CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS1 Prepared by Prosecutor PHILGER NOEL B.

INOVEJAS2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA Felonious acts committed byConsidered wrong because they are means of dolo or culpa asprohibited by special laws defined in RPC The prosecution must proveCriminal intent is not required; the criminal intent.3 prosecution need only to prove intent to perpetrate the act that the offender did intend to commit an act and that act is prohibited by law.! "ood faith is a defense# "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/s 0aw *..P. )), ' R.&. 12$# *3angerous 3rugs 0aw, 1 P.3. 1#- *Regulating the 4ale of 4ubdivision 0ots and Condominiums, 2( P.3. 2$() *&nti5Fencing 0aw, 22 R.&. ')') *444 0aw, 2) and P.3. 2'$$ as amended by R.&. ')1! *+llegal Possession of Firearms and 67plosives,. 8hile mere possession without criminal intent is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused.23 0ac/ of license to possess a firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of P.3. 2'$$ as amended by Republic &ct 9o. ')1! or as a special aggravating circumstance in the felony of homicide or murder.2! Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of /nowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory e7planation of such possession. &s a 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 is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited 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 in the ma7im index animi sermo or speech is the inde7 of intention. 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 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 used; and may not be held to include offenses other than those which are clearly described notwithstanding that the Court may thin/ that Congress should have made them 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 et concordare legis legibus est optimus interpretandi.23 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 with the principle of e7clusio unius est e7clusio alterius the relationship of the 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 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 >shall@ 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 for the immunities from the general application of our criminal laws which a 4enator or Aember of the :ouse of Representatives may 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 sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect3) 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.&. -$#1 *3eath Penalty 0aw, 3! Republic &ct 9o. -'1( *+ncreasing the Penalty for "rave Coercion, 3# R.&. '3#3 *The 9ew Rape 0aw, 3$ 4upreme Court &dministrative Circular 9o. 2)5)((( *Re% Penalty for ..P. )), 3- and R.&. 9o. -$12 *&n &ct 67panding the Curisdiction of the Aunicipal Trial Courts,. 3' The following statutes have retroactive application% R.&. 13!! *Cuvenile Custice and 8elfare &ct of )(($, 31 the favorable provisions of R.&. -$#1 *3eath Penalty 0aw, !( R& 13!$ *&nti53eath 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 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 firearm is considered as aggravating circumstance was not applied >retroactively@ against 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 principle of constitutional law that the 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 to be reasonable *2, must rest on substantial distinctions; *), must be germane to the purposes of the law; *3, must not be limited to e7isting conditions only; and *!, must apply equally to all members of the same class.!# DUE PROCESS The due process clause which guarantees that no person shall be 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 affected only to the e7tent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. 3ue 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 are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the 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 has been defined as >a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.@ #( EX POST FACT LAWS &n e7 post facto law is one which% *2, ma/es criminal an act done before the 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 authori=es conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; *#, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies 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 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 such other person suffers in<ury. Test5 3id the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situationF +f not then he is guilty of negligence.#) & deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially 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 intent to do an unlawful act is essentially 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 malice but with lac/ of foresight carelessness or 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. #' The accused was held guilty of Parricide. & person who commits a felony is liable for the direct natural and logical 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. &s a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child he e7pired. &ppellant;s criminal liability for the death of his son 9oemar is thus clear. $( ABERRATIO ICTUS mista/e in the blow ERROR PERSONAE mista/e in identity IN PRAETER INTENTIONEM where the consequence went beyond that intended or e7pected There is a notorious disparity between the act and the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony i.e. the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.$3

The offender delivered a blow at his intended victim but missed and instead such blow landed on an $2 unintended victim.

The offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the victim intended.$)

Results in comple7 crimes H the attempt on the intended victim and the consequence on the unintended victim *&rt.

The criminal liability of Aitigating under &rt. 3 offender is not affected par. 3 unless the mista/e in identity resulted to a crime different from

!1,

what the offender intended to commit in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended *&rt. !1,

The following 3B 9BT +9C?R any criminal liability *not committing a felony,% *2, anyone who acts in 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. $! :ere the accused5appellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased. +nflicting deat !"de# e$%e&t'("a) %'#%!*+ta"%e+ *&rt. )!- RPC, is not murder. 8e cannot therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the in<uries suffered by the &mparados. This does not mean however that the accused5appellant 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 we hold him liable under the first part second 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 by any efficient intervening cause produces the in<ury and without which the result would not have occurred.@ 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 to be in a state of drowsiness and frequent vomiting. I 7 7 Tomelden died at 1%(( p.m. of Bctober 2( due per 3r. &rellano to >cardio5respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to mauling incident.@ $- The >luc/y punch@ was the pro7imate of Tomelden;s death. The resulting deathJin<ury was not the pro7imate cause of the defendant;s act in the following 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 area@ 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 Culy 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 not substantiated by proof other than her 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. 3efendant was held liable only for 4light Physical +n<uries and not Parricide since the wife died of diarrhea. *3, Bn Canuary )3 )(() accused 7 7 7 stabbed Cru= on the left side of Cru=;s body using a sharpened bamboo stic/. The bamboo stic/ bro/e and was left in Cru=;s body. I 7 7 on Canuary )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 +mpossible crime applies only to a crime which would be an offense against P6R4B94 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 &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

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.

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 rape by or woman either man 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 into@ 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 away@ 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'?+Cy 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 Brdinary aggravating 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'' QUASIRECIDIVISM 0A#t1 2745 4pecial aggravating'$ Commits a felony before beginning to serve or while serving his '1 sentence. Pardoned at the age of -( if not habitual delinquent HABITUAL DELINQUENT 0A#t1 78 "(1 95 Punished with additional penalty within a period of ten years1( 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.

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

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$( of the Revised Penal Code whether the crime for which an accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged falls under the said Code or under special law. Kuasi5recidivism is punished with more severity than recidivism proper because the aggravating circumstance of recidivism as any other aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance present in the commission of the crime whereas in a case of quasi5recidivism the ma7imum degree of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed should always be imposed irrespective of the presence of any mitigating circumstance. 1# Kuasi5recidivism li/e recidivism and reiteracion necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. 3#The fact that appellant was an inmate of 3&P6CB0 does not prove that final <udgment had been rendered against him. 1$ +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&T63.1' 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. 2(( :e cannot also avail of the retroactive effect of a law that is favorable to him. 2(2

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, concubinage2(# 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 *$, falsification of private document 22) and *-, grave threats against several individuals in different occasions. 223 Bnly one crime was committed and only one penalty was imposed in the following% *2, estafa through multiple falsification of mercantile documents 22! *), estafa through falsification of public documents22# and *3, violation of R.&. 3(21 *&nti "raft and Corrupt Practices &ct, were the legali=ation of the stay of the 3) aliens was done by a single stro/e of the pen. 22$ +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) &#(>'+'(" .22Continuing 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 3@: 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 murders 2)) direct assault with homicide parricide with unintentional abortion2)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# Cune ' )(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& -$2(. ?nder 4ection !' of the Revised Penal Code *on comple7 crimes, a felony under the Revised Penal Code *such as rape, cannot be comple7ed with an offense penali=ed by a special law. 232 3istinction should be made as to when the crimes of estafa and falsification will constitute as one comple7 crime and when they are considered as two separate offenses. The comple7 crime of estafa through falsification of documents is committed when one has to falsify certain documents to be able to obtain money or goods from another person. +n other words the falsification is a necessary means of committing estafa. :owever if the falsification is committed to conceal the misappropriation two separate offenses of estafa and falsification are committed. +n the instant case when accused collected payments from the customers said collection which was in her possession was at her disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries which she made on the duplicate copies of the receipts were contrived to conceal some amount of her collection which she did not remit to the company 777.23) SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES 8here the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses the resulting crime is called a special comple7 crime. The following constitutes special comple7 crimes% *2, 8hen by reason or on occasion of ROBBERY the crime of homicide rape intentional mutilation arson or serious physical in<uries are inflicted.233 *), 8hen by reason or occasion of RAPE the crime of homicide is committed. 23! *3, 8hen the victim in -IDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION is /illed or dies as a consequence of detention or is raped or is sub<ected to torture or dehumani=ing acts. 23# 8hen the owner driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is /illed or raped in the course of the commission of CARNAPPING or on occasion thereof.23$ 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) *C. .rion, People v. 4amuel &lgarme ".R. 9o. 2-#1-' February 2) )((1 *C. .rion, and in People v. PB2 Felipe dela Cru= et al. ".R. 9o. 2$'2-3 3ecember )! )((' *C. .rion, the accused were found guilty of special comple7 crime of robbery with homicide. +n People v. Aichael :ipona ".R. 9o. 2'#-(1 February 2' )(2( the accused was held liable for special comple7 crime of robbery with homicide *not rape with homicide and robbery,. Bnce conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape. The rule in this <urisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery all those who too/ part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape although not all of them too/ part in the rape. 23' 9o matter how many rapes had been committed in the special comple7 crime of /idnapping with rape the resultant crime is only one /idnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.&. 9o. -$#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-)$(! &ugust 2- )(2( the accused was held guilty of the *2, comple7 crime of /idnapping and serious illegal detention with frustrated murder *), carnapping and *3, theft. +n People v. &lberto &nticamara ".R. 9o. 2-'--2 Cune ' )(22 the accused was held guilty of special comple7 crime of /idnapping and serious illegal detention with rape defined in and penali=ed under &rticle )$- of the Revised Penal Code. +n People v. 3ima 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. Coey 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) Culy $ )(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 thereof.@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 attitude@ and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. For this reason 3anny;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 sufficient.@ &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 appellant.@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 *$, times. 2!' ?nlawful aggression >presupposes actual sudden une7pected or imminent danger H not merely threatening and intimidating action. +t is present Eonly when the one attac/ed faces real and immediate threat to one;s life.;@ The unlawful aggression may constitute an actual physical assault or at least a threat to inflict real imminent in<ury upon the accused. +n case of a >threat it must be offensive and strong positively showing the 7 7 7 intent to cause in<ury.@ 7 7 7 the victim was unarmed when he went to the house of the appellant. 2!1 The number of wounds the victim suffered )$ 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 ?nlawful aggression consists of actual physical assault or threatened physical assault of imminent /ind that brings peril to one;s life or limb2#2 SELF-DEFENSE DEFENSE HONOR OF DEFENSE PROPERTY OF

?nlawful aggression consists of attempting to rape a woman or violating her right to chastity2#)

?nlawful aggression consists of unlawfully ta/ing the property of another coupled with an attac/ on the person entrusted with the said property2#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 affects the

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

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 Custifying 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 +9C?RG by mere in<ury the actor causes 3&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$3 IRRISISTIBLE FORCE The force which consists of >'()e"%e (# & ?+'%a) <(#%e coming from a third person must be irresistible that inspite of all resistance it reduces the actor to a mere instrument2$! UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR 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$DEATH UNDER E CEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES >7 7 7 surprised his spouse in the act of committing se7ual intercourse with another person 7 7 7 in the act or '**ed'ate)? t e#ea<te# 7 7 7 These rules shall be applicable under the same circumstances to parents with respect to their daughters under 2' years of age and their seducer while their daughters are )'>'"; A't t e'# &a#e"t.@2$' &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 age2-2 &bove 2# to below 2' acting 8+T: &bove 2# to below 2' acting 3+4C6R9A69T2-) 8+T:B?T discernment (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 Culy 3 )((1 the 4upreme Court accepted the testimony child as evidence of his age.2-! 3iscernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.2-# 3iscernment 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$8 Bnce the child who is under eighteen *2', years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. :owever instead of pronouncing the <udgment of conviction the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence without need of application.2-1 +f the child is above 2' but below )2 at the time of promulgation he may still apply for suspension of sentence.2'( +n People v. :ermie Cacinto ".R. 9o. 2'))31 Aarch 2$ )(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 &nti53eath 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 wrong@ 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 3irected against the committing the felony 9eed not be a grave offense VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE person 3irected 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

3irected against the 3irected 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 act2'3 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 surrender@ 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 Cose 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 position@ 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 3angerous 3rugs 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. )(3welling is 9BT absorbed in treachery. )(' Treachery cannot co5e7ist with passion and obfuscation. )(1 3welling 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 3welling 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( B')). 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 2@77: 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#? A'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.3. 2'$$ as amended and for violation of the 3angerous 3rugs 0aw because the unlicensed firearm was merely found lying around together with the prohibited drugs and therefore was not being >used@ in the commission of an offense. )!0ac/ of license to possess a firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of P3 2'$$ 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 3&9"6RB?4 3R?"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 drugs@ 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 ?936R T:6 +9F0?69C6 BF 3&9"6RB?4 3R?"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 3angerous 3rugs &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 3B: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 *$, months to eighteen *2', months. ?pon recommendation of the .oard the court may commit the accused under suspended sentence to a Center or to the care of a 3B:5accredited physician for at least si7 *$, months with after5care and follow5up program for not more than eighteen *2', months. I77 Se%t'(" 7C1 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'(" 7@1 "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!d;*e"t (< %(">'%t'("and heJshe shall serve sentence as any other convicted person. Se%t'(" C61 "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$'+t'"; )aA (" &#(=at'(" or impose community service in lieu of imprisonment. +n case of probation the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall be underta/en by the .oard through the 3B: in coordination with the .oard of Pardons and Parole and the Probation &dministration. ?pon compliance with the conditions of the probation the .oard shall submit a written report to the court recommending termination of probation and a final discharge of the probationer whereupon the court shall issue such an order. I77 +f the sentence promulgated by the court requires imprisonment the period spent in the Center by the accused during the suspended sentence period shall be deducted from the sentence to be served. +n Aichael Padua v. People ".R. 9o. 2$'#!$ Culy )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.3. 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 4@: R1A1 4279 IN RELATION TO ART1 26: RPC5 SEC1 4@1 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#+18here 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 $3 *), RPC. 4ince 4ection 1' of the 3rugs 0aw contains the word Mshall M the non5applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory sub<ect only to the e7ception in case the offender is a minor. +n People v. &llen Aantalaba ".R. 9o. 2'$))- Culy )( )(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 ofPRISON MAYOR and to pay a fine of Three :undred Thousand Pesos *P3(( (((.((,. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES +n People v. Restituto Aanhuyod Cr. ".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.&. -$2( relationship is aggravating. )## +n crimes against chastity li/e acts of lasciviousness relationship is always aggravating. )#$ & 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&R3B9 and CB9469T of the offended party in adultery or concubinage is absolutory cause. )$(

P&R3B9 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.)$2 A&RR+&"6 of the offender and the offended party is absolutory cause in rape. P&R3B9 is absolutory cause in rape if the offender is the legal husband e7cept if the marriage is void ab initio.)$) P&R3B9 by the offended party is not an absolutory cause in .+"&AG. )$3 PERSONS CRIMINALL) LIABLE*DEGREE O! PARTICIPATION P#'"%'&a)+ They are co5 conspirators and each actively participated in the actual commission of the crime)$! & co5conspirator is not liable if he has not participated in the commission of the crime. A%%(*&)'%e+ &n accomplice :&4 N9B8063"6 about the criminal design of the principal by direct participation &93 :6 CBBP6R&T64 in the e7ecution of the offense bysupplying materials to be used in the commission of the 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 3anny 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$#.)-2 OBSTRUCTION OF ,USTICE 0P1D1 2@845 The failure on the part of the arresting officerJs to arrest the person of the accused ma/es the latter a fugitive from <ustice and is not equivalent to a commission of another offense of obstruction of <ustice.)-) +f any of the acts mentioned herein is penali=ed by any other law with a higher penalty the higher penalty shall be imposed.)-3 The accessories 6I6APT from criminal liabilities under &rt. )( RPC may be held criminally liable for obstruction of <ustice for concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery or for harboringJassisting in the escape of their relative in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction. APPLICATION OF PENALTIES 8henever the courts shall impose a penalty of reclusion perpetua reclusion temporal prison mayor prision correctional and arresto the accessory penalties thereto are also imposed upon the convict. )-! +ndivisible penalties li/e reclusion perpetua shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. )-# 9o matter how many mitigating circumstances are present the court cannot impose a penalty ne7t lower to that prescribed by law if there is a special aggravating circumstance. )-$ ANTI-DEATH PENALTY LAW 0R1A1 4E375 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 Cacinto ".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 &nti53eath 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%B("ed A't . The doctrine is reiterated in People v. :enry &rpon ".R. 9o. 2'3#$3 3ecember 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 3eath. The 4upreme Court held that in computing for two degrees lower the rec/oning point is 9BT the penalty of 3eath 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 3anilo 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) )aA+ 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. DISQUALIFIED those sentenced to suffer the penalty of >rehabilitation@ in a government center and 64C&P63 therein)'' and those who are sentenced to destierro and 69T6R63 T:6 PRB:+.+T63 &R6&)'1 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

QUALIFIED 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. )1The +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# Cune )# 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. Caime Cose ".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 3(- or 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

PROBATION LAW $P.D. %#+, -s -.e/0e0( First5time minor offender convicted for violation of the 3angerous 3rugs 0aw may be placed on probation even if the sentence provided under R.&. 12$# 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$# regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation. 322 The minor convicted for violation of law *e7cept the 3angerous 3rugs 0aw, may apply for probation at ANY TIME provided he is QUALIFIED*sentenced to suffer imprisonment of less than si7 years, under the Probation 0aw.32) PAROLE UNDER ISL 0RA 326E: a*e"ded5 PROBATION 0PD 47@: SUSPENSION OF a+ a+ a*e"ded5 SENTENCE A CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW UNDER R1A1 4E33 The court pronounced the <udgment of conviction but the service sentence of the accused is +!+&e"ded *4ec. !,323 3isqualified are those sentenced to a ma7imum term of imprisonment of more than si7 *$, 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 +nstead of pronouncing <udgment of conviction the court placed the child under suspended sentence without need of application *4ec. 3', 3isqualified 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!

The prisoner may be released on parole a<te# +e#>'"; the minimum penalty of his sentence *4ec. #, 3isqualified 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

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 >automatically@ 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 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. !(,

+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#,

+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. Cudgment 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 3ecree 9o. 1$' as amended3)3 even if the applicant is a minor.3)! PRESCRIPTION O! CRIMES +n falsification of public document the rec/oning period for prescription from the date of registration of the instrument since the #e;'+t#at'(" '" a &!=)'% #e;'+t#? '+ a %("+t#!%t'>e "(t'%e t( t e A ()e A(#)d.3)# The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy should be counted only from the day on which the said crime was discovered by the offended party the authorities or their agents @ as opposed to being counted from the date of registration of the bigamous marriage. 3)$ 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 barangay.@ 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 *), years.@ 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 EE87 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'$ 634& 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 & 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$ A*"e+t? 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 with the concurrence of Congress before or after conviction to a group of persons concerning political offenses

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

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 sentence@ 3!2 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 F 28E: P'#a%? !"de# P1D1 9E8 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 36T69T+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 3etention,.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 4C395 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

3irect assault may also be committed by seriously +9T+A+3&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 the public officer in custody of the prisoner3#!

Committed by an >outsider@3#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 3epartment 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 FALSE CERTIFICATES by The documents or falsified are medical any certificates

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

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.3. 2')1 since the latter offense carries a higher penalty.3#$ P6RC?RG is the A'))<!) 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 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. USURPATION OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS 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 publicly3#' 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$+f after the buy bust operation committed in a certain place the police poseur5buyer agreed to buy and the accused5drug seller agreed to sell larger quantity of dangerous drugs for a bigger consideration in the latter;s house and the second sale was consummated the accused is liable for two *), separate crimes of sale of dangerous drugs because the first sale is different from the second sale. +n People v. Coel "aspar ".R. 9o. 21)'2$ Culy $ )(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 use@ 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 3angerous 3rugs 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$-$ Cune )) )(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# Culy $ )(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 A't (!t a"? a%t'>e &a#t'%'&at'(" '" t e +a*e is not enough for purposes of conviction.3-2 R1A1 4279 3rug protector or coddler is punished under 4ec. ! R.&. 12$# OBSTRUCTION OF ,USTICE 4ec. 2 last paragraph provides% >+f the act mentioned herein is penali=ed by any other law with a high penalty the higher penalty shall be imposed@ 9ot liable since the act of the offender of using his position in shielding or harboring or facilitating the escape of the suspected violator of R.&. 12$# is already punished under R.&. 12$# with a higher penalty Bffender is not liable for Bbstruction of Custice since the same act is already penali=ed under 4ec. )- of R.&. 12$# with a higher penalty R1A1 E624 4ec. 3 provides% >+n addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penali=ed by e7isting laws 7 7 7@ 9ot liable since the act is not punishable under R.&. 3(21 RPC 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$#

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 Cune )(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 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 INDIRECT BRIBERY 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 3rug Cases under 4ec. 1) R.&. 12$#. DIRECT BRIBERY The public officer agree to perform or not to perform an act in connection with the performance of his official duties in consideration of any offer promise or gift INDIRECT BRIBERY The public officer accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office R1A1 E624 The public officer directly or indirectly requests or receives any gift or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction wherein he in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.3-# The public officer directly or indirectly requests or receives any gift from any person in consideration of helping said person secure any government license or permit3-$

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.3. 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'Ged (# 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 A e" t e %(!#t +( &#(>'de+ '" 't+ de%'+'(" ta/ing into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.@ ANTI1GRA!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 (2$ 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 )2Revised 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. %&22( 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+36 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 corpse313 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 rape.@!(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. Coseph 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 >touch@ 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 >touching@ 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# Cune ' )(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 >homicide@ 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 ANTI1VIOLENCE 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(deH 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 ANTI1CHILD PORNOGRAPH) ACT O! 2""% $R.A. %223( The offender may be punished either under R.&. -$2( R.&. 1--# or under the RPC for the same criminal act. Se%t'(" E1 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 ANTI1HA4ING LAW $R.A. +"'%( The crime is HAIING 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 C7265 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""# $R.A. %&''( 46C. 22. 3iolation of t&e "rovisions of t&is #ct or 4ules or 4egulations in 5eneral. 5 &ny person who violates any provision of this &ct or any rule or regulation promulgated in accordance thereof shall upon conviction for each act or omission be punished by a fine of not less than Twenty thousand pesos *P)( (((.((, but not more than Fifty thousand pesos *P#( (((.((, or suffer imprisonment of not less than eight *', years but not more than ten *2(, years or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court !")e++ a '; e# &e"a)t? '+ &#(>'ded <(# '" t e Re>'+ed Pe"a) C(de (# +&e%'a) )aA+. +f the offender is a public officer or employee heJshe shall in addition to such fine andJor imprisonment be held administratively liable and shall suffer the penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERT) +n /idnapping with rape the intention of the offender of forcibly dragging away the victim is to deprive the woman of her liberty. !2# &ppellant;s act of ta/ing the three5year old Regelyn while the latter was playing near her house without the /nowledge or consent of her parents constituted the crime of /idnapping a minor. !2$ +n People v. &lberto &nticamara et al. ".R. 9o. 2-'--2 Cune ' )(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$## Culy )) )((1 *citing People v. Romeo Padica et al. ".R. 9o. 2()$!# &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- Culy )- )(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 Cudith Catulan v. People ".R. 9o. 2-2$#3 &pril )! )((- the 4upreme Court held that ransom means money price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person that would release him from captivity. 9o specific form of ransom is required to consummate the felony of /idnapping for ransom as long as the ransom was intended as a bargaining chip in e7change for the victim;s freedom. 8hether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received by the perpetrator is of no moment. 40+":T +006"&0 36T69T+B9 if the /idnapping is less than three days and without the attending circumstances enumerated in &rt. )$- RPC. The act of putting one;s foot inside the door constitutes entry for purposes of trespass to dwelling. !2' +n Coseph &nthony &le<andro et al. v. &tty. Cose .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 4EC85 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 ANTI1TRA!!IC5ING O! PERSONS ACT O! 2""& $R.A. %2"+( R1A1 486@ 4ec. 3 *a, ,raffic(ing in "ersons 5 refers to the recruitment transportation transfer or harboring or receipt of persons with or without the victimOs consent or /nowledge R1A1 C726 Se%1 C1 Child "raffic&ing1 H &ny person who shall engage in trading and dealing with children including but not limited to the act of buying and selling of a child for money or for 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&ing1 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 3epartment of 4ocial 8elfare and 3evelopment 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 Cr. ".R. 9o. 2'-2#) Culy )) )((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 Canuary )# )(() 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 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 ROBBERY UNDER P1D1 9E8 +e'G'"; 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 a"? &e#+(" '"d'+%#'*'"ate)? Philippine +n Philippine highway Punished as a%%(*&)'%e !"de# t e RPC *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 P1D1 9E8 .rigandage under P.3.#3) does not require that there be at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers. Aoreover the presumption in the Revised Penal

particular person &nywhere highway, *including

Punished as accessory 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 BRIGANDAGE UNDER RPC

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

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 P3 #3)!)$

Punished by prision correctional in its Punished as >accomplice@ under medium period to prision mayor in its RPC *4ec. ! P.3. #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 Cune # )((1 *C. .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)) Culy 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 Cune )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) *C. .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 3;aigle v. People ".R. 9o. 2-!2'2 Cune )- )(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) *C. .rion, the accused was held guilty of estatfa under &rticle 32# paragraph 2*b, elements for misappropriating the money held in trust under the >paluwagan@ agreement.!)' +n 3ulce Pamintuan v. People ".R. 9o. 2-)')( Cune )3 )(2( *C. .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. Culiano ".R. 9o. 23!2)( Canuary 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 ANTI1!ENCING LAW $P.D. 1#12( >Fencing@ 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.3. 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 >theft@ or >robbery@ of a motor vehicle. !3! +n a prosecution for fencing under P.3. 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 3ecree 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 fencing.@!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 $B.P. 22( 4ection ) of 6.". 6lg. 22 creates the presumption that the issuer of the chec/ was aware of the insufficiency of funds when he issued a chec/ and the ban/ dishonored it. This presumption however arises only after it is proved that the '++!e# ad #e%e'>ed a A#'tte" "(t'%e (< d'+ ("(# and that within five days from receipt thereof he failed to pay the amount of the chec/ or to ma/e arrangements for its payment. !39ot only must there be a written notice of dishonor or demand letters actually received by the drawer of a dishonored chec/ but there must also be proof of receipt thereof that is properly authenticated and not mere registered receipt andJor return receipt.!3' +n 4usan "o and People v. Fernando 3imagiba ".R. 9o. 2#2'-$ Cune )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. )). !!( ANTI1CARNAPPING ACT O! 1%22 $R.A. #3&%( +f a person is entrusted with a car for >test driving@ but failed to show up after the test5drive he is liable for carnapping and not for estafa since he must be deemed to have unlawfully Mta/enM the car soon after the test5driving after he failed to return the vehicle. !!2 +f the motor vehicle >stolen@ or >robbed@ consists of roadrollers trolleys street5sweepers sprin/lers lawn mowers amphibian truc/s and cranes if not used on public highways vehicles which run only on rails and trac/s and tractors trailers and tractor engines of all /inds and used e7clusively for agricultural purposes the crime is K?&0+F+63 T:6FT under &rt. 32( RPC and not carnapping. !!) +n the special comple7 crime of carnapping with homicide there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the /illing was perpetrated Min the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.M!!3 +f attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed Min the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof M then it must be deemed to fall under the clause *of 4ection 2!, Mwhen the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person.M !!! +n People v. 6lgin 0atayada ".R. 9o. 2!$'$# February 2' )((! the accused was held guilty of homicide and not carnapping with homicide since the accused;s original design was not carnapping. The elements of elements of comple7 crime of carnapping with homicide are% that 2, appellant too/ the motorcycle; ), his original criminal design was carnapping; 3, he /illed Payla; and !, the /illing was perpetrated Min the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.M I 7 7 the prosecution;s evidence does not prove that accused too/ the motorcycle. +n People v. Ricardo Cayanan et al. ".R. 9os. -3)#-5#' Cune 2$ 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& $#31 while the ta/ing of the cash from T6BF+0B 4R. by hitting him with a stone and stabbing him in the chest constitutes the crime of robbery with homicide under &rticle )1! of the Revised Penal Code. +n 6lmer 3iamante et al. v. People ".R. 9o. 2'(11) 4eptember ! )((1 the accused were held guilty for carnapping by means of violence and intimidation and for robbery for ta/ing the victim;s car cash and valuables at a gun5point. +n People v. Denancio Ro7as ".R. 9o. 2-)$(! &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 272E5 There are two *), categories of the crime of arson% 364TR?CT+D6 &R4B9 under &rt. 3)( RPC and &R4B9 under P.3. 2$23.!!# 4aid classification is based on the /ind character and location of the property burned regardless of the value of the damage caused. 3( &rticle 3)( contemplates the malicious burning of structures both public and private hotels buildings edifices trains vessels aircraft factories and other military government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. Bn the other hand Presidential 3ecree 9o. 232$ 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 364TR?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. SIMPLE ARSON 4+AP06 &R4B9 5 P3 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. Culie "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#!!$$ Canuary )' )((' 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 Coel "on=ales Cr. v. People ".R. 9o. 2#11#( February 2) )((- the accused was held guilty of simple arson under 4ection 3*), of Presidential 3ecree 9o. 2$23 since the arson was committed in an inhabited house or dwelling. +n People v. 3ante .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'" (=De%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 A'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 A't a A(*a" A ( '+ "(t '+ A'<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$ Cune 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 detention with rape!#2 +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 committed by any person who abducts any woman *even under 2) years of age, against her will and with lewd designs CONSENTED ABDUCTION 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- Cune $ )(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. ANTI1PHOTO 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 DC3J3D3 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 Priest or minister of any religious denomination or sect or civil authorities who shall perform or authori=e any illegal marriage

committed by any person who without being included in the provisions of the ne7t proceeding article shall contract 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 3ecree 9o. 2('3. !## Cudicial 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)$!$$ Canuary 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 3a;wah et al. ".R. 9o. 23#3($ Canuary )' )((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$ )((' *C. .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 37@ 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. !$1 +f the defamatory statement was uttered in the heat of anger or with provocation on the part of the offended party the crime constitute only 4light 4lander. !-( +n People v. :ong 3in Chu ".R. 9o. 05)-'3( Aay )1 21-( the accused was held guilty of oral defamation when he uttered% MGour daughteris a prostitute because you too are a prostituteM. &dministrative Circular 9o. ('5)((' e7presses a preference for the imposition of a fine rather than imprisonment. The Circular li/ewise allows the court in the e7ercise of sound discretion the option to impose imprisonment as penalty whenever the imposition of a fine alone would depreciate the seriousness of the offense wor/ violence on the social order or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of <ustice.!-2 6UASI1O!!ENSES Rec78ess 9.:ru0e/ce, ;e/er-88< 0e=9/e0 >< our :e/-8 8-?, co/s9sts 9/ @o8u/t-r98<, >ut ?9tAout .-89ce, 0o9/; or =-989/; to 0o -/ -ct =ro. ?A9cA .-ter9-8 0-.-;e resu8ts >< re-so/ o= 9/eBcus->8e 8-c7 o= :rec-ut9o/ o/ tAe :-rt o= tAe :erso/ :er=or.9/; or =-989/; to :er=or. sucA -ct, t-79/; 9/to co/s90er-t9o/ A9s e.:8o<.e/t or occu:-t9o/, 0e;ree o= 9/te889;e/ce, :A<s9c-8 co/09t9o/ -/0 otAer c9rcu.st-/ces re;-r09/; :erso/s, t9.e -/0 :8-ce. I.:ru0e/ce co//otes - 0e=9c9e/c< o= -ct9o/. It 9.:89es - =-98ure 9/ :rec-ut9o/ or - =-98ure to t-7e tAe /ecess-r< :rec-ut9o/ o/ce tAe 0-/;er or :er98 >eco.es =oresee/. TAus, 9/ or0er =or co/@9ct9o/ to >e 0ecree0 =or rec78ess 9.:ru0e/ce, tAe .-ter9-8 0-.-;e su==ere0 >< tAe @9ct9., tAe =-98ure 9/ :rec-ut9o/ o/ tAe :-rt o= tAe -ccuse0, -/0 tAe 09rect 89/7 >et?ee/ .-ter9-8 0-.-;e -/0 =-98ure 9/ :rec-ut9o/ .ust >e est->89sAe0 >e<o/0 re-so/->8e 0ou>t. We -re .or-88< co/@9/ce0 tA-t -88 tAree ?ere est->89sAe0 9/ tA9s c-se 9/ -ccor0-/ce ?9tA tAe reCu9re0 8e@e8 o= e@90e/ce 9/ cr9.9/-8 c-ses.'22 The 4upreme Court held in People v. Patrolman 3omingo .elbes ".R. 9o. 2)!$-( Cune )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

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. !-! To sustain a charge of malversation there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence on the part of petitioners. There may be negligence attending the disbursement of public funds in favor of the family of deceased indigents such negligence is equally punishable in &rticle )2- of the Revised Penal Code.!-#