinguish. )# Conformably Conformably with the principle principle of e7clusio e7clusio unius est e7clusio alterius the relationship of the offender offender as being <ust a step5grandfather of the victim cannot be deemed embraced by the enumeration *qualified rape,. )$ The particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be ta/en as detached and isolated e7pressions e7pressions but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fi7ing the meaning of any of its parts. )9egative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory. . . . the use of the term >[email protected] further emphasi=es its mandatory character and means that it is imperative operating to impose a duty which may be enforced. 7 7 7 &nd where the law does not distinguish the courts should not distinguish; where the law does not ma/e e7ception the court should not e7cept. )' GENERALITY The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones territory is immune from local <urisdiction e7cept to the e7tent agreed upon. )1

Penal laws are obligatory upon all who live or so<ourn in Philippine territory. 4ince the Constitution itself provides provides for the immunities from the general application application of our criminal laws which a 4enator or Aember of the :ouse of Representative Representatives s may en<oy en<oy it follows that any e7pansion of such immunities must similarly be based upon an e7press constitutional grant. 3( TERRITORIALITY Piracy falls under Title Bne of oo/ Two of the Revised Penal Code. &s such it is an e7ception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. 32 PROSPECTIVITY / EX POST FACTO LAW Favorabilia Favorabilia sunt amplianda amplianda adiosa restrigenda penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect 3) e7cept in the case of a habitual criminal as provided for in &rticle )) of the Revised Penal Code. 33

The following statutes have prospective application% R.&. -$#1 *eath Penalty 0aw, 3! Republic  Republic &ct 3# 9o. -'1( *+ncreasing the Penalty for "rave Coercion,  R.&. '3#3 *The 9ew Rape 0aw, 3$ 4upreme Court &dministrative Circular 9o. 2)5)((( *Re% Penalty for .P. )), 3- and R.&. 9o. -$12 *&n &ct 67panding the urisdiction of the Aunicipal Trial Courts,. 3' The following statutes have retroactive application% R.&. 13!! *uvenile ustice and 8elfare &ct of )(($, 31 the favorable provisions of R.&. -$#1 *eath Penalty 0aw, !( R& 13!$ *&nti5eath Penalty 0aw,!2 the Constitution !) and the favorable provision of R.&. ')1! *Firearms 0aw,. !3 +n People v. Rolando Dalde= ".R. 9o. 2)-$$3 Aarch 22 2111 the accused used an unlicensed firearm in the commission of four *!, counts of murder. R.&. ')1! was applied retroactively retroactively in favor of the accused who is not a habitual delinquent insofar as the use of unlicensed firearm is no longer considered a separate offense. :owever the provision of the R.&. ')1! that the use of unlicensed firear firearm m is consi consider dered ed as aggra aggrava vatin ting g circu circumst mstan ance ce was was not appl applied ied >retr >retroac oactiv tively [email protected]@ agains againstt the accused since the same has the effect of increasing the penalty * ex post facto ,.

EQUAL PROTECTION 6quality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated; it is equality among equals not similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based on substantial differences in relation to the ob<ect to be accomplished. 8hen things or persons are different in fact or circumstance they may be treated in law differently. !!

+t is an established established principle of constitutional constitutional law that the guaranty guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.  &nd the classification classification to be reasonable reasonable *2, must rest on substantial substantial distinctions; distinctions; *), must be germane to the purposes purposes of the law; *3, must not be limited to e7isting conditions conditions only; only; and *!, must !# apply equally to all members of the same class. DUE PROCESS The due process clause which guarantees guarantees that no person shall be deprived deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law requires that citi=ens are given sufficient notice or warning of what is lawful and unlawful conduct under a penal statute. To enforce this guarantee courts have developed the void for vagueness doctrine. The void for vagueness doctrine e7presses the rule that for an act to constitute a crime the law must e7pressly and clearly declare such act a crime. !$ 4ubstantive due process loo/s to whether there is a sufficient <ustification for the governments action. 7 7 7 the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. 7 7 7 police power cannot be e7ercised whimsically arbitrarily or despotically as its e7ercise is sub<ect to a qualification limitation or restriction demanded by the respect and regard due to the prescription of the fundamental law particularly those forming part of the ill of Rights. +ndividual rights it bears emphasis may be adversely adversely affected only to the e7tent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. ue process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life liberty and property. !NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Punishments Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering lingering death; but the punishment punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. +t implies 7 7 7 something more inhuman and barbarous something more than the mere e7tinguishment of life. !'

+t ta/es more than merely being harsh e7cessive out of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obno7ious to the Constitution ... to come under the ban the punishment must be Eflagrantly and plainly oppressive wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc/ the moral sense of the community. Aere severity does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. !1 BILL OF ATTAINDER  & bill of attainder attainder has been been defined defined as >a legislative legislative act which which inflicts inflicts punishment punishment without without [email protected] [email protected]

#(

EX POST FACT LAWS  &n e7 post facto law is one which% *2, ma/es criminal criminal an act done before the passage passage of the law and which was innocent when done and punishes such an act; *), aggravates a crime or ma/es it greater than it was when committed; *3, changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law anne7ed to the crime when committed; *!, alters the legal rules of evidence and autho authori ri=es =es conv convict iction ion upon upon less less or diffe differen rentt testi testimon mony y than than the law requi require red d at the time time of the commission commission of the offense; *#, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only only in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and *$, deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal or a proclamation of amnesty. #2 CLASSIFICATIONS CLASSIFICATIONS OF FELONIES 9egligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care precaution and vigilance which the circumstances <ustly demand whereby whereby such other other person person suffers suffers in<ury. in<ury. Test5 Test5 id the defenda defendant nt in doing doing the alleged negligent negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation +f not then he is guilty of negligence. #)

 & deliberate deliberate intent to do an unlawful unlawful act is essentially essentially inconsistent inconsistent with the idea of rec/less imprudence. &nd in People v. Castillo we held that that there can be no frustrated homicide through

rec/less negligence inasmuch as rec/less negligence implies lac/ of intent to /ill and without intent to /ill the crime of frustrated homicide cannot e7ist. #3  & deliberate deliberate intent to do an unlawful unlawful act is essentially essentially inconsistent inconsistent with the idea of rec/less imprudence. 8hat qualifies an act as one of rec/less or simple negligence or imprudence is the lac/ of malice or criminal intent in the e7ecution thereof. Btherwise stated in criminal negligence the in<ury caused to another should be unintentional it being simply the incident of another act done without without malice but with lac/ of foresight carelessness carelessness or negligence negligence and which has harmed society #! or an individual. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person CBAA+TT+9" & F60B9G (by means of DOLO or !L"#$ although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. ##

Petitioner was committing a felony when he bo7ed the victim and hit him with a bottle. :ence the fact that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart ailment does not alter petitioners liability for his death. #$ Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching 0ucrecio his uncle who was much older than him and even if he did not intend to cause the death of 0ucrecio he must be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for /illing him pursuant to the above5quoted provision. :e who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. #Dictorianos act of physically maltreating his spouse is definitely not a lawful act. held guilty of Parricide.

#'

 The accused was

 & person who commits a felony is liable for the direct natural and logical consequences consequences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. :ence an accused who originally intended to conceal and to bury what he thought was the lifeless body of the victim can be held liable as a principal not simply as an accessory where it is proven that the said victim was actually alive but subsequently died as a direct result of such concealment and burial. #1 +n order that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit it is indispensible *a, that a felony was committed and *b, that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the perpetrator. :ere there is no doubt appellant in beating his son 9oemar and inflicting upon him physical in<uries committed a felony. felony. &s a direct consequence consequence of the beating suffered by the child he e7pired. e7pired. &ppellants criminal $( liability for the death of his son 9oemar is thus clear. ABERRATIO ICTUS

ERROR PERSONAE

IN PRAETER INTENTIONEM

mista/e in the blow

mista/e in identity

where the consequence went beyond that intended or e7pected

The offender delivered a blow low at his his inten tended victi victim m but but misse missed d and and instead such blow landed on an $2 unintended victim.

The The offend offender er actua actually lly hit the person to whom the blow blow was was direct directed ed but turn urned out to be diffe differen rentt from from and and not not $) the victim intended.

There ere is a notor toriou ious disparity between between the act and the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony i.e. the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipa anticipated ted or foresee foreseen n by the offender from the act or means employed by him.$3

Results in comple7 crimes H the attempt on the intended victim and the consequence on the unint uninten ended ded victi victim m *&rt. *&rt.

The criminal liability of Aitiga Aitigatin ting g under under &rt. &rt. 3 offender is not affected affected par. 3 unles unless s the the mista mista/e /e in iden identi tity ty resu result lted ed to a crime rime diff diffe erent rent fro from

!1,

what the offender intende intended d to commit commit in which which case case the lesser lesser pen penalty alty betw etween een the the crime intended *&rt. !1,

The following B 9BT +9C?R any criminal liability *not committing a felony,% *2, anyone who acts in defense defense of his person or rights or in defense of relatives or strangers; *), any person who in order to avoid an evil or in<ury does an act which causes damage to another; *3, any person who acts in the fulfillment of duty or in the lawful e7ercise of a right or office; and *!, any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. $! :ere :ere the accused5ap accused5appel pellant lant was not committing committing murder murder when when he dischar discharged ged his rifle rifle upon upon the deceased. +nflicting deat !"de# e$%e&t'("a) %'#%!*+ta"%e+  *&rt. )!- RPC, is not murder. 8e cann cannot ot theref therefor ore e hold hold the appe appella llant nt liable liable for for frust frustrat rated ed murde murderr for the in<ur in<urie ies s suffer suffered ed by the  &mparados.  &mparados. This does not mean however however that the accused5appella accused5appellant nt is totally free from any responsibility. "ranting the fact that he was not performing an illegal act when he fired shots at the victim he cannot be said to be entirely without fault. 8hile it appears that before firing at the deceased he uttered warning words *>an waray labot /agawas@, that is not enough a precaution to absolve him for the in<uries sustained by the &mparados. 8e nonetheless find negligence on his part.  &ccordingly  &ccordingly we hold him liable under the first part second paragraph paragraph of &rticle 3$# that is less serious physical in<uries through simple imprudence or negligence. $# Pro7imate cause has been defined as >that cause which in natural and continuous sequence unbro/en unbro/en by any efficient intervening intervening cause produces the in<ury and without which the result would not have [email protected] The autopsy report indicated that the cause of the victims death is multiple organ failure. I 7 7 Thus it can be concluded that without the stab wounds the victim could not have been afflicted with an infection which later on caused multiple organ failure that caused his death. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim. $$ Bn 4eptember )' 2113 the accused punched Tomelden. The blow caused Tomeldens nose to bleed and rendered him unconscious. I 7 7 Bctober ) and - 2113 Tomelden went bac/ to the hospital complaining of di==iness headache and other pains. The attending doctors observed the patient patient to be in a state state of drowsine drowsiness ss and frequent frequent vomiting. vomiting. I 7 7 Tomelde Tomelden n died died at 1%(( p.m. of Bctober Bctober 2( due per r. &rellano to >cardio5respiratory >cardio5respiratory arrest secondary secondary to cerebral cerebral concussion with $resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling [email protected]  The >luc/y [email protected] was the pro7imate of Tomeldens death. The resulting resulting deathJin<ur deathJin<ury y was not the pro7imate pro7imate cause of the defendant defendants s act in the following following instances% instances% *2, 0ydia slapped "emma in the chee/ and pushed her thereby causing her to fall and hit a wall divider. &s a result of 0ydias violent assault "emma suffered a contusion in her >ma7illary [email protected] 7 7 7 and to have suffered incomplete abortion. I 7 7 "emma was admitted and confined in a hospital for incomplete abortion on &ugust )' 21'2 which was !) days after the uly 2- 21'2 incident. This interval of time is too lengthy to prove that the discharge of the fetus from the womb of "emma was a direct outcome of the assault. :er bleeding and abdominal pain two days after the said incident were were not substantiated by proof other than her testimony. testimony. Thus it is not unli/ely that the $' abortion may have been the result of other factors.  *), The defendant struc/ the deceased a blow on the mouth. efendant was held liable only for 4light Physical +n<uries and not Parricide since the wife died of diarrhea. *3, Bn anuary )3 )(() accused 7 7 7 stabbed Cru= on the left side of Cru=s body using a sharpened sharpened bamboo stic/. The bamboo bamboo stic/ bro/e and was left in Cru=s body. body. I 7 7 on anuary )3 )(() he was ta/en to the Tondo Aedical Center where he was treated as an out5 patient. Cru= was only brought to the 4an 0a=aro :ospital on February 2! )(() where he died the following day 7 7 7 liable for slight physical in<uries for the stab wound he inflicted upon Cru=. The pro7imate cause of Cru=s death is the tetanus infection and not the stab wound. $1 IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES +mpo +mposs ssib ible le crim crime e appl applie ies s only only to a crim crime e which hich would ould be an offe offens nse e agai agains nstt P6R4 P6R4B9 B94 4 or PRBP6RTG were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. +f the act performed constitutes a violation of the

Revised Penal Code or 4pecial 0aws then the offender is liable for the crime committed and not for an impossible crime. -( The accused who unlawfully too/ a chec/ belonging to Aega Foam without the latters consent but was not able to appropriate the amount of the chec/ since the same was dishonored upon presentment was held guilty of an impossible crime. -2 STAGES OF EXECUTION ATTEMPTED RAPE

ACTS LASCIVIOUSNESS

OF UN,UST VEXATION

The lascivious act is The lascivious act is 9BT coupled with intent to lie coupled with intent to lie *to have carnal with the woman /nowledge, with the -) woman

Committed under the following circumstances% by using force threat or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the offended party is under 2) years of age or is demented.

 &ny act that cause annoyance irritation torment distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it was directed is un<ust ve7ation -3

Committed under the following circumstances% by using force threat or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the offended party is under 2) years of age or is demented.

Bffended part is a Bffended party either man Bffended party is woman (in either man or woman rape by or woman sexual assault% t&e offended party is of eit&er sex$ TB069T+9B can only be liable for attempted rape. I 7 7 TB069T+9B had commenced the commission of the crime of rape by *2, directing R&C:6006 to lie down *), removing his shorts and hers and *3, >trying to force his se7 organ [email protected] R&C:6006s se7 organ. ut there is no conclusive evidence of the penetration however slight of R&C:6006s se7 organ. -! The appellants penis did not penetrate but merely Etouched *i.e. 'naidiit) , &&&s private part. +n fact the victim confirmed on cross5e7amination that the appellant did not succeed in inserting his penis into her vagina. The appellant was held guilty of attempted rape. -# The accused was held guilty of attempted rape since there was no introduction of the penis of accused5appellant into the aperture or within the  pudendum of the vagina of private complainant. -$ Removing her pants is not attempted rape but un<ust ve7ation.

--

+n theft and in robbery with violence and intimidation against persons the offense is consummated the moment the offender ta/es possession of the personal property with intent to gain. :e need not dispose or >ta/e [email protected] the property in order to consummate the offense. 8hat is important is whether or not there was asportacion or unlawful ta/ing. There is no felony of frustrated Theft. -' +n robbery with force upon things the offender must ENTER  the building in order to commit the crime. -1 The crime is consummated once the offender ta/es possession of the personal properties therein. ut if the property ta/en is a LOCED (# SEALED FURNITURE (# RECEPTACLE  he

must .TAE AWAY  from the building said loc/ed or sealed furniture or receptacle *to be bro/en or forced open outside the place of robbery, in order to consummate the felony. '( 8hen the accused uttered the words >Pag hindi mo ibiniga'?+y ang hinihingi namin sa iyo ay papatayin /a namin@ it clearly appears that appellant and her companions had the intention of robbing the victim and were bent on resorting to violent means to attain their devious ends. +t could have been the P#((.(( which ?baldo Pimentel left with the victim the previous night or some other valuables or perhaps even some merchandise. 4ince there is no proof or reasonable certainty that anything was successfully ta/en from the deceased the appellant should be convicted only of attempted robbery with homicide penali=ed under &rticle )1- of the Revised Penal Code. '2 6stafa is consummated when deceit and damage on the victim are present; frustrated when the money ta/en has not be appropriated or spent and there is deceit; and attempted when there is deceit but no money was ta/en. ?ndoubtedly petitioners commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but they failed to perform all the acts of e7ecution which would produce the crime not by reason of their own spontaneous desistance but because of their apprehension by the authorities before they could obtain the amount. 4ince only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself had been shown the RTC and the C& correctly convicted petitioners of attempted estafa. ') Corruption of public officer is consummated by the mere agreement of the parties. The offense is attempted corruption of public officer if the public officer to be corrupted does not agree to the proposal of the offender. The accused was held guilty of attempted murder since he has intent to /ill and the wounds inflicted upon the victims were not considered fatal. '3 CONSPIRACY Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. '!

8hen homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery all those who too/ 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 ta/e part in the /illing unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. '# MULTIPLE OFFENDERS RECIDIVISM 0A#t1 231 N(1 45

REITERACION OR HABITUALITY 0A#t1 23 N(1 265

QUASIRECIDIVISM 0A#t1 2745

HABITUAL DELINQUENT 0A#t1 78 "(1 95

Brdinary aggravating

Brdinary aggravating

4pecial aggravating '$

Punished with additional penalty

Previously convicted by final  <udgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC'-

Previously punished for an offense to which the law attached an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attache a lighter penalty ''

Commits a felony before beginning to serve or while serving his '1 sentence. Pardoned at the age of -( if not habitual delinquent

within a period of ten years 1( from the date of his release or last conviction of any of the crime of serious or less serious physical in<uries robbery theft estafa or falsification the offender is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

Reiteracion and quasi5recidivism cannot aggravate the felony at the same time since in reiteracion the offender has already served his sentence while in quasi5recidivism the offender is serving his sentence. +n reiteracion or habituality it is essential that the offender be previously punished that is he has served the sentence for an offense in which the law attaches or provides for an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense or for two or more offenses in which the law attaches a lighter penalty. 12 +f recidivism or reiteracion are both present the proper aggravating circumstance is recidivism since reiteracion requires that the previous offenses should not be embraced in the same title of the Code. 1) Recidivism and habitual delinquency can aggravate the offense at the same time. 13 & habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. 1!  & felony can be aggravated by recidivism quasi5recidivism and habitual delinquency at the same time. Kuasi5recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the ma7imum of the penalty for the new offense. +t ma/es no difference for the purpose of the effect of quasi5recidivism under  &rticle 2$( of the Revised Penal Code whether the crime for which an accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged falls under the said Code or under special law. Kuasi5recidivism is punished with more severity than recidivism proper because the aggravating circumstance of recidivism as any other aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance present in the commission of the crime whereas in a case of quasi5recidivism the ma7imum degree of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed should always be imposed irrespective of the presence of any mitigating circumstance. 1# Kuasi5recidivism li/e recidivism and reiteracion necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. 3#The fact that appellant was an inmate of &P6CB0 does not prove that final <udgment had been rendered against him. 1$ +f the offender is granted absolute pardon by the President the felony pardoned shall still be considered in determining the offenders subsequent liability for recidivism reiteracion quasi5 recidivism and habitual delinquency. 1ut if the President with the concurrence of Congress grants amnesty to the offender the offense included in the amnesty will not be considered in determining his liability for recidivism reiteracion quasi5recidivism and habitual delinquency because +9 &A964TG T:6 CR+A6 +4 TBT&00G B0+T6R&T6. 1' The crime committed by a child in conflict with law who was placed under suspended sentence and who was subsequently discharged by the court should not be ta/en into consideration in determining his subsequent liability for recidivism reiteracion quasi5recidivism and habitual delinquency because in *automatic, 4?4P694+B9 BF 469T69C6 the court does not pronounce the <udgment of conviction. 11 +f the accused was granted probation and subsequently discharged by the court the crime committed should be ta/en into consideration in determining his subsequent liability for recidivism because probation does not erase the previous conviction of the accused. +f the accused was granted probation and subsequently discharged by the court the crime committed should not be ta/en into consideration in determining his subsequent liability for reiteracion because the latter required that the accused had previously served his sentence. +n probation the convict does not serve his sentence. The convict who is released on parole *after serving the minimum sentence, and who committed an offense before his final release or discharge is 9BT a quasi5recidivist since he is not yet serving his sentence at the time of the commission of the offense.  & habitual delinquent cannot avail of beneficent provisions of the +ndeterminate 4entence 0aw. cannot also avail of the retroactive effect of a law that is favorable to him. 2(2

2((

 :e

CONTINUING CRIMES  & continued *continuous or continuing, crime is defined as a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. &lthough there is a series of acts there is only one crime committed; hence only one penalty shall be imposed. 2()

67amples of continuing crimes H *2, the ta/ing of si7 roosters at the same place and time 2(3 *), squatting 2(! *3, concubinage 2(# and *!, robbery committed against several persons at the gasoline station. 2($ The following are 9BT continuing crimes *multiple crimes were committed, H *2, estafa committed against different persons and in different occasions 2(- *), 6stafa under &rt. 32# para 2 *b, RPC2(' *3, falsification and malversation 2(1 *!, qualified theft committed on different occasions 22( *#, adultery since every act of se7ual congress is a separate crime 222 *$, falsification of private document 22) and *-, grave threats against several individuals in different occasions. 223 Bnly one crime was committed and only one penalty was imposed in the following% *2, estafa through multiple falsification of mercantile documents 22! *), estafa through falsification of public documents 22# and *3, violation of R.&. 3(21 *&nti "raft and Corrupt Practices &ct, were the legali=ation of the stay of the 3) aliens was done by a single stro/e of the pen. 22$ +n People v. &lberto asao et al. ".R. 9o. 2'1')( Bctober 2( )(2) the accused were held guilty of one *2, crime of robbery in band although they have two victims. DELICTO CONTINUADO (# CONTINUING OFFENSE %("t'"!(!+ %#'*e (# %("t'"!ed %#'*e

+s a term use to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts a#'+'"; <#(* a +'";)e %#'*'"a) #e+()!t'("  not susceptible of division which are carried out '" te +a*e &)a%e a"d at a=(!t te +a*e t'*e  and >'()at'"; ("e a"d te +a*e &e"a) &#(>'+'(" .22-

Continuing crime is one whose essential ingredients too/ place in more than one municipality or city so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or city.

Bnly one information should be filed Aore pertinently used with against the offender although a series of reference to the venue where the felonious acts were performed criminal action may be instituted Diolations of atas Pambansa ilang )) are categori=ed as t#a"+'t(#? or continuing crimes. +n such crimes some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their consummation occur in one municipality or territory and some in another in which event the court of either has <urisdiction to try the cases it being understood that the first court ta/ing cogni=ance of the case e7cludes the other. :ence a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. 22' 6stafa is also a transitory offense. 221 COMPLEX CRIMES 0ART1 [email protected] RPC5 COMPOUND CRIMES (delito compuesto)

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER (delito complejo)

 & single act constitutes grave or less  &n offense is a necessary means of grave felonies. 2)( committing the other. 2)2 67ample H the single act of throwing a hand grenade constitute a crime of Aurder with multiple attempted 2)) murders direct assault with homicide parricide with unintentional abortion 2)3

67ample H +n estafa through falsification of public document the offender falsifies a deed of dale in order to commit estafa forcible abduction with rape

9egatively put there is no comple7 crime when *2, two or more crimes are committed but not by a single act; or *), committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other *or others,. 2)!

There was only one forcible abduction with rape and that was the one allegedly committed on the truc/ or <eep. &ny subsequent acts of intercourse in the house against her will would be only separate acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate comple7 crimes of forcible abduction with rape.2)# +n People v. 6rland 4abadlab ".R. 9o. 2-#1)! Aarch 2! )(2) the accused was held guilty of rape and 9BT comple7 crimes of forcible abduction with rape since the ob<ective of the abduction was to commit the rape. ?nder the circumstances the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.  &rticle !' does not apply to acts penali=ed under &rticle 3$# RPC 2)$ There is no comple7 crimes where the /illing was not shown to have been committed by a single discharge of firearms. The accused was held liable for the separate crimes of four murders and two attempted murders not comple7 crimes of multiple murder with double frustrated murder. 2)There is no comple7 crime where there was more than one gunman involved and the act of each gunman is distinct from that of the other. The accused was held liable for four counts of murder. 2)' The accused was held liable for #( counts of violation of .P. )). 6ach act of drawing and issuing a bouncing chec/ constitutes a violation of .P. lg. )). 2)1 6ach act of carnal /nowledge is a separate and distinct crime of rape.

23(

+n People v. +to Pinic ".R. 9o. 2'$31# une ' )(22 however the accused too/ off his own pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. 4he felt pain. :e withdrew his penis after about ten *2(, seconds but inserted it again after ten *2(, seconds. &fter five *#, seconds he withdrew it again but inserted it once more after five *#, seconds. :e also inserted his finger and lic/ed her vagina. I 7 7 although the penis was thrice inserted in her private organ the same constituted one *2, count of rape. Rape cannot be comple7ed with a violation of 4ection #*b, of R& -$2(. ?nder 4ection !' of the Revised Penal Code *on comple7 crimes, a felony under the Revised Penal Code *such as rape, cannot be comple7ed with an offense penali=ed by a special law. 232 istinction should be made as to when the crimes of estafa and falsification will constitute as one comple7 crime and when they are considered as two separate offenses. The comple7 crime of estafa through falsification of documents is committed when one has to falsify certain documents to be able to obtain money or goods from another person. +n other words the falsification is a necessary means of committing estafa. :owever if the falsification is committed to conceal the misappropriation two separate offenses of estafa and falsification are committed. +n the instant case when accused collected payments from the customers said collection which was in her possession was at her disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries which she made on the duplicate copies of the receipts were contrived to conceal some amount of her collection which she did not remit to the company 777.23) SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES 8here the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses the resulting crime is called a special comple7 crime.

The following constitutes special comple7 crimes% *2, 8hen by reason or on occasion of ROBBERY the crime of homicide rape intentional mutilation arson or serious physical in<uries are inflicted. 233 *), 8hen by reason or occasion of RAPE  the crime of homicide is committed. 23! *3, 8hen the victim in IDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION  is /illed or dies as a consequence of detention or is raped or is sub<ected to torture or dehumani=ing acts. 23# 8hen the owner driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is /illed or raped in the course of the commission of CARNAPPING or on occasion thereof. 23$ 8here the person /idnapped is /illed in the course of the detention regardless of whether the /illing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought the /idnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be comple7ed under &rt. !' nor be treated as separate crimes but shall be punished as a special comple7 crime under the last paragraph of &rt. )$- as amended by R.&. 9o. -$#1. 23-

+n People v. Teofilo uyagan ".R. 9o. 2'--33 February ' )(2) *. rion, People v. 4amuel  &lgarme ".R. 9o. 2-#1-' February 2) )((1 *. rion, and in People v. PB2 Felipe dela Cru= et al. ".R. 9o. 2$'2-3 ecember )! )((' *. rion, the accused were found guilty of special comple7 crime of robbery with homicide. +n People v. Aichael :ipona ".R. 9o. 2'#-(1 February 2' )(2( the accused was held liable for special comple7 crime of robbery with homicide *not rape with homicide and robbery,. Bnce conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. The rule in this <urisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery all those who too/ part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape although not all of them too/ part in the rape. 23' 9o matter how many rapes had been committed in the special comple7 crime of /idnapping with rape the resultant crime is only one /idnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.&. 9o. -$#1 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. 231 +n robbery with rape rape was committed by reason or on t&e occasion  of a robbery and not the other way around. 2!( +f the ta/ing of personal property was not the original evil plan but was only an afterthought following the rape the crime is rape and theft and not robbery with rape. 2!2 +n People v. Denacio Ro7as ".R. 9o. 2-)$(! &ugust 2- )(2( the accused was held guilty of the *2, comple7 crime of /idnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder *), carnapping and *3, theft. +n People v. &lberto &nticamara ".R. 9o. 2-'--2 une ' )(22 the accused was held guilty of special comple7 crime of /idnapping and serious illegal detention with rape defined in and penali=ed under &rticle )$- of the Revised Penal Code. +n People v. ima Aondanir et al. ".R. 9o. 2'-#3! &pril ! )(22 the accused was held liable for /idnapping with homicide. +n People v. 6dmundo Dillaflores ".R. 9o. 2'!1)$ &pril 22 )(2) the accused was held liable for special comple7 crime of rape with homicide. There is no comple7 crime of rape with frustrated homicide. 2!) The accused was held liable for rape and frustrated homicide. The physical in<uries were inflicted after the rape and were not a necessary means to commit the same. 2!3 +n People v. oey Toriaga ".R. 9o. 2--2!# February 1 )(22 the accused was held guilty of rape and frustrated homicide. *not a special comple7 crime,. +n People v. 6rmilito &legre ".R. 9o. 2'!'2) uly $ )(2( the accused was held guilty of rape and frustrated murder. *not a special comple7 crime,. People v. Conrado 0aog ".R. 9o. 2-'3)2 Bctober # )(22 the accused was found guilty of comple7 crime of rape with homicide and a separate crime of frustrated homicide. Forcible abduction with rape is a comple7 crime under &rticle !' not a special comple7 crime.

2!!

+n the special comple7 crime of carnapping with homicide there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the /illing was perpetrated >in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion [email protected] 2!# ,USTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

For unlawful aggression to be appreciated there must be an >actual sudden and une7pected attac/ or imminent danger thereof not merely a threatening or intimidating [email protected] and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. For this reason annys observation that one of the men was pulling an ob<ect from his waist is not a convincing proof of unlawful aggression. >& threat even if made with a weapon or the belief that a person was about to be attac/ed is not [email protected] &n intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough. 2!$ Brdinarily as pointed out by the lower court there is a difference between the act of drawing ones gun and the act of pointing ones gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. +n People v. orreros 8e ruled that >for unlawful aggression to be attendant there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. ?nlawful aggression requires an actual sudden and une7pected attac/ or imminent danger thereof and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude 7 7 7. :ere the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categori=ed as unlawful aggression. 4uch act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of [email protected] 2!The unlawful aggression started when the appellant immediately fired at the victim as the latter alighted from a tricycle and continued when the appellant fired at the victim si7 *$, times. 2!' ?nlawful aggression >presupposes actual sudden une7pected or imminent danger H not merely threatening and intimidating action. +t is present Eonly when the one attac/ed faces real and immediate threat to ones life.@ The unlawful aggression may constitute an actual physical assault or at least a threat to inflict real imminent in<ury upon the accused. +n case of a >threat it must be offensive and strong positively showing the 7 7 7 intent to cause in<[email protected] 7 7 7 the victim was unarmed when he went to the house of the appellant. 2!1 The number of wounds the victim suffered )$ in all *a number of which were located in vital parts of the body, belies the appellants claim that he acted in self5 defense. The location and severity of these wounds also negate the claim of self5defense; these circumstances point to a determined effort to /ill and not simply to defend. 2#( SELF DEFENSE

DEFENSE HONOR

?nlawful aggression consists of actual physical assault or threatened physical assault of imminent /ind that brings peril to ones life or limb 2#2

?nlawful aggression consists of attempting to rape a woman or violating her right to chastity 2#)

SELF-DEFENSE

OF DEFENSE PROPERTY

OF

?nlawful aggression consists of unlawfully ta/ing the property of another coupled with an attac/ on the person entrusted with the said property 2#3

RETALIATION

?nlawful aggression e7ists at the The unlawful aggression that has time the aggressor was in<ured or begun has already ceased to e7ist. disabled by the person ma/ing a The actor is liable criminally. defense SELF DEFENSE

IN FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

the deceased is /illed while the actor is <ustified even if the deceased is the unlawful aggression /illed after the unlawful aggression already e7ists ceased2#! *unlawful aggression is not required, e.g. the escaped prisoner was running away when the law shot the prisoner at the bac/ +t is an aberration for the petitioner to invo/e the two defenses at the same time because the said defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no such defense as accidental self5defense in the realm of criminal law. 2## The aggression is lawful if the aggression consists in the lawful e7ercise of a right. &n e7ample of a lawful aggression is the force used by an owner or a lawful possessor of a thing in repelling an actual

or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property or the aggression showed by the husband who surprises his wife caught in the act of se7ual intercourse with her paramour. 2#$  & person acting under any of the <ustifying circumstances does not commit a crime however if he acted negligently he may be held liable for culpa under 3$# RPC 2#- or entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self5defense or incomplete fulfillment of duty. 2#' +n Francisco 4ycip v. Court of &ppeals ".R. 9o. 2)#(#1 Aarch 2- )((( the accused issued post dated chec/s in favor of the developer as amorti=ation payment for his townhouse unit. The developer failed to develop and complete the pro<ect; hence the accused ordered the ban/ to stop payments. &s a result the chec/s he issued bounced and he was accordingly charged for violation of .P. )). The 4upreme Court held that the accused is not liable for .P. )) because he is e7ercising his lawful right to suspend payments. BATTERRED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A ,USTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE The battered woman syndrome is characteri=ed by the so5called >cycle of violence@ which has three phases% *2, the tension5building phase *minor battering occurs,; *), the acute battering incident *characteri=ed by brutality destructiveness and sometimes death,; and *3, the tranquil J loving phase *the woman and her batterer are emotionally dependent on each otherLshe for his nurturant behavior he for her forgiveness,. This cycle must be repeated.

The <ustifying circumstance of battered woman syndrome was not applied in the case of Aarivic "enosa because the accused failed to present evidence with regard to the third phase of the cycle H that she felt that she provo/ed the violent incidents between her and her spouse; that she believe that she was the only hope for her husband to reform; that she believe that she was the sole support of his emotional stability and well5being that she is dependent on him; that she feels helpless and trapped in their relationship; that both regard death as preferable to separation. 4elf5defense was not also appreciated in the case of Aarivic "enosa because the unlawful aggression has already ceased at the time the accused /illed her batterer. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ,USTIFYING

EXEMPTING

The circumstance affects the act not the The circumstance actor  actor not the act

affects

the

The act is done within legal bounds The act is felonious and hence a hence considered as not a crime crime but the actor acted without voluntariness 4ince the act is not a crime there is no  &lthough there is a crime there is criminal no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime There being no crime nor criminal there There being a wrong done but no is no criminal nor civil liability criminal there is civil liability but no criminal liability AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL ACCIDENT OR IN,URY

ustifying circumstance but the actor 67empting circumstance. The actor is is civilly liable. 2#1 also e7empt from civil liability. 2$( +n order to avoid greater evil or The actor causes an +9?RG by mere in<ury the actor causes &A&"6 to accident while performing a lawful act another  with due care The evil which brought about the The actor must be free from fault or greater evil must not result from a negligence violation of law by the actor 

INSANE

:as interval

IMBECILE

FEEBLEMINDED

lucid :as 9B lucid interval. &lthough 9ot e7empted FRBA advanced in age he has a mental criminal liability development comparable to that of ) to - yrs old. 2$2 :e must be completely deprived of reason or discernment and of freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.2$)

+n People v. :onorato &mbal ".R. 9o. 05#)$'' Bctober 2- 21'( insanity was not appreciated because the accused surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident. 4uch act is incontestable proof that he /new that what he has done was wrong and that he was going to be punished for it. +n People v. 6dwin +sla ".R. 9o. 211'-# 9ovember )2 )(2) the defense of insanity was re<ected because the act of the accused of threatening the victim with death in case she reported her ravishment indicated that he was aware of the reprehensible moral depravity of that assault and that he was not deprived of intelligence. 2$3 IRRISISTIBLE FORCE

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

The force which consists of >'()e"%e (# &?+'%a) <(#%e  coming from a third person must be irresistible that inspite of all resistance it reduces the actor to a mere instrument 2$!

T#eat (# '"t'*'dat'("  is employed to compel another to commit a crime. The Fear must be grave actual serious and of such /ind one would succumbed because of reasonable fear of ones life or limb. +t must not speculative fanciful or remote fear. 2$#

6lements of insuperable cause% 2. That the act is required by law to be done. ). That a person fails to perform such act. 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.2$$  & person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force li/e one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater in<ury is e7empt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. &ctus me invito factus non est meus actus. &n act done by me against my will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress force fear or intimidation must be present imminent and impending and of such nature as to induce a well5grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. & threat of future in<ury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self5defense in equal combat. 2$DEATH UNDER ECEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

>7 7 7 surprised his spouse in the act of committing se7ual intercourse with another person 7 7 7 in the act or '**ed'ate)? te#ea<te#  7 7 7 These rules shall be applicable under the same circumstances to parents with respect to their daughters under 2' years of age and their seducer while their daughters are )'>'"; 't te'# &a#e"t [email protected]$'  &rt. )!- RPC is an e7empting circumstance. Consequently no punishment is inflicted upon the accused. :e is banished but that is intended for his protection * destierro is not a penalty,. 4ince inflicting death under e7ceptional circumstance is not a punishable act the same cannot be qualified with either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances. The actor is NOT CIVILLY LIABLE  for the resulting death or physical in<uries inflicted. 2$1 9onetheless the actor is criminally and civilly liable for culpa under &rt. 3$# RPC if he was negligent in the performance of the lawful act. 2-( JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WEL!ARE ACT O! 2""# $R.A. %&''(

EXEMPT LIABILITY

FROM

CRIMINAL NOT EXEMPT

elow 2# years of age 2-2  &bove 2# to below 2' 8+T:B?T discernment

 &bove 2# to below 2' acting 8+T: acting +4C6R9A69T 2-) (entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority$

 & minor below 2# years old or above 2# but below 2' acting without discernment is e7empt from criminal liability but not from civil liability. :e has to undergo intervention program. 2-3 +n Robert 4ierra v. People ".R. 9o. 2')1!2 uly 3 )((1 the 4upreme Court accepted the testimony child as evidence of his age. 2-! iscernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.2-# iscernment means the mental capacity of a minor between 2# and 2' years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. 2-$ T#eat*e"t (< %')d#e": 1. Intervention - the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old, who acted without discernment. The authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of hisher !arents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child"s nearest relative. #aid authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and develo!ment officer who will determine the a!!ro!riate !rograms in consultation with the child and to the !erson having custody over the child.1$$ %. &iversion - If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with discernment. If the im!osable !enalty for the crime charged is above si' (), diversion may be resorted to only  by the courts.1$8 Bnce the child who is under eighteen *2', years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. :owever instead of pronouncing the <udgment of conviction the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence without need of application. 2-1 +f the child is above 2' but below )2 at the time of promulgation he may still apply for suspension of sentence. 2'( +n People v. :ermie acinto ".R. 9o. 2'))31 Aarch 2$ )(22 the child in conflict with the law was found guilty of qualified rape punishable by death. 4upreme Court considered the minority of the accused as privilege mitigating circumstance. 9otwithstanding the &nti5eath Penalty 0aw *R.&. 13!$, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority the 4upreme Court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua. The 4upreme Court held that for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority the penalty of DEATH  is still the penalty to be rec/oned with. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

The mitigating circumstance of >lac/ of intention to commit so grave a [email protected] is not applicable in physical in<uries to felonies by negligence unintentional abortion and to defamationJslander. 2'2 The weapon used the part of the body in<ured the in<ury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted may show that the accused intended the wrong committed. 2') PROVOCATION

VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

irected against the committing the felony 9eed not be a grave offense

person irected against the offenders relatives The offended party have done grave offense

The provocation or threat The vindication of grave offense may immediately preceeded the act be pro7imate which admits an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused PROVOCATION

VINDICATION OF PASSION GRAVE OFFENSE OBFUSCATION

AND

irected against the irected against the The accused is provo/ed person committing the offenders relatives by the prior un<ust or felony improper acts of the in<ured party and the crime committed is the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury 9eed not be a grave The offended party The prior un<ust or offense has done grave improper acts of the in<ured offense party is sufficient to produce a powerful impulse The provocation or The vindication of threat immediately grave offense may be preceded the act 2'3 pro7imate which admits an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused

The offense which engenders perturbation of mind need not be immediate. +t is only required that the influence thereof last until the moment the crime is committed

Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause should be treated as one mitigating circumstance. Dindication of grave offense cannot co5e7ist with passion or obfuscation. 2'! +n voluntary surrender the surrender of the accused to the authorities must be unconditional either because he ac/nowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and e7penses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. 2'#  &lthough :ermogenes went to arangay Chairman &loria of ulihan after the /illings he did so to see/ protection against the retaliation of the victims relatives not to admit his participation in the /illing of the victims. 6ven then :ermogenes denied any involvement in the /illings when the police went to ta/e him from Chairman &lorias house. &s such :ermogenes did not unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in order to ac/nowledge his participation in the /illings or in order to save the authorities the trouble and e7pense for his arrest. 2'$ The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either because he ac/nowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and e7pense that may be incurred for his search and capture. 8ithout these elements and where the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and the need to ensure his safety the surrender is not spontaneous and therefore cannot be characteri=ed as >voluntary [email protected] to serve as a mitigating circumstance. 2'+n voluntary plea the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt before a competent court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 2''  &lthough restitution is a/in to voluntary surrender as provided for in paragraph - of &rticle 23 in relation to paragraph 2( of the same &rticle of the Revised Penal Code restitution should be treated as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused when the two circumstances are present in a case which is similar to instances where voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating circumstances are treated in the same paragraph - &rticle 23 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering that restitution is also tantamount to an admission of guilt on the part of the accused it was proper for the 4andiganbayan to have considered it as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner. 2'1 +n 6milio Cimafranca v. 4andiganbayan ".R. 9o. 1!!(' February 2! 2112 however. the 4upreme Court held that the return of the funds malversed is not a defense and will not be an e7empting circumstance nor a ground for e7tinguishing the criminal liability of the accused but it can be a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender. +n the instant case the return of the property malversed was not mitigating because it too/ the accused several years before he returned the government property. +n fact when the engine was returned it was already scrap and the revolver was rusty and had to be reblued.

The fact that the accused suffers from a physical defect a severed left hand does not mean that he should automatically be credited with the mitigating circumstance. +n order for this condition to be appreciated it must be shown that such physical defect limited his means to act defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings to such an e7tent that he did not have complete freedom of action consequently resulting in diminution of the element of voluntariness. 4uch cannot be appreciated where the accuseds physical condition clearly did not limit his means of action defense or communication nor affect his free will. +n fact despite his handicap the accused nevertheless managed to attac/ overcome and fatally stab his victim. 21( +n ose Reyes v. People ".R. 9os. 2--2(#5($ &ugust 2) )(2( the 4upreme Court held that the mitigating circumstance of old age under &rticle 23 *), of the Revised Penal Code is applied only when the offender was over -( years at the time of the commission of the offense. The offender who is $3 years old at the time he committed the offense is not entitled to such mitigating circumstance. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

The circumstances in &rticle 2! nos. 2 ! $ - ' 2) 2! 2# 2$ )( are considered aggravating if the same facilitated the commission of the offense or especially sought of by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or the offender too/ advantage thereof for purposes of impunity. 212 The following are special aggravating circumstances% *2, quasi5recidivism 21) *), use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder 213 *3, use of illegally manufactured e7plosives in the commission of any crime defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws which resulted in the death of a person 21! *!, under the influence of dangerous drugs in the commission of crime 21# *#, that advantage be ta/en by the offender of his public [email protected] 21$ and *$, the crime was committed by an organi=ed or syndicated crime group. 21 &n organi=ed or syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. 21' y definition a drug syndicate is any organi=ed group of two *), or more persons forming or  <oining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under R& 12$#. 211 The circumstance that the public officer too/ advantage of his official position is not aggravating in violations of R.&. 3(21 *&nti5"raft and Corrupt Practices &ct, in Plunder and Crimes committed by Public Bfficers under the Revised Penal Code and falsification of public documents by a public officials. The mere fact that the offender is a public officer or employee *even if he has not ta/en advantage of his official position, is an aggravating circumstance in violations of R.&. 12$# *The angerous rugs 0aw,)(( a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance in violation of R.&. -$2( *Child &buse 0aw, )(2 and a QUALIFYING circumstance in violation of R.&. 1)(' *&nti5Traffic/ing in Persons &ct of )((3,. )() Commission of a crime in a place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties is aggravating when the crime is committed at the police station where policemen were discharging their public functions. )(3 The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his ran/ age or se7 may be ta/en into account only in crimes against persons or honor when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to ran/ age or se7. )(! The aggravating circumstances of ran/ age or se7 are not appreciated in robbery with homicide since said aggravating circumstances apply only to crimes against persons or honor when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to ran/ age or se7. +t is not proper to consider these aggravating circumstances in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. :omicide is a mere incident of the robbery the latter being the main purpose and ob<ect of the criminal. )(# Provocation in dwelling must be% *a, given by the offended party *b, sufficient and *c, immediate to the commission of the crime. )($  &lso nighttime is considered an aggravating circumstance only when it is deliberately sought to prevent the accused from being recogni=ed or to ensure escape. There must be proof that this was

intentionally sought to ensure the commission of the crime and that the accused too/ advantage of it to insure his immunity from captivity. )(welling is 9BT absorbed in treachery. )(' Treachery cannot co5e7ist with passion and obfuscation. )(1 welling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation and and in robbery with rape. because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended partys house. )2( +t is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. :e who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. )22 welling is also aggravating in forcible abduction when the offender entered the dwelling of the victim. )2) The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation *&rt. )2-, qualified theft *&rt. 32(, estafa by conversion or misappropriation *&rt. 32#, and qualified seduction *&rt. 33-,.)23 The prosecution failed to present evidence to show a relative disparity in age si=e strength or force e7cept for the showing that two assailants one of them armed with a /nife attac/ed the victim. The presence of two assailants one of them armed with a /nife is not per se indicative of abuse of superior strength. )2! To ta/e advantage of superior strength means to purposely use e7cessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attac/ed. )2# &buse of superior strength is generic aggravating in carnapping with homicide where the perpetrators too/ advantage of their superior strength to /ill the victim. )2$ +t is also aggravating in rape with homicide. )26vident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. :owever in the crime of robbery with homicide if there is evident premeditation to /ill besides stealing evident premeditation is aggravating. )2' y a band to be aggravating the four armed persons must act together. )21 and is aggravating in robbery with homicide where the same is perpetrated by several armed men. ))( The following may be considered as generic aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide% treachery cruelty  disregard of respect due the victim on account of his ran/ superior strength evident premeditation ))2 and by a band. ))) Treachery is aggravating in slight physical in<uries. ))3 Treachery absorbs nighttime ))!  by a band with the aid of armed men ))# means to wea/en the defense ))$ evident premeditation ))-craft ))' age and se7 ))1 poison)3( fraud and disguise. )32 To be considered aggravating the circumstances of inundation fire poison e7plosion stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto derailment of locomotive or by use of any artifice involving great waste and ruin H must =e !+ed =? te (<<e"de# a+ a *ea"+ t( a%%(*&)'+ a %#'*'"a) &!#&(+e.)3) +n People v. Fernando Pugay et al. ".R. 9o. 05-!3)! 9ovember 2- 21'' the accused 4amson and Pugay made fun on the deceased a mental retardate by tic/ling him with a piece of wood. 9ot content with what they were doing with the deceased the accused Pugay suddenly too/ a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferns wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former. Then the accused 4amson set the deceased on fire ma/ing a human torch out of him. +t was established that the accused have "( '"te"t t( ')) . There being no conspiracy between the two 4upreme Court held Pugay liable for rec/less imprudence resulting in homicide for pouring gasoline on the deceased while the accused 4amson was held liable for homicide for lighting the clothes of the deceased. F+R6 was 9BT considered as aggravatingJqualifying circumstance.  &s the /illing in this case is perpetrated with both treachery and by means of e7plosives the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal mode of attac/. Reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance. )33

The brea/ing of the door to be considered aggravating must be utili=ed as a means to the commission of the crime. +f what was bro/en is the rope that was used to close the door and not the door itself the same is not aggravating. )3! +n People v. 6dgar 6vangelio ".R. 9o. 2'21() &ugust 32 )(22 unlawful entry was not aggravating since the accused freely entered the victims residence through the open /itchen door which is clearly intended for ingress and or egress. ?se of motor vehicle is aggravating if the same was used as a means to commit a crime same facilitated the commission of the crime or the escape of the offenders )3$

)3#

 or the

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE 0P1D1 [email protected] a+ a*e"ded =? R1A1 @8435 +f HOMICIDE (# MURDER   is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as .SPECIAL )3- aggravating circumstance. )3'

The use of unlicensed firearm is also aggravating in #(==e#? 't HOMICIDE .)31 The use of unlicensed firearm is 9BT aggravating in frustrated murder )!( direct assault with attempted homicide )!2 in robbery )!) in violation of Comelec gun5ban )!3 in /idnapping for ransom)!! and in rape. )!# +f an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. :ence if the Eother crime is murder or homicide illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance not a separate offense. )!$ +n People v. Pedro Cupcupin ".R. 9o. 23)3'1. 9ovember 21 )(() the accused was held liable for two separate offenses of violation of P.. 2'$$ as amended and for violation of the angerous rugs 0aw because the unlicensed firearm was merely found lying around together with the prohibited drugs and therefore was not being >[email protected] in the commission of an offense. )!0ac/ of license to possess a firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of P 2'$$ as amended by Republic &ct 9o. ')1! or as a special aggravating circumstance in the felony of homicide or murder. )!' 6ven if the firearm used was properly licensed to the security agency its unauthori=ed use by the appellant aggravated his offense. )!1  & barangay captain is authori=ed to carry any /ind of firearm under 4ec. 3'1 of the 0ocal "overnment Code.)#( The e7istence of the firearm may be established by testimonial evidence.

)#2

8hen a person commits ANY OF THE CRIMES defined in the RPC or special laws with the use of unlawfully manufactured e7plosives detonation agents or incendiary devices which RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF ANY PERSONS the use of such e7plosives detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. )#) USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AS QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE 9otwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary a positive finding for the ?46 BF &9"6RB?4 R?"4 shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable. )#3

4ub<ect to 4ection 2# *which penali=es the offense of >use of dangerous [email protected] with si7 months rehabilitation, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of R.&. 12$# shall be sub<ected to screening laboratory e7amination or test within )! hours if the apprehending or arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested on account of physical signs and symptoms or other visible outward manifestation is ?96R T:6 +9F0?69C6 BF &9"6RB?4 R?"4. I 7 7 )#! R1A1 4279 AND MINOR OFFENDERS

Se%t'(" 771 *uspension of *entence of a First+,ime -inor Offender . H &n accused who is over fifteen *2#, years of age at the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in 4ection 22 of this  &ct but not more than eighteen *2', years of age at the time when <udgment should have been promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense may be given the benefits of a +!+&e"ded +e"te"%e sub<ect to the following conditions%

*a, :eJshe has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this &ct or of the angerous rugs &ct of 21-) as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal laws; *b, :eJshe has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a B:5accredited physician; and *c, The oard favorably recommends that hisJher sentence be suspended. 8hile under suspended sentence heJshe shall be !"de# te +!&e#>'+'(" a"d #ea=')'tat'>e +!#>e'))a"%e (< te B(a#d  under such conditions that the court may impose for a period ranging from si7 *$, months to eighteen *2', months. ?pon recommendation of the oard the court may commit the accused under suspended sentence to a Center or to the care of a B:5accredited physician for at least si7 *$, months with after5care and follow5up program for not more than eighteen *2', months. I77 Se%t'(" 71 Disc&arge #fter ompliance it& onditions of *uspended *entence of a First+,ime -inor Offender . H +f the accused first time minor offender under suspended sentence complies with the applicable rules and regulations of the oard including confinement in a Center the court upon a favorable recommendation of the oard for the final discharge of the accused shall discharge the accused and dismiss all proceedings. I77 Se%t'(" [email protected] "rivilege of *uspended *entence to be #vailed of Only Once by a First+,ime -inor Offender . 7 7 7 Se%t'(" 741 "romulgation of *entence for First+,ime -inor Offender . H +f the accused first5time minor offender violates any of the conditions of hisJher suspended sentence the applicable rules and regulations of the oard e7ercising supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over him including the rules and regulations of the Center should confinement be required the court shall &#("(!"%e  !d;*e"t (< %(">'%t'(" and heJshe shall serve sentence as any other convicted person. Se%t'(" 61 "robation or ommunity *ervice for a First+,ime -inor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment  .  H ?pon promulgation of the sentence the court may in its discretion place te a%%!+ed !"de# &#(=at'(" e>e" '< te +e"te"%e &#(>'ded !"de# t'+ A%t '+ ';e# ta" tat &#(>'ded !"de# e$'+t'"; )a (" &#(=at'(" or impose community service in lieu of imprisonment. +n case of probation the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall be underta/en by the oard through the B: in coordination with the oard of Pardons and Parole and the Probation &dministration. ?pon compliance with the conditions of the probation the oard shall submit a written report to the court recommending termination of probation and a final discharge of the probationer whereupon the court shall issue such an order. I77 +f the sentence promulgated by the court requires imprisonment the period spent in the Center by the accused during the suspended sentence period shall be deducted from the sentence to be served. +n Aichael Padua v. People ".R. 9o. 2$'#!$ uly )3 )((' the minor offender was convicted of violation of 4ec. # R.&. 12$# was denied probation. The 4upreme Court held that 4ection )! of R.&. 12$# is clear that any person convicted of drug traffic/ing cannot avail of the privilege of probation. ?nder the law any person convicted for drug traffic/ing or pushing regardless of the penalty imposed cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation 0aw or P.. 9o. 1$'. 9BT6% some provisions of R.&. 12$# concerning minor offenders have been amended by R.&. 13!! particularly on the age of criminal responsibility the <uvenile <ustice and welfare system suspension of sentence and confinement in agricultural camps and training facilities.

APPLICATION AND NON-APPLICATION OF RPC PROVISIONS 0SEC1 [email protected] R1A1 4279 IN RELATION TO ART1 26 RPC5 SEC1 [email protected] Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code . H 9otwithstanding any law rule or regulation to the contrary the provisions of the Revised Penal Code *&ct 9o. 3'2#, as amended shall not apply to the provisions of this &ct e$%e&t '" te %a+e (< *'"(# (<<e"de#+1 8here the offender is a minor the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. *emphasis supplied,

+n People v. ernardo 9icolas ".R. 9o. 2-()3! February ' )((- the 4upreme Court held that sale of any dangerous drug regardless of its quantity and purity is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P#(((((.(( to P2(((((((.((. The trial court and C& committed an 6RRBR when they imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P#(((((.(( in accordance with  &rticle $3*), of the Revised Penal Code. The lower courts should not have applied the provisions of  &rticle $3 *), RPC. 4ince 4ection 1' of the rugs 0aw contains the word MshallM the non5applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory sub<ect only to the e7ception in case the offender is a minor. +n People v. &llen Aantalaba ".R. 9o. 2'$))- uly )( )(22 the accused a MINOR was held guilty of violation of 4ections # *sale of dangerous drugs, and 22 *possession of dangerous drugs, R& 12$#. 4ection # is punishable with LIFE IMPRISONMENT TO DEATH . Pursuant to 4ection 1' R.&. 12$# the penalty for violation of 4ection # by a minor is RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH . Bne degree lower is reclusion temporal. &pplying the +ndeterminate 4entence 0aw the accused was sentenced to si7 *$, years and one *2, day of  prision mayor  as minimum and fourteen *2!, years eight *', months and one *2, day of reclusion temporal  as ma7imum. +n the case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs the accused was sentenced to si7 *$, years and one *2, day as minimum to eight *', years as ma7imum of PRISON MAYOR   and to pay a fine of Three :undred Thousand Pesos *P3(((((.((,. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES +n People v. Restituto Aanhuyod r. ".R. 9o. 2)!$-$ Aay )( 211' was held guilty of QUALIFIED RAPE  for raping his 2- year5old minor daughter. Relationship was 9BT considered aggravating. The father5daughter relationship in rape cases has been treated by Congress in the nature of a special circumstance which ma/es the imposition of the death penalty mandatory.

+n People v. en<amin 4oria ".R. 9o. 2-1(32 9ovember 2! )(2) relationship was considered aggravating in qualified rape since the minority of the victim was not proven. +t is settled that Mwhen either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lac/ing that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. +n crimes involving violations of R.&. -$2( relationship is aggravating. li/e acts of lasciviousness relationship is always aggravating. )#$

)##

 +n crimes against chastity

 & person pleading into7ication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having ta/en a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. +n short the defense must show that the into7ication is not habitual and not subsequent to a plan to commit a felony and that the accuseds drun/enness affected his mental faculties. +n this case the absence of any independent proof that his alcohol inta/e affected his mental faculties militate against Dictorianos claim that he was so into7icated at the time he committed the crime to mitigate his liability. )#ABSOLUTORY CAUSE R60&T+B94:+P is absolutory cause in T:6FT 64T&F& or A&0+C+B?4 A+4C:+6F when the same are committed or caused mutually by the% 2. spouses ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line. ). The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. rothers and sisters and brothers5in5law and sisters5in5law if living together. The offenders are only civilly liability. )#' +f the crime committed estafa through falsification of public document the relative is e7empt from criminal liability for estafa but not for the falsification. )#1

P&RB9 and CB9469T of the offended party in adultery or concubinage is absolutory cause.

)$(

P&RB9 by the offended party and A&RR+&"6 is absolutory cause in seduction abduction and acts of lasciviousness. The marriage of the offender with the offended party shall e7tinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co5principals accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above5mentioned crimes. )$2 A&RR+&"6 of the offender and the offended party is absolutory cause in rape. P&RB9 is absolutory cause in rape if the offender is the legal husband e7cept if the marriage is void ab initio .)$) P&RB9 by the offended party is not an absolutory cause in +"&AG.

)$3

PERSONS CRIMINALL) LIABLE*DEGREE O! PARTICIPATION

P#'"%'&a)+

A%%(*&)'%e+

They are co5  &n accomplice :&4 conspirators and N9B806"6 about the each actively criminal design of the participated in the principal by direct actual commission participation &9 :6 of the crime )$! CBBP6R&T64 in the  & co5conspirator is e7ecution of the offense not liable if he has bysupplying materials to not participated in be used in the the commission of commission of the the crime. offense or by giving moral aidto the principal by direct participation in the e7ecution of the crime)$#

A%%e++(#'e+

 &n accessory has 9BT participated in the commission of felony but with /nowledge of the commission of the crime he subsequently ta/es part in three ways% *a, by profiting from the effects of the crime; *b, by concealing the body effects or instruments of the crime; and *c, by assisting in the escape or concealment of the principal of the crime provided he acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason parricide murder or attempt to ta/e the life of the Chief 67ecutive or is /nown to be habitually guilty of some other crime. )$$

 & private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation. 9ote that a different rule prevails with respect to a stranger ta/ing part in the commission of parricide or qualified theft. +n such cases the stranger is not guilty of parricide or qualified theft but only of murder or homicide as the case may be and simple theft by reason of paragraph 3 article $) of the Revised Penal Code. )$Conspiracy e7ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The presence of conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances where all the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense. Conspiracy is sufficiently established when the concerted acts show the same purpose or common design and are united in its e7ecution. Aoreover when there is conspiracy it is not important who delivered the fatal blow since the act of one is considered the act of all. +t matters not who among the accused actually /illed the victim as each of the accused is equally guilty of the crime charged. )$' :is overt act of /eeping himself around served no other purpose than to lend moral support by ensuring that no one could give succor to the victim. :is presence at the scene has no doubt encouraged anny and increased the odds against the victim. Bne who participates in the material e7ecution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetration thereof is criminally responsible to the same e7tent as the actual perpetrator. Aoreover the record is bereft of any hint that ing/y endeavored to avert the stabbing of the victim despite the particular distance between them. ?nder the circumstances we can hardly accept that ing/y has nothing to do with the /illing. 9o conclusion can be drawn from the acts of ing/y e7cept that he consented and approved the acts of his co5accused in stabbing the victim. Bnce conspiracy is established the act of one is deemed the act of all. +t matters not who among the accused actually /illed the victim. )$1

 &nd by their concerted action of almost simultaneously opening fire at the <eepney from the posts they had deliberately ta/en around the immediate environment of the suspects conveniently affording an opportunity to target the driver they did achieve their ob<ect as shown by the concentration of bullet entries on the passenger side of the <eepney at angular and perpendicular tra<ectories. )-( The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not e7ist. 4imply put the circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under 4ection 22 &rticle ++ of R.&. 12$#. )-2 OBSTRUCTION OF ,USTICE 0P1D1 [email protected] The failure on the part of the arresting officerJs to arrest the person of the accused ma/es the latter a fugitive from <ustice and is not equivalent to a commission of another offense of obstruction of  <ustice.)-)

+f any of the acts mentioned herein is penali=ed by any other law with a higher penalty the higher penalty shall be imposed. )-3 The accessories 6I6APT from criminal liabilities under &rt. )( RPC m ay be held criminally liable for obstruction of <ustice for concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery or for harboringJassisting in the escape of their relative in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction. APPLICATION OF PENALTIES 8henever the courts shall impose a penalty of reclusion perpetua reclusion temporal prison mayor prision correctional and arresto the accessory penalties thereto are also imposed upon the convict. )-!

+ndivisible penalties li/e reclusion perpetua shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. )-# 9o matter how many mitigating circumstances are present the court cannot impose a penalty ne7t lower to that prescribed by law if there is a special aggravating circumstance. )-$ ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW 0R1A1 4375 Persons convicted of offenses whose sentences is reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment by reason of R.&. 13!$ +a)) "(t =e e)';'=)e <(# &a#()e . The law applies retroactively to the offender who is not a habitual delinquent. )--

+n People v. :ermie acinto ".R. 9o. 2'))31 Aarch 2$ 8622 the child in conflict with the law was found guilty of qualified rape punishable by death. 4upreme Court considered the minority of the accused as privilege mitigating circumstance. 9otwithstanding the &nti5eath Penalty 0aw *R.&. 13!$, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority the 4upreme Court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua. The 4upreme Court held that for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority te &e"a)t? (< DEATH '+ +t')) te &e"a)t? t( =e #e%("ed 't . The doctrine is reiterated in People v. :enry &rpon ".R. 9o. 2'3#$3 ecember 2! )(22. +n People v. &lfredo on ".R. 9o. 2$$!(2 Bctober 3( 8667 the accused was convicted by the lower court for &ttempted Kualified Rape. Kualified Rape is punishable by eath. The 4upreme Court held that in computing for two degrees lower the rec/oning point is 9BT the penalty of eath since the imposition of death penalty is prohibited under R.&. 13!$ but from reclusion perpetua. Two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua is prison mayor. Thus the penalty for &ttempted Kualified Rape is prison mayor. PURPOSES OF PENALTY The prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense to isolate him from society reform and rehabilitate him or in general to maintain social order. )-' CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES ?nli/e life imprisonment reclusion perpetua carries with it accessory penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code and has a definite e7tent and duration. 0ife imprisonment is invariably imposed

for serious offenses penali=ed by special laws while reclusion perpetua is prescribed in accordance with the Revised Penal Code. )-1 DURATION OF PENALTY  &lthough reclusion perpetua has a duration of )( years and 2 day to !( years it is still indivisible.

)'(

APPLICATION OF PENALTY +f the penalty provided by law for the offense is reclusion perpetua to death and there is no aggravating and no mitigating circumstance that attended its commission the penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. )'2 +t is wrong for the trial court to impose a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. )')

4imple rape is punished with reclusion perpetua. 8here the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. )'3 Pursuant to &rticle $' *), of the RPC when the offender is over 2# and under 2' years of age acting with discernment the penalty ne7t lower than that prescribed by law is imposed *PR+D+06"6 A+T+"&T+9" C+RC?A4T&9C6 BF A+9BR+TG,. ased on &rticle $2 *), of the RPC reclusion temporal  is the penalty ne7t lower than reclusion perpetua to death. )'! Two mitigating no aggravating one degree lower. )'# The penalty is two *), reclusion perpetua for two *), counts of rape.

)'$

+n anilo 6vangelista v. :on. Pedro 4isto=a et al. ".R. 9o. 2!3''2 &ugust 1 )((2 the accused was sentenced to prison mayor for robbery and prision correctional for illegal possession of firearm. 4entence cannot be served simultaneously. +n the service of two prison terms the second sentence did not commence to run until the e7piration of the first. The accused who is sentenced to suffer imprisonment is credited for the period of preventive imprisonment pursuant to &rticle )1 of the Revised Penal Code. )'INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW $R.A. '1"&(

RPC (# +&e%'a) )a+ tat %a##'e+ te SPECIAL LAWS &e"a) "(*e"%)at!#e (< te RPC

The ma7imum shall be that which in view of the attending circumstances could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code and the minimum shall be within the range of penalty ne7t lower to that prescribed by the Code.

The ma7imum of the indeterminate sentence shall not e7ceed the ma7imum fi7ed by the special law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by law

DISQUALIFIED

QUALIFIED

those sentenced to suffer the penalty of >[email protected] in a government center and 64C&P6 therein )'' and those who are sentenced to destierro and 69T6R6 T:6 PRB:++T6 &R6& )'1

those who escaped from mental institutions )1( the child in conflict of law who was placed under suspended but escaped from the Center )12

Recidivists are entitled to indeterminate sentence *4ec. ) &ct 9o. !2(3,. :abitual delinquents are disqualified. )1) 4ince the penalty provided in R& -$2( is ta/en from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal Code it is covered by the first clause of 4ection 2 of the +ndeterminate 4entence 0aw. )13 The accused was convicted of attempted rape. The penalty for attempted rape is prison mayor *two degrees lower from reclusion perpetua,. The indeterminate sentence is si7 *$, years of prision correccional as minimum to 2( years of prision mayor as ma7imum. )1!

The accused was convicted of violation of R.&. 3(21 special law. The imposable penalty is si7 years and one month to 2# years. The indeterminate sentence is anywhere between $ yrs and one month to 2# yrs. )1# 4ec. 22 R.&. 12$# is punishable by imprisonment of 2) years and one day to )( years. +t is wrong for the trial to impose a straight penalty. )1$ The indeterminate sentence is anywhere 2) years and one day to )( years. 4traight penalty is proper where the penalty imposed is less than one year.

)1-

The +ndeterminate 4entence 0aw finds no application where the penalty imposed is reclusion  perpetua)1' or arresto menor. )11 Bne degree lower of prison mayor is prision correctional. 3(( Bne degree lower of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua is prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum. 3(2 Bne degree lower of prision correccional in its medium and ma7imum periods is arresto mayor in its ma7imum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. 3() Bne degree lower of prision mayor minimum is prision correctional ma7imum.

3(3

THREE-FOLD RULE The ma7imum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. 9o other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said ma7imum period. 4uch ma7imum period shall in no case e7ceed forty years. 3(!

People v. ernard Airto ".R. 9o. 213!-1 Bctober 21 )(22 +n People v. ernard Airto ".R. 9o. 213!-1 Bctober 21 )(22 the accused is convicted of four *!, counts of Kualified Theft and accordingly sentenced to serve the penalties of four *!, of reclusion perpetua. &pplying &rt. -( of the RPC accused shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period not e7ceeding !( years. +n 4amuel arredo v. :on. Dicente Dinarao ".R. 9o. 2$'-)' &ugust ) )((- the accused has to serve the penalties imposed on him successively in the order of their severity. )) :ence he has to first serve the more severe penalty i.e. that imposed in the carnapping case *imprisonment for 2- years and ! months as minimum to 3( years as ma7imum,. Bnly after he has served this will he commence serving the less severe penalty imposed in the illegal possession of firearms case *imprisonment for ! years ) months and 2 day as minimum to $ years as ma7imum,. +n People v. 6ulalio uhos et al. ".R. 9o. 05!(11# une )# 21'( the &ccused were convicted of one *2, comple7 crime of forcible abduction with rape and si7teen *2$, separate crimes of rape with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and use of a motor vehicle without any mitigating circumstance. The accused were convicted of seventeen *2-, death penalties. +n People v. aime ose ".R. 9o. 05)')3) February $ 21-2 the accused were sentenced to suffer the penalty of four *!, death sentences. The 4upreme Court held that &rticle -( of the Revised Penal Code can only be ta/en into account in connection with the service of the sentence imposed not in the imposition of the penalty. 3(# +n the service of their respective sentences the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the three5 fold rule as provided in &rticle -( of the Revised Penal Code as amended. 3($ SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT There is 9B subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay civil indemnity arising from the crime when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional. 3('

The law on subsidiary imprisonment is applicable to P )) cases pursuant to &rt. 2( RPC.

3(1

3(-

 or

PROBATION LAW $P.D. %#+, -s -e/0e0(

First5time minor offender convicted for violation of the angerous rugs 0aw may be placed on probation even if the sentence provided under R.&. 12$# is :+":6R than that provided under e7isting law on probation provided he is not convicted for drug traffic/ing or pushing. 32( Those convicted of drug traffic/ing or pushing under R.&.12$# regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation. 322 The minor convicted for violation of law *e7cept the angerous rugs 0aw, may apply for probation at ANY TIME  provided he is QUALIFIED*sentenced to suffer imprisonment of less than si7 years, under the Probation 0aw. 32) PAROLE UNDER ISL 0RA 326 a*e"ded5

PROBATION 0PD [email protected] SUSPENSION OF a+ a+ a*e"ded5 SENTENCE A CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW UNDER R1A1 433

The prisoner may be released on parole a<te# minimum +e#>'"; the penalty of his sentence *4ec. #,

The court pronounced the <udgment of conviction but the service sentence of the accused is +!+&e"ded *4ec. !, 323

+nstead of pronouncing  <udgment of conviction the court placed the child under suspended sentence without need of application *4ec. 3',

isqualified are prisoners convicted of death life imprisonment reclusion perpetua conspiracy and proposal to commit treason misprision of treason treason rebellion sedition espionage habitual delinquents or those who escaped from confinement or evaded sentence or violated the conditions of their pardon or whose ma7imum term of imprisonment does not e7ceed one year 

isqualified are those sentenced to a ma7imum term of imprisonment of more than si7 *$, years those convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order; those who have been previously convicted by final <udgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day andJor fine of not less than P)((.(( and those who have availed of probation

isqualified are those who are more than )2 years old at the time of promulgation. Those convicted of death reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment are not disqualified. 32!

President grants parole Trial court grants the Family Court places upon recommendation probation *4ec. !, the child in conflict with of the oard *4ec. #, law under suspended sentence *4ec. 3', The period of parole is equivalent to the remaining portion of the ma7imum sentence imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the oard

Period of probation is two years for the accused who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; in all other cases said period shall not e7ceed si7 years. +f the sentence is <'"e (")? and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of

Period of suspension of sentence is until the child reaches the age of 2' years of age. The court may e7tend the suspension of sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the age of )2 years. *4ec. !(,

insolvency the period of probation shall not be less than nor more than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. The e7piration of the period of probation does not >[email protected] terminate the probation. There must be an Brder from the court terminating the 32# probation. +f during the period of surveillance such parolee shall show himself to be a law abiding citi=en and shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine +slands the oard may issue a final certificate of release *4ec. $,

+f the probationer has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation the %(!#t may order the final discharge of probationer and the case is deemed terminated. The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any<'"e  imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. *4ec. 2$,

?pon the recommendation of the social wor/er who has custody of the child the court shall dismiss the case against the child whose sentence has been suspended and against whom disposition measures have been issued and shall order the final discharge of the child if it finds that the ob <ective of the disposition measures have been fulfilled. The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense which shall be enforced in accordance with law. *4ec. 31,

+f he violates any conditions of his parole the oard may issue an order for his re5arrest and he shall serve the remaining une7pired portion of the ma7imum sentence for which he was originally committed to prison unless the oard grants a new parole to said prisoner 

+f the probationer violates any of the conditions of his probation or commit any offense during the period of his probation he shall after notice and hearing serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation *4ec. 22 and 2#,

+f the court finds that the ob<ective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of hisJher disposition or rehabilitation program the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for e7ecution of  <udgment. *4ec. !(,

+n e7pressly enumerating offenders not qualified to en<oy the benefits of probation the clear intent is to allow said benefits to those not included in the enumeration. 32$

The application for probation is considered a waiver upon his part to file an appeal. udgment becomes final. 32- 67ception% the accused is entitled to probation even if he appealed the <udgment of conviction considering that the stiff penalty *more than si7 years imprisonment, that the trial court imposed on him denied him the choice between appeal and probation. 32' The e7piration of the probation period does not automatically terminate the probation. efore final discharge the probation may be revo/e for cause at any time. 321 The accused do not serve his sentence when place on probation *e7ecution of sentence is suspended,. 3)(  &lthough the e7ecution of sentence is suspended by the grant of probation it does not follow that the civil liability of the offender if any is e7tinguished. 3)2 Those guilty of election offense under 4ection )$! of P ''2 are not entitled to probation.

3))

 &ny person convicted for drug traffic/ing or pushing under R.&. 12$# regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation 0aw or Presidential ecree 9o. 1$' as amended 3)3 even if the applicant is a minor. 3)! PRESCRIPTION O! CRIMES

+n falsification of public document the rec/oning period for prescription from the date of registration of the instrument since the #e;'+t#at'(" '" a &!=)'% #e;'+t#? '+ a %("+t#!%t'>e "(t'%e t( te ()e (#)d.3)# The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy should be counted only from the day on which the said crime was discovered by the offended party the authorities or their agents@ as opposed to being counted from the date of registration of the bigamous marriage. 3)$ 4ection !2( *c, of the 0ocal "overnment Code provides% >8hile the dispute is under mediation conciliation or arbitration the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under e7isting laws shall be interrupted upon filing the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive period shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pang/at secretary% Provided however that such interruption shall not e7ceed si7ty *$(, days from the filing of the complaint with the punong [email protected] 4ection )' R.&. 13!! provides% >The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during the effectivity of the diversion program but not e7ceeding a period of two *), [email protected] EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY The death of the accused during the pendency of his appeal e7tinguishes not only his criminal liability for the crime but also his civil liability solely arising from or based on said crime. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. &n action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and sub<ect to 4ection 2 Rule 222 of the 21'# Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. 3)-

Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he serves the minimum term of his prison sentence. The grant thereof does not e7tinguish the criminal liability of the offender. Parole is not one of the modes of totally e7tinguishing criminal liability under &rticle '1 of the Revised Penal Code. 3)' The mere payment of an obligation before the institution of a criminal complaint for estafa does not on its own constitute novation that may prevent criminal liability. 3)1 PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES UNDER RPC The filing of the complaint with the BCP effectively interrupted the running of the $(5day prescriptive period for instituting the criminal action for slight physical in<uries. 33(

These trips abroad did not constitute the MabsenceM contemplated in &rticle 12. These trips were brief and in every case the private respondent returned to the Philippines. 332

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES PUNISHABLE UNDER SPECIAL LAW ACT NO1 87  entitled M&n &ct to 6stablish Prescription for Diolations of 4pecial &cts and Aunicipal Brdinances and to Provide 8hen Prescription 4hall eginM as amended is the law applicable on the prescription of crimes punishable under special laws and 9BT &rts. 1( to 13 RPC.

There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription that is the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. 33) The prescriptive period for the crime which is the sub<ect herein commenced from the date of its discovery in 211) after the Presidential &d :oc Fact5Finding Committee on ehest 0oans made an e7haustive investigation because Mit was well5high impossible for the 4tate the aggrieved party to have /nown these crimes committed prior to the 21'$ 64& Revolution because of the alleged connivance and conspiracy among involved public officials and the beneficiaries of the loans.M 333 PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should EVADE THE SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCE  *the convict must be imprisoned and escaped from confinement,. The period of prescription is interrupted if the defendant should give himself up be captured should go to some foreign country with which this "overnment has no e7tradition treaty or should commit another crime before the e7piration of the period of prescription. 33! PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY  & pardon of the offended party does not e7tinguish criminal action e7cept in criminal cases of adultery concubinage seduction abduction or acts of lasciviousness or in rape committed by the legal husband and the same was e7tended by the offended party 6FBR6 T:6 +94T+T?T+B9 BF CR+A+9&0 &CT+B9 +9 CB?RT. 33# PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT >'+1 AMNESTY Pa#d(" =? P#e+'de"t

A*"e+t?

 & pardon shall not wor/ the restoration of the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage unless such rights be e7pressly restored by the terms of the pardon. & pardon shall in no case e7empt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. 33$

Completely e7tinguishes the penalty and all its effect33- &mnesty loo/s bac/ward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself it so overloo/s and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. 33' 8here the pardoning power is with the concurrence of Congress and is in the nature of a general amnesty for strictly political offenses it has been considered in the nature of a public law thus having the same effect on the case as if the general law punishing the offense had been repealed or annulled. 331

"ranted by the President to a particular person or group of persons after conviction by final <udgment concerning ordinary crimes. 3!(

"ranted by the President with the concurrence of Congress before or after conviction to a group of persons concerning political offenses

4ince it is a private act by the it is a public act of which the courts President it must be pleaded and should ta/e <udicial notice proved by the person pardoned because the courts ta/e no notice thereof. Pardon loo/s forward and relieves

the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted that is it abolishes or forgives the punishment and for that reason it does >nor wor/ the restoration of the rights to hold public office or the right of suffrage unless such rights be e7pressly restored by the terms of the pardon@ and it >in no case e7empts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the 3!2 [email protected] The accused who violated the condition of his pardon is to serve his original sentence if the penalty remitted by the pardon is more than si7 *$, years otherwise he suffers the penalty of  prision correctional  for other cases of evasion of service of sentence. 3!) CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY P'#a%? !"de# A#t1 288  28 P'#a%? !"de# P1D1 98 RPC

Committed by attac/ing or sei=ing a vessel or by sei=ing the whole or part of the cargo of the said vessel its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers

Committed by attac/ing or sei=ing any vessel or watercraft or ta/ing away the whole or part thereof or its cargo equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers irrespective of the value thereof =? *ea"+ (< >'()e"%e a;a'"+t (# '"t'*'dat'(" (< &e#+("+ (# <(#%e !&(" t'";+

 &betting piracy is punished as punished as a%%(*&)'%e under the RPC accessory CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE The crime of &R+TR&RG 6T69T+B9 can be committed through imprudence. 3!3

Dagrancy is not a legal ground to detain a person since the same has been decriminali=ed.

3!!

?nder R.&. !23$ or the 0and Transportation and Traffic Code the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter. 3!# 4undays 4aturdays and holidays are e7cluded in the computation of the periods enumerated under  &rt. 2)# RPC *&rbitrary etention,. 3!$ The crimes of maliciously obtaining search warrant and abuse in the service search warrant are without pre<udice to the liability of the offender for the commission of any other offense. 3!ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 8664 0R1A1 4395 Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. +n which case torture shall be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable WITHOUT PRE,UDICE TO OTHER CRIMINAL LIABILITY  provided for by domestic and international laws. 3!'

The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the &FP or the immediate senior public official of the P9P 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 himJher that shall have led assisted abetted or allowed whether directly or indirectly the commission thereof by hisJher subordinates. +f heJshe has /nowledge of or owing to the circumstances at the time should have /nown that acts of torture or other cruel inhuman and

degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed is being committed or has been committed by hisJher subordinates or by others within hisJher area of responsibility and despite such /nowledge did not ta/e preventive or corrective action either before during or immediately after its commission when heJshe 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. 3!1 The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this  &ct. Aoreover if the commission of any crime punishable under Title 6ight *Crimes &gainst Persons, and Title 9ine *Crimes &gainst Personal 0iberty and 4ecurity, of the Revised Penal Code is attended by any of the acts constituting torture and other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as defined herein the penalty to be imposed shall be in its ma7imum period. 3#( CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION

INCITING REBELLION

TO

COMMIT

person who proposes has decided to it is not required that the offender commit rebellion has decided to commit rebellion act is done secretly

the act is done in public

irect assault may also be committed by seriously +9T+A+&T+9" or resisting any person in authority or any of his agents while engaged in the performance of official duties or on occasion of such performance. +f committed by employing force the force employed need not be so serious if the offended party is a person in authority but if the offended party is a mere agent of a person in authority it is necessary that the force used be serious in character as to show defiance of law and its representative at all ha=ard. 3#2 +f the person in authority or agent of a person in authority suffers less serious physical in<uries by reason of the force employed the offense results in a comple7 crime of direct assault with less serious physical in<uries. 3#) DELIVERING FROM ,AIL

PRISONERS INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS

Committed by an >[email protected] 3#3

Committed by the public officer in custody of the prisoner 3#!

+f the delivery of the prisoner was committed through bribery the briber commits two separate offenses of corruption of public officer and delivering prisoners from <ail; the <ailer in custody of the prisoner if he is a public officer is liable for infidelity of the custody of prisoners and bribery the prisoner by final <udgment commits evasion of service of sentence if he is already convicted by final  <udgment. +f the crime committed by the prisoner for which he is confined or serving sentence is treason murder or parricide the offender who helped in the escape of the prisoner is liable as accessory under &rticle 21 par. 3 RPC. +n proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon the 67ecutive epartment has two options% *i, to proceed against him under 4ection $! *i, of the Revised &dministrative Code; or *ii, to proceed against him under &rticle 2#1 of the Revised Penal Code which imposes the penalty of  prision correccional% minimum period upon a convict who Mhaving been granted conditional pardon by the Chief 67ecutive shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon.M :ere the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under 4ection $! *i, of the Revised &dministrative Code. That choice is an e7ercise of the PresidentOs e7ecutive prerogative and is not sub<ect to <udicial scrutiny. 3## CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST FORGERY

FALSIFICATION

Committed by giving to a Committed treasury or ban/ note or any counterfeiting instrument payable to bearer or imitating

FALSE CERTIFICATES

by The documents or falsified are medical any certificates

to order the appearance of a handwriting certificate of merit or true and genuine document; or signature or rubric service etc. by erasing substituting etc *refer to &rt 2-2, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures letters words or signs contained therein +ntroducing false medical certificates as evidence in <udicial proceedings is punishable under the last paragraph of &rt. 2-) and not under &rt. 2-#. There is no crime of estafa through falsification of &#'>ate d(%!*e"t because both have common elements that is damage to third persons. The crime will be either estafa or falsification. +f the offender used a falsified document to affect the outcome of criminal investigation or proceeding the offender is liable for obstruction of <ustice under P.. 2')1 since the latter offense carries a higher penalty. 3#$ P6R?RG is the '))<!) and corrupt assertion of a <a)+e((d !"de# (at  or affirmation administered by authority of law on a *ate#'a) *atte# .3#USURPATION OF AUTHORITY

USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS

The offender /nowingly and falsely represents himself to be an officer agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine "overnment or of any foreign government.

The offender performs any act  pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine "overnment or any foreign government or any agency thereof without being lawfully entitled to do so.

USING FICTITIOUS NAME

The offender publicly uses a fictitious namefor the purpose of concealing a crime evading the e7ecution of a  <udgment or causing damage.

ANTI-ALIAS LAW 0C1A1 2385

The offender publicly 3#' uses any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry or with which he was bapti=ed for the first time or in case of an alien with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authori=ed by a competent court The offender represents himself in any public or private transaction or signs or e7ecutes any public or private document without stating or affi7ing his real or original name and all names or aliases or pseudonym he is authori=ed to use.

Possession of false treasury or ban/ notes alone without anything more is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an offense under &rticle 2$' of the RPC the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or ban/ notes. 3#1 The elements of the crime of falsification of commercial documents as found in paragraph 2 &rticle 2-) of the RPC are% 2, the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not ta/e advantage of his official position; ), the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in &rticle 2-2; and 3, the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. 3$(

+f a person had in his possession *actual or constructive, a falsified document and made use of it ta/ing advantage of it andJor profiting from such use the presumption that he authored the falsification also applies. 3$2 Aore importantly it must be emphasi=ed that per<ury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. Thus a mere assertion of a false ob<ective fact or a falsehood is not enough. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. 3$) Per<ury is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit. 3$3 ?nfair competition is punished not under &rt. 2'1 but under the +ntellectual Property Code.

3$!

CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS  & diplomat who imports to our country dangerous drugs is liable for importation of dangerous drugs. The ma7imum penalty is imposed when he used his diplomatic passport or diplomatic facilities to facilitate the unlawful entry of the dangerous drugs in the country. 3$#

The crimes of illegal possession of dangerous or possession of drug paraphernalia are aggravated when the offender commits the same during parties social gatherings or meetings or in the pro7imate company of at least two persons. 3$$ +f after the buy5bust operation the arresting police officers recovered from the possession of accused another plastic sachet containing dangerous drugs the accused is liable for two *), separate crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 3$+f after the buy bust operation committed in a certain place the police poseur5buyer agreed to buy and the accused5drug seller agreed to sell larger quantity of dangerous drugs for a bigger consideration in the latters house and the second sale was consummated the accused is liable for two *), separate crimes of sale of dangerous drugs because the first sale is different from the second sale. +n People v. oel "aspar ".R. 9o. 21)'2$ uly $ )(22 the police officers recovered from the possession of the accused dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia during the buy5bust operation. The 4upreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for three *3, separate crimes of sale of dangerous drugs illegal possession of drugs and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.  & person apprehended or arrested who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug a<te# a %("<'#*at(#? te+t is criminally liable for >illegal [email protected] of dangerous drugs. 3$' +f the offender uses a dangerous drug the crime committed is only one crime of use of dangerous drugs and not two separate crimes of use and possession of dangerous drugs. +f the offender is using a dangerous drug and he is also found to have in his possession such quantity of any dangerous drug which is not only for use the offender commits the crime of possession of dangerous drugs and not the crime of use of dangerous drugs. 3$1 The non5compliance of 4ection )2 no. 2 of R.&. 12$# does not render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items sei=ed from him inadmissible as long as *2, the non5compliance is on <ustifiable grounds and *), the integrity and evidentiary value of the sei=ed items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 3-( +n other words even if the apprehending police officers failed to comply with section )2 of the angerous rugs 0aw the accused may nonetheless be convicted if the prosecution is able to prove that the dangerous drug presented in court is the >e#? +a*e dangerous drug that was ta/en or confiscated from the accused. This is done by proving the chain of custody. +n Ruel &mpatuan v. People ".R. 9o. 2'3$-$ une )) )(22 the 4upreme Court enunciated the lin/s that must be established in the chain of custody as follows% first the sei=ure and mar/ing if practicable of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second the turnover of the illegal drug sei=ed by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory e7amination; and fourth the turnover and submission of the mar/ed illegal drug sei=ed from the forensic chemist to the court. The police officer who arrested a person without lawful ground planted evidence and demanded money for the release of the person arrested and the arrested person complied by giving money is liable for unlawful arrest and robbery under RPC and for planting evidence under R.&. 12$#. ?nlawful

arrest cannot be comple7 with planting with evidence because the latter offense is punished under R.&. 12$#. 4ection 1' of R& 12$# e7pressly provides for the non5applicability of RPC e7cept with respect to minor offenders. *The crime also constitutes a comple7 crime of incriminating innocent person through unlawful arrest but the same carries a lower penalty as compared to the crime of planting evidence., +n People v. Rolando 0aylo ".R. 9o. 21))3# uly $ )(22 the 4upreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for attempted sale of dangerous drugs since the prosecution was able to identify the buyer and seller as well as the ob<ect and consideration in the illegal transaction. The accused intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime by showing the substance to the police officers. :owever the sale was interrupted when the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested the accused and his live5in partner. Thus the sale was not consummated but merely attempted. The penalty however is the same as that of a consummated sale. +n conspiracy *as a mode of committing the offense, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the e7ecution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or it may consist of moral assistance to his co5conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by e7erting moral ascendancy over the other co5conspirators. :ence the mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy even approval of it 't(!t a"? a%t'>e &a#t'%'&at'(" '" te +a*e is not enough for purposes of conviction. 3-2 R1A1 4279

OBSTRUCTION OF ,USTICE

R1A1 624

RPC

rug protector or coddler is punished under 4ec. ! R.&. 12$#

4ec. 2 last paragraph provides% >+f the act mentioned herein is penali=ed by any other law with a high penalty the higher penalty shall be [email protected] 9ot liable since the act of the offender of using his position in shielding or harboring or facilitating the escape of the suspected violator of R.&. 12$# is already punished under R.&. 12$# with a higher penalty

4ec. 3 provides% >+n addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penali=ed by e7isting laws 7 7 [email protected] 9ot liable since the act is not punishable under R.&. 3(21

9ot punishable as &ccessory under &rt. 21 RPC since 4ec. 1' of R.&. 12$# e7pressly provides for the non5 applicability of RPC to 12$#

The public officer who after receiving bribe money misappropriated the sei=ed dangerous drugs under his custody in order to prevent the same from being introduced in evidence violates 4ec. )- R.&. 12$#

Bffender is not liable for Bbstruction of ustice since the same act is already penali=ed under 4ec. )- of R.&. 12$# with a higher penalty

The offender is liable for violation of R.&. 3(21 for allowing himself to be persuaded induced or influenced to violate a law in connection with the official duties of the latter 

The offender is also liable for bribery if he received bribe money

CRIMES AGAINST MORALS

The crime of  vagrancy has been decriminali=ed under R.&. 2(2#' which too/ effect in une )(2). The law amended &rticle )() RPC by removing vagrancy as a crime because of concerns that it only targets the poor and the disadvantaged. The new law nonetheless continues to penali=e women engaged in prostitution. Aere possession of obscene materials without intention to sell e7hibit or give them away is not punishable under &rticle )(2 considering the purpose of the law is to prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials to the public. The offense in any of the forms under &rticle )(2 is committed only when there is publicity. 3) The law does not require that a person be caught in the act of selling giving away or e7hibiting obscene materials to be liable for as long as the said materials are offered for sale displayed or e7hibited to the public. 3-) CRIMES B) PUBLIC O!!ICERS

DIRECT BRIBERY

INDIRECT BRIBERY

The mere acceptance of the offer is enough to consummate the crime. +f the act performed by the public officer constitutes a crime he is liable for bribery and for the crime committed. 3-3

The public officer must receive the gift or money to consummate the crime. The crime has no attempted or frustrated stage.

Bribery is ualified when committed by any public officer entrusted with law enforcement and who refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime.

The public officer may be held liable for directJ qualified bribery and  prevaricacion under &rt. )(' RPC at the same time. 3-!  & police officer or prosecutor who received bribe money from the accused in consideration of the unsuccessful prosecution or dismissal of drug cases and the accused was in fact acquitted is liable for Kualified ribery and for ungling in the Prosecution of rug Cases under 4ec. 1) R.&. 12$#. DIRECT BRIBERY

INDIRECT BRIBERY

R1A1 624

The public officer agree to perform or not to perform an act in connection with the performance of his official duties in consideration of any offer promise or gift

The public officer accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office

The public officer directly or indirectly requests or receives any gift or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction wherein he in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. 3-# The public officer directly or indirectly requests or receives any gift from any person in consideration of helping said person secure any government license or permit 3-$

Public funds or property in A&0D6R4&T+B9 includes properties of government entities or instrumentalities. +t includes the property attached sei=ed or deposited by public authority even if such property belongs to private individuals. 3-4ection 2(2*2, of P.. 9o. 2!!# which defines an accountable officer to be Mevery officer of any government agency whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be accountable therefor and for the safe/eeping thereof in conformity with law.M & municipal treasurer is an accountable officer. 3-' 8hile demand is not an element of the crime of malversation it is a requisite for the application of the presumption (,&e failure of a public officer to &ave duly fort&coming any public funds or property it& &ic& &e is c&argeable% upon demand by any duly aut&ori/ed officer% s&all be prima facie evidence

t&at &e &as put suc& missing funds or property to personal use$ . 8ithout this presumption the accused may still be proven guilty under &rt. )2- based on direct evidence of malversation. 3-1

Aalversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or passively through negligence by allowing another to commit such misappropriation. 3'( The crime of A&0D6R4&T+B9 applies to &#'>ate '"d'>'d!a)+ who in any capacity whatever have charge of any insular provincial or municipal funds revenues or property and to a"? ad*'"'+t#at(# (# de&(+'t(#? (< <!"d+ (# &#(&e#t? atta%ed +e'ed (# de&(+'ted =? &!=)'% a!t(#'t?  even if such property belongs to a private individual. 3'2 MALVERSATION

ESTAFA

Committed by an accountable public Committed by a non5accountable officer involving public funds or public officer or private individual property under his custody involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to the government Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmar/ed by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. 3') The act of the <ail warden of allowing a detainee to stay in the latters house at night and to return to the municipal <ail during the day constitutes a crime of infidelity of custody to prisoners. 3'3 &rt. '' RPC provides% >The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal <ail or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law e" te %(!#t +( &#(>'de+ '" 't+ de%'+'("  ta/ing into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to [email protected] ANTIGRA!T AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT $R.A. &"1%(

The public officer who commits any of acts punishable under R.&. 3(21 may also be held criminally liable for violation of the Revised Penal Code or any 4pecial 0aws for the same delictual  act.3'! The act of the Aayor Aunicipal 6ngineer and member of the P9P of destroying the sub<ect fences without giving any notice to the private complainant does not amount to manifest partiality andJor evident bad faith. The same could not be considered evident bad faith as the prosecution evidence failed to show that the destruction was for a dishonest purpose ill will or self interest. 3'# The mayor was held liable for violation of 4ection 3 *b, for demanding and receiving Mgrease moneyM as a condition for the release of the final payment to the private complainant. 3'$ The elements of violation of 4ection 3*g, R.&. 9o. 3(21 are% *2, that the accused is a public officer; *), that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and *3, that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. 3'The elements of the violation of 4ec. 3 *h, of R.&. 3(21 are as follows% 2, The accused is a public officer; ), he has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business contract or transaction; 3, he either% a, intervenes or ta/es part in his official capacity in connection with such interest or b, is prohibited from having such interest by the Constitution or by law. 6dgar Teves then mayor of Dalencia 9egros Briental owned the coc/pit in question. :e is prohibited under 4ection '1*), of the 0"C of 2112. 3'' PLUNDER 

Thus when the Plunder 0aw spea/s of McombinationM it is referring to at least two *), acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in 4ec. 2 par. *d, e.g. raids on the public treasury in 4ec. 2 par. *d, subpar. *2, and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the 9ational "overnment under 4ec. 2 par. *d, subpar. *3,. Bn the other hand to constitute a >seriesM there must be two *), or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in 4ec. 2 par. *d, say misappropriation malversation and raids on the public treasury all of which fall under 4ec. 2 par. *d, subpar. *2,.

Derily had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for McombinationM and MseriesM it would have ta/en greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.  &s for MpatternM we agree with the observations of the 4andiganbayan that this term is sufficiently defined in 4ec. ! in relation to 4ec. 2 par. *d, and 4ec. ) 5  x x x x under *ec. 0 (d$ of t&e la% a 1pattern1 consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (0$ to ($ of *ec. 0 (d$. *econdly% pursuant to *ec. 2 of t&e la% t&e pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed toards a common purpose or goal &ic& is to enable t&e public officer to amass% accumulate or acquire ill+gotten ealt&. #nd t&irdly% t&ere must eit&er be an 1overall unlaful sc&eme1 or 1conspiracy1 to ac&ieve said common goal. #s commonly understood% t&e term 1overall unlaful sc&eme1 indicates a 1general plan of action or met&od1 &ic& t&e principal accused and public officer and ot&ers conniving it& &im follo to ac&ieve t&e aforesaid common goal. In t&e alternative% if t&ere is no suc& overall sc&eme or &ere t&e sc&emes or met&ods used by multiple accused vary% t&e overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal. I77 8hat the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient to form a combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P#(((((((.((. There is no need to prove each and every other act alleged in the +nformation to have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass accumulate or acquire ill5gotten wealth. To illustrate supposing that the accused is charged in an +nformation for plunder with having committed fifty *#(, raids on the public treasury. The prosecution need not prove all these fifty *#(, raids it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least two *), of the raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least P#(((((((.((.  & reading of 4ec. ) in con<unction with 4ec. ! brings us to the logical conclusion that Mpattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracyM inheres in the very acts of accumulating acquiring or amassing hidden wealth. 4tated otherwise such pattern arises where the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts as defined in 4ec. 2 par. *d,. Pattern is merely a by5product of the proof of the predicate acts. This conclusion is consistent with reason and common sense. There would be no other e7planation for a combination or series of overt or criminal acts to stash P#(((((((.(( or more than Ma scheme or conspiracy to amass accumulate or acquire ill gotten wealth.M The prosecution is therefore not required to ma/e a deliberate and conscious effort to prove pattern as it necessarily follows with the establishment of a series or combination of the predicate acts. 3'1 The contention of the accused that the information charges more than one offense namely bribery *&rticle )2( of the Revised Penal Code, malversation of public funds or property *&rticle )2- Revised Penal Code, and violations of 4ec. 3*e, of Republic &ct *R& 9o. 3(21, and 4ection -*d, of R& $-23 is patently unmeritorious. The said acts which form part of the combination or series of act are described in their generic sense. Thus aside from OmalversationO of public funds the law also uses the generic terms OmisappropriationO OconversionO or OmisuseO of said fund. The fact that the acts involved may li/ewise be penali=ed under other laws is incidental. The said acts are mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be ta/en or to be understood as allegations charging separate criminal offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code the &nti5"raft and Corrupt Practices &ct and Code of Conduct and 6thical 4tandards for Public Bfficials and 6mployees. 31( HUMAN SECURIT) ACT $R.A. %&2(

Se%1 341 Prosecution !nder "his Act #hall be a Bar to Another Prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any #pecial Penal Laws 1 5 8hen a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this &ct upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this &ct. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS +n P&RR+C+6 the relationship of the offender need not be legitimate with respect to his father mother or child but must be 06"+T+A&T6 with respect to his other ascendants descendants or spouse 312

+n People v. 9oel 4ales ".R. 9o. 2--)2' Bctober 3 )(22 the father who employed sadistic beatings and inflicted fatal in<uries on his children under the guise of disciplining them was held liable for the crimes of parricide and slight physical in<uries.  &ssisting another to commit suicide is a felony. 31) urning the corpse 313  or sawing off the head limbs and torso of the dead body are modes of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim that qualifies the /illing into Aurder. 31! +f the main ob<ective of the offender is to /ill by means of fire the offense is murder. ut if the main ob<ective is the burning of the building the resulting homicide may be absorbed by the crime of arson. 31# The accused who burned a house for the purpose of /illing two persons therein was held liable for comple7 crime of double murder. 31$ The accused who used a hand grenade in /illing a do=en of persons was held liable for comple7 crime of multiple murders. The crime was qualified by the use of e7plosives although treachery also attended the /illing since the use of e7plosive was the principal mode of attac/. Treachery was merely considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. 31+n People v. Brlito Dillacorta ".R. 9o. 2'$!2) 4eptember - )(22 the accused who stabbed *once, his victim with a bamboo stic/ was held liable for 4light Physical +n<uries aggravated by treachery. The accused has no intent to /ill and the stabbing was a remote cause in the victims death. +n People v. Cecilia 0agman ".R. 9o. 21-'(- &pril 2$ )(2) the accused was held liable only for 4light Physical +n<uries as there no evidence as to the duration of the in<uries sustained by the victim. +n People v. Rodrigo 4alcedo ".R. 9o. 2-')-) Aarch 2! )(22 the accused was held liable for the comple7 crime of Aurder with unintentional abortion for stabbing a pregnant woman /illing the woman and the unborn child in the process. Force in rape cases is defined as Mpower violence or constraint e7erted upon or against a person.M +t is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such a character as could not be resisted. +t is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 31' Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is e7ercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself out of fear. 311 +n rape committed by a close /in such as the victimOs father stepfather uncle or the common5law spouse of her mother it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy ta/es the place of violence or intimidation. !((  & medical e7amination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victims testimony alone if credible is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. e that as it may in People v. Brtoa where the medico5legal findings showed that the victim is still in a state of virginity when she was e7amined we held that% >The lac/ of lacerated wounds does not negate se7ual intercourse. & freshly bro/en hymen is not an essential element of rape. 6ven the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape. 7 7 7 Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina even without rupture or laceration of the hymen is enough to <ustify a conviction for [email protected] !(2 +n the conte7t that is used in the RPC Mcarnal /nowledgeM unli/e its ordinary connotation of se7ual intercourse does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. )3 Thus even granting that &&&s lacerations were not caused by Colorado the latter could still be declared guilty of rape after it was established that he succeeded in having carnal /nowledge of the victim. !() +n People v. &rmando Chingh ".R. 9o. 2-'3)3 Aarch 2$ )(22 the accused inserted his finger into the genitalia of his 2( year5old victim thereafter he inserted therein his organ. The accused was convicted for two *), separate crimes of statutory rape and for rape by se7ual assault.

The accused was held liable for acts of lasciviousness and not rape by se7ual assault since there was no actual insertion of the tongue. !(3 +n People v. oseph Brilla ".R. 9os. 2!'1315!( February 23 )((! the victim &ppellant e<aculated twice during the time that he consummated the rape. &ppellant did not withdraw his penis to insert it again into the vagina or to >[email protected] the labia ma<ora or the labia minora when he e<aculated the second time. +t is not the number of times that appellant e<aculated but the penetration or >[email protected] that determines the consummation of the se7ual act. 3$ Thus appellant committed only one count of rape. +n People v. +to Pinic ".R. 9o. 2'$31# une ' )(22 however the accused undressed his victim and removed her panty. Thereafter he too/ off his own pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. 4he felt pain. :e withdrew his penis after about ten *2(, seconds but inserted it again after ten *2(, seconds. &fter five *#, seconds he withdrew it again but inserted it once more after five *#, seconds. :e also inserted his finger and lic/ed her vagina. &fter consummating the act appellant sent her home and warned her not to tell anyone of the incident. I 7 7 although the penis was thrice inserted in her private organ the same constituted one *2, count of rape. Rape is qualified if the victim is below seven *-, years old or when the victim is a minor and the offender is a parent !(! ascendant step5parent guardian relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common5law spouse !(# of the parent of the victim. The granduncle or more specifically the brother of the victims grandfather is a relative of the victim in the fourth civil degree and is thus not covered by &rticle )$$5 paragraph #*2,. !($ +n rape with homicide the original intention of the offender is to commit rape and it is immaterial that the person /illed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. +n the special comple7 crime of rape with homicide the term >[email protected] is to be understood in its generic sense and includes murder and slight physical in<uries committed by reason or on occasion of the rape.!- :ence even if any or all of the circumstances *treachery abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation, alleged in the information have been duly established by the prosecution the same would not qualify the /illing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape with homicide. &s in the case of robbery with homicide the aggravating circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only. !(+f the original intention of the offender is to rape a woman and the ta/ing of the latters personal property is a mere afterthought the offender is liable for two separate crimes of rape and robber. +n Robbery with rape the original intention of the offender is to rob. !('  & person is guilty of rape when he had se7ual intercourse with a female who was suffering from a Mborderline mental deficiencyM *+K between -( to '1,. The traditional but now obsolescent terms applied to those degrees of mental retardation were *a, idiot having an +K of (521 and a ma7imum intellectual factor in adult life equivalent to that of the average two5year old child; *b, imbecile by an +K of )( to !1 and a ma7imum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average seven5 year old child; *c, moron or feebleminded having an +K of #( to $1 and a ma7imum intellectual function in adult life equivalent to that of the average twelve5year old child !(1 ANTIVIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT O! 2""' $R.A. %2#2(

The acts of violence against women and their children may either be prosecuted under R.&. 1)$) or in the RPC !2( The offended party is the wife former wife with whom the offender has se7ual or dating relationship or has a common child. R.&. 1)$) 4ec. 3 *a, provides% $%iolence against women and their children$  refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife former wife or against a woman with whom the person has or had a se7ual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate within or without the family abode which result in or is li/ely to result in physical se7ual psychological harm or suffering or economic abuse including threats of such acts battery assault coercion harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. +t includes but is not limited to the following acts% 7 7 7

4ec. $. Penalties. The crime of violence against women and their children under 4ec. # hereof shall be punished according to the following rules% *a, &cts falling under 4ec. #*a, constituting attempted frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Re>'+ed Pe"a) C(de ; +f these acts resulted in mutilation it shall be punishable in accordance with the Re>'+ed Pe"a) C(de those constituting serious physical in<uries shall have the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less serious physical in<uries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting slight physical in<uries shall be punished by arresto mayor;  &cts falling under 4ec. #*b, shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto mayor; 7 7 7 ANTICHILD PORNOGRAPH) ACT O! 2""% $R.A. %3(

The offender may be punished either under R.&. -$2( R.&. 1--# or under the RPC for the same criminal act. Se%t'(" 1 Definition of ,erms.  5 *a, MChildM refers to a person below eighteen *2', years of age or over but is unable to fully ta/e care of himselfJherself from abuse neglect cruelty e7ploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. For the purpose of this &ct a child shall also refer to% *2, a person regardless of age who is presented depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein; and *), computer5generated digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein. *b, MChild pornographyM refers to any representation whether visual audio or written combination thereof by electronic mechanical digital optical magnetic or any other means of child engaged or involved in real or simulated e7plicit se7ual activities. Se%t'(" 271 ommon "enal "rovisions. *a, +f the offender is a parent ascendant guardian step5parent or collateral relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity or any person having control or moral ascendancy over the child the penalty provided herein shall be in its ma7imum duration; "rovided% That this provision shall not apply to 4ection !*g, of this &ct; 7 7 7 ANTIHA4ING LAW $R.A. +"'%(

The crime is HAING  even if death rape sodomy or mutilation physical in<uries results therefrom

!22

The presence of any person during the ha=ing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein. The offenders are not entitled to a mitigating circumstance of lac/ of intent to commit so grave a wrong. !2) SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT 0R1A1 7265 The accused who by means of intimidation inserted his finger into the private organ of the child above 2) but below 2' years old may be held liable either for Rape by 4e7ual &ssault under &rt. )$$5  & RPC *penalty is prison mayor, or &cts of 0asciviousness under 4ec. # *b, R.&. -$2( *penalty is reclusion temporal, but not both.

The &nti5Traffic/ing of Persons &ct of )((3 *R.&. 1)(', did not amend nor repeal R.&. -$2(.

!23

 & person may be charged either under the R.&. -$2( RPC R.&. 1)(' or R.&. 1--# for the same delictual act. The offender who engaged in carnal /nowledge with a child prostitute and a victim of human traffic/ing under R.&. 1)(' should be charged under 4ection # *b, of R.&. -$2( and not under 4ection 22 of R.&. 1)(' because R.&. -$2( provides a stiffer penalty.

Though the crimes were erroneously designated the averments in the informations clearly ma/e out an offense of child abuse under 4ection 2(*a, of R.&. 9o. -$2(. ?nder the said law Mchild abuseM refers to the maltreatment whether habitual or not of the child which includes psychological and physical abuse cruelty emotional maltreatment or any act by deeds or words which debases degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. +n the first information petitioner is charged with child abuse by uttering debasing demeaning and degrading words to the minor. +n the second he is charged with child abuse by inflicting physical in<uries that debase demean and degrade the dignity of the children as human beings. !2! JUVENILE AND WEL!ARE ACT O! 2""# $R.A. %&''(

46C. 2. iolation of t&e "rovisions of t&is #ct or 4ules or 4egulations in 5eneral.  5 &ny person who violates any provision of this &ct or any rule or regulation promulgated in accordance thereof shall upon conviction for each act or omission be punished by a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos *P)((((.((, but not more than Fifty thousand pesos *P#((((.((, or suffer imprisonment of not less than eight *', years but not more than ten *2(, years or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court !")e++ a ';e# &e"a)t? '+ &#(>'ded <(# '" te Re>'+ed Pe"a) C(de (# +&e%'a) )a+. +f the offender is a public officer or employee heJshe shall in addition to such fine andJor imprisonment be held administratively liable and shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERT)

+n /idnapping with rape the intention of the offender of forcibly dragging away the victim is to deprive the woman of her liberty. !2#  &ppellants act of ta/ing the three5year old Regelyn while the latter was playing near her house without the /nowledge or consent of her parents constituted the crime of /idnapping a minor. !2$ +n People v. &lberto &nticamara et al. ".R. 9o. 2-'--2 une ' )(22 the accused was held liable for /idnapping and serious illegal detention while his co5accused was held liable for comple7 crime of /idnapping and serious illegal detention with rape since he does not /now about the rape committed by his co5accused. The rule is once conspiracy is established between several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery they would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery unless anyone of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape. 8here the members of the band were not aware of anothers lustful intent and his consummation thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent the same they cannot be held liable for the rape. +n People v. 6stacio ".R. 9o. 2-2$## uly )) )((1 *citing People v. Romeo Padica et al. ".R. 9o. 2()$!# &pril - 2113 ))2 4CR& 3$), the 4upreme Court held that where the ta/ing of the victim was incidental to the basic purpose to /ill the crime is only murder and this is true even if before the /illing but for purposes thereof the victim was ta/en from one place to another. Thus where the evident purpose of ta/ing the victims was to /ill them and from the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latters purpose was actually to detain or deprive the victims of their liberty the subsequent /illing of the victims constitute the crime of murder hence the crime of /idnapping does not e7ist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce the comple7 crime of /idnapping with murder. +n fact as we held in the aforecited case of Aasilang et. al. although the accused had planned to /idnap the victim for ransom but they first /illed him and it was only later that they demanded and obtained the money such demand for ransom did not convert the crime into /idnapping since no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved hence the crime committed was only murder. !2+n People v. Felipe Airandilla ".R. 9o. 2'$!2- uly )- )(22 the 4upreme Court held that regardless of the number of rapes committed in the special comple7 crime of /idnapping with rape the resultant crime is only one /idnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.&. 9o. -$#1 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. +n a way R.&. -$#1 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter how many times the victim was raped li/e in the present case there is only one crime committed H the special comple7 crime of /idnapping with rape. :owever for the crime of /idnapping with rape as in this case the offender should not have ta/en the victim with lewd designs otherwise it would be comple7 crime of forcible abduction with rape. +n People v. "arcia we e7plained that if the ta/ing was by forcible abduction and the woman was raped several times the crimes committed is one comple7

crime of forcible abduction with rape in as much as the forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape; and each of the other counts of rape constitutes distinct and separate count of rape. +n udith atulan v. People ".R. 9o. 2-2$#3 &pril )! )((- the 4upreme Court held that ransom means money price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that would release him from captivity. 9o specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of /idnapping for ransom as long as the ransom was intended as a bargaining chip in e7change for the victims freedom. 8hether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received by the perpetrator is of no moment. 40+":T +006"&0 6T69T+B9 if the /idnapping is less than three days and without the attending circumstances enumerated in &rt. )$- RPC. The act of putting ones foot inside the door constitutes entry for purposes of trespass to dwelling.

!2'

+n oseph &nthony &le<andro et al. v. &tty. ose ernas et al. ".R. 9o. 2-1)!3 4eptember - )(22 the accused were held guilty of un<ust ve7ation for padloc/ing the rented ?nit and cutting off its electric water and telephone facilities. The accused were not held liable for grave coercion it was never alleged that the acts were effected by violence threat or intimidation. The mere presence of the security guards is insufficient to cause intimidation to the petitioners. There is intimidation when one of the parties is compelled by a reasonable and well5grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property or upon the person or property of his spouse descendants or ascendants to give his consent. Aaterial violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation. +ntense fear produced in the mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the e7ercise of the will is sufficient. ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT 0R1A1 38665 67tension telephone is not among the prohibited devices. The law refers to a MtapM of a wire or cable or the use of a Mdevice or arrangementM for the purpose of secretly overhearing intercepting or recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear intercept or record the spo/en words. !21

The law prohibits the overhearing intercepting or recording of private communications. )1 4ince the e7change between petitioner 9avarro and 0ingan was not private its tape recording is not prohibited. !)( +t is illegal for any person not authori=ed by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. 8hat R.&. !)(( penali=es are the acts of secretly over&earing% intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. !)2 ANTI-WIRE ATAPPING ACT 0R1A1 HUMAN SECURITY ACT 0R1A1 38665 485

Protects any citi=en against Protects suspected terrorists unauthori=ed recording of private against the unauthori=ed recording communications by any person or surveillance committed by the law enforcement officers ANTITRA!!IC5ING O! PERSONS ACT O! 2""& $R.A. %2"+(

R1A1 [email protected]

R1A1 726

4ec. 3 *a, ,rafficing in Se%1 1 Child "raffic&ing 1 H "ersons 5 refers to the  &ny person who shall recruitment engage in trading and transportation transfer dealing with children or harboring or receipt including but not limited to of persons with or the act of buying and selling without the victimOs of a child for money or for consent or /nowledge any other consideration or

RPC

 &rt. 3!(. Corruption of minors. L &ny person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of

within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion abduction fraud deception abuse of power or of position ta/ing 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 for the purpose of e7ploitation which includes at a minimum the e7ploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of se7ual e7ploitation forced labor or services slavery servitude or the removal or sale of organs. The recruitment transportation transfer harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of e7ploitation shall also be considered as Mtraffic/ing in personsM even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.

barter shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed in its ma7imum period when the victim is under twelve *2), years of age. Se%1 @1 Attempt to Commit Child "raffic&ing 1 H There is an attempt to commit child traffic/ing under 4ec. - of this &ct% *a, 8hen a child travels alone to a foreign country without valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the epartment of 4ocial 8elfare and evelopment or written permit or <ustification from the childOs parents or legal guardian; *c, 8hen a person agency establishment or child5caring institution recruits women or couples to bear children for the purpose of child traffic/ing; or  *d, 8hen a doctor hospital or clinic official or employee nurse midwife local civil registrar or any other person simulates birth for the purpose of child traffic/ing; or  *e, 8hen a person engages in the act of finding children among low5income families hospitals clinics nurseries day5care centers or other child5during institutions who can be offered for the purpose of child traffic/ing.  & penalty lower two *), degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony under 4ec. - hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit child traffic/ing under this  &ct.

another shall be punished by prision mayor and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee including those in government5owned or controlled corporations he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification.  &rt. 3!2. 8hite slave trade. L The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and ma7imum period shall be imposed upon any person who in any manner or under any prete7t shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution

R.&. 1)(' did not amend R.&. -$2(. !)) CRIMES AGAINST PROPERT)

+n People v. Ric/y :i<ada ".R. 9o. 2)3$1$ Aarch 22 )((! the 4upreme Court held that there is no crime of Robbery with -ultiple :omicide under the Revised Penal Code. The crime is Robbery with :omicide notwithstanding the number of homicides committed on the occasion of the robbery and even if murder physical in<uries and rape were also committed on the same occasion. !)3

+n People v. &ntonio Brti= et al. ".R. 9o. 2-11!! 4eptember ! )((1 the victim was raped by several men during the robbery. The 4upreme Court held the accused liable for special comple7 crime of robbery with rape and not for robbery with multiple rapes. +n Teodolo Dillanueva r. ".R. 9o. 2'-2#) uly )) )((1 the accused was held liable for robbery with homicide not robbery with murder but the 4upreme Court considered treachery as generic aggravating circumstance. !)! +n People v. 9onoy 6bet ".R. 9o. 2'2$3# 9ovember 2# )(2( the 4upreme Court held that when homicide ta/es place by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery all those who too/ part shall be guilty of the special comple7 crime of robbery with homicide whether they actually participated in the /illing unless there is proof that there was an endeavor to prevent the /illing J rape. !)# +n People v. 9gano 4ugan et al. ".R. 9o. 21)-'1 Aarch )3 )(22 the 4upreme Court held that the proper designation of the offense is robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of band 9BT robbery with homicide committed by a band. +n People v. 6dgar 6vangelio et al. ".R. 9o. 2'21() &ugust 32 )(22 band and dwelling were considered generic aggravating circumstances in robbery with rape. People v. &lberto asao et al. ".R. 9o. 2'1')( Bctober 2( )(2) the accused were held guilty of robbery in band. &t least five *#, people including accused5appellants carrying guns and a hand grenade barged into the home of and forcibly too/ pieces of <ewelry and other personal properties of their victims. They were also held guilty of /idnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention for abducting their one of their victims detaining him for seven *-, days and demanding ransom for his release. +n People v. Rogelio Aoreno ".R. 9o. 2!((33 anuary )# )(() the accused was held liable for two *), separate crimes of rape and theft and not special comple7 crime of robbery with rape since the ta/ing of personal property was not the original evil plan of the accused. +t was an afterthought following the rape. ROBBERY UNDER RPC

ROBBERY UNDER P1D1 98

the ta/ing away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things of other unlawful means

+e''"; a"? &e#+(" <(# #a"+(* e7tortion or other unlawful purposes or the ta/ing away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things of other unlawful means

particular person

a"? &e#+(" '"d'+%#'*'"ate)?

 &nywhere highway,

*including

Philippine +n Philippine highway

Punished as accessory

Punished as a%%(*&)'%e !"de# te RPC

if homicide rape intentional mutilation arson or serious physical in<uries are committed by reason or on occasion of robbery a +&e%'a) %(*&)e$ %#'*e  is formed

*2, +f physical in<uries or other crimes are committed or *), if /idnapping for ransom or e7tortion or murder or homicide or rape is committed as a result or on occasion thereof a higher penalty is imposed

BRIGANDAGE UNDER RPC

BRIGANDAGE UNDER P1D1 98

Aore than three *3, three armed persons formed a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway or /idnapping persons for the purpose of e7tortion or to obtain ransom

rigandage under P..#3) does not require that there be at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers. Aoreover the presumption in the Revised Penal

or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence +f any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearms it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands *&rt. 3($ RPC,

Code that said accused are brigands if they use unlicensed firearms does not obtain under P #3)!)$

Punished by prision correctional in its Punished as >[email protected] under medium period to prision mayor in its RPC *4ec. ! P.. #3), minimum period *&rt. 3(- RPC, THEFT

ESTAFA

The offender has physicalJmaterial or de The offender has <uridical !)facto possession over the thing ta/en possession over the thing ta/en +n People v. ernard Airto ".R. 9o. 213!-1 Bctober 21 )(22 the accused was held guilty of qualified theft for misappropriating the chec/s given by the customers to the corporation as payment for the goods received..&s ranch Aanager of ?CC who was authori=ed to receive payments from ?CC customers the accused gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by the management of ?CC. +n People v. Remedios Tanchanco ".R. 9o. 2---$2 &pril 2' )(2) the accused employed as a legal secretary and liaison officer of a law office was held guilty of qualified theft for misappropriating the money intended for payment of capital gains and transfer ta7es and for the processing of title. Theft becomes qualified when it is committed with grave abuse of confidence. People v. Blivia Cristobal ".R. 9o. 2#1!#( Aarch 3( )(22 the accused a ban/ teller was held guilty of qualified theft. +n Rommel riones v. People ".R. 9o. 2#$((1 une # )((1 *. rion, the accused was held guilty of theft and not robbery in grabbing the security guards firearm and running away with it. +n People v. Cesar Conception ".R. 9o. )((1)) uly 2' )(2) the accused was held guilty of theft and not for robbery with homicide for snatching the bag from the victim. The accused was absolved from criminal liability for the death of his companion since he did not perform or e7ecute any act that caused the latters death. +n People v. &belardo 4alonga ".R. 9o. 232232 une )2 )((2 the accused a ban/ cashier was held guilty of a comple7 crime of qualified theft through falsification of commercial document for ta/ing P3$!'(.3( by forging the signatures of officers authori=ed to sign the chec/ and thereafter appropriating the amount of the chec/. The fact that accused5appellant as assistant cashier of Aetroban/ had custody of the aforesaid chec/s and had access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Aetroban/ cashiers chec/s suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely abused the confidence reposed in him by the ban/ as assistant cashier. Carmina ro/mann v. People ".R. 9o. 2112#( February $ )(2) *. rion, the 4upreme Court held that estafa is either by *a, abuse of confidence or *b, means of deceit. +n estafa by abuse of confidence deceit is not an element of the offense. +n &ndre aigle v. People ".R. 9o. 2-!2'2 une )- )(2) the accused was held guilty of estafa under par. 2 *b, for appropriating the property held in trust and for a particular purpose that is for the fabrication of bending machines and spare parts for the corporation. The Mfailure to account upon demand for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.M 6lsa Aagtira v. People ".R. 9o. 2-(1$! Aarch - )(2) *. rion, the accused was held guilty of estatfa under &rticle 32# paragraph 2*b, elements for misappropriating the money held in trust under the >[email protected] agreement. !)' +n ulce Pamintuan v. People ".R. 9o. 2-)')( une )3 )(2( *. rion, the accused was held guilty of estafa under &rticle 32# paragraph 2*b, for appropriating the diamond ring held in trust for sale on commission basis.

+n People v. Aelissa Chua ".R. 9o. 2'-(#) 4eptember 23 )(2) the 4upreme Court held that the accused may be convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa under &rt. 32# par. ) *a, at the same time. ?nli/e in illegal recruitment where profit is immaterial a conviction for estafa requires a clear showing that the offended party parted with his money or property upon the offenders false pretenses and suffered damage thereby. !)1 +n estafa through falsification of public document mere payment of an obligation before the institution of a criminal complaint does not on its own constitute novation that may prevent criminal liability. !3( +n 0ea 4agan v. uliano ".R. 9o. 23!2)( anuary 2- )((# the 4upreme Court held that damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense of 6stafa under para. ) *d, and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneous with the issuance of the bad chec/. The drawer of the dishonored chec/ is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the chec/ otherwise a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. Thus if the complainant /new that the drawers account was already closed at the time of the issuance of the chec/ and that the parties treated the chec/ as mere evidence of indebtedness the drawer cannot be held liable for estafa since there is no deceit involved. :e may nonetheless liable for violation of .P. )) +n estafa under &rt. 32# par. ) *d, the receipt by the drawer of the notice of dishonor is not an element of the offense. The presumption only dispenses with the presentation of evidence of deceit if such notification is received and the drawer of the chec/ failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his chec/ within three *3, days from receipt of the notice of dishonor of the chec/. The presumption indulged in by law does not preclude the presentation of other evidence to prove deceit. !32 ANTI!ENCING LAW $P.D. 1#12(

>[email protected] is the act of any person who with intent to gain for himself or for another shall buy receive possess /eep acquire conceal sell or dispose of or shall buy and sell or in any other manner deal in any article item ob<ect or anything of value which he /nows or should be /nown to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. !3) The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows% *2, a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; *), the accused who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft buys receives possesses /eeps acquires conceals sells or disposes or buys and sells or in any manner deals in any article item ob<ect or anything of value which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; *3, the accused /new or should have shown that the said article item ob<ect or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and *!, there is on the part of the accused intent to gain for himself or for another. Fencing is malum pro&ibitum  and P.. 9o. 2$2) creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of possession by the accused of any good article item ob<ect or anything of value which has been the sub<ect of robbery or theft and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. The stolen property sub<ect of the charge is not indispensable to prove fencing. +t is merely corroborative of the testimonies and other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the crime of fencing. !33 +f the sub<ect property is derived from the proceeds of 6stafa the same does not constitute fencing. ut if the property is derived from the proceeds of carnapping the same constitute fencing since carnapping is essentially >[email protected] or >[email protected] of a motor vehicle. !3! +n a prosecution for fencing under P.. 2$2) it is 9BT a complete defense for the accused to prove that he had no /nowledge that the goods or articles found in his possession had been the sub<ect of robbery since > dolo is not required in crimes punished by a special statute li/e the &nti5Fencing 0aw of 21-1 because it is the act alone irrespective of the motives which constitutes the offense. Derily when it was proved that petitioner committed the unlawful acts alleged in the information it was properly presumed that they were committed with full /nowledge and with criminal intent and it was incumbent upon him to rebut such a presumption Aoreover the presumption of fencing under 4ection # of Presidential ecree 9o. 2$2) that% Aere possession of any good article item ob<ect or anything of value which has been the sub<ect of robbery or thievery shall be  prima facie  evidence of [email protected] !3#

The offender may punished either as accessory to theft or robbery under &rt. 21 RPC or for violation of the &nti5Fencing 0aw. !3$ BOUNCING CHEC5 LAW $B.P. 22(

4ection ) of 6.". 6lg. 22   creates the presumption that the issuer of the chec/ was aware of the insufficiency of funds when he issued a chec/ and the ban/ dishonored it. This presumption however arises only after it is proved that the '++!e# ad #e%e'>ed a #'tte" "(t'%e (< d'+("(#  and that within five days from receipt thereof he failed to pay the amount of the chec/ or to ma/e arrangements for its payment. !39ot only must there be a written notice of dishonor or demand letters actually received by the drawer of a dishonored chec/ but there must also be  proof of receipt    thereof that is properly authenticated !3' and not mere registered receipt andJor return receipt. +n 4usan "o and People v. Fernando imagiba ".R. 9o. 2#2'-$ une )2 )((# the 4upreme Court held that 4C &dmin. Circular 9o. 2)5)((( is not a penal law; hence it may not be applied retroactively in favor of the accused who is not a habitual delinquent under &rticle )) of the Revised Penal Code. The circular applies only to those cases pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to cases already terminated by final <udgment. To establish the e7istence of the second element the 4tate should present the giving of a written notice of the dishonor to the drawer ma/er or issuer of the dishonored chec/. !31  &s clarified by &dministrative Circular 235)((2 the clear tenor and intention of &dministrative Circular 9o. 2)5)((( is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in .P. )). 8here the circumstances of the case for instance clearly indicate good faith or a clear mista/e of fact without taint of negligence the imposition of a fine alone may be considered as the more appropriate penalty. This rule of preference does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators of .P. )). !!( ANTICARNAPPING ACT O! 1%2 $R.A. #3&%( +f a person is entrusted with a car for >test [email protected] but failed to show up after the test5drive he is liable for carnapping and not for estafa since he must be deemed to have unlawfully Mta/enM the car soon after the test5driving after he failed to return the vehicle. !!2 +f the motor vehicle >[email protected] or >[email protected] consists of roadrollers trolleys street5sweepers sprin/lers lawn mowers amphibian truc/s and cranes if not used on public highways vehicles which run only on rails and trac/s and tractors trailers and tractor engines of all /inds and used e7clusively for agricultural purposes the crime is K?&0+F+6 T:6FT under &rt. 32( RPC and not carnapping. !!) +n the special comple7 crime of carnapping with homicide there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the /illing was perpetrated Min the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.M !!3 +f attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed Min the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereofM then it must be deemed to fall under the clause *of 4ection 2!, Mwhen the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person.M !!! +n People v. 6lgin 0atayada ".R. 9o. 2!$'$# February 2' )((! the accused was held guilty of homicide and not carnapping with homicide since the accuseds original design was not carnapping. The elements of elements of comple7 crime of carnapping with homicide are% that 2, appellant too/ the motorcycle; ), his original criminal design was carnapping; 3, he /illed Payla; and !, the /illing was perpetrated Min the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.M I 7 7 the prosecutions evidence does not prove that accused too/ the motorcycle. +n People v. Ricardo Cayanan et al. ".R. 9os. -3)#-5#' une 2$ 211# the accused were held guilty of qualified carnapping *the victim was /illed, with the generic aggravating circumstances of band and use of motor vehicle. +n People v. Aarlon dela Cru= ".R. 9o. 2-!$#' February )! )((1 the 4upreme Court held that Carnapping refers specifically to the ta/ing of a motor vehicle. +t does not cover the ta/ing of cash

or personal property which is not a motor vehicle. &s the Court of &ppeals noted 7 7 7 Two *), articles were ta/en from T6BF+00B 4R. his tricycle and some cash. The ta/ing of the tricycle constitutes a violation of the anti5carnapping law R& $#31 while the ta/ing of the cash from T6BF+0B 4R. by hitting him with a stone and stabbing him in the chest constitutes the crime of robbery with homicide under &rticle )1! of the Revised Penal Code. +n 6lmer iamante et al. v. People ".R. 9o. 2'(11) 4eptember ! )((1 the accused were held guilty for carnapping by means of violence and intimidation and for robbery for ta/ing the victims car cash and valuables at a gun5point. +n People v. Denancio Ro7as ".R. 9o. 2-)$(! &ugust 2- )(2( the accused was held guilty of carnapping for ta/ing the car of the victim at gunpoint /idnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated Aurder for depriving the victim of her liberty and for mortally wounding her with intent to /ill and theft for ta/ing the victims cash and valuables while the latter was asleep. ANTI-ARSON LAW 0P1D1 2725 There are two *), categories of the crime of arson% 64TR?CT+D6 &R4B9 under &rt. 3)( RPC and  &R4B9 under P.. 2$23. !!# 4aid classification is based on the /ind character and location of the property burned regardless of the value of the damage caused. 3( &rticle 3)( contemplates the malicious burning of structures both public and private hotels buildings edifices trains vessels aircraft factories and other military government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. Bn the other hand Presidential ecree 9o. 232$ covers houses dwellings government buildings farms mills plantations railways bus stations airports wharves and other industrial establishments !!$ & higher penalty is imposed if arson is perpetrated by two or more persons or if death results. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON

SIMPLE ARSON

64TR?CT+D6 &R4B9 5 &rticle 3)( of The Revised Penal Code as amended by R& -$#1 contemplates the malicious burning of structures both public and private hotels buildings edifices trains vessels aircraft factories and other military government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. +f death results penalty is death.

4+AP06 &R4B9 5 P 2$23 which repealed &rts. 3)2 to 3)$5 RPC 5 the malicious burning of public and private structures regardless of si=e not included in &rt. 3)( as amended by R& -$#1 and classified as other cases of arson. These include houses dwellings government buildings farms mills plantations railways bus stations airports wharves and other industrial establishments. +f death results penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.

+n People v. ulie "il ".R. 9o. 2-)!$' Bctober 2# )((' the accused was held guilty of destructive arson for setting fire on a residential house and ad<acent houses located in 4ampaloc Aanila. +n Climaco &mora ".R. 9o. 2#!!$$ anuary )' )((' the accused was held guilty of destructive arson since crime was committed in a place where ba/eries barber shops tailoring shops and other commercial and residential buildings were situated *in an urban and populated area,. +n oel "on=ales r. v. People ".R. 9o. 2#11#( February 2) )((- the accused was held guilty of simple arson under 4ection 3*), of Presidential ecree 9o. 2$23 since the arson was committed in an inhabited house or dwelling. +n People v. ante uebos ".R. 9o. 2$313' Aarch )' )((' the accused was held liable for arson and not for destructive arson since the information failed to allege whether or not the burnt house is inhabited or situated in a populated or congested area. The special aggravating circumstance that accused5appellant was Mmotivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burnedM was not appreciated since it appears that the accused was acting more on impulse heat of anger or risen temper rather than real spite or hatred that impelled him to give vent to his wounded ego. Conspiracy to Commit &rson is punishable. !!-

+n People v. Ferdinand aluntong ".R. 9o. 1$$() 9ovember 21 2112 the 4upreme Court citing "eople v. -alngan% ruled that in cases where both burning and death occur in order to determine what crimeJcrimes wasJwere perpetrated H whether arson murder or arson and homicideJmurder it is de rigueur  to a+%e#ta'" te *a'" (=e%t'>e (< te *a)e<a%t(# % *a, if the main ob<ective is the burning of the building or edifice but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson the crime is simply arson and the resulting homicide is absorbed; *b, if on the other hand the main ob<ective is to /ill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly *c, if the ob<ective is li/ewise to /ill a particular person and in fact the offender has already done so but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the /illing then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed  H homicideJmurder and arson. &s it was not shown that the main motive was to /ill the occupants of the house the crime would only be arson the homicide being a mere consequence thereof hence absorbed by arson. +n People v. Carlito de 0eon et al. ".R. 9o. 2'(-$) Aarch ! )((1 the accused were held guilty of arson with the special aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a syndicate *carried out by a group of three or more persons,. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTIT)

 Adultery ' is committed by any married woman who shall have se7ual intercourse 't a *a" "(t e# !+=a"d and by the man who has carnal /nowledge of her /nowing her to be married even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.

 & married woman who contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage and engage in se7ual relation with her second husband after the marriage is liable for two separate crimes of bigamy and adultery. There two are separate offenses. The first is crime against civil status while the second is a crime against chastity. Concubinage ' is committed by a husband who shall /eep a mistress in the con<ugal dwelling or shall have se7ual intercourse under scandalous circumstances 't a (*a" ( '+ "(t '+ '<e  or shall cohabit with her in any other place. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

MCohabitM means dwelling together as husband and wife or in se7ual intercourse and comprises a continued period of time. :ence the offense is not the single act of adultery; it is cohabiting in a state of adultery; and it may be a wee/ a month a year or longer but still it is one offense only. !!'  & married man who contracted a subsequent bigamous marriage and thereafter cohabit with her second wife after the marriage is liable for two separate crimes of bigamy and concubunage. There two are separate offenses. The first is crime against civil status while the second is a crime against chastity. !!1 QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

Committed by any person in public authority priest home5servant domestic guardian teacher or any person who in any capacity shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced who has carnal /nowledge with a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age  &lso committed by any person who has carnal /nowledge with his sister or descendant whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.

SIMPLE SEDUCTION

committed by any person who =? *ea"+ (< de%e't  has carnal /nowledge a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation over twelve but under eighteen years of age.

 &mong the persons who can commit qualified seduction is a MdomesticM. &nd a MdomesticM for purposes of said legal provision has been interpreted <udicially as L persons usually living under the same roof.!#( +n People v. Fernando Teodosio ".R. 9o. 1-!1$ une 3 2112 the accused was held liable for seduction for persuading the minor to give up her virginity on the false promise of marriage *by means of deceit,. 8hen force or intimidation is employed or when the offended party is less than 2) years old the crime is rape and not seduction.

IDNAPPING AND ILLEGAL DETENTION

SERIOUS FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

The sei=ure or ta/ing away of a The sei=ure or ta/ing away of the woman is to deprive her of her liberty woman is with lewd design *without lewd design, +f several rapes were committed the results in a special comple7 crime of /idnapping and serious illegal !#2 detention with rape

+f several rapes were committed the same results to a comple7 crime of Forcible abduction with rape for the first rape and separate counts of rapes for the subsequent rapes.

+f the primary purpose of the offender in abducting a woman is to rape her the crime is rape *the forcible abduction is absorbed in rape,. !#) FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

CONSENTED ABDUCTION

committed by any person who abducts any woman *even under 2) years of age, against her will and with lewd designs

committed by any person who abducts a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. !#3

+n People v. 0ito 6gan ".R. 9o. 23133' Aay )' )(() the accused was held guilty of forcible abduction. The attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness committed are absorbed in forcible abduction. The accused who forcibly abducted a woman and raped her thirteen *23, times is liable for one *2, comple7 crime of forcible abduction with rape and twelve *2), separate crimes of rape. !#! +n People v. +reneo onaagua ".R. 9o. 2'''1- une $ )(22 the accused was held guilty of acts of lasciviousness for touching the breasts and lic/ing the vagina of her eight5year old. ut if the tongue in an act of cunnilingus touches the outer lip of the vagina the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through se7ual assault not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. ANTIPHOTO AND VIDEO VO)ERISM $R.A. %%%3(

+t is prohibited and unlawful for any person% *a, To ta/e photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing se7ual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a personJs such as the na/ed or undergarment clad genitals pubic area buttoc/s or female breast without the consent of the personJs involved and under circumstances in which the personJs hasJhave a reasonable e7pectation of privacy; *b, To copy or reproduce or to cause to be copied or reproduced such photo or video or recording of se7ual act or any similar activity with or without consideration; *c, To sell or distribute or cause to be sold or distributed such photo or video or recording of se7ual act whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or *d, To publish or broadcast or cause to be published or broadcast whether in print or broadcast media or show or e7hibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such se7ual act or any similar activity through DCJD internet cellular phones and other similar means or device. The prohibition under paragraphs *b, *c, and *d, shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or ta/e photo or video coverage of the same was given by such personJs. CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS

MARRIAGE AGAINST THE LAWS

CONTRACTED PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL PJROVISION OF MARRIAGE CEREMONY

committed by any person who without being included in the provisions of the ne7t proceeding article shall contract marriage

committed by any Priest or minister of any religious denomination or sect or civil authorities who shall perform or authori=e any illegal marriage

/nowing that the requirements of the ceremony shall be punished in law have not been complied with or accordance with the provisions of the that the marriage is in disregard of a Aarriage 0aw. legal impediment. +n order to avail of the defense of Auslim religion in bigamy the subsequent marriage must be conducted in accordance with the Code of Auslim Personal 0aws or Presidential ecree 9o. 2('3. !## udicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else what transpires is a bigamous marriage reprehensible and immoral. !#$ The nullity of the first marriage is not a defense in bigamy if the second bigamous marriage was celebrated before the declaration of absolute nullity of the first marriage. !#The nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity not a defense in bigamy. !#' CRIMES AGAINST HONOR 

+n &rturo or<al v. Court of &ppeals ".R. 9o. 2)$!$$ anuary 2! 2111 the 4upreme Court held that in order to maintain a libel suit it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. +t is also not sufficient that the offended party recogni=ed himself as the person attac/ed or defamed but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the ob<ect of the libelous publication. I 7 7 +dentification is grossly inadequate when even the alleged offended party is himself unsure that he was the ob<ect of the verbal attac/. +n ADR4 Publications +nc. et al. v. +slamic awah et al. ".R. 9o. 23#3($ anuary )' )((3 the petitioner was absolved from liability since the victim is not identifiable *the victims are Auslims in general H it pertained to large group of persons,. 4ending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party constitutes publication.

!#1

 &bsence of malice is a defense in libel. !$( The presumption of malice is done away with when the defamatory imputation is a qualified privileged communication. !$2 The pleading submitted before the investigating prosecutor during the preliminary investigation is a privilege communication. !$) The enumeration under &rt. 3#! is not an e7clusive list of qualified privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are li/ewise privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. !$3 The news report that is a fair and true report made without malice is covered by the rule on privileged matters under &rticle 3#! *), of the Revised Penal Code. !$! ?nder &rt. 3$2 of the Revised Penal Code if the defamatory statements is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation is shown the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for <ustifiable ends. !$# +n 6rwin Tulfo v. People ".R. 9o. 2$2(3) 4eptember 2$ )((' *. rion, the accused a news reporter cannot invo/e the defense of qualified privilage communication *fair commentary on the acts of public officials, since he made no effort to verify the information given by his source or even to ascertain the identity of the public official he was accusing. !$$ +n Rodolfo Dasque= v. Court of &ppeals ".R. 9o. 22'1-2 4eptember 2# 2111 the 4upreme Court held that even if the defamatory statement is false no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is with /nowledge that it was false or with rec/less disregard of whether it was false or not.

 & written letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as privileged when it is published and circulated in public. 9either is the news item a fair and true report without any comments or remar/s of any <udicial legislative or other official proceedings; there is in fact no proceeding to spea/ of. 9or is the article related to any act performed by public officers in the e7ercise of their functions for it concerns only false imputations against Thoenen a private individual see/ing a quiet life. !$We" *a)'%e '" <a%t '+ &#(>e" a++e#t'("+ a"d &#((<+ tat te )'=e)(!+ a#t'%)e+ a#e K!a)'<'ed)? &#'>')e;ed %(**!"'%at'("+ a#e <!t')e +'"%e =e'"; K!a)'<'ed)? &#'>')e;ed %(**!"'%at'("+ *e#e)? &#e>e"t+ te &#e+!*&t'(" (< *a)'%e <#(* atta%'"; '" a de<a*at(#? '*&!tat'("1 [email protected]

4lander is libel committed by oral *spo/en, means instead of in writing. The term oral defamation or slander as now understood has been defined as the spea/ing of base and defamatory words which tend to pre<udice another in his reputation office trade business or means of livelihood. There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only *2, upon the e7pressions used but also *), on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party and *3, the circumstances surrounding the case. +ndeed it is a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other depending not only upon their sense grammatical significance and accepted ordinary meaning <udging them separately but also upon the special circumstances of the case antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. !$1 +f the defamatory statement was uttered in the heat of anger or with provocation on the part of the offended party the crime constitute only 4light 4lander. !-( +n People v. :ong in Chu ".R. 9o. 05)-'3( Aay )1 21-( the accused was held guilty of oral defamation when he uttered% MGour daughteris a prostitute because you too are a prostituteM.  &dministrative Circular 9o. ('5)((' e7presses a preference for the imposition of a fine rather than imprisonment. The Circular li/ewise allows the court in the e7ercise of sound discretion the option to impose imprisonment as penalty whenever the imposition of a fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the offense wor/ violence on the social order or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of <ustice. !-2 6UASIO!!ENSES Rec78ess 9:ru0e/ce, ;e/er-88< 0e=9/e0 >< our :e/-8 8-?, co/s9sts 9/ @o8u/t-r98<, >ut ?9tout -89ce, 0o9/; or =-989/; to 0o -/ -ct =ro ?9c -ter9-8 0--;e resu8ts >< re-so/ o= 9/ecus->8e 8-c7 o= :rec-ut9o/ o/ te :-rt o= te :erso/ :er=or9/; or =-989/; to :er=or suc -ct, t-79/; 9/to co/s90er-t9o/ 9s e:8o<e/t or occu:-t9o/, 0e;ree o= 9/te889;e/ce, :<s9c-8 co/09t9o/ -/0 oter c9rcust-/ces re;-r09/; :erso/s, t9e -/0 :8-ce. I:ru0e/ce co//otes - 0e=9c9e/c< o= -ct9o/. It 9:89es - =-98ure 9/ :rec-ut9o/ or - =-98ure to t-7e te /ecess-r< :rec-ut9o/ o/ce te 0-/;er or :er98 >ecoes =oresee/. Tus, 9/ or0er =or co/@9ct9o/ to >e 0ecree0 =or rec78ess 9:ru0e/ce, te -ter9-8 0--;e su==ere0 >< te @9ct9, te =-98ure 9/ :rec-ut9o/ o/ te :-rt o= te -ccuse0, -/0 te 09rect 89/7 >et?ee/ -ter9-8 0--;e -/0 =-98ure 9/ :rec-ut9o/ ust >e est->89se0 >e<o/0 re-so/->8e 0ou>t. We -re or-88< co/@9/ce0 t-t -88 tree ?ere est->89se0 9/ t9s c-se 9/ -ccor0-/ce ?9t te reu9re0 [email protected] o= [email protected]/ce 9/ cr99/-8 c-ses.'2

The 4upreme Court held in People v. Patrolman omingo elbes ".R. 9o. 2)!$-( une )2 )((( that the act of the accused of shooting at the victim not rec/less imprudence resulting in homicide because the shooting was intentional. +llustrations of rec/less imprudence resulting in homicide are% *2, e7hibiting a loaded revolver to a friend who was /illed by the accidental discharge brought about by negligent handling; or *), discharging a firearm from the window of ones house and /illing a neighbor who <ust at the moment leaned over the balcony front; or *3, where the defendant to stop a fist fight fired his .!# caliber pistol twice in the air and as the bout continued he fired another shot at the ground but the bullet ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon thereafter. +n this case appellant intended to fire &T the victim and in fact hit B90G the victim. Prosecutions under &rticle 3$# should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the consequences. +n imposing penalties the <udge will do no more than apply the penalties under &rticle 3$# for each consequence alleged and proven. +n short there shall be no splitting of charges under &rticle 3$# and only one information shall be filed in the same first level court. !-3

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close