Bar Questions

Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)

1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. (2.5.%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
a) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground committed by any public
officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, Revised Penal
Code).
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities which is
committed by a public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offense punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional facilities,
or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive
or capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code).
c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or employee who delays the release
for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order
for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to
said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for
the liberation of such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).
2. What are the legal grounds for detention? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for
the detention of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful?
Explain. (5%)
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the basis of
criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating
violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of
a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was no
intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is
not committed.

Kidnapping (2002)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed in the custody of A the
mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C in
his company, B decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him to the
United States where he intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any, did B
commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 271, in
relation to Article 270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor
child to the parent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed. Since the
custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother and B has only the right of monthly
visitation, the latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside there permanently,
constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.
Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due
to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a taxi
driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility.
Mario drove them to a fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie,
the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running
from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called up Luke's family
and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to
them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and
Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there
is a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of
Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand.
However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to
the police station. Upon interrogation, they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy
and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and charged.
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with homicide. The original intention was
to demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the
kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was deprived of his freedom and
the subsequent killing, though committed by another person, was a consequence of the
detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the special complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1,
2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand
committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain
Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of Jaime,
Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility"
does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they
demanded ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is separate
from the kidnapping having been committed by other persons, who had nothing to do with
the kidnapping, and who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par. of Art. 267,
Revised Penal Code).

b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand
committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain
Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of Jaime,
Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility"
does not constitute a crime.
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses
Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill,
she asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning, Paz
gagged the mouth of Martins son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded
P5,000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom.
Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the
attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of
asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes did Paz
commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RFC as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in any
manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a consequence is liable for
kidnapping with homicide and shall be penalized with the maximum penalty. In this case,
notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child was merely kept in the attic of his
house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of
liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the means
employed by Paz was attended by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate
charge of murder will not be proper in view of the amendment. Here, the term "homicide"
is used in its generic sense and covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of murder
or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence shows the death of the child took place
three minutes after the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom took place in the
afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that is, ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only one week old. The offense was
attended with the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age of the victim,
cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v. Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30, 1982), the
Court found that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant in this case would
have died instantly, negating any intent to kidnap or detain when ransom was sought.
Demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder because the
demand was merely a scheme by the offender (Paz) to conceal the body of her victim.
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU
even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, DAN
raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child
before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were
instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party
in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this
case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious

illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not
apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in
Art. 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])

Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her
that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man,
rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister
Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed
them inside a white van. They brought them to an abandoned warehouse where they
forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay
where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push
Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her
and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape for the subsequent death of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister,
Lyn. The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped and killed
(as regards Dang) in the course of their detention. The composite crime is committed
regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely sought or merely an
afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-5, Februarys, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
(Art. 342, Revised Penal Code) and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The
crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they took the victims
away and subsequently raped them. The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate
offense of murder qualified by treachery.
2. What penalties should be imposed on them? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited, reclusion perpetua is the appropriate
penalty (RA. 9346). In the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree lower
(Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that the
crime was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However,
if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he acted with
discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled
to a suspension of sentence.(NOTABENE: R.A. 9344 is outside the coverage of the
examination)

4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the criminal liability of Job and
Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy,
because the corpus delicti of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been duly
proven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy,
because the corpus delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has
been duly proven.

R.A. 7610
Special Protection
Discrimination Act

of

Children

against

Child

Abuse,

Exploitation

and

A. CHILD PROSTITUTION
Who are children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse?
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due
to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse.
Who are punishable?

Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)

Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is
courting so that he may succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to marry
him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because
Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police. May
Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to
kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has
done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a
preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the
commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a
crime.
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo then called up
C's wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him only if she paid a
ransom in the amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they would kill him. The
next day, C, who had just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he might die if
not treated at once by a doctor, A and B released C during the early morning of the third
day of detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article
267, RPC, A and B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since they had voluntarily
released C within three days from commencement of the detention, without having been
paid any amount of the ransom demanded and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against them, the crime committed was only slight illegal detention
prescribed in Article 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt to
be strong and therefore denied the petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the
crime committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight Illegal detention? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention because they
made a demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the
same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal detention
only. The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days from
the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where
the penalty prescribed is death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673). They were properly
denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in the information for
kidnapping and serious Illegal detention is strong.

1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution, which

include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intent to engage such child in prostitution.
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape and or
lascivious conduct under the RPC as the case may be
However, the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age shall be higher (reclusion temporal in its medium period)
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of
the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort,
place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in
prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment.
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the principals of an attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution,
committed as follows:
1. Attempt of (1) above When any person who, not being a relative of a child, is found
alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other
hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse; or
2. Attempt of (2) above When any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna
parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments.

B. CHILD TRAFFICKING
What is child trafficking?
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading and dealing with children including, but
not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other
consideration, or barter.
When is there attempt to commit child trafficking?
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees lower than the penalty for the
consummated offense)

4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public or
private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise,
including residential places, who allows any person to take along with him to such
place or places any minor herein described;
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other
child to;
Beg or use begging as a means of living;
Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing;
Conduct any illegal activities
E. WORKING CHILDREN

There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:

Who are punishable?

1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without valid reason therefor and
without clearance issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or legal guardian;

Any person who shall violate any of the provision of the Act with respect to working
children (conditions for the employment of children under 15, prohibitions on the
employment of children for certain advertisements etc.)

2. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring institution recruits women or

couples to bear a children for the purpose of child trafficking;

F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar
or any other person simulates birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
4. When a person engages in the act of finding children among low-income families,
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or other child-during institutions who can
be offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT SHOWS
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in
obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in obscene
publications or pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the said materials.
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE ACT
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's
development including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal liability of parents
due to abandonment, neglect etc.), but not covered by the RPC;
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under
or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer
joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other
tourist resort or similar places UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or
acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited by this
Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph;

Who are punishable?

Any person who discriminates against children of indigenous cultural communities
COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in its maximum period if the
offender has been previously convicted under this Act;
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officer or employee
thereof who is responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the penalty imposed in
its maximum period;
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the
perpetrator is an ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the
second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment
which has no license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked;
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported immediately after service of
sentence and forever barred from entry to the country;
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its maximum period if the
offender is a public officer or employee, together with the penalty of disqualification or
suspension depending on the penalty imposed;
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund
by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation
of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator
of the offense.
Bar Questions
RA 7610 Child Exploitation (2006)

Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for
P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in
Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre Mang Juan
with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria failed
to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the loan
if she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his
house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan
insisted and brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. 1. Was a crime committed by
Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as maid for the purpose of repaying her
mother's loan? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by
any persons who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the
latter's will, retain him in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable
as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of
RA. 7610.

2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid in Mang Juan's household to pay
her loan, did he commit a crime? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary servitude for rendering services under
compulsion and payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in order to
require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against
his will, as household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal Code)
Bar Questions
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)
Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or other
establishments without being liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for
the purpose of: a) Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a third
person; and b) Rendering service to humanity or justice; Any person who shall enter cafes,
taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the same are open will likewise not be liable
(Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay.
Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about
to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the timely
medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that
incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated
homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious
offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes

an aggravating circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788). Dante

committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay.... Dante is guilty of less serious
physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto...
Bar Questions
Grave Coercion (1998)
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace.
Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will not give back the necklace to me, I will
kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani, What
offense did Isagani commit? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by
means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will, whether
it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence constitute
grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because it
was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery,
is absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani.

Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)

Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and maltreated by
agents of the law in order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents
failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was their intention to obtain through
the employment of such means. What crime was committed by the agents of the law?
Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a suspect and
may have been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail,
the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected to
torture to extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the
offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted. But if the suspect was forcibly brought
to the police headquarters to make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make
him confess to such crime, but later released because the agents failed to draw such
confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the violence employed to compel such
confession without the offended party being confined in jail. (US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to the police headquarters and is
thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed would be
maltreatment of prisoners.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the basis of
criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating
violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of
a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was no

intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is
not committed.
Bar Questions
Robbery (1996)
Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by different families located
inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence. How many robberies did
the five commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they
entered the compound, they were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were five families inside
said compound, considering that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block
fence. The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the same time
constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
Robbery under RPC (2000)
A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along MacArthur
Highway having a drinking spree. At about 1 o'clock in the morning, they decided to leave
and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of
P2,000.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would go out, flag a taxicab
and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A. B,
C and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they
encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00
only, they needed P1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another
taxicab and they again robbed driver T of his hard-earned money amounting to P1,000. On
their way back to the beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police team upon the
complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What
crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit? Explain fully. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal
Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only
committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were
short of money to pay the same.
Robbery under RPC (2001)
A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a barangay Kagawad and
known to be a bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his industry and economic
savvy which allowed him to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including registered and
unregistered lands in several barangays. Resenting B's riches and relying on his political
influence, A decided to harass and intimidate B into sharing with him some of his lands,
considering that the latter was single and living alone. One night, A broke into B's house,
forced him to bring out some titles and after picking out a title covering 200 square meters
in their barangay, compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to him for
P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while, A carried a paltik caliber .45 in full
view of B, who signed the deed out of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B
summoned enough courage and had A arrested and charged in court after preliminary
investigation. What charge or charges should be filed against A? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code should be filed against
A. Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of
violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute and deliver any public
instrument or document shall be held guilty of robbery.

The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended to intimidate B and thus,
used in the commission of the robbery. If it could be established that A had no license or
permit to possess and carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special aggravating
circumstance to the crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to sign, had not attained the
character of a "public" instrument or document, A should be charged for the crime of
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code for having
intruded into Bs house, and for the crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same
Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his will.
Bar Questions
Robbery w/ force upon things (2000)
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut
shell which is being used by B as a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using
their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the
presence of his friends. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%) Is A
exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a
brother of B? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the coconut shell with
the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of their home, (Art. 299
(b) (2). RPC).
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said Article applies
only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.

Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005)

Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won
P500,000.00 in the lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30
meters away from Joses house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously
gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having his dinner. Henry found
the P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline from the garage and
burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200
meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the
P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide,
with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime. Mario moved to
reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not
aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice.
Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose.
Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he is liable only for
attempted robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance, considering that he
and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged that arson is a felony
and not an aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery
with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at
the time he was killed. Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
(7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in concert with Henry to commit robbery.
Hence, the act of one is the act of all and the extent of the specific participation of each
individual conspirator becomes secondary, each being held liable for the criminal deed(s)
executed by another or others. As a conspirator, Mario casts his lot with his fellow
conspirators and becomes liable to any third person who may get killed in the course of
implementing the criminal design. (People v. Punzalan, et al.. G.R. No. 78853, November 8,
1991) Henry is incorrect, since he acquired possession of the money. The crime of robbery
with force and intimidation is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the
property, even if for a short time. It is no defense that they had no opportunity to dispose
of or benefit from the money taken. (People v. Salvilia, et al., G.R. No. 88163, April 26,
1990) Since the crime in robbery with force and intimidation against persons (robbery with
homicide), dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which accompanied the crime of robbery with
homicide is absorbed (Art. 294, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659) and is not aggravating
because the RPC does not provide that such crime is an aggravating circumstance. (People
v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000) Nighttime, likewise, is not aggravating. There is
no showing that the same was purposely sought by the offenders to facilitate the
commission of the crime or impunity.

not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would
you resolve their argument? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the
death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the
occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death
by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.
2. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It
would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide
which is a single, indivisible offense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by A, B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for
Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated
impresses that separate crimes of Robbery "and" Homicide were charged, which is not
correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide,
not two crimes.

Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the
morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters
were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando,
noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before
bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away
the belongings of Danilo and his family. a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
Fernando commit? Explain. b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the
three daughters of Danilo inside
the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent
identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex
crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders
committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from
the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other
conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for
the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to
prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed
and the fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would be considered as
aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional
killing synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA
531)

Robbery w/ Homicide (2003)

A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his
daughter working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A
entered B's house at midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and began
quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. While
doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession
of the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A turned over B's pillow
and found the latter's wallet underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills
he was looking for. A took the bills and left the house. What crime or crimes were
committed? 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so because A's
primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the
killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving
rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent
being to commit a robbery, any killing on the "occasion" of the robbery, though not by
reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a
single indivisible offense.

Robbery w/ Homicide (1998)

A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank,
policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who
fired back and shot it out with them.
1. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the
firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B. C and D? [3%]
2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A,
B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and C) were

Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995)

Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered
the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky
complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it.
Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang
Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased
by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from
the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!"
Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of
Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky. Discuss fully the criminal
liability of Victor,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in
stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping
Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in
scooping up money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and
announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of
a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of
robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing (People vs. Baello,
224 SCRA 218). Further, the aggravating circumstance of craft could be assessed against
the accused for pretending to be customers of Mang Pandoy.
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings.
Knowing him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker
session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him
was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends.
Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered
several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as they did,
until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he hacked
all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his
victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the
cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among the debris
the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort. After
preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime
of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave
with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to
commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed
means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the
liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to
carry out his plan of murder with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings. Hence,
Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as
the offended party are the estates of the victims. In burning the cottage to hide his
misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was
not necessary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he committed. The
fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry's crime into a complex
crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime. Hence, Harry was improperly
charged with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry
should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Bar Questions
Robbery w/ Rape (1999)
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They
succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually
aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim
testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B watched the happening
from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery
with rape? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art.
294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the rape
was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of
robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the
commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect
acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for
robbery with rape.
Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004)
Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one
of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about
to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood
outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD. What
crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each?
Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a
single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Although the
conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the
other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being committed by their
co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC
thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the special
complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape
accompanying the robbery is just a component.
Robbery; Rape (1997)
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a
cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with
rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and
rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the
complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery
must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special complex crime for which the
court convicted the accused.
Robbery w/ Intimidation vs. Theft (2002)
A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon things. He was
seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so because A
threatened her with a gun. A then took money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of
theft or of robbery? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before the
taking of the money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to the
taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of simply theft. The non-employment of
force upon things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by employing
force upon things but also by employing violence against or intimidation of persons.
R.A. 6539
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.

"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
by using force upon things.
"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the
public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn
mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public
highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction
engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number
of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle,
shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing, scratching, altering or
changing of the original factory-inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine,
engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have
a serial number on its motor engine, engine block or chassis which is different from that
which is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicles imported into the
Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with
serial number.
"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. There is
repainting whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as
registered in the Land Transportation Commission.
"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body
with a new body.
"Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the
motor vehicle.
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part, of a motor vehicle.
"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by
separating the motor engine and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.
SECTION 3. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block and Chassis. Within one
year after the approval of this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor vehicle
or parts thereof in knock down condition shall register with the Land Transportation
Commission the motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in his name or in the
name of the real owner who shall be readily available to answer any claim over the
registered motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the Land Transportation
Commission shall be considered as untaxed importation or coming from an illegal source
or carnapped, and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government.
All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are required to register their
cars with the local police without paying any charges.
SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis.
The Land Transportation Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles, specifying therein their type,
make and serial numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of their present

and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made thereon shall be
furnished the Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation Commission regional,
provincial and city branch offices: Provided, That all Land Transportation Commission
regional, provincial and city branch offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
registration of motor vehicles to the main office and to the Philippine Constabulary.
SECTION 5. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance, Substitution or Replacement of a
Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine Block or Chassis. Every sale, transfer, conveyance,
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of a motor
vehicle shall be registered with the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles
assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor vehicle engines, engine
blocks and chassis not registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall not be
issued certificates of registration and shall be considered as untaxed imported motor
vehicles or motor vehicles carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.
SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. Any person seeking the original
registration of a motor vehicle, whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or
acquired from a registered owner, shall within one week after the completion of the
assembly or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply to
the Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for registration with the
Land Transportation Commission. The Philippine Constabulary shall, upon receipt of the
application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list of carnapped
motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered
parts is not in that list, the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of
clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate of clearance from the Philippine
Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the motor vehicle engine, engine
block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis, the Land Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in
accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.
SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as
this term is defined in Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor
vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight
months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is
committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by
imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be
imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the
commission of the carnapping.
SECTION 15. Aliens. Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported
immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by the Deportation
Board.
Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998)
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a
Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at
Samuel and instructed himto go near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted
from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul
fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did Raul
commit? |5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep.
Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion
of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in
the definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act
of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be
able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539.
The killing of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.
P.D. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean and be understood, as
follows:
a.

b.
c.

d.

e.

Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to,
seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine
Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other
waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea,
the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from
one place to another through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of
vessels or boats used in fishing.
Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway and bridges
or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or
vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons or
transportation of goods, articles, or property or both.
Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or
part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a
passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be
considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or
other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of
violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things of other unlawful
means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.
SECTION 3. Penalties. Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage
as herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court be punished by:
Piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape, murder
or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the
offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when the
seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period
shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or on the
occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage, the penalty of reclusion

temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If kidnapping for
ransom or extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall be imposed.
SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement
of police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken
by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person
who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or
brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be
punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has
performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
Bar Questions
Robbery vs. Highway Robbery (2000)
Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery committed
on a highway. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a
highway in these
respects:
1 In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is
committed indiscriminately against persons who commute in such highways, regardless of
the potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery
is committed only against predetermined victims;
2 It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one who roams in
public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the
opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised Penal Code when the
commission thereof in a public highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand:
and
3. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of the robbery
in public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery in
public highways is only occasional against a predetermined victim, without frequency in
public highways.

Highway Robbery (2001)

Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the Western
Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less
familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans, as well
as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing zones
outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave valuable and detailed information on
these matters to a group interested in those shipments in said container vans. On several
instances, using the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the
contents of the vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon City and Bangkal,
Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his
choice of the valuable items and disposes of them through his own sources or "fences".
When the highjackers were traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial
investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all, including Sgt.
Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should not be charged as

a principal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D. 532, otherwise known as the
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of 1972. Is the contention of
Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express provision of P.D.
532, Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway
robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police officers
or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of highway robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of the
principal offenders and punished in accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged only as accessory after the fact
is not tenable because he was a principal participant in the commission of the crime and in
pursuing the criminal design. An accessory after the fact involves himself in the
commission of a crime only after the crime had already been consummated, not before,
For his criminal participation in the execution of the highjacking of the container vans, Sgt.
Chan is a co-principal by indispensable cooperation.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533
THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
What is cattle rustling?
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent
of the owner/raiser, of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or
gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person
or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without
the consent of the owner/raiser.

hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other documents or records as may be
necessary. Shipment of large cattle, its hides or meat from one city/municipality to another
within the same province may be done upon securing permit from the city/municipal
treasurer of the place of origin.
Presumption of Cattle Rustling. Every person having in his possession, control or
custody of large cattle shall, upon demand by competent authorities, exhibit the
documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the required documents
shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession, control or custody are
the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.
Penalties Imposed
Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value of
the large cattle involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed without violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed.
If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of
cattle rustling, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
When the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the
foregoing penalty, be disqualified from voting or being voted upon in any
election/referendum and from holding any public office or employment.
When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of
the service of his sentence without further proceedings.

Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other
domesticated member of the bovine family.
Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or
entity engaged in the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such
large cattle.
Duty of the owner/raiser
before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age of six months, register the
same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised.
Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle.
No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity shall engage in the business of
buy and sell of large cattle without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the
Provincial Commander of the province where it shall conduct such business and the
city/municipal treasurer of the place of residence of such person, partnership, association,
corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such province.
Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle.
Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity desiring to ship or transport
large cattle, its hides, or meat, from one province to another shall secure a permit for
such purpose from the Provincial Commander of the province where the large cattle is
registered. Before issuance of the permit herein prescribed, the Provincial Commander
shall require the submission of the certificate of ownership as prescribed in Section 3
hereof, a certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle,

Bar Questions
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings.
Knowing him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker
session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him
was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends.
Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered
several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as they did,
until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he hacked
all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his
victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the
cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among the debris
the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort. After
preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime
of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave
with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to
commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed
means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the
liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to
carry out his plan of murder with impunity.The taking of the money from the victims was a

mere afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and
not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against
dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate
crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2)
previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not
qualify Harry's crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such
crime. Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate
crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Robbery; Rape (1997)
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a
cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with
rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and
rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the
complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery
must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special complex crime for which the
court convicted the accused.
Theft (1998)
Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not belong to him, he
approached policeman P and delivered the watch with instruction to return the same to
whoever may be found to be the owner. P failed to return the watch to the owner and,
instead, sold it and appropriated for himself the proceeds of the sale. Charged with theft, P
reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not he who found the watch
and, moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen property. Is P's defense valid? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal property
subject thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (P). It is irrelevant whether the
person deprived of the possession of the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft is
committed by one who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of another without the
consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even when the offender receives
property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the same.
Theft (2001)
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working place in
Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the
inside. Remembering his parents' admonition that he should not take anything which does
not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati Quad
precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead,
sold the bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought out the
fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a
block away from where Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last
possessor as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had not
committed any crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and, moreover, it
turned out to have been stolen. Resolve the case with reasons. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not
committed any crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out

to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and
the failure to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain. The act of
PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he only held to
be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain. Where a finder of
lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner, the person to
whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes the relation of the
finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would misappropriate it, he is guilty
of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974

PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF WATER, ELECTRICAL OR
TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS, THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL
METERS, AND OTHER ACTS

Who are punishable? -- any person who:

installs any water, electrical or telephone connection without previous authority from
the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Manila Electric Company
or the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, as the case may be;
tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical meters or jumpers or other devices
whereby water or electricity is stolen; steals or pilfers water and/or electric
meters or water, electric and/or telephone wires;
knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or electrical meters as well as stolen or
pilfered water, electrical and/or telephone wires.

R.A. 7832
Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/ Materials Pilferage Act of 1994
Acts punishable
Illegal Use of Electricity (2)

(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)
(e)

Tap, make or cause to be made any connection with overhead lines, service
drops, or other electric service wires, without previous authority or consent of the
private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned;
Tap, make or cause to be made any connection to the existing electric service
facilities of any duly registered consumer without the latter's or the electric
utility's consent or authority;
Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter, jumper, current reversing
transformer, shorting or shunting wire, loop connection or any other device which
interferes with the proper or accurate registry or metering of electric current or
otherwise results in its diversion in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or
wasted;
Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment, wire or conduit or allow any
of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or
accurate metering of electric current; and
Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of electric service obtained
through any of the acts mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) above.

Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials (3)

Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or remove any electric power
transmission line/material or meter from a tower, pole, or any other installation or
place of installation or any other place or site where it may be rightfully or
lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried, situated or located, without
the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain;
Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or without the use of a motor vehicle or
other means of conveyance, any electric power transmission line/material or
meter from a tower, pole, any other installation or place of installation, or any
place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept,
stocked, inventoried, situated or located without the consent of the owner,
whether or not the act is done for profit or gain;
Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises, custody or control, any electric
power transmission line/material or meter without the consent of the owner,
whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; and
Load, carry, ship or move from one place to another, whether by land, air or sea, any
electrical power transmission line/material, whether or not the act is done for
profit or gain, without first securing a clearance/permit for the said purpose from
its owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or its regional office concerned,
as the case may be.
Presumptions
For illegal use of electricity:
The presence of any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence
of illegal use of electricity by the person benefited thereby, and shall be the basis
for:
the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to such person after due notice,
the holding of a preliminary investigation by the prosecutor and the subsequent filing
in court of the pertinent information, and
the lifting of any temporary restraining order or injunction which may have been
issued against a private electric utility or rural electric cooperative
Circumstances:

The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the electric meter, or at the back or any
other part of said meter;
The presence inside the electric meter of salt, sugar and other elements that could result
in the inaccurate registration of the meter's internal parts to prevent its accurate
registration of consumption of electricity;
The existence of any wiring connection which affects the normal operation or registration
of the electric meter;
The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the meter, or mutilated, altered or
tampered meter recording chart or graph, or computerized chart, graph, or log;
The presence in any part of the building or its premises which is subject to the control of
the consumer or on the electric meter, of a current reversing transformer, jumper,
shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop connection or any other similar device;
The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, disconnection, bypassing or tampering of
instruments, transformers, and accessories;
The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any integral accessory of the metering device
box which encases an electric meter, or its metering accessories; and
The acceptance of money and/or other valuable consideration by any officer of employee
of the electric utility concerned or the making of such an offer to any such officer or
employee for not reporting the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated
above. The discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances, in order to constitute
prima facie evidence, must be personally witnessed and attested to by an
officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB).
For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials
The possession or custody of electric power transmission line/material by any person,
natural or juridical, not engaged in the transformation, transmission or distribution of
electric power, or in the manufacture of such electric power transmission line/material
shall be prima facie evidence that such line/material is the fruit of the offense of theft of
electric power transmission lines and materials, and therefore such line/material may be
confiscated from the person in possession, control or custody thereof.
RA 8041
An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For Other Purposes
Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawful for any person to:
Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal, raceway, ditch, lock, pier, inlet, crib,
bulkhead, dam, gate, service, reservoir, aqueduct, water mains, water distribution
pipes, conduit, pipes, wire benchmark, monument, or other works, appliance,
machinery buildings, or property of any water utility entity, whether public or private;
Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect the quantity or quality of the water or
sewage flow of any waterworks and/or sewerage system, or the supply, conveyance,
measurement, or regulation thereof, including the prevention of, or interference with
any authorized person engaged in the discharge of duties connected therewith;
Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey, works, and construction of access road
and water mains and distribution network and any related works of the utility entity.
Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection with water lines without prior authority or
consent from the water utility concerned;
Tamper, install or use tampered water meters, sticks, magnets, reversing water meters,
shortening of vane wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere with accurate
registry or metering of water usage, or otherwise result in its diversion in a manner
whereby water is stolen or wasted;

Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with knowledge that diversion,
tampering, or illegal connection existed at the time of that use, or that the use or
receipt was otherwise without the authorization of the water utility;
Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes and related or ancillary facilities;
Steal water for profit or resale;
Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters; and
Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the above.

3. Fishing
Electricity

Penalties:
imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years and a fine not exceeding double the
amount of the value of the water stolen or the value of the damaged facilities
If the offender is assisted in the commission of the crime by a plumber, officer or employee
of the water utility concerned, the said employee, officer or plumber shall be punished
by imprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years

If the water is stolen for profit or resale, the offender shall be punished imprisonment
from six (6) to twelve (12) years.

The Department, subject to safeguards and conditions deemed necessary and

endorsement from the concerned LGUs, may allow, for research, educational or scientific
purposes only, the use of electricity, poisonous or noxious substances to catch, take or
gather fish or fishery species:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550

An Act Providing For The Development, Management And Conservation Of The
Fisheries And Aquatic Resources, Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto, And
For Other Purposes

(b) dealing in fish illegally caught

What acts are punishable?

1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other Unauthorized Fisheries Activities
(a) exploiting, breeding fish in Philippine waters without a license
Discovery of any person in an area where he has no permit or registration papers for a
fishing vessel shall constitute a prima facie presumption that the person and/or vessel is
engaged in unauthorized fishing: BUT, fishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure which
is not for commercial, occupation or livelihood purposes may be allowed.
(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fishery management areas declared as over
exploited

Through

Explosives,

Noxious

or

Poisonous

Substance,

and/or

(a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity, explosives, noxious or poisonous
substance such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill, stupefy,
disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species

The use of poisonous or noxious substances to eradicate predators in fishponds in

accordance with accepted scientific practices and without causing adverse environmental
impact in neighboring waters and grounds shall not be construed as illegal fishing.

The discovery of explosives or equipment for electro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in

the possession of any fishworker shall constitute prima facie evidence, that the same was
used for fishing in violation of this Code.
The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with the use of explosive,
noxious or poisonous substances or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that
the fisherfolk, operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with the use thereof.
(c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices
for illegal fishing
(d) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for
illegal fishing
Penalty is without prejudice to the filing of separate criminal cases when the use of the
same result to physical injury or loss of human life.

(c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity in municipal waters when not listed in the
registry of municipal fisherfolk
4. Use of Fine Mesh Net
2. Poaching in Philippine Waters

(a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than that which may be fixed by the Department

(a) foreign person fishing or operating a fishing vessel in Philippine waters

Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering of fry and such species which by their nature
are small but already mature to be identified in the implementing rules and regulations by
the Department.

The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters shall constitute a prima facie
evidence that the vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.

5. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and Other Fishery Management
Areas
12. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as well as other fishery management areas
using active fishing gears

6. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation

(a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semi-precious corals, whether raw or in
processed form, except for scientific or research purposes.
The confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea or donated to schools and
museums for educational or scientific purposes or disposed through other means.

13. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners

However, catching of sabalo and other breeders/spawners for local breeding purposes or
scientific or research purposes may be allowed subject to guidelines to be promulgated by
the Department.

7. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other
Marine Habitat
(a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other fishery
marine life habitat as may be determined by the Department
(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation, and such similar gear and methods that
require diving, other physical or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other habitat
to entrap, gather or catch fish and other fishery species
(c) gathering, selling or exporting white sand, silica, pebbles and other substances which
make up any marine habitat

8. Illegal Use of Superlights

(a) fishing with the use of superlights in municipal waters or in violation of the rules and
regulations which may be promulgated by the Department on the use of superlights
outside municipal waters

14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry

15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species

16. Violation of Catch Ceilings

17. Aquatic Pollution

18. Other violations

Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards

9. Conversion of Mangroves
(a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any other purposes

10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season

Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds, Fish Pens and Fish Cages
Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fish which is sexually mature or below the minimum
size or above the maximum quantities prescribed for the particular species
Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or Bay
Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps, Fish Pens and Fish Cages without a
license/permit

11. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries

19. Commercial Fishing

Fishworker or Crew

Vessel Operators

Employing

Unlicensed

Fisherfolk

or

20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of anadromous, catadromous and other

migratory species, in areas including, but not limited to river mouths and estuaries within a
distance determined by the concerned FARMCs

21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer

Illegal Fishing - PD 704 (1996)

Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the Fisheries
Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught
with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were criminally charged with the
violation of Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly
possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish which have been illegally caught. During the trial,
the three vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly
identified. The prosecution however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be
held liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish illegally
caught. On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the three
fish vendors? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of such
fish without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of explosives
does not by itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the
act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the
possession, dealing in or selling of such fish only when "knowingly" don that the fish were
caught with the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. Theclaim by the fish
vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they "duly identified",
renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that they
have knowledge that explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused had
knowledge thereof.
front of his working place in Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of
the owner engraved on the inside. Remembering his parents' admonition that he should
not take anything which does not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus
Reyes of the Makati Quad precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to
him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and
misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought out the fact that the bracelet
was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a block away from where
Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last possessor as PO1 Reyes.
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed any crime because
it was not he who had found the bracelet and,
moreover, it turned out to have been stolen. Resolve the case with reasons. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not
committed any crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out
to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and
the failure to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.

The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he
only held to be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner,
the person to whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes the
relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would misappropriate
it, he is guilty of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the confusion, entered the
store and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit?
Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the goods on the occasion of and
taking advantage of the fire which broke out in the department store. The occasion of a
calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime under Article 310
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
73 of 86
A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among the first to arrive
at the scene of the

Bar Questions
Theft; Qualified Theft (2006)
1. Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he
noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted
around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with some
more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with the proper offense. What is
that offense? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offense is Qualified Theft under Sec. 68 of P.D. 705, amending P.D. No. 330, which
penalizes any person who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products from any of the public forest. The Balara Watershed is
protected by the cited laws.
2. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante
contended that if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only to the
newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to those found outside the gate. If you
were the judge, what will be your ruling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention is untenable, the presence of the newly cut logs outside the gate is
circumstantial evidence, which, if unrebutted, establishes that they are the offenders who
gathered the same.
Theft; Stages of Execution (1998)
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and
put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard after

being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is
the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after
Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the
bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete
and thus the crime is consummated.
Theft; Stages of Execution (2000)
Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and
proceeded to the women's wear section. The saleslady was of the impression that she
brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she
came out of the fitting room, she returned only two (2] pieces to the clothes rack. The
saleslady became suspicious and alerted the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by the
detective before she could leave the store and brought to the office of the store manager.
The detective and the manager searched her and found her wearing the third swimsuit
under her blouse and pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated or
attempted? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete when the offender acquired exclusive control of the personal
property being taken: in this case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and
pants and was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to gain, the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it is consummated. It is not necessary that the
offender is in a position to dispose of the property,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has not yet left the store when
the offense was opportunely discovered and the article seized from her. She does not have
yet the freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs. Dino, CA 45 O.G.
3446). Moreover, in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated, the doubt
must be resolved in favor of the milder criminal responsibility.
P.D. 330
PenalizingTimber Smuggling or
Illegal Cutting of Logs
SECTION 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who directly or indirectly cuts,
gathers, removes, or smuggles timber, or other forest products, either from any of the
public forest, forest reserves and other kinds of public forests, whether under license or
lease, or from any privately owned forest lands in violation of existing laws, rules and
regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as defined and penalized under
Articles 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That if the offender is a
corporation, firm, partnership or association, the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty
officer or officers, as the case may be, of the corporation, firm, partnership or association,
and if such guilty officer or officers are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein prescribed,
he or they shall be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned
of Immigration and Deportation.
P.D. 705
The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)
SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without
license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or

from private lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or
permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309 and
310 of the RPC; Provided, That in the case of partnership, association or corporation, the
officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting shall be liable, and if such officers
are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings
on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or
forest products to cut, gathered, collected or removed, and the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools used therein, and the forfeiture of his improvements in the area.
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement, lease, license or permit and
perpetual disqualification from acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any
licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or leased area of another,
without prejudice to whatever civil action the latter may bring against the offender.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
What is fencing?
Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or
should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
or theft.
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing.
Presumption of Fencing.
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles is required
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article, item,
object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall
before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit
from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where
such store, establishment or entity is located.
Penalties imposed
Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
a.
The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than
12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds
the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the
penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining
thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
b.

The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding
12,000 pesos.

c.

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.

d.

The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not
exceeding 200 pesos.

e.

The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period, if such value is over five (5)
pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.

f.

The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period, if such value does not
exceed 5 pesos.

Bar Questions
Usurpation of Real Rights (1996)
Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan which she planted to rice and corn.
Upon her arrival from a three-month vacation in the United States, she was surprised to
discover that her land had been taken over by Manuel and Teofilo who forcibly evicted her
tenant-caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill the latter if she would resist their taking
of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo plowed, cultivated and appropriated the harvest
for themselves to the exclusion of Teresita. 1) What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo
commit? Explain. 2) Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter refused to
surrender possession of the land, what crime or crimes did the two commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real rights under Art. 312 of
the Revised Penal Code for employing violence against or intimidation of persons. The
threats to kill employed by them in forcibly entering the land is the means of committing
the crime and therefore absorbed in felony, unless the intimidation resulted in a more
serious felony.
2} The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, even if the said
offenders killed the caretaker because the killing is the Violence against
persons" which is the means for committing the crime and as such, determinative only.
However, this gives way to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein is "in addition
to the penalty incurred in the acts of violence (murder or homicide] executed by them. The
crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is committed by reason thereof, giving rise
only to one indivisible offense (People vs. Judge Alfeche, plus the fine mentioned therein.)
P.D. 2018
Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic Sabotage

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a

group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another
in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment (now Secretary of DOLE)
The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives
shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-license or nonholder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a
danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of jobseekers.
The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of
documents paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment
activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged
in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or
authorized to do so.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29, 1973

PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS

"Trust Receipt" -- shall refer to the written or printed document signed by the entrustee
in favor of the entruster containing terms and conditions substantially complying with the
provisions of this Decree. No further formality of execution or authentication shall be
necessary to the validity of a trust receipt.

Acts punishable
1.

2.

Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under

Article 34 of the Labor Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders
of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the
Labor Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officers
may initiate complaints under this Article.
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
accordance with Article 39 of the Labor Code

What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?

A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and between a person referred to as the
entruster, and another person referred to as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who
owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents
or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's
execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt"
wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or
instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods,
documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds
thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust

receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not
otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust
receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the following:

2.
3.
4.

1. In the case of goods or documents,

a)

to sell the goods or procure their sale; or

b)

to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale:

Provided, That, in the case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose
of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain
its title over the goods whether in its original or processed form until the
entrustee has complied fully with his obligation under the trust receipt; or

c)

to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal with them in a manner

preliminary or necessary to their sale; or

Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of Section 1:

1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of
the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank

Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, not the payment of the obligation. The law
has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum

BP 22 vs. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d):

1. Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE is NOT REQUIRED in BP 22

2. In the case of instruments,

a)

to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or

b)

to deliver them to a principal; or

c)

d)

to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a

depository or register; or

Section 1
BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways
Elements of the offense defined in the first paragraph of Section 1:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check

Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an element. BP 22 does NOT require
such element.

3.

Also, the mere fact of postdating or issuing a check when the drawer had no or
insufficient funds in the bank makes someone liable under Article 315 par 2(d) of
estafa. BP 22, 1st paragraph requires knowledge of insufficient funds.

The check may be drawn and issued to "apply on account of for value": BP 22 does
not make a distinction as to whether the bad check is issued in payment of an
obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation

Illustration for Section 1, par 1, element 4:

There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check; so the drawer ordered the bank
to stop payment; and it appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check was
issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In this case, NO VIOLATION OF BP 22!
Even if the check would have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had he not
ordered the bank to stop payment, there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for ordering
the bank to stop payment.

BP 22
An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without
Sufficient Funds or Credit and For Other Purposes

2.

to effect their presentation, collection or renewal

NOTE: The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling
goods, documents or instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction, has, as
against the buyer, general property rights in such goods, documents or instruments, or
who sells the same to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security for
the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction.

That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value
That 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
payment of such check in full upon its presentment
That the check
a. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or
b. would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment

BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a corporation, company, or entity:
the person/s who ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer

Section 2
Section establishes a prima facie evidence of "knowledge of insufficiency ": when payment
of the check is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds / credit when the check
is presented within 90 days from the date of such check
Exception:
a. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of the amount due thereon or

b.

makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 banking
days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee

Section 3
Section 3 requires the drawee
1. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the holder:
Write, print, or stamp on the check or to be attached thereto the reason for dishonoring.
2.

4.
5.
6.
7.

in case drawee bank received an order to stop payment, it should state in the notice
that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with it for the payment in full of the
check, if such be the fact.

Introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check with the drawer's refusal to
pay indicated thereon or attached thereto is prima facie evidence of:
1. the making or issuance of the check
2. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof; and
3. the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the reason indicated thereto
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms Of Swindling Or Estafa

Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined RPC
315 and 316 shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is
committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the intention of
carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers association, or of
funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

1.
2.
3.
4.

1.
2.
3.

SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum

period to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:
Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives, inflammable or
combustible materials are stored.
Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted to culture,
education or social services.
Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble.

SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The penalty in any case of

arson shall be imposed in its maximum period;
If committed with intent to gain;
If committed for the benefit of another;
If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant
of the property burned;
If committed by a syndicate.

SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of

the arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.

1.

SECTION 1. Arson. Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall
be punished by Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another.

SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion

Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies;
Any inhabited house or dwelling;
Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or
tunnel;
Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo
grove or forest;
Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.

The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of three
(3) or more persons.

When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable shall be
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000
pesos.

P.D. 1613
Amending the Law on Arson

Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for

transportation of persons or property.
Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial, administrative
or other official proceedings.
Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping center,
public or private market, theater or movie house or any similar place or building.
Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested
area.
(NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.A. 7659 AMENDING ART. 320)

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

SECTION 6. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances

shall constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or
establishment.
If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the
building not necessary in the business of the offender nor for household use.
If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any
of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property.
If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the
time of the issuance of the policy.
If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than two fires
have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the control of the
offender and/or insured.
If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a
building or property had been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary
course of business.

7.

If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in
exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property
of the victim.
SECTION 7. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. Conspiracy to commit arson shall be
punished by Prision Mayor in its minimum period.
SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. - The building which is the object of arson
including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the State,
unless the owner thereof can prove that he has no participation in nor knowledge of such
arson despite the exercise of due on his part.
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Article 320. Destructive Arson. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as
result of simultaneous burnings, or committed on several or different occasions.
Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the use of the public in
general, or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as
but not limited to official governmental function or business, private transaction,
commerce, trade, worship, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a
definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public
conveyance or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge
that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire, and
regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation
or convenience, or public use, entertainment or leisure.
Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which
are devoted to the service of public utilities.
Any building, the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying
evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
penalty of death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or
committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether
their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the edifice, or the burning
merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.

1.
2.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death shall also be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance
storehouse, archives or general museum of the government.
In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article,
death or injury results, or any valuable documents, equipment, machineries, apparatus, or
other valuable properties were burned or destroyed, the mandatory penalty of death shall
be imposed.

RA 7877
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy
over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand,
request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:
(1)
The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, reemployment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges;
or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2)
The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing
labor laws; or
(3)
The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for the employee.
(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:
(1)
Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the
offender;
(2)
Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is
entrusted to the offender;
(3)
When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing
grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships or the payment of a stipend,
allowance or other benefits, privileges, or considerations; or
(4)
When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as
herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it
would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.

RA 7610
Special protection
Discrimination Act

of

Children

Against

Child

Abuse,

Exploitation

and

ARTICLE III
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
SECTION 5.
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or
female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:
a)
Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
2. Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
3. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;
NPcBCo
4. Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or
5. Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b)
Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims
is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal
Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period; and

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED

VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

It shall be unlawful:

d)

for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described;

e)

for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next
preceding sentence, (1) to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or (2) to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or (3) to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing,
or (4) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other
person.
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses, shall not
be covered by this prohibition;

f)

for any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause
to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful or who violates the provisions
of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or
causes such violation.

(c)
Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of
the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort,
place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in
prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment.
SECTION 6.
Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. There is an attempt to commit
child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the room or cubicle of a house,
an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel,
vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of Section 5
hereof when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath,
massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony
under Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the
crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper case, under the Revised Penal
Code.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200

It is not unlawful:

a)

for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute
any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving the crimes of treason,
espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high
seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined
by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided, That
such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be

committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of

rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority
shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the
case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of
such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining
such evidence.

Effect of violation of the law: Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,
contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of this Act
shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.