Criminal Law

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Q.

Define Criminal Law

Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Book One, 18th ed., 2012, p. 1).

Q.

Distinguish crimes which are mala in se from crimes which are mala prohibita.

The following are the distinctions between the two: Mala in Se

Mala Prohibita As to Nature Wrong from its very Wrong because it is nature prohibited by law As to Use of Good Faith as a Defense Good faith is a valid Good faith is NOT a defense; unless the defense. crime is a result of culpa. As to Use of Intent as an Element Intent is an element. Criminal Intent is NOT required. Only intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by law will suffice. As to Degree of Accomplishment of the Crime The degree of The act gives rise to a accomplishment of crime only when it is the crime is taken into consummated. account in punishing the offender. As to Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances Mitigating and Mitigating and aggravating aggravating circumstances are circumstances are taken into account in generally NOT taken imposing the penalty. into account. As to Degree of Participation When there is more Degree of than one offender, participation is the degree of generally NOT taken participation of each into account. Al who in the commission of participated in the act the crime is taken into are punished to the account. same extent. As to Persons Criminally liable Penalty is computed The penalty on the on the basis of offenders is the same, whether there is a whether they are principal offender, or merely accomplices or merely an accomplice accessories.

or accessory. As to what Laws are Violated Revised Penal Code Special Penal Laws As to Stages of Execution There are three stages: No such stages of attempted, frustrated, execution. consummated. As to Persons Criminally Liable There are three Generally, only the persons criminally principal is liable. liable: principal, accomplice, and accessory.

Q.

What are the rules of construction in penal laws?

Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favour of the accused. (US vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243) The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is no doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule. (People vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)

Q.

What does In Dubio Pro Reo mean? In dubio pro reo means "when in

doubt, for the accused." Intimately related to the In dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court Is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that Is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an Interpretation which is more lenient to the accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).

Q.

What are the three characteristics of criminal law?

There are three characteristics of criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2) territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The general, territorial and prospective characteristics of criminal law are principles that define and demarcate the scope and limitation of the operation of criminal law. Under these three principles, the operation or enforceability of criminal law is limited to wrongful acts committed on or after its effectivity (prospectively) within the territory of the Philippines (territoriality) by person living and sojourning therein (generality).

Page 1 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Q.

Discuss the Principle of Generality in criminal law.

Generality principle is akin to territoriality principle in the sense that the demarcating factor of both principles is the territory of the Philippines. Under generality principle, criminal law is enforceable to person living or sojourning in the territory of the Philippines. Under the territoriality principle, criminal law is applicable only to criminal act committed within the territory of the Philippines. But the concept of generality is different from territoriality. The applicability of territoriality principle or generality principle will depend on the issue raised by the accuse d in questioning the jurisdiction of the court. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court because of the unique characteristic of his person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military, hermit, primitive, ambassador, legislator, President), the applicable principle is generality. If the accused attacks the jurisdiction of the court due to the unique characteristic of the place where the crime was committed (e.g. the place of commission is foreign vessel, embassy or high sea) etc, the applicable principle is territoriality.

Q.

What is the Principle of Territoriality in relation to criminal law?

Under the principle of territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed inside its territory except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application.

Q.

Distinguish the English Rule from the French Rule.

There are two fundamental rules in International Law regarding crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel (not military vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile territorial water (not internal or archipelagic water or high seas) of the Philippines to wit: French rule -Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial water of the Philippines are subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state extra-territoriality principle) unless their commission affects the peace and security of our country.

affect its peace and security, or has no pernicious effect therein. It is the English rule that obtains in this jurisdiction. NOTE: in the Philippines, the English Rule is followed.

Q.

Discuss the Principle of Territoriality in criminal law.

Extra

Under the principle of extraterritoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory for those five instances mention in Article 2 such as crime committed in vessel of Philippines registry (ownership is not material), functionrelated crime committed by public officer (such as corruption or direct bribery), crimes against national security (such as treason, espionage; rebellion is not a crime against national security), and crime against law of nation such as piracy and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30', 2001- "Piracy is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law (Article 2). The same principle applies even if accused were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, PD No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world."

Q.

What is the Rule on Prospectivity of penal laws?

A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it is not punishable when committed. As provided in Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are punished under the laws in force at the time of their commission.

Q.

What is the exception to the rule that penal laws shall be applied only prospectively and not retroactively?

Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favourable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect. But this exception has no application:

English rule -Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial water of the Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of the Philippines (territoriality principle) unless their commission does not

(1) Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471)

Page 2 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

(2) Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62, Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)

Q.

Discuss the effects of repeal amendment of a penal law.

Due process in criminal cases requires: (a) Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. (b) Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the Constitution and the applicable statutes.

or

The following are the effects of repeal/amendment of a penal law: (1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.

Non-imposition of cruel punishment or excessive fines

(2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of commission of the offense shall be applied.

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated (Reyes, The Revised

Penal Code Book One, 18th ed., 2012, p. 15).

Constitutional Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

What are the requirements of a valid classification as a guarantee of equal protection in the promulgation of criminal laws?

For classification to be reasonable, the following requisites should be satisfied: (1) It must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It must apply equally to all members of the same class. (People vs. Cayat, G.R. No. L45987 May 5, 1939)

Due Process Q.

What are the requirements of due process in criminal cases?

unusual

What is the right of an accused against the non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines?

The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. (Section 19, Article III, 1987 Constitution)

Q.

Equal Protection Q.

Q.

and

Is the imposition of the death penalty unconstitutional in the Philippines?

No. Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution provides that ―neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress provides for it.‖ Thus, the imposition of death penalty is not unconstitutional as the Constitution left it to the wisdom of Congress to impose it.

Q.

How shall R.A. No. 9346 be imposed to persons convicted of crimes punishable by death penalty?

Sec. 2 of R.A. 9346 provides that the penalty of (1) reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC; and (2) life imprisonment when the law violated does not use the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.

Page 3 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Bill of Attainder

Q.

Q.

The elements of felonies in general are:

What is a Bill of Attainder?

A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt (People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32613-14). The 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits it (Article III, Section 22, 1987 Philippine Constitution).

(1) That there must be an act or omission; (2) That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code; (3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990)

Ex post facto law Q.

What is an Ex Post Facto Law? What are its characteristics?

An ex post facto law is one which: (1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; (3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) 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 (6) 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. (In re: Kay Villegas

What are the elements of a felony?

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Article 3 classifies felonies according to the means or manner by which they are committed: (a) Intentional felonies – those committed with deliberate intent; and (b) Culpable felonies – those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

Q.

Distinguish intentional felony from a culpable felony

In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious. In the language of Article 3, the act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act or incurring the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the offender is not malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another person is ―unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.‖ (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939)

Kami, Inc., G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, 1970)

Q.

NOTE: Its characteristics are: (a) it must refer to criminal matters; and (b) it must be prejudicial to the accused.

In order that an act or omission may be considered as having been performed or incurred with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur: 1.

FELONIES

Q.

What are the requisites of dolo or malice?

What is a felony? What are its classifications?

Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code (Reyes, p.33).

He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;

2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;

Page 4 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act.

presumed from taking consent of owner.

property

without

CRIMINAL INTENT

MOTIVE

To be held liable for intentional felony, the offender must commit the act prohibited by RPC with specific criminal intent and general criminal intent. General criminal intent (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of malice by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing. In estafa, the specific intent is to defraud, in homicide intent to kill, in theft intent to gain (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006). In the US vs. Ah Chong, the accused was acquitted because of mistake of fact principle even though the evidence showed that he attacked the deceased with intent to k/M (United States vs.. Apego, G.R.

Motive to prove identity - In a criminaI case, the prosecution must prove the elements of crime and the identity of the person who committed it. Proof of motive will not establish the presence of the elements of the crime but it will help the prosecution in showing that the accused committed the crime. The identity of the culprit, which is an essential requisite to cause the conviction of the accused, is usually established through positive identification of the witness. However if there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, showing motive of the accused for committing the crime will help establish his direct Unit to the commission of the crime. In People vs. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18,1987, En Banc, it was held that motive is essential to conviction in murder cases only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, not when the accused has been positively identified as the assailant. Motive as an element - Although motive is not an essential element of a crime, and proving it is just a matter of procedure pertaining to the identification of the accused, there are some cases where it is absolutely necessary to establish a particular motive as a matter of substance because it forms an essential element of the offense. In cases of libel or slander or malicious mischief, prosecution must prove malice on the part of the accused as the true motive of the conduct (People vs. Diva and Diva, G.R. No. L-22946, April 29, 1968, En Banc).

No. 7929, November 8, 1912; Dissenting opinion of J. Trent), which was established by

the statement of the accused ―If you enter the room I will kill you." Article 249 (homicide) should be read in relation to Article. The accused was acquitted not because of the absence of intent to kill (specific intent]) but by reason of lack of general intent (dolo or malice). PRESUMED MALICE The general criminal intent (malice) is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be proved by the accused (Ah Chong case, the accused was able to rebut the presumption of general criminal intent or malice). Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact„ must be proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006). There are other specific intents that are presumed. If a person died due to violence, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Intent to gain is

Elements of Criminal Liability Q.

When is criminal liability incurred?

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred: (a) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. (b) By any person performing an act, which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the

Page 5 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

employment of ineffectual means.

Q.

inadequate

or

Define proximate cause

tetanus was an efficient intervening cause. The accused was held liable for physical injuries.

Q.

Proximate cause is the primary or moving cause of the death of the victim; it is the cause, which in the natural and continuous sequence unbroken with any ―efficient intervening cause" produces death and without which the fatal result could not have happened. It is the cause, which is the nearest in the order of responsible causation (Black's Law Dictionary).

Intervening cause - The direct relation between the intentional felony and death may be broken by efficient intervening cause or an active force which is either a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. Lightning that kills the injured victim or tetanus infecting the victim several days after the infliction of injuries, or voluntary immersing the wounds to aggravate the crime committed by accused is an intervening cause. Thus, the accused is liable for physical injuries because of the intervening cause rule. On the other hand, carelessness of the victim, or involuntary removal of the drainage, lack of proper treatment is not an intervening cause. Hence, the accused is liable for the death because of the proximate cause rule. If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected when the accused inflicted injuries upon him, the crime committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the victim died due to tetanus of which he was infected after the accused inflicted injuries upon him, the crime committed is physical injuries. The accused is not liable for homicide because tetanus is an efficient intervening cause. Thus, the proximate cause of the death of the victim is not the infliction of injuries. In Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011, there had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when victim was rushed to hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection. Since the victim was infected of severe tetanus, he died the next day. The incubation period of severe tetanus is less than 14 days. Hence, he could not have been infected at the time of the stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before the victim was rushed to the hospital. The infection of victim's stab wound by

What is error in personae?

There is error in personae when a crime intended to a person is committed to another because the offender mistook the latter‘s identity as the former. In case of error in personae, a person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due to mistake of identity. In order to make a person criminally liable in case of error in personae, the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony; (2) The consequent victim against whom the felony was directed is different from that intended due to mistake of identity. If the penalty for the intended crime is different from that of the committed crime, the court shall impose the penalty for the intended crime or committed crime, whichever is lesser.

Q.

What is aberratio ictus?

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow is committed when an offender attacks another but because due to the mistake in the execution of the attack, another person, whom the offender has no intention to injure, suffers said attack. Article 48 of the RPC applies in this case. In case of aberratio ictus, a person is criminally responsible for committing an Intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. In order to make a person criminally liable in case of aberratio ictus, the following requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed an intentional felony;

Page 6 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

(2) The consequent victim against whom the felony was directed is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. The crime committed against the intended victim and victim injured due to aberratio ictus shall be made a complex crime (compound crime). The court shall impose the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period.

the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (Seguritan vs. People, G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010). 

The mitigating circumstance that "the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed" or praeter intentionem is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim (People

The circumstance of aberratio ictus: (mistake in the blow) can neither exempt the accused from criminal responsibility nor mitigate his criminal liability. Under Article 4 of RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended (Matic vs. People, G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011).

Q.

vs. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011). The mitigating circumstance

What is praeter intentionem and what are its implications?

of praeter intentionem cannot be appreciated if the acts employed by accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim (People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).

Praeter intentionem is committed when an injury resulted from an act is greater from the injury intended to be caused by the offender. It is considered as a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13 par. 3 of the RPC. In case of praeter intentionem, a person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although its wrongful consequence is graver than that intended.



Evident premeditation In case of aberratio ictus and error in personae, the SC did not appreciate evident premeditation since the victim, who was actually killed, is not contemplated in the premeditation of the accused (People vs. Trinidad, G.R.

In order to make a person criminally liable under Article 4 (1) in case of praeter intentionem, the following requisites must be present:

NO. L-38930, June 28, 1988; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967; People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988). However, praeter intentionem

(1) Offender committed an intentional felony;

and evident premeditation can be independently appreciated, there is no incompatibility between evident premeditation and no intention to commit so grave a wrong since the latter is based on the state of mind of the offender while the former manner of committing the crime (Reyes; People vs. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536).

(2) The wrongful act done, which is graver than that intended, is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.Praeter intentionem may be appreciated as mitigating circumstance of lack of Intent to commit so grave a wrong than that committed. When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence the penal law looks particularly to the material results following

Mitigating circumstance



Treachery If accused employed means to render the victim defenseless, treachery shall be appreciated even if the killing is doe

Page 7 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

to error in personae (People vs. Del

Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April 30, 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs. Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10,1926, En Banc) or with the circumstance of praeter Intentionem (People vs. Cagoco, G.R. No. 38511, October 6, 1933). 

Conspiracy Conspirators, who conspired to kill a particular parson, are equally liable for the killing of another person due to error in personae (People vs. Pinto, Jr.

and Buenaflor, G.R. No. No. 39519, November 21, 1991). However, a conspirator, who never even fired a single shot and whose only participation was to drive their getaway vehicle and to lend his firearm to his back rider so that the latter could finish off the target victim was not found accountable for the injury sustained by the unintended victim was just a star-crossed bystander who was accidentally hit in the process (aberratio ictus) (People vs. Herbias,

G.R. No. 112716-17, December 16,1996; People vs. Flora and Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23,2000). IMPOSSIBLE CRIME Q.

What are the impossible crime?

elements

of

an

The elements of an impossible crime are: (1) That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. (2) That the act was done with evil intent. (3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. (4) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Intod principle Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992 - Outside the house of the victim, accused with intent to kill fired

at the bedroom, where the victim is supposed to be sleeping. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire. The accused were convicted of impossible crime. The accused shot at the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not present in said place. The accused failed to accomplish their end due to its factual impossibility. In the Philippines, the crime committed is impossible crime if the offense sought to be committed is factually or legally impossible. Killing a dead person is an impossible crime because of legal impossibility. Putting the hand inside an empty pocket with the intention to steal a wallet is an impossible crime because of factual impossibility.

Raping a dead person - Prior to RA 8353, rape

was a crime against chastity. Thus, if a person raped a dead person believing that she was just sleeping, offender could not be held liable for an impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino). In impossible crime the act could have constituted the crime against person or property if its accomplishment was not impossible. Rape is neither a crime against person nor against property. However, RA 8353 reclassifies rape from crime against chastity to a crime against persons. Hence, an offender for raping a dead person without knowing that she was already dead may now be held liable for impossible crime.

Committing another crime - "A" discharged a

shotgun at "B" from a distance of 300 yards; but because of the limited range of the firepower of the shotgun, it would be impossible for "A" to harm "B". "A" is liable of discharged of firearm and not impossible crime. Where the offender unlawfully entered the house and took a watch that turned out to be his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling and not impossible crime (Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado). If the accused administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend whom he believed to be pregnant, which turned out not to be true, but the woman became ill for more than 30 days, the accused will be liable for serious physical injuries and not impossible crime of abortion (Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).

STAGES OF EXECUTION Q.

What are the stages of execution of a material crime? Briefly discuss them.

Page 8 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

CLASSIFICATION UNDER ART. 6: (1) Consummated Felony – When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; the felony is produced. (2) Frustrated Felony – When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (3) Attempted Felony – When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES: In attempted felony, the offender performs directly an overt act, which consists of one or more acts of execution, but not enough to consequently produce the felony. In frustrated felony, the offenders perform all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a matter of consequence. To determine whether the felony is at the attempted or frustrated stage, acts of execution of execution of a felony must be identified. Example: The acts of execution that would produce homicide or murder are infliction of mortal wounds upon the victim. If the wounds inflicted upon the victim with intent to kill are non-mortal, the crime committed is attempted homicide; if wounds are mortal, the crime committed is frustrated homicide. In attempted felony and frustrated felony, the external acts performed by the offender and the intended felony must have a direct connection; but in an attempted felony, the offender failed to perform all the acts of execution; thus his external acts would "not produce‖ the felony as a consequence; on the other hand in a frustrated felony, the offender performed all the acts of execution; thus, his

external acts "would produce" the felony as a consequence. FRUSTRATED AND CONSUMMATED: In frustrated and consummated felony, the accused performed all acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence. If the felony is not produced due to external cause, the crime committed is frustrated felony; if the felony is produced the crime committed is consummated. In frustrated felony, the offender performed all the acts of execution but the felony was not produced as a consequence due to extraneous cause. However, there are felonies, the commission of which has no frustrated stage since the performance of all the acts of execution immediately consummates the felony. In homicide or murder case, once the offender inflicted mortal wound on the victim, all the acts of execution are considered performed. However, what consummates homicide or murder is not the infliction of mortal wounds but the death of the victim as a consequence of the mortal wound inflicted. Thus, if the mortally wounded victim did not die due to medical intervention, homicide or murder is only at the frustrated stage. On the other hand, in rape once the offender sexuality penetrate the labia of the vagina of the victim, all the acts of execution are considered performed. But since sexual penetration consummates rape, there are no occasions where the offender performed all the acts of execution and yet the felony was not produced as a consequence. In sum, there is no such thing as frustrated rape since the performance of all the acts of execution immediately consummates rape. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE In attempted felony and frustrated felony, the offender failed to accomplish his criminal objective by reason of extraneous causes; If the causes are not extraneous, the accused will be absolved from criminal liability. Negative Act - In the attempted stage of the execution of a felony, the offender must do a "negative act" to be exempt from criminal liability for attempted felony; since the

Page 9 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

offender has not yet performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence, he must spontaneously desist from further doing criminal acts that will complete all the acts of execution. Example: "A" with intent to kill shot "B"; "B" sustained non-mortal wound. To be exempt from criminal liability for attempted homicide or murder, "A" must spontaneously desist from further shooting "B" in order not to inflict mortal injury upon him. Positive Act - If the offender performs all the acts of execution, which would produce the felony as a consequence, offender is not exempted from liability for frustrated felony even if he voluntary desisted from further doing criminal act. Spontaneous desistance is a defense in attempted felony but not in frustrated felony. In the frustrated stage of the execution of a felony, the offender must do a "positive act" to be exempt from criminal liability; since the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence, he must do something to prevent, or thwart the production of the felony. Example: "A" with intent to kill shot "B"; "B" sustained mortal wound. To be exempt from criminal liability for frustrated felony, it is not enough that "A" would desist from further shooting "B". The spontaneous desistance is not a valid defense since "A" had already inflicted mortal wound on "B" that would cause his death as a consequence. Thus, "A" must save the life of "B" by treating his wound. If "B" did not die because "A"‘s medical treatment, the latter will not be held liable for frustrated felony because the homicide was not produced due to the will of "A‖.

"A" of criminal responsibility. "A" had already performed all the acts of execution, which produced the crime of theft before he returned the chicken (Reyes). (3) The fact that the accused abandoned the victim after six days of captivity does not lessen his criminal culpability much less exempt him from criminal liability for the kidnapping and detention of the victim (People vs. Baldogo, G.R. No. 128106-07, January 24,2003, En Banc). CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE RAPE 

The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge.



No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution.



We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration.



Once there is penetration, no matter how slight it is, the offense is consummated. For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. [People v. Orita]

ARSON

Not absolutory cause - If the felony is consummated, offender cannot undo what was done. Offender would not be absolved from criminal liability even if he had done something that will mitigate the effects of the felonious act. Example: (1) Restitution of funds malversed immediately and voluntarily made before the case was instituted is not an absolutory cause (Navarro vs. Meneses III,

CBO Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998, En Banc). (2) "A" stole a chicken from the house of "B" one evening. Realizing that what he did was wrong, "A" returned the chicken to the place under the house of "B". Since the crime of theft was already consummated, the return of the stolen property does not relieve



One cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn.



The crime of arson is therefore consummated even if only a portion of the wall or any part of the house is burned. The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the damage caused. (People v. Hernandez)

Page 10 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS 

The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver.



If there is a meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption.



If there is none, it is only attempted.

ADULTERY 

This requires the sexual between two participants.



If that link is present, the crime is consummated;

contact

PHYSICAL INJURIES 

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries.



There is no simple crime of physical injuries. There is the need to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight.



Thus, one could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because one does not know what degree of physical injury was committed unless it is consummated.

THEFT 

Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated.



Either the thing was taken or not.



Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft under the RPC.

Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require any result do not have a frustrated stage. Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a Felony:

b. The elements of the crime; and c. The nature of the crime itself. INDETERMINATE OFFENSE DOCTRINE In People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935, En Banc - Accused

who was caught in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store was held guilty of attempted trespassing and not attempted robbery. The act of making an opening on the wall of the store is an overt act of trespassing since it reveals an evident intention to enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. However, it is not an overt act of robbery since the intention of the accused once he succeeded in entering the store is not determinate; it is subject to different interpretations. His final objective could be to rob, to cause physical injury to its occupants, or to commit any other offense. In sum, the crime the he intended to commit inside the store is indeterminate, and thus, an attempt to commit it is not punishable as attempted felony. In People vs. Crisostomo, et al., G.R. No. L-19034, February 17 1923 - The accused

dragged the victim to a rice field. Fortunately, she was saved from her captors. It was held that the purpose of the accused in taking away the offended party could be to injure or affront her or to compel her through force to marry one of the accused. Thus, the acts are not constitutive of attempted coercion. Note: The accused were found guilty of illegal detention. Taking the victim reveals the evident intention of the accused to deprive the liberty of the latter, which is the mens rea in illegaI detention. In U.S. vs. Simeon, G.R. No. 1603, April 15,1904 - Raising a bolo and hacking the

victim with it are acts of execution in homicide or murder. Such acts together with other circumstance may reveal intent to kill. However, raising a bolo alone is susceptible to different interpretation. The intention of the offender may either to kill the victim or merely to threaten him. Since doubt should be interpreted in favor of the accused, such act should be considered to have been made with intent to threaten the victim. Thus, the crime committed is merely threat and not attempted homicide.

a. The manner of committing the crime;

Page 11 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL Q.

When is there conspiracy? Enumerate the requisites for the existence of conspiracy.

Article 8 of the RPC provides that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The requisites for its existence are: (1) There are two or more persons who come to an agreement. Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons. (2) The agreement pertains commission of a felony.

to

a

(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. IMPLIED CONSPIRACY In People vs. Dollendo, G.R. No. 181701, January 18,2012 -The "evidence of a

chain of circumstances," to wit: that appellant went inside the house of Romines to ascertain that the victim was there; that he fetched Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he gave the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime; and that they both fled after the stabbing, taken collectively, shows a community of criminal design to kill the victim. Evidently, there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime. MASTERMIND To be held liable as conspirator, it must also be shown that the accused performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy except in the case of the mastermind of a crime (People vs. Vera, GR No. 128966, August 18, 1999). One who plans the commission of a crime is liable as conspirator and principal by inducement (People vs. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004, En banc). Notwithstanding, the fact that one was not at the crime scene, evidence proved that he was the mastermind of the criminal act or the principal by inducement. What Is important is that inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the crime. The command or advice made by principal by inducement was of such nature

that, without it, the crime would not have materialized (People vs. Janjarani, G.R. No. 188314, January 10,2011). PRESENCE The accused who was unarmed, appeared in the company of his employer, and another person. His employer shot and killed the victim. Accused did nothing to prevent the killing. Accused fled together with his employer and other person. The fact that accused appeared together with employer and another and fled with them proves a certain degree of participation and cooperation in the execution of the crime. However, there is doubt as to whether accused acted as a principal or just a mere accomplice. Such doubt should be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability—that of a mere accomplice (People vs. Tomas, G.R. No. 192251, February 16, 2011). If the accused is armed at the time, he could be held liable as principal on the basis of implied conspiracy. The fact that the companion of the criminal actor is armed may mean that the former is supplying moral assistance to the latter. The armed presence of conspiratorial companion may prove a sense of security and encouragement on the part of the material executor or may serve as deterrence against possible defender or rescuer (Galgo, G.R. No. 133887, May 28,2002, En Banc). SPECIAL LAW B.P. Big. 22 does not expressly proscribe the supplementary application of the provisions RPC including the rule on conspiracy. Hence, such rule may be applied supplementary. Thus, a non-issuer of bum check can be held liable for violation of BP Big. 22 on the basis of conspiracy (Ladonga vs. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005). The principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA No. 9262. Thus, a person (such as motherin-law), who has no marital, sexual or dating relationship with the victim, can be held liable for violence against women on the basis of conspiracy (Go-Tan vs. Go, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008).

Page 12 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

MULTIPLE OFFENDERS Q.

(a) The accused is on trial for an offense;

Who is a recidivist?

(b) He has previously served sentence for another crime which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes with lighter penalties; and

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the crime. (Article 14, par. 9, RPC)

Q.

What are the requirements for a person to become a recidivist?

The requirements are: (a) The offender is on trial for an offense; (b) The offender was previously convicted by final judgment for another crime;

(c) The accused is convicted of the new offense.

Q.

The following are the distinctions between the two: (a) In reiteracion, the offender must have served out his sentence for the first offense, while in recidivism, it is enough that there be final judgment in the first offense;

(c) Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC; and

(b) In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses can be from different titles of the RPC, while in recidivism, the offenses must come from the same title; and

(d) The offender is convicted of the new offense.

Q.

When does a judgment in a criminal case become final?

(c) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance while recidivism is always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.

Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that a judgment in a criminal case shall become final: (a) After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal—15 days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from; (b) When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served; (c) When the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal; or (d) When the probation.

Q.

When is habituality?

accused

there

applied

for

reiteracion

or

There is reiteracion or habituality when the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. Its requisites are:

Distinguish reiteracion from recidivism or reincindencia

Q.

Who is a quasi-recidivist? What is quasi-recidivism?

A quasi-recidivist, as provided by Article 160 of the RPC, is a person who commits a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same. Quasi-recidivism is the special aggravating circumstance which imposes the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

Q.

Who is a habitual delinquent?

It is a person who, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes of (1) serious or less serious physical injuries; (2) robbery; (3) theft; (4) estafa; or (5) falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener (Article 62, RPC).

Page 13 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Q.

What are the requisites of habitual delinquency?

The following are the requisites of habitual delinquency: (a) The offender has been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification; (b) That after that conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed, and within 10 years from his release or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said crimes for the second time; and (c) That after his conviction of, or after serving sentence for, the second offense, he again committed, and within 10 years from his last release or conviction, he was again convicted of any of said offenses, the third time or oftener.

Q.

Does habitual delinquency apply to persons who are adjudged to have acted only as accomplices or accessories?

Yes. Any person who commits the crimes enumerated in par. 5 of Article 62 whether acting as a principal, accomplice, or accessory will be considered a habitual delinquent if the requisites for habitual delinquency are present (People vs. San Juan, 69 Phil. 347, 349 [1939]).

Q.

Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism.

HABITUAL RECIDIVISM DELINQUENCY As to Crime Committed The crimes are It is sufficient that the specified. accused on the date of the trial shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. As to the period of time the crimes are committed The offender is found No period of time guilty within ten years between the former from his last release conviction and the

or last conviction. last conviction. As to the number of crimes committed The accused must be The second offense is found guilty the third for an offense found time or oftener of the in the same title of crime specified. the RPC. As to their effect An additional penalty If not offset by a is also imposed. mitigating circumstance, it serves to increase the penalty only to the maximum.

CONTINUING CRIMES Q.

What is a continuing crime?

The term "continuing" here must be understood in the sense similar to that of "transitory" and is only intended as a factor in determining the proper venue or jurisdiction for that matter of the criminal action pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. This is so, because "a person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is part committed. In transitory or continuing offense in which some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will exclude the other." (Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41054, 1975)

Q.

What is a continuous or continued crime?

This is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division (Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L41054, 1975). For Cuello Calon, when the actor, there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such concurrence or delictual acts is called a "delito continuado". In order that it may exist, there should be "plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time; unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated and unity of criminal intent and purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal

Page 14 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

provision are united in one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim" (Santigao v Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, 1993). 

28, 1975 - Accused cannot be held to have entertained continuously the same criminal intent in making the first abstraction October 2, 2972 for the subsequent abstractions on the following days and months until December 30,1972, for the simple reason that he was not possessed of any foreknowledge of any deposit by any customer on any day or occasion and which would pass on to his possession and control. At most, his intent to misappropriate may arise only when he comes in possession of the deposits on each business day but not in future, since petitioner company operates only on a day-to-day transaction. As a result, there could be as many acts of misappropriation as there are times the private respondent abstracted and/or diverted the deposits to his own personal use and benefit (People vs. Dichupa, G.R. No. 1-16943, October 28,1961).

Single occassion - In People vs. Tumlos,

G.R. No. 46428, April 13, 1939, En Banc - The theft of the thirteen cows

owned by six owners involved thirteen (13) acts of taking. However, the acts of taking took place at the same time and in the same place; consequently, accused performed but one act. The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. The fact that eight of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally liable for as many crimes as there are owners, for the reason that in such case neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division. 



"X" was angered when he discovered a tap from the main line of the public water tank. On separate occasions, ―X" threatened to VW and crack the skulls of "A", "B", and "C", who suspected to be responsible for the tapping of water line. There is no continued crime since the three crimes of grave threat were not committed under a single criminal Impulse. "X's" intent to threaten "A", "B", and "C" with bodily harm arose only when he chanced upon each of his victims. Several threats can only be considered as continued crime if the offender threatened three individuals at the same place and at the same time (Paera vs. People, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011). General plan • In People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-1745, May 23, 1950, it was held that ransacking several houses located within the vicinity of a sugar mill while two of the bandits guarded the victims with guns leveled at them is a continued crime of robbery. Several acts of robbery were made pursuant to general plan to despoil all those in i the said place, which is an indicative of a single i criminal design. Foreknowledge doctrine - In Gamboa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-41054, November

COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES There are two kinds of complex crimes. The first is known as compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The second is known as complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011).The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed. The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions (People vs. Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008). COMPLEX CRIME AND COMPOSITE CRIME A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law. The distinctions between a composite

Page 15 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

crime, on the one hand, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48 are as follows: (1) In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; In a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other; (2) For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period; and (3) A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of separate information (People vs.

Self-Defense Q.

What are the requirements for selfdefense to be a justifying circumstance?

For self-defense to be a justifying circumstance, the following elements must be present: (URL) (1) Unlawful aggression; (condition sine qua non) (2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. It includes: (a)

The defense of honor. Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs, People)

(b)

The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present. (People v.

Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012).

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Q.

What are justifying circumstances?

Justifying circumstances are those acts of a person said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11 where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.

Q.

What are the justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the RPC?

(1) Self-defense (2) Defense of relatives (3) Defense of strangers (4) Avoidance of a greater evil or injury (5) Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right of office (6) Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose.

Narvaez) Q.

Define unlawful aggression

Unlawful aggression is an equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause harm. The aggression must constitute a violation of the law. When the aggression ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to defend one‘s self. EXCEPT: when the aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous position to ensure the success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is deemed to continue.

Page 16 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Must come from the person attacked by the accused. Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time the defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression is found to have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would likewise cease to have any justification for killing, or even just wounding, the former aggressor. [People vs. Dijan (2002)] Ordinarily 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. For unlawful aggression to be attendant there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Here, the act of the victim in drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. The facts surrounding the case must, however, be differentiated from current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression. Accused was justified in defending himself considering that victim was a trained police officer and inebriated. Even if the victim did not point his firearm at accused, there would still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim (Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012). Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was bolstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012). In People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012 - Indeed, had victim

really attacked accused, the latter would have sustained some injury from the aggression, it

remains, however, that no injury of any kind or gravity was found on the person of accused when he presented himself to the hospital. In contrast, the physician who examined the cadaver of victim testified that he had been hit on the head more than once. The plea of selfdefense was thus belied, for the weapons use d by accused and the location and number of wounds he inflicted on victim revealed his intent to kill, not merely an effort to prevent or repel an attack from victim. We consider to be significant that the gravity of the wounds manifested the determined effort of the accused to kill his victim, not just to defend himself. BURDEN OF PROOF When the accused's defense is selfdefense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. Burden of evidence shifts to the accused. (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012). EQUIVALENCE - Under doctrine of rationale equivalence, plea of self-defense would prosper If there Is a rational equivalence between the means of attack by the unlawful aggressor and the means of defense by the accused that would characterize the defense as reasonable. The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the assailant—but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-a- vis, the unlawful aggression. Clearly, this "continuous attack" by accused despite the fact that aggressor already was neutralized by the blow constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the aggression— and is therefore unjustified (Espinosa vs. People, G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010). The plea of self-defense would fail for lack of rational equivalence between the means of attack and the means of defense that would characterize the defense as reasonable. The fact that victim suffered several wounds belies the claim that accused was simply warding off the victim's attack (People vs.

Bracia, G.R. No. 174477, October 2, 2009, Justice Brion; People vs. Guillermo, G.R. No. 153287, June 30, 2008, Justice Brion)

Page 17 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Defense of Relatives



Stranger – any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under [par. 2 of Art. 11]



If the person being defended is a second cousin, it will be defense of stranger.

Elements: (1) Unlawful aggression (a) Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of fact; it can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making the defense. (b) Reason: The law acknowledges the possibility that a relative, by virtue of blood, will instinctively come to the aid of their relatives. (2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it

Avoidance of a Greater Evil Q.

For ―avoidance of a greater evil or injury‖ to be a justifying circumstance, the following elements must be present: a. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

(3) In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein.

Q.

Defense of Strangers Q.

b. The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not have been produced by the one invoking the justifying circumstances;

Who are the relatives that can be defended?

The relatives that can be defended are: a. The spouse; b. Ascendants; c. Descendants; d. Brothers and sisters, whether natural or adopted; e. Relatives by affinity in the same degree as brothers and sisters; and f. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree (Article 11, par. 2, RPC).

What are the requirements for ―defense of a stranger‖ to be a justifying circumstance?

For ―defense of a stranger‖ to be a justifying circumstance, the following elements must be present:

What are the requirements for ―avoidance of a greater evil or injury‖ to be a justifying circumstance?

c. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it d. There is no other practical & less harmful means of preventing it. General rule: No civil liability in justifying circumstances because there is no crime Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in proportion to the benefit which they have received.

Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office Q.

What are the requirements for ―fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office‖ to be a justifying circumstance?

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

For ―fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office‖ to be a justifying circumstance, the following elements must be present:

(3) The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

a. The accused acted in performance of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office;

(1) Unlawful aggression;

Page 18 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

b. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. If the first condition is present, but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa, the offender will be entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. The penalty would be reduced by one or two degrees.

Q.

What is the Doctrine of Self-Help?

The doctrine as provided in Article 429 of the New Civil Code, states that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. In People vs. Apolinar, CA, 3® O.G. 2®70, It was held that the defense of property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. However, in People vs. Narvaez, 6.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, the SC found

the presence of unlawful aggression despite the fact that the invasion of his property right was not coupled by an attack against the accused. The accused has the right to resist pursuant Article 429 of the Civil Code, which provides: "The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property." However, since the means employed to resist the invader (killing) is not reasonable, the accused is merely given the benefit of incomplete selfdefense. Justice Florenz Regalado stated that the rule in Apolinar case may be deemed to have been superseded by Narvaez case.

Q.

exercised due diligence performance of his duties?

in

the

Yes. In the case of People vs. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566, the Supreme Court held that in case of a soldier who acted upon the orders of superior officers, which he, as a military subordinate, could not question, and obeyed the orders in good faith, without being aware of its illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, he is not liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not negligent. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (RA 9262)

Q.

What is the Battered Woman Syndrome under RA 9262? Can it be used as a justifying circumstance?

Battered Woman Syndrome is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. (R.A. 9262, Section 3, Par. 4, subpar. c) Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. (R.A. 9262, Section 26) In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists [SECTION 26, RA 9262] The battered woman syndrome is characterized by a ―CYCLE OF VIOLENCE‖, which is made up of three phases [People v. Genosa]:

First Phase: Tension Building Phase

Can a subordinate raise the defense of good faith if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and that he



Where minor battering occurs, it could be a verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.



The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior, or by simply staying out of the way.

Page 19 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club



But this proves to be unsuccessful as it only gives the batterer the notion that he has the right to abuse her.

Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident 

Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes death.



The battered woman has no control; only the batterer can stop the violence.



The battered woman realizes that she cannot reason with him and resistance would only worsen her condition.

Third Phase: Tranquil Period

e. Impulse of uncontrollable fear f. Insuperable or lawful cause (Article 12, RPC)

Exempting circumstances – those grounds for

exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent. The reason for the exemption lies on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. One who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or intent does not act with malice.



Characterized by guilt on the part of the batterer and forgiveness on the part of the woman.

One who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or fault does not act with negligence.



The batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner and the woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again and that her partner will change for the better.

Q.

Four Characteristics of the Syndrome: 1.

The woman believes that the violence was her fault;

2. She has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere; 3. She fears for her life and/or her children‘s life 4. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

Distinguish justifying circumstances from exempting circumstances.

The distinctions are the following: Justifying Circumstance

Exempting Circumstance

It affects the act not the actor.

It affects the actor not the act.

The act is considered to have been done within the bounds of law; hence, legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law.

The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor is not liable.

Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime.

Since the act complained of is actually wrong there is a crime but since the actor acted without voluntariness, there is no dolo nor culpa.

No crime No criminal liability No civil liability (except Art. 11, par. 4 where there is civil liability)

There is a crime No criminal liability There is civil liability (except Art. 12, par. 4 and 7, where there is no civil liability)

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Q.

What are the exempting circumstances under the Revised Penal Code?

The following are the circumstances under the RPC: a. b. c. d.

exempting

Imbecility/Insanity Minority Accident Compulsion of irresistible force

Page 20 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Insanity or Imbecility Imbecile - One who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of a child between 2 and 7 years of age. Exempt in all cases from criminal liability.

Insane - There is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act but capable of having lucid intervals. 

During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence and thus, is not exempt from criminal liability.



Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Insanity as an exempting circumstance must relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which accused is charged (People vs. Tibon, supra). COGNITION TEST AND VOLITION TEST The case of Formigones established two distinguishable tests to determine the insane condition of the accused: (a) The test of cognition - whether there was a "complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act" After satisfying his lust, accused threatened the victim. This implies that accused knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. It also indicated that the crime was committed during one of his lucid intervals. Accused is not exempt from liability for failure to pass the cognition test (People vs. Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 5,2009) and evidence tended to show that accused was not deprived of reason at all and can still distinguish right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust, he threatened victim. This single episode irresistibly implies, for one, that accused knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. And for another, it indicated that the crime was committed during one of lucid intervals of accused (People vs. Alipio, supra).

Evidence of insanity must refer to: a. The time preceding the act under prosecution or b. at the very moment of its execution. 

Insanity subsequent to commission of crime is not exempting



Feeblemindedness is not imbecility. It is necessary that there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused be deprived of reason, that there is no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the least discernment; that there be complete absence of the power to discern, or that there be a complete deprivation of the freedom of the will. [People vs. Formigones]

Acts penalized by law are always presumed to be voluntary, and it is improper to conclude that a person acted unconsciously in order to relieve him of liability, unless his liability is proved (People vs. Pambid, GR No. 124453, March 15, 2000). Insanity is the exception. The presumption, under Article 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity (People vs. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010).

(b) The test of volition — whether there was a "total deprivation of freedom of the will." In the Bonoan case, schizophrenic accused, who acted under irresistible homlcidak impulse to toll (volition test), was acquitted due to insanity. This is not anymore a good rule. Even If the mental condition of the accused had passed the volition test, the plea of Insanity will noit prosper unless it also passed the cognition test. The controlling test is cognition (People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17,2004). In recent Supreme Court cases, the plea of insanity of person, who is suffering from schizophrenia, was rejected because of failure to pass the cognition test, in sum, a

Page 21 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

schizophrenic accused must be deprived completely of intelligence to be exempt front criminal liability (See: People vs. Medina, G.R .

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

person (such as sex maniac, homicidal maniac or kleptomaniac) had merely passed the volition test but not the cognition test, he will only be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance of illness. Diminution of freedom of the will is enough to mitigate the liability of the offender suffering from illness (See: People

Determination of Age [Sec. 7, RA 9344]

No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993).lf a

vs. Rafanan, Jr. November 21, 1991, G.R. No. 54135, November 21,1991). JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (R.A. 9344); ALSO REFER TO CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (P.D. 603, AS AMENDED)

Q.

What is the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System?

"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System" refers to a system dealing with children at risk and children in conflict with the law, which provides child-appropriate proceedings, including programs and services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, reintegration and aftercare to ensure their normal growth and development. [Title V:

Juvenile Justice and Welfare System of RA 9344]

Presumption: Minority of child in conflict with the law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until s/he is proven to be 18 years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from:   

In the absence of these documents, age may be based on: 

Information from the child himself/herself,  Testimonies of other persons,  The physical appearance of the child, and  Other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the child‘s age, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. Exemption from criminal liability 

Sec. 4 (e), RA 9344."Child in conflict with the law" – a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. Sec. 6, RA 9344. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The child‘s birth certificate, Baptismal certificate, or Any other pertinent documents.

 

15 yrs old or below at the time of commission of offense: ABSOLUTELY EXEMPT from criminal liability but subject to intervention program. Over 15 yrs old but below 18: EXEMPT from criminal liability & subject to intervention program If acted w/ discernment subject to diversion program.

Discernment – mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong as determined by the child‘s appearance , attitude, comportment and behavior not only before and during the commission of the offense but also after and during the trial. It is manifested through:

Manner of committing a crime – Thus, when the minor committed the crime during nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot to another town to avoid discovery, he manifested discernment. (People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).

Page 22 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Conduct of the offender – The accused shot the victim with his sling shot and shouted ―Putang ina mo‖.

Note: The exemption from criminal liability shall not include exemption from civil liability.

Automatic Suspension of Sentence – Once the child who is under eighteen (18) 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. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. (Sec. 38)

Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law Upon the recommendation of the social worker 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 objective 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. (Sec. 39) Under Article 68(2) of RPC, when the offender is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. The rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that because of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with less discernment. This is regardless of the fact that

his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth certificate was belatedly presented for our consideration, since to rule accordingly will not adversely affect the rights of the state, the victim and his heirs (People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7,2013). SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE - While Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the child in conflict with the law, who reached 21 years, cannot avail of privilege of suspension of sentence. However, the child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities (People vs. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011). P.D. No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC provide that the benefit of suspended sentence would not apply to a child In conflict with the law If, among others, he/she has been convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life Imprisonment. In construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the Court is guided by the basic principle of statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been convicted of a capital offense and another who has been convicted off a lesser offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime Moreover, the legislative intent:, to apply to heinous crimes the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law can be gleaned from the Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1402 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2005) (People vs. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10,2009). CREDIT OF THE PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT OF CHILD - Under Article 29 of RPC, a convicted recidivist is not entitled

Page 23 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

to a full or 4/5 credit of his preventive imprisonment. However, if the convict is a child, the applicable rule for crediting the period of commitment and detention is not Article 29 of RPC but Section 41, RA 9344. Under the said provision, the full time spent in actual commitment and detention of juvenile delinquent shall be credited in the services of his sentence.

Accident Something that happens outside the sway of our will and, although coming about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

Elements: 1. A person is performing a lawful act; 2. With due care; 3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; 4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. Actus me invite factus non est meus actus. An 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 well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self- defense in equal combat (People vs. Oequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19,2011)

Uncontrollable Fear Elements: 1.

That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is forced to commit; 2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

Basis: Lack of negligence and intent.

Irresistible Force Elements: 1.

That the compulsion is by means of physical force; 2. That the physical force must be irresistible; 3. That the physical force must come from a third person. Note: Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must produce such an effect on the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing the crime. (Aquino, Revised Penal Code) To be exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible force must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will. [People v. Lising (1998)] Basis: Complete absence of freedom.

A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

Insuperable or Lawful Causes Insuperable means insurmountable. A cause which has lawfully, morally or physically prevented a person to do what the law commands. Elements: 1.

That an act is required by law to be done; 2. That a person fails to perform such act; 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause Basis: Lack of intent.

People v. Bandian (1936):A woman cannot be

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an

held liable for infanticide when she left her newborn child in the bushes without being aware that she had given birth at all. Severe

Page 24 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

dizziness and extreme debility made it physically impossible for Bandian to take home the child plus the assertion that she didn‘t know that she had given birth.



MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Q.

Del Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012).

What are the mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code?

The following are the circumstances under the RPC:

mitigating



Appellant had asked his uncle to go to the police to signify his intention to surrender. A day after the stabbing incident, SPO1 Camba came to his house to bring him back to the Bolinao Police Station for investigation. That the appellant surrendered only a day after the stabbing incident does not diminish nor affect the voluntariness of his surrender. For voluntary surrender to mitigate an offense, it is not required that the accused surrender at the first opportunity. Here, the appellant went voluntarily went with SPO1 Camba to the police station within a day after the killing to own up to the killing. Thus, the police did not devote time and effort to the investigation of the killing and to the search and capture of the assailant (People vs. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16,2008, Justice Brion).



The appellants are not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The evidence shows that the appellants were arrested when the police officers manning the checkpoint stopped the passenger jeepney driven by appellant Rona and arrested the appellants. The fact that the appellants did not resist but went peacefully with the peace officers does not mean that they surrendered voluntarily (People

1. Incomplete justifying circumstances; 2. When the offender is over fifteen (15) but under eighteen (18) years of age who acted with discernment or when offender is over seventy (70) years old; 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat 5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense 6. Passion or obfuscation 7. Voluntary surrender 8. Voluntary plea of guilt 9. Plea to a lower offense 10. Physical defect 11. Illness 12. Analogous Circumstances

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER In order that voluntary surrender is appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: a. the accused has not been actually arrested; b. the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and c. surrender is voluntary (People vs. Del

vs. Castlllano, G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003).

Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012).



The surrender made after 14 days from the date of killing cannot be considered voluntary since his act did not emanate from a natural impulse to admit the killing or to save the police officers the effort and expense that would be incurred in his search and incarceration. (People vs. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14,2011).

Surrender is not voluntary where the accused went to Barangay Chairman after the killings to seek protection against the retaliation of the victims' relatives, not to admit his participation in the killing of the victims ( People vs.

VINDICATION 

The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense was, likewise, properly appreciated. The appellant was humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the deceased. Although the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was nonetheless a grave offense for which

Page 25 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

the appellant may be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance. But the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances arose from one and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony, so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance (People vs.

Torpio, G.R. No. 138984, June 4, 2004). 

In vindication of grave offense, criminal exemption of accessories, alternative circumstance of relationship and defense of stranger, the concept of relationship is the same. It refers to (1) spouse, (2) ascendants, (3) descendants, or (4) legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or (5) of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees. However, in defense of relative, there is an additional concept of relationship. It includes relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Thus, an uncle is a relative within the concept of defense of stranger (Reyes). However, relationship of uncle and niece is not an alternative circumstance (People vs. Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February 23, 2004).

PASSION The following essential requirements must be present: (1) There was an act that was both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition (passion or obfuscation) of the mind; and (2) That such act was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might have recovered his normal equanimity (People vs. Comiiio,

G.R. No. 186538, November 25, 2009).



Four days after the victims attempted on the virtue of his wife, accused rifled them. The period of four days was

sufficient enough a time within which accused could have regained his composure and self-control. Hence, passion should not be appreciated (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27,2011).

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Aggravating Circumstances – are those circumstances which raise the penalty for a crime in its maximum period provided by law applicable to that crime or change the nature of the crime. Section 8, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court has expressly required that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specifically alleged in the information. Due to such requirement being pro reo, the Court has authorized its retroactive application in favor of even those charged with felonies committed prior to December 1, 2000, which is the date of the effectivity of the 2000 revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that embodied the requirement (People vs. Dadulla, G. R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011).

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POSITION The mere use of service firearm is not enough to constitute taking advantage of public position. Fact that accused made use of firearms which they were authorized to carry or possess by reason of their positions, could not supply the required connection between the office and the crime. The crime in question, for example, could have been committed by the defendants in the same or like manner and with the same case if they had been private individuals and fired with unlicensed weapons (People vs. Mandolado,

G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983; People vs. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999, En Banc; People vs. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000; People vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08 and 141908-09, January 15, 2002, En Banc; and People vs. Failorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004, En Banc). TREACHERY Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists. The abuse of superior strength is already absorbed by treachery and

Page 26 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

need not be considered as a separate aggravating; circumstance. (People vs. Failorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004) Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What was decisive was that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate (People vs Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009). Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible? crime (People vs. Baron, G.R. No. 188601, June 29,2010). As the killing, in this case, is perpetrated with both treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance since it is the principal mode of attack. Reason dictates that this- attendant circumstance should qualify the offense while treachery will be considered merely as a generic aggravating circumstance (People vs. Barde G.R. No. 183094, September- 22, 2012)

IGNOMINY After killing the victim, the accused severed his sexual organ. Should ignominy be appreciated? No. For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the victim's moral suffering. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken against the accused (People vs. Cachola, G.R.

Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004)

EMPLOYMENT OF MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE If the employment of means to weaken the defense of the victim renders the victim defenseless, treachery absorbs circumstance of employing means to weaken defense (People vs. Tunhawan, G.R. NO. I81470, October 27,1988).

DISGUISE If the accused covers his face with a handkerchief when he treacherously killed the victim, the crime committed is murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by disguise (People vs. Firing, G.R. No. 45053, October 19, 1936).

NIGHTTIME Thus, treachery absorbs nighttime where had it not been at night the offender, with his cohorts, would not have been able to approach the deceased without the latter's becoming aware of his presence and guessing his intention; If they were able to catch victim completely unawares, it was due to the darkness of the night which covered them (People vs. Gumarang, GR N. 46413, October 6, 1939). As a general rule, nighttime is aggravating because the darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime or insured impunity. Thus, nighttime cannot aggravate the crime if it is committed in a lighted place although at the wee hours of the night (People vs. Clarifto, G.R. NO. 134634,

July 31, 2001).

The darkness of the night and "not nighttime per se" is important in appreciating it as modifying circumstance (People vs. Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004). But if the offender purposely selected the wee hour of the night when neighbors and occupants of the house including the victim were sleeping to facilitate the commission of the crime or to afford impunity, nighttime is appreciable even if the place of commission is lighted. (People vs. Demate, G.R. No. 132310, January 20, 2004, En Banc). (See People vs. Ventura and Ventura, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per Curiam)

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. The evidence must establish

Page 27 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage (People vs. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010). Abuse of superior strength is an aggravating circumstance if the accused purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked, or if there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of superior strength (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R.

No. 169084, January 18, 2012; People vs. Bracia, G.R. No. 174477, October 2, 2009, Justice Brion).

The victim need not be completely defenseless in order for the said aggravating circumstance to be appreciated (People vs. Paling, G.R. No. 185390 March 16, 2011) lf the victim is completely defenseless, treachery should be appreciated. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011). An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself (People

vs. Dionesio, G.R. No. 133445, February 27,2003) EVIDENT PREMEDITATION For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the time the accused determined to commit the crime;

(2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to this determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the resolve to kill and its execution that would have allowed the killer to reflect on the consequences of his act (People vs. Villasan, G.R.

No. 176527, October 9, 2009, Justice Brion). Evident premeditation is not presumed from mere lapse of time. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the malefactors had decided to commit a crime and performed an "act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung" to a previous determination to kill. It must be shown that there was a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing the intent to kill. The premeditation to kill should be plain and notorious. In the absence of clear and positive evidence proving this aggravating circumstance, mere presumptions and inferences thereon, no matter how logical and probable, would not be enough (People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R. No. 111098-99, April 3, 2003,). Accused incensed at seeing the victim molesting his younger sister went to a notorious toughie in the area, and with two cohorts, proceeded to the house of the victim to confront him but failed to see the victim. Thus, they positioned themselves in the alley near the house and waited for victim. When the victim arrived, they killed him. Should evident premeditation be appreciated? No. The prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill victim and if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how the malefactors intended to consummate the crime; Except for the fact that the offender and his three companions waited in an alley for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on the part of the offender and his cohorts showing that that theyhad clung to any plan to kill the victim (People vs. Biso and Yalong, G.R. No. 11109899, April 3, 2003,) Comment: It is possible that the criminal resolution of the accused is merely to confront or take revenge short of killing. Accused told witness that they were "going to kill the doctor". After less than thirty minutes, the accused killed the victim, who is a doctor. Evident premeditation should not be appreciated. The span of time (less than thirty minutes), from the time the accused showed their determination to kill the victim up to the time they shot the victim, could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation

Page 28 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed (People vs. Patelan, G.R. No. 182918, June 6, 2011). Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the subject felony (People vs. Carandang, G.R. No. 175926, July 6,2011).

AID OF ARMED MEN Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires: (1)

G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003, En Banc) and (2)

DISREGARD OF SEX: Robbery with homicide is essentially a felony against property. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victim's age is applied only to crimes against persons and honor. Moreover, the bare fact that the victim is a woman does not per se constitute disregard of sex. For this circumstance to be properly considered, the prosecution must adduce evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused had particularly intended to insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim, in this case, the appellant killed the victim because the latter started to shout. There was no intent to insult nor commit disrespect to the victim on account of the latter's sex (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, April 13, 2004). The circumstances of disregard of sex, age or rank should be taken singly or together. But the circumstance of dwelling should be considered independently from the circumstance of disregard of age, sex and rank since these circumstances signify different concepts. In the latter, the disrespect shown by offender pertains to the person of the offended due to her rank, age and sex. In the former, the disrespect pertains to the dwelling of the offended party due to the sanctity of privacy which the law accords it. (People vs. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29,1981, En Banc) Disregard of rank and dwelling were appreciated independently. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house(People vs. Evangelio, G.R. No. . 181902, August 31,2011).

That the armed men are accomplices who take part minor capacity, directly or indirectly (People vs. Lozano,

CRUELTY

That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. Thus, this circumstance should not be appreciated were armed men acted in concert to ensure the commission of the crime (People vs. Carino, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004). In conspiracy, all conspirators are liable as principals. They are not accomplices.

The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission and inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse. The victim in this case was already weak and almost dying when appellant Bonito inserted the cassava trunk inside her private organ. What appellant Bonito did to her was totally unnecessary for the criminal act intended and it undoubtedly inhumanly increased her suffering (People vs. Bernabe, G.R. No. 185726. October 16, 2009). The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because the victim sustained ten stab wounds, three of which were fatal. For cruelty to be considered as an aggravating circumstance there must be proof that, in inflicting several stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator intended to exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. The number of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof of cruelty (Simangan vs. People, G.R. No. 157984. July 8, 2004).

Page 29 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Q.

What are alternative circumstances?

Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. Under Article 15 of the RPC, the alternative circumstances are: 1. Relationship; 2. Intoxication; and 3. The degree of instruction and education of the offender.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSE Q.

Define absolutory cause. examples of absolutory causes.

Give

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Examples of absolutory causes are: a. Spontaneous desistance (Article 6); b. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability by reason of relationship (Article 20); c. Attempted and frustrated light felonies (Article 7); d. Slight and less serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Article 247); e. Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling and malicious mischief by reason of relationship (Article 332); f. Marriage by the offender to the offended party in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness— applicable to co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact. In case of rape, the absolutory cause only apples to the offender who married the offended party (Article 344); and g. Instigation.

Q.

Distinguish entrapment

instigation

from

In instigation the instigator practically induces the would-be offender into the

commission of the offense and becomes a coprincipal; while in entrapment, ways and means are resorted for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the law breaker but in the case of instigation, the accused must be acquitted. Criminal participator - Criminal participator is the offender who participated in committing a crime by indispensable or dispensable act. He performed an act, which is not constitutive of felony but intended to give moral or material aid to the chief actor. With conspiracy - If there is conspiracy, the criminal participator or cooperator is a principal by direct participation. The act of the chief actor is considered the act of the criminal participator. Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and means In order to trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent to commit an offense originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses and schemes.45 Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction (People vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. 180919, January 9, 2013). A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation, or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation (People vs. Espiritu, supra). Chief actor - Criminal or chief actor is the person who actually committed the crime. He is the one who committed or omitted the act, which causes the criminal result. HeIt is immaterial whether appellant acted as a principal or as an accomplice because the

Page 30 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

conspiracy and his participation therein have been established. In conspiracy, the act of one Is the act of all and the conspirators shall be held equally liable for the crime (People vs. Siongco, G.R. No. 186472, July 5,2010).

Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty: 1. 2.

Without conspiracy - If there is no conspiracy, criminal participator may be held liable as principal by indispensable cooperation, accomplice or accessory depending upon the nature and time of participation. A criminal participator may participate in the commission of the crime by previous, simultaneous and/or subsequent acts. Previous or simultaneous acts — To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime (Maliao vs. People, G.R. No..278G5S, M* 52, 2009}. If there Is community of design, but his previous (U.S. vs. Ibanez, G.R. No. 6003, August 07, 1011') or simultaneous (People vs. Degoma, G.R. No. 89404-05, May 22, 1992) participation is indispensable to the commission of the crime, he Is liable as principal by indispensable cooperation. Subsequent acts - The criminal participator by subsequent acts is liable as an accessory. An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, but, with knowledge of the commission of the crime, he subsequently takes part by any of the three modes under Article 19.The liability of accessory and principal should also be considered as quasi-collective. It is quasicollective in the sense that the principal and the accessory are liable for the felony committed but the penalty for the latter is two degrees lower than that for the former PENALTIES

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING, without affecting the integrity of the human personality. Must be COMMENSURATE to the offense – different crimes must be punished with different penalties. Must be PERSONAL – no one should be punished for the crime of another. Must be LEGAL – it is the consequence of a judgment according to law. Must be CERTAIN – no one may escape its effects. Must be EQUAL for all. Must be CORRECTIONAL.

PURPOSES Purpose of penalty under the RPC: (1) RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION – the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. It permits society to exact proportionate revenge, and the offender to atone for his wrongs. (2) CORRECTION OR REFORMATION – as shown by the rules which regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty. (3) SOCIAL DEFENSE – shown by its inflexible severity to recidivist and habitual delinquents. CLASSIFICATIONS MAJOR CLASSIFICATION (a) PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – those expressly imposed by the court in the judgment of conviction. (b) ACCESSORY PENALTIES – those that are deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalties. SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES – those imposed in lieu of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine. RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT

Penalty - is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law.

If the law was amended to change the penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, the amendatory law, being more

Page 31 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

lenient to the accused than the previous law, should be accorded retroactive application. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment. (People vs. Pang, G.R. No. 176229, October 19,2011) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW RA 9165 provides that illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. The court sentenced the accused to suffer a straight penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day. Is the penalty imposed by the court correct? No. The indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that if it is a case of a special law, the accused shall be sentenced "to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." (Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011) THREE-FOLD AND 40 YEARS LIMITATION RULE Simultaneous service - When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. Thus, convict could serve simultaneously arresto mayor and fine, prision correctional and perpetual absolute disqualification, or reclusion perpetua and civil interdiction. In sum, while lingering in prison, convict could pay fine, return the property confiscated, be disallowed to cast his vote or to act function as a public officer. In Rodriguez

vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-35386, September 28,1972,En Banc - Penalties which

could be served simultaneously with other penalties, are perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary special disqualification, public censure, suspension from public office and other accessory penalties. There are only two modes of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. Successive service - When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them successively if the nature of the penalties will not permit simultaneous service. Convict must serve multiple penalties successively: (1) where the penalties to be served are destierro and imprisonment; and (2) where the penalties to be served are imprisonment. However, the

successive service of sentences is subject to the three-fold rule and 40-year limitation rule. Three-fold rule - The maximum period of the imprisonment that convict must suffer in serving multiple penalties must not exceed threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. "A" was sentenced to suffer penalty of 7 years of prision mayor for serious physical injuries, 6 years of prision correccional for qualified less serious physical injuries, 5 years of prision correccional for robbery and 5 years of prison correccional for theft. The total duration of the penalties imposed on him is 23 years. The most severe penalty imposed on him is 7 years of prision mayor. Thus, threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties is 21 years. "A" will be imprisoned for 21 years because of the three-fold rule.

Forty-year limitation rule - The maximum period of the imprisonment that convict must suffer in serving multiple penalties must not exceed forty years. "A" was sentenced to suffer three penalties of 15 years of reclusion temporal for three counts of homicide and the penalty of 10 years of prision mayor for serious physical injuries. The total duration of the penalties imposed on him is 55 years. The most severe penalty imposed on him, is 15 years of reclusion temporal. Thus, threefold the length of time corresponding tothe most severe of the penalties is 45 years. "A" will be imprisoned for 40 years because of the forty year limitation rule.

Article 70 provides that "the maximum i duration of the convict's sentence shall not be • more than threefofd the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years." Applying said rule, despite the four penalties of reclusion perpetua for four counts of qualified theft, accused-appellant shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years (People vs. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011).

Page 32 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

REVISED PENAL CODE Reference: Lexoterica 2014 Cases Topic: Cyberlibel; only the author of the libelous statement or article penalized.

the act of Castro of inviting Atibula Atienza‘s party, without any other proof Castro‘s participation, was instrumental or, the very least, reasonably connected Atienza and his own alleged participation the above-stated crimes.

to of at to in

Topic: Complex crime of carnapping with

homicide; when present; proof required.

Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014. Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, merely affirms that online defamation constitutes ―similar means‖ for committing libel. But the Supreme Court‘s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal code provisions on libel were enacted. The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print. The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything goes writing style. In a sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader‘s reaction to defamatory statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet users.

People of the Philippines v. Joel Aquino y Cendana, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014. To prove the special complex 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 killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. The appellate court correctly observed that the killing of Jesus cannot qualify the carnapping into a special complex crime because the carnapping was merely an afterthought when the victim‘s death was already accomplished. Thus, appellant is guilty only of simple carnapping. Topic: Homicide; guilt beyond reasonable

doubt; non-identification presentation of the weapon.

and

non-

Ricardo Medina, Jr. y Oriel v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014.

Topic: Conspiracy; direct proof. Ricardo L. Atienza and Alfredo A. Castro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188694, February 12, 2014 While direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which point to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests, records are, however, bereft of any showing as to how the particular acts of petitioners figured into the common design of taking out the subject volume and inserting the falsified documents therein. It would be a stretch to conclude that

The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino. Hence, the establishment beyond reasonable doubt of Ricardo‘s guilt for the homicide did not require the production of the weapon used in the killing as evidence in court, for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo the trial court clearly looked at, considered and appreciated the entirety of the record and the evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used was not indispensable considering that the

Page 33 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

finding of guilt was based on other evidence proving his commission of the crime. Topic: Homicide; guilt beyond reasonable

doubt; non-identification presentation of the weapon.

and

non-

Rodolfo Guevarra and Joey Guevarra v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014. The petitioners‘ intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of wounds sustained by their victims. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim. Topic: Libel; elements. Jose Jesus M. Disini Jr., et al v. The Secretary of Justice, et al, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014. The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. There is ―actual malice‖ or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice. Topic: Personal property; concept of. World Wide Web Corporation, et al. v. People of the Philippines, et al./Planet Internet Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company ,G.R. Nos. 161106/161266, January 13, 2014.

In Laurel v. Abrogar, the Supreme Court (SC) reviewed the existing laws and jurisprudence on the generally accepted concept of personal property in civil law as ―anything susceptible of appropriation.‖ It includes ownership of telephone services, which are protected by the penal provisions on theft. SC therein upheld the Amended Information charging the petitioner with the crime of theft against PLDT inasmuch as the allegation was that the former was engaged in international simple resale (ISR) or ―the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined.‖ SC reasoned that since PLDT encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits telephone calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities, the use of these communications facilities without its consent constitutes theft, which is the unlawful taking of telephone services and business. SC then concluded that the business of providing telecommunications and telephone services is personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and that the act of engaging in ISR is an act of ―subtraction‖ penalized under said article. Furthermore, toll bypass operations could not have been accomplished without the installation of telecommunications equipment to the PLDT telephone lines. Topic: Political offense doctrine; concept. Saturnino C. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, et al, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014. Under the political offense doctrine, ―common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as ‗common‘ offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.‖ Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion. Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of rebellion, the killing is not homicide or

Page 34 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

murder. Rather, the killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone.

prosecution was able to prove the existence of all above elements beyond the shadow of a doubt. Accordingly, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly meted out.

Qualifying circumstance; treachery; when present.

Topic: Rape; impregnation not an element of

People of the Philippines v. Joel Aquino y Cendana G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014.

People of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.

Topic:

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real chance to defend himself. Even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Records disclose that Jesus was stabbed by the group on the lateral part of his body while he was under the impression that they were simply leaving the place where they had a shabu session. Judicial notice can be taken that when the tricycle driver is seated on the motorcycle, his head is usually higher or at the level of the roof of the side car which leaves his torso exposed to the passengers who are seated in the side car. Hence, there was no way for Jesus to even be forewarned of the intended stabbing of his body both from the people seated in the side car and those seated behind him. Thus, the trial court‘s finding of treachery was affirmed.

rape.

It is not absurd nor contrary to human experience that AAA gave birth ten (10) months after the alleged sexual assault as there may be cases of long gestations. In any event, SC dismissed appellant‘s contention as immaterial to the case at bar because jurisprudence reveals that impregnation is not an element of rape. It is well-entrenched in case law that the rape victim‘s pregnancy and resultant childbirth are irrelevant in determining whether or not she was raped. Pregnancy is not an essential element of the crime of rape. Whether the child which the rape victim bore was fathered by the accused, or by some unknown individual, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim against the latter‘s will or without her consent, and such fact was testified to by the victim in a truthful manner. Topic: Rape; one count for each separate act

of sexual assault. People of the Philippines v. Manolito Lucena y Velasquez, G.R. No. 190632, February 26, 2014

Topic: Qualified rape; elements.

People of the Philippines v. Rolando Bautista Iroy, G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010 To convict appellant for the offense, the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of (1) sexual congress, (2) with a woman, (3) by force and without consent; and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the additional elements that (4) the victim is under eighteen years of age at the time of the rape, and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the

The appellant, citing People v. Aaron, insists that he cannot be convicted of three (3) counts of rape despite the three (3) penetrations because he was motivated by a single criminal intent. However, it appears from the facts that the appellant thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part of AAA. The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein the appellant would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he has regained his strength, he would again rape AAA. Hence, it can be clearly inferredfrom the foregoing that when the appellant decided to commit those

Page 35 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon AAA, he was not motivated by a single impulse, but rather by several criminal intent. Hence, his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is indubitable. The three insertions into AAA were in satiation of successive but distinct criminal carnality. Therefore, the appellant‘s conviction for three counts of rape is proper. Topic: Rape; sweetheart theory. People of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014 For the sweetheart theory to be believed when invoked by the accused, convincing evidence to prove the existence of the supposed relationship must be presented by the proponent of the theory. For the [―sweetheart‖] theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. For the satisfaction of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their common friends or, if none, a substantiation by tokens of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures and the like. In the present case, although it is a person other than the accused who is claiming to be the victim‘s sweetheart and the father of her child, such an assertion must nonetheless be believably demonstrated by the evidence. The defense failed to discharge the burden of proving that AAA and Jackie Gucela had any kind of romantic or sexual relationship which resulted in AAA‘s pregnancy. Topic: Rape; three guiding principles in rape prosecutions. People of the Philippines v. Aurelio Jastiva G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014.

utmost care and caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. So, when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime of rape was committed. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that if the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible, a conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victim‘s testimony. This is because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit to being raped and, thus, run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. Topic: Rape; two modes of committing rape. People of the Philippines v. BernabePareja y Cruz G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014. The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual violence on ―sex-related‖ orifices other than a woman‘s organ is included in the crime of rape; and the crime‘s expansion to cover gender-free rape. The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and the introduction of rape by ‗sexual assault‘ as differentiated from the traditional ‗rape through carnal knowledge‘ or ‗rape through sexual intercourse. Thus, under the new provision, rape can be committed in two ways: 1. Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as ―organ rape‖ or ―penile rape.‖ The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called ―instrument or object rape,‖ or ―gender-free rape.‖ It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph.

he three guiding principles in rape prosecutions are as follows: (1) an accusation of rape is easy to make, and difficult to prove, but it is even more difficult to disprove; (2) bearing in mind the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with

Page 36 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

==== REVISED PENAL CODE 2010 - 2013 Cases

Amistoso was charged before the RTC of Masbate City, Branch 48, with the rape of his daughter, AAA, alleged to be 12 years old at the time of the incident. The Information specifically charged Amistoso with statutory rape under Article 266-A, par. (1)(d) of the RPC, as amended.

Topic: Self-defense. People of the Philippines Vs. Vergara & Inocencio, G.R. No. 177763, July 3, 2013 Anent accused-appellant Vergara‘s claim of self-defense, the following essential elements had to be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the art of the person resorting to self-defense. However, the most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It ―presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger—not merely threatening and intimidating action‖. It is present ―only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one‘s life.‖ In the present case, the element of unlawful aggression is absent. By the testimonies of all the witnesses, the victim‘s actuations did not constitute unlawful aggression to warrant the use of forces employed by accuse-appellant Vergara. The records reveal that the victim had been walking home albeit drunk when he passed by accused-appellants. However, there is no indication of any untoward action from him to warrant the treatment that he had by accused-appellant Vergara‘s hands.

The CA in its decision dated August 25, 2011, affirmed Amistoso‘s conviction of qualified rape. Insisting upon his innocence, Amistoso appealed to this Court. In its Decision dated January 9, 2013, the Court affirmed with modification the judgment of conviction against Amistoso, expressly making him liable for interest on the amounts of damages awarded. However, in a letter dated February 7, 2013, Ramoncito Roque, Officer-in-Charge, Inmate Documents and Processing Division of the Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court that Amistoso had died on December 11, 2102 at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), Muntinlupa City. Roque attached to his letter a photocopy of the Death Report by Marylou V. Arbatin, MD, Medical Officer III, NBP, stating that Amistoso, 62 yrs old, died at about 5pm, on December 11, 2012 of Cardio Respiratory Arrest. Roque‘s letter was received by the Court on February 12, 2013. Yet on February 22, 2013, the Public Attorney‘s Office (PAO), which represented Amistoso and which was apparently unaware of its client‘s demise, still filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court‘s Decision dated January 9, 2013. Article 89 of the RPC provides: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

Topic: Death extinguishing criminal liability

1.

People of the Philippines Vs. Anastacio B. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013

By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. xxx xxx xxx

Page 37 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

In People vs. Bayotas, the Court laid down the rules in case the accused dies prior to final judgment: 1.

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, ―the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.‖

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a. Law b. Contracts c. Quasi-contracts d. Xxx e. Quasi-delicts 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/ administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based is explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the privateoffended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article

1155 of the Civil Code that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. Given the foregoing, it is clear that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto. Since the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case. Undeniably, Amistoso‘s death on December 11, 2012 preceded the promulgation by the Court of its Decision on January 9, 2013. When Amistoso died, his appeal before the Court was still pending and unresolved. The Court ruled upon Amistoso‘s appeal only because it was not immediately informed of his death. Amistoso‘s death on December 11, 20102 renders the Court‘s Decision dated January 9, 2013, even though affirming Amistoso‘s conviction, irrelevant and ineffectual. Moreover, said Decision has not yet become final, and the Court still has the jurisdiction to set it aside. Topic: Malversation. Major Joel Cantos Vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 184908, July 3, 2013 Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: Xxxx 5. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its

Page 38 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

maximum perpetua.

period

to

reclusion

In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060). Thus, the elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. that the offender is a public officer; 2. that he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. that those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and 4. that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. The Sandiganbayan did not commit a reversible error in its decision convicting petitioner of malversation of public funds The Supreme Court (SC) noted that all the abovementioned elements are here present. Petitioner was a public officer occupying the position of commanding Officer of the 22nd FSU of the AFP Finance Center, PSG. By reason of his position, he was tasked to supervise the disbursement of the Special Duty Allowances and other Maintenance Operating Funds of the PSG personnel, which are indubitably public funds for which he was accountable. Petitioner in fact admitted in his testimony that he had complete control and custody of these funds. As to the element of misappropriation, indeed petitioner failed to rebut the legal presumption that he had misappropriated the fees to his personal use. In convicting petitioner, the Sandiganbayan cites the presumption in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which states that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing fund or property to personal uses. The presumption is, of course, rebuttable. Accordingly, if petitioner is able to present adequate evidence that can

nullify any likelihood that he put the funds or property to personal use, then that presumption would be at an end and the prima facie case is effectively negated. In this case, however, petitioner failed to overcome this prima facie evidence of guilt. He failed to explain the missing funds in his account and to restitute the amount upon demand. His claim that the money was taken by robbery or theft is self-serving and has not been supported by evidence. In fact, petitioner even tried to unscrew the safety vault to make it appear that the money was forcibly taken. Moreover, petitioner‘s explanation that there is a possibility that the money was taken by another is belied by the fact that there was no sign that the steel cabinet was forcibly opened. The SC also took note of the fact that it was only petitioner who had the keys to the steel cabinet. Thus, the explanation set forth by petitioner is unsatisfactory and does not overcome the presumption that he has put the missing funds to personal use. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by nengligence. The dolo or culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper. All that is necessary for conviction is sufficient proof that the accountable officer had received public funds, that he did not have them in his possession when demand thereof was made, and that he could not satisfactorily explain his failure to do so. Direct evidence of personal misappropriation by the accused is hardly necessary as long as the accused cannot exlain satisfactorily the shortage in his accounts. Topic: Murder. People of the Philippines Vs. Dearo, et. al., G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013 We also find that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the RTC and the CA. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. We have ruled that treachery is present when an assailant

Page 39 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

takes advantage of a situation in which the victim is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened. It has been established by the prosecution, and even confirmed by the defense, that the victims were sleeping when they were shot. To be precise, it was Emeterio who was asleep when he was shot, considering that the women were able to cry for help before the rapid firing that silenced them. In any case, it was clear that the women were in no position to defend themselves, having been rudely awakened by the shooting of their companion. The fact that they shouted for help also showed their loss of hope in the face of what was coming – rapid gunfire from long firearms. Evident premeditation further aggravates the crime of murder committed by appellants. "The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment." Evidence shows that Luague had a grudge against Porferia, and that their last confrontation occurred a day before the shooting. The involvement of appellants Dearo and Toledo was shown by the testimony of Jose Santiago that the two were with Luague three days before the shooting. Appellant Dearo then vowed to kill Emeterio. These uncontroverted pieces of evidence clearly showed the instances when appellants resolved to commit the felony. The space of time from the resolution to the actual execution allowed them to contemplate on the matter, or maybe even reconsider. That they did not reconsider is shown by the case before us now. Thus, it has been established that appellants killed Emeterio, Porferia and Analiza. Appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance, the crime is properly denominated as murder. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code(RPC) punishes murder with reclusion perpetua to death. With the further appreciation of evident premeditation as generic aggravating circumstance, (xxx source text unreadable xxx) However, since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, the penalty that shall be imposed on appellants is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Topic: Rape People of the Philippines Vs. Jojie Suansing, G.R. No. 189822, September 2, 2013 Carnal knowledge of a woman suffering from mental retardation is rape since she is incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Under these circumstances, all that needs to be proved for a successful prosecution are the facts of sexual congress between the rapist and his victim, and the latter‘s mental retardation. Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353 states that: Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. From these requisites, it can thus be deduced that rape is committed the moment the offender has sexual intercourse with a person suffering from mental retardation. ―Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A mental condition of retardation deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. For this reason, sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal act already constitutes

Page 40 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

rape, without requiring proof that the accused used force and intimidation in committing the act.‖ Only the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim and the latter‘s mental retardation need to be proved. Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the rape qualifies and makes it punishable by death. Paragraph 10, Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended, provides: Article 266-B. Penalty. xxx The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: xxxx 10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Thus, knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the commission of the crime of rape qualifies and makes it punishable by death. Topic: Rape. People of the Philippines Vs. Marciano Cial, G.R. No. 191362, October 9, 2013 We find however that both the trial court and the CA erred in convicting appellant of the crime of qualified rape. According to both courts, the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship attended the commission of the crime. We rule otherwise. In its Formal Offer of Evidence, the prosecution mentioned ―AAA‘s‖ Certificate of Live Birth. Also attached to the Folder of Exhibits marked as Exhibit ―B‖ is ―AAA‘s‖ Certificate of Live Birth showing that ―AAA‖ was born on October 31, 1991. However, upon closer scrutiny, we note that the said Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or offered during the trial of the case. During the March 28, 2006 hearing, the prosecution manifested before the RTC that it will be presenting ―AAA‘s‖ Certificate of Live Birth at

the next setting. In its Order19 dated June 27, 2006, the trial court reset the hearing of the case to allow the prosecution to present evidence with respect to ―AAA‘s‖ Certificate of Live Birth. However, up until the prosecution rested its case, nobody was presented to testify on ―AAA‘s‖ Certificate of Live Birth. Records show that the prosecution presented only ―AAA‖ and Dr. Imperial as its witnesses. Dr. Imperial never testified on ―AAA‘s‖ age. On the other hand, ―AAA‖ even testified on the witness stand that she does not know her age. Clearly, the prosecution failed to prove the minority of ―AAA‖. The same is true with respect to the other qualifying circumstance of relationship. The prosecution likewise miserably failed to establish ―AAA‘s‖ relationship with the appellant. Although the Information alleged that appellant is the common-law husband of ―AAA‘s‖ mother, ―AAA‘‖ referred to appellant as her step-father. Even the RTC interchangeably referred to appellant as the common-law husband of ―AAA‘s‖ mother as well as the step-father of ―AAA‖. Moreover, the RTC failed to cite any basis for its reference to appellant as such. In fact, the RTC Decision is bereft of any discussion as to how it reached its conclusion that appellant is the common-law husband of ―AAA‘s‖ mother or that ―AAA‖ is his stepdaughter. The CA committed the same error. Notwithstanding appellant‘s claim that he is married to ―AAA‘s‖ mother, it went on to declare, without any explanation or justification, that appellant is the common-law husband of ―AAA‘s‖ mother. The terms ―common-law husband‖ and ―stepfather‖ have different legal connotations. For appellant to be a step-father to ―AAA,‖ he must be legally married to ―AAA‘s‖ mother. Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime itself. In this case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. As such, appellant should only be convicted of the crime of simple rape, the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua.

Page 41 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Topic: Qualified rape. People of the Philippines Vs. Marvin Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, September 18, 2013 A review of the CA decision shows that it did not commit any reversible error in affirming Cayanan‘s conviction. Record shows that Cayanan forced AAA to have sex with him on February 1, 2001 and threatened her and her family with physical harm. The testimony of Adriano, meanwhile, corroborated AAA‘s testimony that Cayanan forcibly took her by the school campus gate on February 26, 2001 and thereafter raped her. The defense failed to show any reason why the prosecution‘s evidence should not be given weight or credit. Moreover, the claim that they were sweethearts does not justify the commission of the crimes. For the Court to even consider giving credence to the sweetheart defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory. Independent proof is required ― such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. And while Cayanan produced two love letters allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly sustained the finding of the RTC that these letters were unauthenticated and therefore, bereft of any probative value. The Court, however, finds that Cayanan should be convicted only of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. In this case, circumstances show that the victim‘s abduction was with the purpose of raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged her into the tricycle, he took her to several places until they reached his sister‘s house where he raped her inside the bedroom. Under these circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction. Topic: Kidnapping for ransom. People of the Philippines Vs. Halil Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013 Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas and Evad argue in their respective briefs that conspiracy, insofar as they were concerned, was not

convincingly established. Dukilman hinges his argument on the fact that he was not one of those arrested during the rescue operation based on the testimony of Inspector Ouano. On the other hand, Ronas and Evad base their argument on the fact that they had no participation whatsoever in the negotiation for the ransom money. The Supreme Court held otherwise. Although Dukilman was not one of those apprehended at the cottage during the rescue operation, the testimony of Police Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that he was one of the four people apprehended when the police intercepted the Tamaraw FX at the Nichols Tollgate. Likewise, the testimony of Police Inspector Ouano sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad were two of those who were arrested during the rescue operation. It has been held that to be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. Further, proof of the conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before, during or after the commission of the crime indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. The testimonies, when taken together, reveal the common purpose of the accusedappellants and how they were all united in its execution from beginning to end. There were testimonies proving that (1) before the incident, two of the accused-appellants kept coming back to the victim‘s house; (2) during the kidnapping, accused-appellants changed shifts in guarding the victim; and (3) the accused appellants were those present when the ransom money was recovered and when the rescue operation was conducted. Seeing that conspiracy among Gambao, Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen, Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the proffered evidence of the prosecution, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. Jurisprudence is instructive of the elements required, in accordance with Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice, namely, (1) that there be community of design; that is knowing the criminal design of the principal by

Page 42 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. The defenses raised by Perpenian are not sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. Assuming arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was a swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A rational person would have suspected something was wrong and would have reported such incident to the police. Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and to add to that, she even spent the night at the cottage. It has been held before that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. It should be noted that the accused-appellant‘s presence and company were not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. Clemente, et al., where it was stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal. Topic: Estafa / Swindling. People of the Philippines Vs. Gilbert Reyes Wagas, G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013 Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides: Article 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: xxxx 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

xxxx (d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender. The essential elements of the crime charged are that: (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (c) damage to the payee thereof. It is the criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable, not the non-payment of a debt. Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor. It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty of estafa as charged, must have used the check in order to defraud the complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he had issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means of the check.

Page 43 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Thirdly, Ligaray admitted that it was Cañada who received the rice from him and who delivered the check to him. Considering that the records are bereft of any showing that Cañada was then acting on behalf of Wagas, the RTC had no factual and legal bases to conclude and find that Cañada had been acting for Wagas. This lack of factual and legal bases for the RTC to infer so obtained despite Wagas being Cañada‘s brother-in-law. Nevertheless, an accused, though acquitted of estafa, may still be held civilly liable where the preponderance of the established facts so warrants. Wagas as the admitted drawer of the check was legally liable to pay the amount of it to Ligaray, a holder in due course. Consequently, we pronounce and hold him fully liable to pay the amount of the dishonored check, plus legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision.

Are the elements of estafa under paragraph 2(a) present in the above-quoted Information? Arguably so, because the accused represented to the injured party that he would be delivering the commission to Mr. Banaag; and because of this representation, KN Inc. turned over checks payable to Mr. Banaag to the accused. In turn, the accused rediscounted the checks for money, to the detriment of both Mr. Banaag and KN Inc. However, this set of facts seems to miss the precision required of a criminal conviction. Estafa under paragraph 2(a) is swindling by means of false pretense, and the words of the law bear this out: Article 315. xxxx 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. x x x.

Topic: Estafa. Fernando M. Espino Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188217, July 3, 2013 The crime charged was estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Its elements are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. However, the crime the accused was convicted of was estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a). The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) that there is a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means is made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party relies on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he is induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

In this case, there was no use of a fictitious name, or a false pretense of power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, or business. At the most, the situation could be likened to an imaginary transaction, although the accused was already trusted with the authority to deliver commissions to Mr. Banaag. The pretense was in representing to the injured party that there was a deliverable commission to Mr. Banaag, when in fact there was none. Instead of unduly stretching this point, the Court deems it wiser to give the offense its true, formal name – that of estafa through abuse of confidence under paragraph 1(b). Paragraph 1(b) provides liability for estafa committed by misappropriating or converting to the prejudice of another money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though that obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. This at least, is very

Page 44 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

clearly shown by the factual allegations of the Informations. Topic: Bigamy. James Walter Capili Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013 In essence, the issue is whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy. We rule in the negative. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of bigamy as follows: Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. In the present case, it appears that all the elements of the crime of bigamy were present when the Information was filed on June 28, 2004. It is undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and private respondent was contracted on December 8, 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first marriage between petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated. In Jarillo v. People, the Court affirmed the accused‘s conviction for bigamy ruling that the crime of bigamy is consummated on the celebration of the subsequent marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, viz.: The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner‘s assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner‘s marriage to [private complainant] had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner‘s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. In like manner, the Court recently upheld the ruling in the aforementioned case and ruled that what makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. It further held that the parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when

Page 45 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. Finally, it is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage with private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner‘s second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him.

G.R. No. 191404, July 5, 2010 To reiterate the elements of a violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, violation thereof exists where: (1) a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for value; (2) the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of the check upon its presentment; and (3) the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. Topic: Bigamy; defense of nullity of prior

marriage

Topic: Arson; objective of arson; distinguished

Cenon R. Teves v. People of the Philippines and Danilo R. Bongalon G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011

from homicide/murder. People of the Philippines Vs. Ferdinand T. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010 In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated – whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective 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 objective is to kill 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 objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed – homicide/murder and arson. Topic: Batas Pambansa Bilang 22; elements. Eumelia R. Mitra vs. People of the Philippines and Felicisimo S. Tarcelo

The Supreme Court debunked petitioner‘s contention that he cannot be charged with bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The FamilyCode has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. The Supreme Court noted that in petitioner‘s case the complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared a nullity. It was only the filing of the Information that was overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his first marriage. Following petitioner‘s argument, even assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in this case, the offender can still escape liability provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of the Information in court.Such cannot be allowed. To do so would make the crime

Page 46 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

of bigamy dependent upon the ability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to immediately act on complaints and eventually file Informations in court. Topic: Composite crime; defined

Composite crime and compound crime differentiated People v.Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012 The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law and differs from a compound or complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that ―[w]hen a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. There are distinctions between a composite crime, on the one hand, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information. Topic: Criminal Liability; effect of death of

accused pending appeal People vs. Jaime Ayochok y Tauli,

G.R. No. 175784, August 25, 2010. Ayochok‘s death on January 15, 2010, during the pendency of his appeal, extinguished not only his criminal liability for the crime of murder committed against SPO1 Claudio N. Caligtan, but also his civil liability arising solely from or based on his crime. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Thus, the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely thereon. Topic: Criminal liability; effect of death

pending appeal People of the Philippines v. Saturnino Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 190610, April 25, 2012. On 29 July 2009, a Notice of Appeal was filed by Brillantes through counsel before the Supreme Court. While this case is pending appeal, the Prisons and Security Division Officer-in-Charge informed the Court that accused-appellant Brillantes died while committed at the Bureau of Corrections on 3 January 2012 as evidenced by a copy of death report signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospital‘s Medical. Hence, the issue here is the effect of death pending appeal of the conviction of accused-appellant Brillantes with regard to his criminal and pecuniary liabilities. The Revised Penal Code is instructive on the matter. It provides in Article 89(1) that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. It is plain that both the personal penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary penalty of fine of Brillantes were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts. There is no civil liability involved in violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. No private offended party is involved as there

Page 47 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

is in fact no reference to civil liability in the decision of the trial court. The appeal of Brillantes culminating in the extinguishment of his criminal liability, however, does not have any effect on his co- accused De la Cruz who did not file a notice of appeal. Topic: Continued crimes; foreknowledge to

prove single intent Santiago Paera v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011 Petitioner‘s theory, fusing his liability to one count of Grave Threats because he only had ―a single mental resolution, a single impulse, and single intent‖ to threaten the Darongs assumes a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente‘s presence near the water tank in the morning of 8 April 1999. The records, however, belie this assumption. Moreover, petitioner went to the water tank not to execute his ―single intent‖ to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but to investigate a suspected water tap. Not having known in advance of the Darongs‘ presence near the water tank at the time in question, petitioner could not have formed any intent to threaten any of them until shortly before he inadvertently came across each of them. Petitioner‘s theory holds water only if the facts are altered – that is, he threatened Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente at the same place and at the same time. Topic: Novation; extinguishment of criminal

liability. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Rogelio Reynaldo and Jose C. Adrandea G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010 It is best to emphasize that ―novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the extinguishment of criminal liability.‖ In a catena of cases, it was ruled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise or novation of contract. In Firaza v. People and Recuerdo v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that in the crime of estafa, reimbursement or belated payment to

the offended party of the money swindled by the accused does not extinguish the criminal liability of the latter. Also, as held in People v. Moreno and in People v. Ladera, ―criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion even though complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended party.‖ Similarly in the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tonda, the Supreme Court ruled that in estafa, reimbursement of or compromise as to the amount misappropriated after the commission of the crime affects only the civil liability of the offender, and not his criminal liability.

Topic: Criminal Liability; self-defense; doctrine of rational equivalence. Ladislao Espinosa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010 The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the assailant—but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-àvis the unlawful aggression. A perusal of the facts shows that after petitioner was successful in taking down private complainant Merto – the former continued to hack the latter, who was, by then, already neutralized by the blow. This fact was clearly established by the testimony of Rodolfo Muya, who recounted having seen the petitioner continuously hacking the private complainant with the bolo scabbard, even as the latter lay almost motionless upon the muddy ground. Clearly, this ―continuous hacking‖ by the petitioner constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the private complainant‘s attack—and is therefore unjustified.

Page 48 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Topic: Frustrated and attempted homicide distinguished

without which the result would not have occurred.‖

Giovani Serrano y Cervantes vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010

The autopsy report indicated that the cause of the victim‘s death is multiple organ failure. According to Dr. Wilson Moll Lee, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, it can be surmised that multiple organ failure was secondary to a long standing infection secondary to a stab wound which the victim allegedlysustained. 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.

Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In Palaganas v. People, the Supreme Court made the following distinctions between frustrated and attempted felony as follows: (a) In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution; (b) In frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in attempted felony, the reason for the nonfulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender‘s own spontaneous desistance. Topic: Proximate cause; definition.

Rodolfo Belbis Jr. y Competente and Alberto Brucales v. People of thePhilippines, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012 The Supreme Court rejected the argument of petitioners that the Court of Appeals failed to consider in its entirety the testimony of the doctor who performed the autopsy. What really needs to be proven in a case when the victim dies is the proximate cause of his death. Proximate cause has been defined as ―that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and

Topic: Perjury; elements. EribertoMasangkay vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 164443, June 18, 2010. For perjury to exist, (1) there must be a sworn statement that is required by law; (2) it must be made under oath before a competent officer; (3) the statement contains a deliberate assertion of falsehood; and (4) the false declaration is with regard to a material matter. The first three elements were proven in the instant case. However, the prosecution failed to establish the element of deliberate falsehood. A conviction for perjury cannot be obtained by the prosecution by merely showing the inconsistent or contradictory statements of the accused, even if both statements are sworn. The prosecution must additionally prove which of the two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statement. Topic: Qualified rape; elements People of the Philippines v. DaniloPaculba, G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010 Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 provides that rape is committed by

Page 49 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (c) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Under Paragraph 7(1) of Article 335, the death penalty shall also be imposed if victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common- law spouse of the parent of the victim. Topic: Qualified theft; elements Clay & Feather International, Inc., et al v. Alexander T. Lichaytoo and Clifford T. Lichaytoo, G.R. No. 193105, May 30, 2011 To constitute the crime of theft, defined and penalized under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be established that: (1) there be taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking be accomplished without use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code under the following circumstances: (1) if the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) if the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) if the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter, or (c) large cattle; (4) if the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) if the property is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; or (6) if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil disturbance.

Topic: Swindling; elements.

Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010 Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code states that the penalty of aresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value shall be imposed upon any person who, knowing that a real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded. For petitioners to be convicted of the crime of swindling under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution had the burden to prove the confluence of the following essential elements of the crime: (1) that the thing disposed of be real property; (2) that the offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not; (3) that there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance; and (4) that the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another. Topic: Serious illegal detention; elements. People of the Philippines vs. EgapMadsali, SajironLajim and MaronLajim G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010 The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. In the case at bar, the accused who were private individuals, forcibly took and dragged the victim, a minor, to the forest

Page 50 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

and held her captive against her will. The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty. For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim‘s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. In this case, although the victim was not actually confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty, because she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to physically drag her to the forest away from her home. Topic: Technical malversation; mala prohibita. Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012. Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith when he diverted the food intended for those suffering from malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconstruction projects affecting the homes of victims of calamities since, first, the idea of using the Supplemental Feeding Program (―SFP‖) goods for the Core Shelter Assistance Program (―CSAP‖) beneficiaries came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and, second, he consulted the accounting department if the goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries. Having no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted of the crime of technical malversation. But criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.

======= SPECIAL LAW Topic: Accused; effects of escape of accused. People of the Philippines v. Asia Musa y Pinasilo, AraMonongan y Papao, FaisahAbasy Mama, and Mike Solalo y Mlok G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012 A review of the evidence on record shows that the chain of custody rule was sufficiently observed by the apprehending officers. Thru the testimonies of the PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago, the prosecution was able to prove that the shabu seized from accused Musa was the very same shabu presented in evidence as part of the corpus delicti. Hence, the fact that the PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago did not make an inventory of the seized items or that they did not take photographs of them is not fatal considering that the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the shabu was not jeopardized from the time of its seizure until the time it was presented in court. Topic: Alibi; physical impossibility must be proved People of the Philippines v. Mark Joseph R. Zapuiz G.R. No. 199713, February 20, 2013. For Jaymart‘s alibi to prosper, he must prove that not only was he somewhere else when Emmanuel was killed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. ―Physical impossibility‖ refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the rime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. Although Jaymart claimed that he was in Divisoria from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on October 10, 2005, Jaymart himself admitted that it would only take a five-minute tricycle ride to get from Divisoria to Parola, where Emmanuel was shot.

Page 51 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Topic: BP 33 Arnel U. Ty, et al vs. National Bureau of Investigation Supervising Agent Marvin E. De Jemil,et al G.R. No. 182147, December 15, 2010 A single underfilling constitutes an offense under BP 33, as amended by PD 1865, which clearly criminalizes these offenses. B.P. Blg. 33, as amended, criminalizes illegal trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum products. Under this general description of what constitutes criminal acts involving petroleum products, the DOE Circular No. 2000-06-010 merely lists the various modes by which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely: no price display board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare weight markings, no authorized LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing color, no embossed identifying markings on cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering LPG cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders. These specific acts and omissions are obviously within the contemplation of the law, which seeks to curb the pernicious practices of some petroleum merchants. The Court made it clear that a violation, like underfilling, on a per cylinder basis falls within the phrase of any act as mandated under Sec. 4 of BP 33, as amended. Ineluctably, the underfilling of one LPG cylinder constitutes a clear violation of BP 33, as amended. The finding of underfilling by LPG Inspector Navio of the LPGIA, as aptly noted by Manila Assistant City Prosecutor Catalo who conducted the preliminary investigation, was indeed not controverted by petitioners. Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal possession

of drugs. People of the Philippines vs. Mario Miguel y Bernabe, et al., G.R. No. 180505, June 29, 2010 In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely

and consciously possessed the said drug. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes primafacie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendisufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. Thus, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. Topic:

Dangerous Drugs Act; buy-bust operations; distinction between entrapment and instigation People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013 A buy -bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. One form of entrapment is the buy-bust operation. In entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by the informant.

Topic: Instigation entrapment.

distinguished

from

People of the Philippines v. Simpresueta M. Seraspe, January 2013 Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. It differs from entrapment which is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a criminal. In instigation, the criminal intent to commit an offense originates from the inducer and not from the accused who had no intention to commit and would not have committed it were it not for the prodding of the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses

Page 52 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

and schemes. Instigation results in the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction. Here, the evidence clearly established that the police operatives employed entrapment, not instigation, to capture appellant and her cohorts in the act of selling shabu. It must be recalled that it was only upon receipt of a report of the drug trafficking activities of Espiritu from the confidential informant that a buy-bust team was formed and negotiations for the sale of shabu were made. Also, appellant testified that she agreed to the transaction of her own free will when she saw the same as an opportunity to earn money. Notably too, appellant was able to quickly produce a sample. This confirms that she had a ready supply of the illegal drugs. Clearly, she was never forced, coerced or induced through incessant entreaties to source the prohibited drug for Carla and PO3 Cariño and this she even categorically admitted during her testimony. Topic: Dangerous Drugs Act; chain of custody

of 2006, the age of a child may be determined from the child‘s birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. Thus, pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law is imposed. Based on Article 61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the range of the penalty of imprisonment imposable on Monreal was prision mayor in any of its periods, as the minimum period, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the maximum period. Accordingly, his proper indeterminate penalty is from six years and one day of prision mayor, as the minimum period, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum period.

rule; links to be established. Topic: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare

Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188653. January 29, 2014.

Act), Suspension of sentence; minority

The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized 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 examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Topic: RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare

Act), Murder; penalty for minors; Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010 Under Section 7 of RA 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act

People of the Philippines vs. Allen UdtojanMantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20,2011. The appellant was 17 years old when the buybust operation took place or when the said offense was committed, but was no longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the RTC‘s Decision. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, while the RTC promulgated its decision on this case on September 14, 2005, when said appellant was no longer a minor. In People v. Sarcia (G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20), it was held that while Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of 21 years can no longer avail of the provisions of

Page 53 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his suspension of sentence, because this has already become moot and academic.

did not depart from the parallelism in Ang and give credence to petitioner‘s assertion that the act of violence should be due to the sexual or dating relationship.

Topic: RA 9262; violence against women and

children; crime of violence against women; elements; crime of violence against women need not be a consequence of an existing or present dating relationship. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, AngelesCity, January 2013 Petitioner here insists that the act which resulted in physical injuries to private respondent is not covered by RA 9262 because its proximate cause was not their dating relationship. Instead, he claims that the offense committed was only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. The Supreme Court (SC) did not give credence to this argument. In Ang v. Court of Appeals, the SC enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment, to wit: (1) The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman; (2) The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and (3) The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. Notably, while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred. Hence, applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, then, clearly, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. As correctly ruled by the Regional Trial Court, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. Consequently, the SC

Topic: Rape; statutory rape distinguished from

child abuse People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dahilig y Agaran, G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011 Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. Topic: Act of lasciviousness against a minor

under the Revised Penal Code and R.A. 7610 People of the Philippines v. IrenoBonaagua y Berce, G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011

Acts of lasciviousness as defined in Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (―RPC‖) has the following elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

Page 54 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

(2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: a) by using force or intimidation; or b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and; (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. Pursuant to the foregoing provision, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. 7610. To establish sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610, the following elements must be present: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Corollarily, Section 2(h) of the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines ―lascivious conduct‖ as ―[t]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.‖ The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals (―CA‖) that the accused was guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610. Undeniably, all the aforestated elements are present in Criminal Case No. 03-0255. The accused committed the crime of lascivious acts by touching the breasts and licking the vagina of AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as established by her birth certificate. As correctly

found by the CA, the accused is guilty of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. Topic: Differentiate trafficking and kidnapping Human trafficking is the illegal trade of people for sexual exploitation or forced labor. Victims of human trafficking can be men, women or child who are recruited, transported, or otherwise taken by force because they are vulnerable - they may be seeking a better life, lack employment opportunities, come from an unstable home, or have a history of sexual abuse. Kidnapping refers to transporting someone to another location without their consent, or in the case of child abduction, without parental consent. Kidnapping victims may be held in confinement without legal authority in furtherance of another crime, or in many cases in connection with a child custody dispute between parents or family members. Topic: RA 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act; Section 3(e); elements. Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9, 2010 To be found guilty under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), the following elements must concur: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer‘s official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. Among these elements, the first element is a given while the third element is in part dependent on the second element; the injury the petitioner suffered would be undue if the second element is present. The second and critical element provides the different modes for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, that is, through ―manifest partiality,‖ ―evident bad faith,‖ or ―gross inexcusable negligence.‖

Page 55 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Topic: RA 3019 orAnti-Graft and Corrupt

Topic: RA 3019 or Anti Graft Law; Section

Practices Act; Section 3(e); elements.

3(e); when private individuals included.

Rolando E. Sison v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403. March 9, 2010

Engr. Ricardo L. Santillano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010

The third element of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 may be committed in three ways, i.e., through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is enough to convict. The term ―partiality‖ under the third element is synonymous with ―bias‖ which excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they while ―bad faith‖ does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. ―Gross negligence‖ has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property.

While Section 3(e) does not contain a reference to private individuals, private individuals, under Section 4 (b) of the same law, may nonetheless be prosecuted under Section 3(e) thereof if he knowingly induces or causes any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Clearly, the law punishes not only public officers who commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec. 3, but also those who induce or cause the public official to commit those offenses. This is supported by Sec. 9, which includes private persons as liable for violations under Sections. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of RA 3019.

Topic: RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; undue injury

Efren L. Alvarez vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011 The term ―undue injury‖ in the context of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act punishing the act of ―causing undue injury to any party,‖ has a meaning akin to that civil law concept of ―actual damage.‖ Actual damage, in the context of these definitions, is akin to that in civil law. Article 2199 of the Civil Code provides that except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by a party as he has duly proved.

Page 56 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

with a felony under the Code. (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28 August 18, 2006 )

CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM PRE-WEEK HANDOUT Prepared by Justice Mario V. Lopez VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS RULE The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines do not justify a facial review of the validity of penal statutes. A facial challenge against a criminal statute is allowed only ―as applied‖ to a particular defendant which considers extant facts affecting real litigants or on the basis of its actual operation to the parties. Indeed, an "on-its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a departure from the usual requirement of "actual case and controversy" and permit decisions to be made in a sterile abstract context having no factual concreteness. (See Romualdez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 167011, December 11, 2008; and Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network vs. Anti-terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010) When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable. The inapplicability of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal statutes are appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are used to mount ‗facial‘ challenges to penal statutes not involving free speech.‖ (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014) DOUBLE JEOPARDY There is no double jeopardy in the following: (1) Estafa through falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. xxx Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 reads: ―Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.–In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:‖ x xx It is clear then that one may be charged of violation of R.A. No. 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged

(2) Falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. A comparison of their elements shows that there is neither identity nor exclusive inclusion between the offenses. No double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a variance between the elements of the offenses charged. The constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one. The differences between the elements needed to establish the commission of the two charges imply that the evidence required to prove the guilt or the innocence of the accused would likewise differ in each case.1 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408 January 31, 2005) (3) Direct bribery under the RPC and violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019. There is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses. While they have common elements, not all the essential elements of one offense are included among or form part of those enumerated in the other. (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007) Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law Libel by means of writing or ―similar means‖ is already punishable under the RPC. Cybercrime Law merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication, hence, online libel is not a new crime. Similarly, Cybercrime Law merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) so as to 1

For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the modes of falsification. On the other hand, under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the following elements must be present: (1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they cause undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Page 57 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

include identical activities in cyberspace. ACPA‘s definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of ―electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.‖ Thus, charging the offender under both the Cybercrime Law and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretray of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014) EXCESSIVE PENALTIES In crimes against property wherein the penalty is based on the value of the property, the court cannot modify the range of penalties based on the current inflation rate.xxx The primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should apply the law in a manner that would give effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is clear as to its intent and purpose. xxx The remedy here is to apply Article 5 of the RPC. The court will impose the penalty, although excessive, and recommend executive clemency thru the Department of Justice. (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014) MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. Here, tampering, increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate in any election or refusal, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes is inherently immoral (dagdag-bawas). It is mala in se requiring criminal intent of the accused. (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006)

Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose to another public purpose. It is mala prohibita. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012)

ARTICLE 4, REVISED PENAL CODE When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof (See Article 4 of the RPC). Here, petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching the victim who was much older than him. Even if he did not intend to cause the death of the victim, he must be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him because he is the cause of the cause of the evil caused. (Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010) CONSPIRACY Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011) All the conspirators are liable as coprincipals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all. Evidence as to who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow is therefore no longer indispensable since in conspiracy, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another.(People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011) Here, for failing to inflict mortal wounds, both appellants Ventura and Flores were held liable for attempted murder since they were shown to have acted in conspiracy with each other although Ventura did not directly participate in stabbing Jaime. Also, while appellants' original objective may have only been the killing of Jaime, appellant Ventura was correctly held liable for murder with appellant

Page 58 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Flores who stabbed Jaime's wife Aileen to death who just shouted for help after seeing his husband in mortal danger. (People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010) Accused-appellant who took no part in seizing the vehicle, an act not included in the common criminal plan, is not liable for carnapping. Well-settled is the rule that coconspirators are liable only for acts done in pursuant to the conspiracy, not for other acts done outside their contemplation or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime. (People v. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919 and 143876, February 4, 2003) There was no evidence to prove that all the appellants assisted Robito in killing Leonilo. It is settled that acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime do not affect the other accused. Co-conspirators are criminally liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy on how and what are the necessary and logical consequences of the intended crime. (People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028-30, April 2, 2003)

equal combat. (People v. Dequina, G.R. No. 177570, January 19, 2011) The elements of unlawful aggression are: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. (People v. Roman, G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013) Retaliation is not the same as selfdefense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in selfdefense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused. (People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013) DWELLING In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of tresspassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. (People v. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011)In robbery with force upon things, dwelling is inherent. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

SELF-DEFENSE Accused-appellants' flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed, their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully warranted the RTC‘s rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger. (People v. Vargas, et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012) The primordial element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. It is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011)A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in

Evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed (or wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance. Here, Raymundo Roque provided such violent resistance against the conspirators, giving the latter no choice but to eliminate him from their path. (People v. Ventura and Flores, G.R. No. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, citing People v. Belga, 258 SCRA 583) When it is not shown how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered. It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation,

Page 59 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, July 18, 2013) TREACHERY The idea of treachery does not apply when the killing is not premeditated or when the accused did not deliberately choose the means he employed for committing the crime. (People v. Teriapil, G.R. No. 191361, March 2, 2011) The situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was killed while tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crime. (People v. Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011) Treachery may be properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become aware of it. (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011) Treachery applies to robbery with homicide as a generic aggravating circumstance. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain interpreting and construing the penal code, which are accorded respect and persuasive, if not conclusive effect, have consistently applied treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide. It does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex crime because treachery is applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the constituent crime of "robbery". (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003) Treachery is not present when the killing is not premeditated, or where the sudden attack is not preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result of a provocative act of the victim, or when the killing is done at the spur of the moment. (People v. Cañaveras, G.R. No. 193839, December 27, 2013) ARTICLE 48, REVISED PENAL CODE

Appellants and their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and injured. The victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts of their bodies. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Obviously, appellants and their co-accused performed not only a single act but several individual and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not include ―single impulse.‖ (People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012) Distinctions between a composite crime and a complex or compound crime under Article 48: In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. The penalty for a composite crime is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012) If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.(Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006 DELITO CONTINUADO

Page 60 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

Delitocontinuado exists when there is a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. The informations should be consolidated into a single information for they charge what is known as delitocontinuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred to as "continuous crime." The informations charged petitioner with performing a single criminal act — that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in the original information each amended information states the name of the individual whose stay was legalized. Moreover, the informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document. (Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993)

citing Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 13, 1983) FALSIFICATION One is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. In other words, leaving a question blank in the PDS/SALN is falsification. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011) Conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is a proposition not arrived at by any process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. On the other hand, a narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event. It is a recital of things accomplished, of deeds, occurrence or happening. Disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN is a narration of facts. Statements concerning relationship is descriptive and may be proved as to its truth or falsity.

When there is delito continuado, the crime cannot be splitted into two or more crimes, otherwise, double jeopardy will set in.

A certification that one was "eligible‖ or ―qualified‖ is a conclusion of law although it turned out to be inexact or erroneous. It is an expression of belief or mistake of judgment.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

MALVERSATION

Penalty for the crime proved, not charged, determines the applicable prescriptive period. Thus, where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense includible within the graver offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accussing the defendant of the graver offense.(Damasco v. Laqui, G.R. No. 81381, September 30, 1988,

Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation or passively through negligence. Even when the Information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. (Torres v. People, G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011) The Boy Scouts of the Philippines is a

Page 61 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

public corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality, which does not fall within the constitutional prohibition in Article XII, Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments to its charter. Not all corporations, which are not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be considered private corporations as there exists another distinct class of corporations or chartered institutions which are otherwise known as ―public corporations.‖ These corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities of the government which are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic viability but to different criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional policies and objectives and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its Departments or Offices. (Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 177131, June 7, 2011) In technical malversation, public fund or property is considered appropriated if it had been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific expenditure. Here, there is no technical malversation after the ―general fund‖ of the municipality, intended by internal arrangement for use in paying a particular road, was applied instead to the payrolls of different barangay wrokers. (Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69, November 19, 2013) RAPE Medical evidence is dispensable and merely corroborative in proving the crime of rape. (People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011)The presence of hymenal lacerations is not a required element in the crime of rape. (People v. Otos, G.R. No. 189821, March 23, 2011) It is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. (People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011) Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years

of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011) The degree of resistance that the victim may put up against the rapist need not be tenacious. Article 266-D of the RPC provided presumptions that: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A. (People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012) The accused cannot be convicted of rape through sexual assault, although proven during trial, if what was charged in the information is rape through carnal knowledge. This violated the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is proper to convict the accused of acts of lasciviousness as it is necessarily included in rape. (People v. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013) Sexual assault is committed by inserting the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also called "instrument or object rape", also "gender-free rape" or the narrower "homosexual rape."(People v. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013) RAPE WITH HOMICIDE In rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the person killed is someone other than the woman victim of rape. (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011) The phrase by reason of the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. xxx In contrast, the legislative intent on the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape refer to a killing that occurs immediately before or after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the

Page 62 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

killing is linked to the rape became evident. (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012) KIDNAPPING In the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, it matters not that no ransom was actually paid, it being sufficient that a demand for it was made. (People v. Salvador, et. al., G.R. No. 201443, April 10, 2013) The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. (Con-ui, et. al., G.R. No. 205442, December 11, 2013) KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape.(People v. Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011)[N.B. The primary purpose is kidnapping.] KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE

In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized. (People v. Diu, et. al. G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013) Whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. (People v. Sugan, G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011) There is no crime of robbery with homicide committed by a band. If robbery with homicide is committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be denominated as robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the RPC. The element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. (Id.)

Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011)

CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

BIGAMY

Homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if its commission was (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or, (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery. (People v. Buyagan, G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012)

The crime of bigamy was already consummated the moment the accused contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void,.xxx[T]he subsequent judicial

In proving the special complex 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 killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.(People v. Nocum, et. al., G.R. No. 179041, April 1, 2013)

declaration of nullity of the first marriage would not change the fact that the accused contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. (Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012; see also Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013)

Page 63 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

LIBEL Pursuant to Article 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegations 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 justifiable ends. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011)

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. No. 9344) Automatic suspension of sentence should apply to a child in conflict with the law regardless of the crime committed. (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011)Suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Except when the child reaches the maximum age of 21. (People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011) Under Section 98 of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death. This means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code. (see RA 6425; Jose v. People, G.R. No. 162052, January 13, 2005) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

Prescribed penalty refers to the initial penalty as a general prescription for the felonies; Imposable penalty refers to the penalty as modified after considering the attending and modifying circumstances; Imposed penalty refers to the single fixed penalty chosen by the court from the imposable penalty. Penalty of 2 months, as minimum, to 6 months, as maximum, is wrong. ISLAW is

not applicable when the penalty prescribed is not more than 1 year. In this case, straight penalty of 3, 4 or 5 months may be imposed. PROBATION Accused who appeals may still apply for probation.(Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011)Probation Law is not applicable to drug traffickers. (Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008) The Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon him including the accessory penalties like disqualification to run for a public office. (Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550, August 10, 2006) ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA 3019) Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides that it shall be unlawful for a public officer to directly or indirectly request or receive any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. The term ―transaction‖ is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene. Preliminary Investigation is not a transaction under the law. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, December 11, 2013) The good faith of heads of offices in signing a document will only be appreciated if they, with trust and confidence, have relied on their subordinatesin whom the duty is primarily lodged.The defense will not apply when the accused is being held for gross and inexcusable negligence in performing the duties ―primarily vested in him by law.‖ (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013) The Court has already interpreted "undue injury" as "actual damage". Such "actual damage" must not only be capable of proof; it

Page 64 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A finding of "undue injury" cannot be based on flimsy and nonsubstantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. (Posadas, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168951 and 169000, November 27, 2013) Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 but the public officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the information, the private person may be indicted alone. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014) Private persons may be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 if they conspired with public officer. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt PracvticesAct which is "to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.‖ (Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013) ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (RA 7610) Sweetheart theory is unacceptable in child abuse cases. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person. It is mala prohibita. (Caballo v. People, G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013) Intent to degrade the dignity of a child is required in child abuse. Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse, except when it is intended to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being. (Bongalon v. People, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013) It was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still good law. Thus, sexual assault committed against a minor, 12-18 years old, should be penalized under RA 7610 which prescribed a higher penalty.(People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011)

The DOJ erred in charging the accused with Rape in relation to Child Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. The accused may be charged only for one and not both crimes. If the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A of the RPC.(Balois, et. al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. G.R. Nos. 182130 and 182132, June 19, 2013) RA 7610 applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.(Trillanes v. People, G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013) COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS & AMMUNITION (RA 10591) The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is lower, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed. If the maximum penalty for the crime committed is equal to that imposed for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d‘ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d‘ etat. If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense. An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a

Page 65 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

real firearm and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance with this Act. [N.B. The law took effect 15 days after it was published sometime in July 2013. Accordingly, the old law which is more favorable to the accused should be applied to any violations committed prior to its effectivity.] COMPREHENSIVE ACT (RA 9165)

DANGEROUS

DRUGS

"Transport" means the movement of the dangerous drug "to carry or convey from one place to another.‖ Here, the accused were arrested inside a car which was not in transit. The car was parked and stationary. The prosecution failed to show that any distance was travelled. The conclusion that the accused transported the drugs merely because they were in a motor vehicle has no basis and is mere speculation. (San Juan v. People, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011) ―Transportation of Drugs‖ is committed when the accused was apprehended while boarding his flight with drugs in his possession. While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another. (People v. Laba, G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013) ―Drug Selling‖ is consummated upon the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. (People v. Hong Yen and Chua, G.R. No. 181826, January 9, 2013) It is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings,

obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014)When there is a search warrant, marking and inventory shall be at the place where the search was conducted. In a buy-bust operation, the marking and inventory may be done immediately or at the nearest police station. Non-compliance with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is justified where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and, thereafter, explained and cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. (Id.) [N.B. Non-compliance with the chain of custody rule affects the credibility of the evidence and will not invalidate arrest or render inadmissible the items seized.] It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcer's failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. (People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012) ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST THEIR CHILDREN (RA 9262)

WOMEN

&

"Sexual relationship" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child. On the other hand, "Dating relationship" exists even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved. While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. xxx It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. (Dabalos v. RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013) The law punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women.

Page 66 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Green Notes 2015

Criminal Law Compiled by: The Barristers’ Club

This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. (Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010) ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, as amended) Money Laundering Offense Money laundering is committed by any person who performs any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4,2 knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity. It is also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council fails to do so. Prosecution of Money Laundering Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity. The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity. [N.B. Terrorism is one of the predicate crimes] Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property The AMLC may file an ex parte petition for the issuance of a freeze order. If there is probable cause that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the 2

circumstances of the case. If there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted. A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits The AMLC may also inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment, including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court based on an ex parte application when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity. Application to inquire into or examine any deposit or investment filed with the Court of Appeals shall be acted upon within twentyfour (24) hours from filing. --GOD BLESS-―Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; …in hard work, sleepless nights… through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report…yet we live on; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.‖ -- 2 Corinthians 6:4-10

(a) transacts said monetary instrument or property; (b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or property; (c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property; (d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c); (e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and (f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above.

Page 67 of 67 BAR OPERATIONS 2015