POINTERSINCRIMINALLAW

2016BAREXAMINATIONS
ATTY.VICTORIAV.LOANZON
PREPAREDWITHTHEASSISTANCEOF
ATTY.JULIUSABRAHAMFERRER
PARTA:THEVELASCOCASES
FRUSTRATEDHOMICIDE
Question:AQ,togetherwithOQhadanencounterwithB.ThelatterhackedAQandOQ.
AQfoundoutthatOQwasdead.BclaimedthathetriedtogetawaywiththeAQandOQbut
thelatterchasedhimandengagedhimintoafight.SeeingAQwasabouttostabhim,B
grabbedaboloandusedittostrikeatAQ,injuringhislefthand.AQsknifefellandwhenhe
benttopickitup,Bagainhackedathimwithhisbolo.WhatcrimesdidBcommit?
Answer:HomicideandFrustratedHomicide.Theoffenderissaidtohaveperformedallthe
actsofexecutionifthewoundinflictedonthevictimismortalandcouldcausethedeathof
thevictimwithoutmedicalinterventionorattendance.(Peoplev.Badriago)
SPECIALCOMPLEXCRIME
Question:AminolaandMaitimbangwereaccusedofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicidefor
robbingoneNestorGabuyaofhispersonalpropertiesandforkillingthelatterwiththeuseof
an unlicensed firearm. The eyewitness Jesus Oliva identified the two accused to have
perpetratedthesame.TheRTCconvictedMaitimbangofthecrimecharged.Istheconviction
foraspecialcomplexcrimeproper?
Answer.Yes.Essentialforconvictionofrobberywithhomicideisproofofadirectrelation,
anintimateconnectionbetweentherobberyandthekilling,whetherthelatterbeprioror
subsequenttotheformerorwhetherbothcrimesarecommittedatthesametime.(Peoplev.
Aminola)
COMPLEXCRIMEOFROBBERYWITHHOMICIDE
Question:Oneevening,ElarcosaandaccusedappellantOrias,bothmembersoftheCAFGU,
requestedSaturninathatsupperbepreparedforthem.WhileSegundinaandRosemariewere
preparing in the kitchen, Elarcosa and Orias fired their guns at Jose and Jorge Cruz.
Segundina ran towards his son while Rosemarie hid in the shrubs. Rosemarie heard her
mothercryingloudlyandafteraseriesofgunshots,silenceensued.Thefollowingmorning,
Rosemariereturnedtotheirhousewhereshefoundthedeadbodiesofherparentsandher
brother.TheamountofP40,000andacertificateofregistrationoflargecattlewerealsogone.
Elarcosa and Orias were thereafter charged with robbery with multiple homicide. RTC
convictedtheaccusedoftheoffenseascharged.TheCA,however,changedtheconvictionto
multiplemurder,ratiocinatingthatrobberywasnotprovedandthatthekillingwasqualified
bytreachery.Howmanycrimeswerecommitted?Whatarethosecrimesifany?
Answer:OnlyRobberywithHomicide. Inacomplexcrime,althoughtwoormorecrimes
areactuallycommitted,theyconstituteonlyonecrimeintheeyesofthelaw,aswellasinthe
conscienceoftheoffenderxxxwhenvariousvictimsexpirefromseparateshots,suchacts
constituteseparateanddistinctcrimes.(Peoplev.Elarcosa)
ATTENDINGCIRCUMSTANCES
MINORITYASAMITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCE
Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the Comprehensive
DangerousDrugsActof2002.TheTaguigpoliceorganizedabuybustoperationuponatip
fromaninformantthatMusaet.al.weresellingdrugs.Monongan,aminor,acceptedthe
markedmoneywhileMusagaveasachetofshabutotheposeurbuyer.TheRTCfoundallof
1 | Page

the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the RPC, it imposed the maximum penalty of life
imprisonment. The RTC also found that the offense was committed by an
organized/syndicatedcrimegroupandimposedafineofP10million.However,theRTC
loweredthepenaltyofMononganwhowasonly17,aminoratthetimeofthecommissionof
theoffense,toanindeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentoffourteen(14)years,eight(8)
monthsandone(1)dayofreclusiontemporal,asminimum,tosixteen(16)yearsofreclusion
temporal,asmaximum.CAaffirmedthedecisionbutimposeduponMononganthepenalty
oflifeimprisonment.IstheimpositionofpenaltyagainstaccusedManongancorrect?
Answer:No.Theprivilegedmitigatingcircumstanceofminoritycanbeappreciatedinfixing
thepenaltythatshouldbeimposedintheprosecutionsforviolationsoftheDangerousDrugs
Act.(Peoplev.Musa)
MINORITYASAMITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCE
Question: Musa et al. were charged with violating RA 9165 of the Comprehensive
DangerousDrugsActof2002.TheTaguigpoliceorganizedabuybustoperationuponatip
fromaninformantthatMusaet.al.weresellingdrugs.Monongan,aminor,acceptedthe
markedmoneywhileMusagaveasachetofshabutotheposeurbuyer.TheRTCfoundallof
the accused guilty. Citing Art. 62 of the RPC, it imposed the maximum penalty of life
imprisonment. The RTC also found that the offense was committed by an
organized/syndicatedcrimegroupandimposedafineofP10million.However,theRTC
loweredthepenaltyofMononganwhowasonly17,aminoratthetimeofthecommissionof
theoffense,toanindeterminatepenaltyofimprisonmentoffourteen(14)years,eight(8)
monthsandone(1)dayofreclusiontemporal,asminimum,tosixteen(16)yearsofreclusion
temporal,asmaximum.CAaffirmedthedecisionbutimposeduponMononganthepenalty
oflifeimprisonment.IstheimpositionofpenaltyagainstaccusedManongancorrect?
Answer:No.Theprivilegedmitigatingcircumstanceofminoritycanbeappreciatedinfixing
thepenaltythatshouldbeimposedintheprosecutionsforviolationsoftheDangerousDrugs
Act.(Peoplev.Musa)
CORROBORATINGEVIDENCE
Question:ReynaldoCapaladwaschargedwithviolationofSecs.5and11oftheR.A.9165.
Atthetrial,theprosecutionpresentedPO3FernandoMoran,PO1JeffredPacis,andPO1
VictorManansalaaswitnesses.Thedefense,ontheotherhand,presentedtheaccusedandhis
son,ReymelCapalad.Afterthetrial,hewasconvictedbytheRTCofbothcharges.On
appeal,hequestionedthelegalityofhisarrest.Hedisputedtheprosecutionwitnessesclaim
that an entrapment operation took place. He also argued that the testimony of his son,
Reymel,shouldhavebeengivenmoreweight.TheCA,however,stillaffirmedthelower
courtsjudgment.TheaccusedcontendsbeforetheCourtamongothersthattheprinciplethat
achildisthebestwitnessshouldhavebeenappliedtohiscasegivingemphasisonhisson's
testimony corroborating his version of events. Should the SC give credence to his
allegations?
Answer.No.Findingsofthetrialcourts,whicharefactualinnatureandwhichinvolvethe
credibilityofwitnesses,areaccordedrespectwhennoglaringerrors,grossmisapprehension
offacts,orspeculative,arbitrary,andunsupportedconclusionscanbegatheredfromsuch
findings.(Peoplev.Capalad)
CONSPIRACY
Question: Without uttering a word, Tomas drew a gun and shot Estrella twice, while
Gatchalian,withoutagun,allegedlyblockedtheroad,andDoctorpositionedhimselfatthe
backofDamianaandAngelinaandpokedagunatthem.EstrellafelldownbutTomasfired
threemoregunshotsattheformerwhenshewasalreadydownontheground.TheRTC
convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of the offense of Murder and
appreciated the attendance of treachery and conspiracy. Is the conviction appreciating
conspiracycorrect?
2 | Page

Answer:No.Conspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerning
the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. It may be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words or conduct of the alleged conspirators
before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or
purpose.(Peoplev.Tomas)
CONSPIRACY
Question PetitionersYongcoandLaojan,assecurityguardsinthepremisesoftheCity
EngineersOffice(CEO),andTangianasgarbagetruckdriveroftheCityGovernmentof
IliganwerechargedforallegedlystealingoneunittransmissionofTamarawandlbeamof
NissanwithatotalvalueofP40,000.00.RTCheldpetitionersliableforqualifiedtheftwith
theattendingcircumstanceofconspiracy.
Tangianclaimedthatheshouldnotbeconsideredasaconspiratorsincehemerelyinnocently
obeyedLaojansinstructionsontheassumptionthatthelatterwashissuperior.Yongco,in
hisdefense,arguedthatTangianandhistwootherhelpersaskedforhisassistancewhichhe
extendedingoodfaith,inviewofLaojansstatementearlierthatdaythattheofficegarage
hastobecleared.Laojan,ontheotherhand,insistedthathecannotbeconsideredasa
conspiratorsincehewasnotpresentatthetimeoftaking,andthatthemeregivingofa
thumbsupsigntoTangianwhenthelatterdeliveredthematerialstothejunkshopdoesnot
amounttoconspiracy.Isthereconspiracy?
Answer: Itiscommondesignwhichistheessenceofconspiracyconspiratorsmayact
separatelyortogetherindifferentmannersbutalwaysleadingtothesameunlawfulresult.
The character and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and
viewingitsseparatepartsbutonlybylookingatitasawholeactsdonetogiveeffectto
conspiracymaybe,infact,whollyinnocentacts.(Yongcov.People).
UNLAWFULAGGRESSION
Question:Thevictim,Marlon,stoodupandgreetedtheaccused,whohappenedtobehis
brotherinlaw,"goodevening."Hestatedthattheaccusedkeptquietandsuddenlyraisedthe
righthandofMarlonandstabbedhimbythearmpitwithaknifethathewascarrying.Marlon
shoutedbecauseofthepain,whichcausedthepeopleintheneighborhoodtocomeout.
Afterhisarrest,DavidManingdingpleadednotguiltyofthemurderchargedagainsthim.The
RTC convicted the accused. The RTC found that treachery attended the stabbing of the
victim,beingsuddenandunexpected.Isthealtercationthatensuedleadingtothestabbing
justifiedasselfdefense?
Answer:No. Unlawfulaggressionisdefinedasanactualphysicalassault,oratleasta
threattoinflictrealimminentinjury,uponaperson.Incaseofthreat,itmustbeoffensive
andstrong,positivelyshowingthewrongfulintenttocauseinjury.Itpresupposesactual,
sudden,unexpectedorimminentdangernotmerelythreateningand
TREACHERY
Question: TwocriminalinformationswerefiledagainstRoelRuelSallyforthemurderof
EdwinLucasandJoseBersero.AccordingtotheprosecutionwitnessRogerLara,hesawthe
accusedhitthevictimswithapieceofpipewhilesleeping.TheRTCfoundSallyguiltyof
murder.InhisappealtotheCA,Sallyquestionedthefindingthattreacheryattendedthe
killings, qualifying the crime to murder, instead of homicide. He pointed out that the
prosecutionfailedtoprovethatanironpipewasusedinthekillingofthevictimsasthe
weaponwasnotretrievedorpresentedinevidence,norwasthemedicolegalofficercertainif
anironpipewouldcausetheinjuriessufferedbythevictims.However,theCAupheldthe
decisionoftheRTC.Hence,thispetition.Is theconvictiontomurderandnothomicide
correct?
Answer:Yes.Theessenceoftreacheryisthesuddenandunexpectedattackbytheaggressor
onunsuspectingvictims,therebyensuringitscommissionwithoutrisktotheaggressor,and
3 | Page

withoutthetheslightestprovocationonthepartofthevictims.Thekindofweaponusedis
immaterial.(Peoplev.Sally)
intimidatingaction.Itispresentonlywhentheoneattackedfacesrealandimmediatethreat
tooneslife.(Peoplev.Maningding)
PROVOCATIONASADEFENSE
Question:BrothersNahomandNemrodwenttothehouseofSerafintokillhimbuthewas
notthere.Uponbeinginformedofthis,SerafinwenttoNahomshouse. Nemrodadvised
Serafintogohome,butherefusedtoleave.Instead,SerafinattemptedtohackNemrodand
triedtoenterthegateofNahomshouse.Thereafter,NahomstruckSerafinontheheadwitha
bolo.Meanwhile,Nemrodwenttohisbrothershousetolookforabolo.Afterbeinghit,
Serafinranaway.Nemrod,however,pursuedhim,andhithimseveraltimesonthebackand
arm.Heeventuallydiedfromthewoundshesustained.Thetwobrotherswerechargedwith
homicide.Nemrodvoluntarilysurrenderedtotheauthorities.Thetrialcourtruledthatthey
wereguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofhomicide.ButforNemrodamitigating
circumstanceofsufficientprovocationandvoluntarysurrenderwascredited.However,he
appealedtotheCAandruledthathehasfailedtoprovesatisfactorilytheelementsofself
defenseandthatunlawfulaggressiondidnotexist.Ifyouwerethejudge,willyouappreciate
themitigatingcircumstanceofprovocation?
Answer:Yes. Inorder to determinethesufficiencyofaprovocationfor the purposeof
mitigating a crime, one must look into the act constituting the provocation, the social
standingofthepersonprovoked,andtheplaceandtimewhentheprovocationismade.In
thepresentcase,afindingthattheactofthevictimdidnotconstituteunlawfulaggression
doesnotautomaticallynegatetheattendantcircumstanceofsufficientprovocation.(Gotisv.
People)
TREACHERY
Question:Ramil while he was attending a wake with his brother Cristopher was sitting
nearbyonaparkedmotorcycletalkingtosomeonewhenPrinceappearedfrombehindand
startedstabbingRamilusingaknifeuntilhedied.Princewaschargedwithmurder.Princehis
assaultresultedtothedeathofRamilbuthearguedthattheoffensewasonlyhomicideand
notmurderbecausetherewasnotreachery.RTCconvictedPrincewithmurderwhichwas
lateronaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.Princearguesthattheattackwasnotfrombehind
butfrontaltherebytreacherywasnotpresent.Istheretrachery?
Answer:Yes. Treacheryexistseveniftheattackisfrontalifitissuddenandunexpected,
giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself, for what is decisive in
treacheryis thattheexecutionoftheattackmadeitimpossiblefor thevictim todefend
himselfortoretaliate.(Peoplev.Francisco)
TREACHERYANDPREMEDITATION
Question:OnJuly1,1996,accusedPaling,accompaniedbyVilbar,allegedlykilledWalter
Nolasco in Roxas, Cotabato. When arraigned, they both pleaded not guilty. One of the
witnessesfortheprosecution,Richard,saidthathesawPalingandErniestabbingWalter
whileVilbarheldhim.AfterkillingWalter,theaccusedwarnedRichardnottospeakabout
whathesawotherwise,theywouldalsokillhim.TheRTCconvictedPalingandVilbarofthe
crimeofmurderwithaqualifyingcircumstanceoftreacheryandevidentpremeditationwhich
decisionwasaffirmedbytheCA.IstheRTCcorrectinconvictingtheaccusedformurder?
Answer: Yes. Theaggravatingcircumstanceoftakingadvantageofsuperiorstrengthis
considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressors that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely
selectedortakenadvantageoftofacilitatethecommissionofthecrime.(Peoplev.Paling)
DEFENSEOFINSANITY

4 | Page

Question: AAAisa41yearoldmentallyretardedwoman.Paul,anacquaintance,raped
AAAinsidehisbedroom.BeforefinallylettingthecryingAAAgo,however,Paulthreatened
her with death should she disclose to anybody what had just happened between them.
PsychiatricevaluationrevealedthatAAA,although42yearsoldatthattime,hadthemental
capacityanddispositionofanineor10yearoldchild.Accusedappellantmaintainsthatthe
trialcourterredingivingfullcredencetoandrelianceonAAAsinculpatorystatements.
Inabidtoescapefromcriminalliability,accusedappellantinvokesinsanity.Hecontends
thatthepsychiatristwhoexaminedhimconsistentlytestifiedthattherewasahighpossibility
thathewassufferingfromschizoaffectivedisorderwhentheallegedrapeincidenthappened.
Ruleontheinvocationofdefenseofinsanity.
Answer:Paulissane.Themoralandlegalpresumptionisalwaysinfavorofsoundnessof
mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. It is
impropertoassumethecontrary.(Peoplev.Alipio)
SELFDEFENSE
Question:RupertoArbalateandhissonsRoelandRamilArbalatewerechargedwithmurder
forkillingSelemen.RoelandRamilwereabletoevadearrestandremainedatlarge.Hence,
onlyRupertofacedtrial.Duringthearraignment,Rupertopleadednotguilty.Inhisdefense,
Ruperto invoked selfdefense. Moreover, he argued that there was no abuse of superior
strength.Withoutclearproofofthisqualifyingcircumstance,Rupertoinsistedthathemust
beconvictedofhomicideonly.Shouldselfdefensebeappreciated?
Answer:No.Tosupportaclaimofselfdefense,itisessentialthatthekillingofthevictimbe
simultaneous withtheattackontheaccused,oratleastbothactssucceededeachother
withoutappreciableintervaloftime.(Peoplev.Arbalate)
CLAIMOFSELFDEFENSE
Question: Upon seeing Anabel Bautista and Reynaldo Juguilon, Manulit stood up and
successivelyshotReynaldoattheback,resultinginthelattersdeath.Hethentuckedthegun
inhiswaist,raisedhishands,andshouted,O,walaakongginawangkasalananatwala
kayongnakita.
Inhisdefense,Manulitofferedastoryofselfdefense.Whileheandhiscousin,Marvin,were
drinking,victimReynaldobargedinholdingagunwithbothhishands.Heappearednottobe
hisnormalselfwithreddisheyes,asifhighondrugs.
Despitehisclaimofselfdefense,RTCconvictedhimformurder.Istheconvictionproper
despiteallegationsofselfdefense?
Answer:Yes.Unlawfulaggressionisanactualphysicalassault,oratleastathreattoinflict
real imminentinjury, uponaperson.Incaseof threat,itmust beoffensiveandstrong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It is present only when the one
attackedfacesrealandimmediatethreattooneslife.(Peoplev.Manulit).
Forunlawfulaggressiontobepresent,theremustbearealdangertolifeorpersonalsafety.
Theremustbeanactual,sudden,andunexpectedattackorimminentdanger,andnotmerely
athreateningorintimidatingattitude.(Peoplev.Satonero)
ALIBIASADEFENSE
Question:AccusedJuanitoApattadwaschargedinfourseparateinformationswiththecrime
ofrapeagainsthis12yearolddaughter.Thechild,AAA,testifiedherfatherrepeatedlyraped
hersince2001.Theaccusedthreatenedtokillherifshewillreporttheincidenttohermother
andsheeventuallyinformedheroftherape.Adefensewitnessclaimedthatonthedateofthe
incident,theaccusedstayedintheformershouse,whichwasonlythreekilometersaway
fromthehouseoftheaccused.TheRTCfoundhimguiltyofthreecountsofrape.IstheRTC
correct?
Answer. Yes. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetratorofthecrime.(Peoplev.Apattad)
5 | Page

ALIBIASADEFENSE
Question:SPO1LoretoNerpioheldachildrensbirthdaypartyforhissonathisresidence.
MarioSalazarjoinedthedrinkingsessionandlateronleftthehouseofNerpio.Thereafter,
NellyVillanueva,whowasthenwaitingforafriend,sawSalazarwalkingalongthestreet.
Villanueva saw a man poked a gunat the right side of Salazars neck, and fired it. He
identifiedNerpioasthemalefactor.Nerpiowaschargedwithhomicidebuthesaidhewas
busyathischildsbirthdaypartywhenthecrimehappened.Ruleonthedefenseofalibi
raisedbytheaccused.
Answer:Itisasettleddoctrinethatforalibitoprosper,itisnotenoughtoprovethatthe
accused was at some other place when the crime was committed; but the defense must
likewisedemonstratethattheaccusedcouldnothavebeenphysicallypresentattheplaceof
thecrime,orinitsimmediatevicinity,duringitscommission.(Nerpiov.People)
PRINCIPALBYINDUCEMENT
Question: AccusedMayorAmbaganJr.waschargedandconvictedbytheSandiganbayan
with two counts of homicide as principal by inducement. The prosecution presented
statementsfromtwopersonswhowassaidtobedirectlypresentduringtheshooting.The
firstwitness(Bawalan)saidthatshootingstartedafterheheardthemayorsaidGE,IYAN
PALAANGGUSTOMO,MGAKASAMABANATANNYONAYAN.However,the
secondwitnesscontradictsthiswhenhesaidthatheinsteadpushedthemayoroutoftheroad
wheretheshootingincidentoccurredandthathedidnothearthemayorsayingthosewords
which could have provoked and initiate the shooting of the victims. Further, evidence
providesthatReneAmparo(oneofMayorAmbagansmen)hasnegativeparaffintestwhich
wouldleadtothefactthatitisnottheMayorsmenwhoinitiatedtheshootingbutrather
from the deceased Rey Santos. The Sandiganbayan convicted Ambagan of the crime of
doublehomicide.Aggrieved,petitionermovedforreconsiderationoftheaforequotedruling.
Istheconvictionasprincipalbyinducementcorrect?
Answer:No.Theconvictionofapersonasaprincipalbyinducementrequires(1)thatthe
inducementbemadewiththeintentionofprocuringthecommissionofthecrime;and(2)
thatsuchinducementbethedeterminingcauseofthecommissionbythematerialexecutor.
(AmbaganJr.v.People)
COMPUTATIONOFIMPOSABLEPENALTY
Question: Celestialwasconvictedofsixcountsofqualifiedtheftthroughfalsificationof
commercial document. The issue of conviction has attained finality after the failure of
Celestialscounseltofileherappellantbrief.Thecourtnowonlydelvesontheissueofthe
impositionofproperpenalty.Howisthepenaltycomputed?
Answer:ApplyingArticle70oftheRPC,suchmaximumperiodshallinnocaseexceedforty
years.Therefore,inspiteofthesix(6)penaltiesofforty(40)yearsofreclusionperpetua,
petitionershallonlysufferimprisonmentforaperiodnotexceeding40years.(Celestialv.
People)
PRESCRIPTIONOFACRIME
Question:ByvirtueofAdministrativeOrderNo.13issuedbythenPresidentFidelV.Ramos
creating aPresidentialAdHocFactFindingCommitteeonBehest Loans,areport dated
January4,1993identifiedtheaccountsofResortsHotelCorporation(RHC)asbehestin
character.LatertheRepublicofthePhilippines,representedbythePCGG,filedanAffidavit
Complaint on January 6, 2003 with the Office of the Ombudsman, against respondent
directorsandofficersofRHCandthedirectorsofDBPforviolationofSections3(e)and3
(g)ofRepublicAct(RA)No.3019ortheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct.Howeverthe
OmbudsmandismissedpetitionersAffidavitComplaintongroundsofprescription.Hence,
thispetition.Hasthecrimeprescribed?

6 | Page

Answer:Yes.Whendateoftheviolationwascommittedbenotknown,thenitshallbeginto
run from the discovery of said violation and the institution of judicial proceedings for
investigationandpunishment.
PRESUMPTIONOFREGULARITYOFDISCHARGEOFDUTIES
Question:The prosecution alleged that four police officers, manning a legal checkpoint,
spottedaswervingvehicle,drivenbySydecowhowasundertheinfluenceofliquor.The
policeofficersflaggedthevehicledownandaskedSydecotoalightfromthevehiclefora
bodyandvehiclesearch.Herefusedandinsistedonaplainviewsearchonly.Bythisremark,
thepolicementoldhimthathewasdrunk,boxedhim,andpokedagunathishead.The
officers pulled Sydeco out of the vehicle and brought him to the hospital where they
succeededinsecuringamedicalcertificatedepictingSydecoaspositiveofalcoholbreath.
SydecowaschargedforviolationofSection56(f)ofRA4136ortheLandTransportation
CodeandanotherforviolationofArticle151oftheRPC.Sydecothenfiledacomplaint
affidavit against the police officers. MeTC found Sydeco guilty as charged. The RTC
affirmedSydecosconviction.ThiswasaffirmedbytheCAandupheldthepresumptionof
regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers. Is appreciation of the
presumptionofregularitycorrect?
Answer:No. Thepresumptionofregularityintheconductofpolicedutyisdisputableby
contraryproofandwhichwhenchallengedbytheevidencecannotberegardedasbinding
truth.Theabsenceofconclusiveproofbeingundertheinfluenceofliquorwhiledriving
coupled with the forceful manner the police yanked petitioner out of his vehicle argues
againstoratleastcastdoubtonthefindingofguiltfordrunkendrivingandresistingarrest.
(Peoplev.Sydeco)
BUYBUSTOPERATION,CHAINOFCUSTODY
Question: Actinguponconfidentialinformation,theDistrictAntiIllegalDrugs(DAID)of
QuezonCityformedateamtoconductabuybustoperationtoapprehendacertainMyrna
whowasallegedlyconductingillegaldrugactivities.Accordingtotheprosecution,theDAID
recoveredthemarked500pesobillusedbytheteamfrom"Myrna,"aswellastwoplastic
sachets,atthetimeofarrestofboth"Myrna"andhercompanion,Saguera."Myrna,"who
waslateridentifiedasNeneQuiamanlon,andSamula,aswellastherecoveredarticleswere
broughttothestationforproperinvestigationanddisposition.
RTC convicted Quiamanlon of violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act,
specificallySections5and11ofArticleII.Uponappeal,theCAaffirmedtherulingofthe
trialcourt.Quiamanlonclaimedthatthepoliceofficerswhoconductedthebuybustoperation
failedtoobservetherulesonchainofcustody.Quiamanloninsistedthatanyapprehending
team having initial control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after
seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the
presenceoftheaccused,iftherebeany,andorhisrepresentative,whoshallberequiredto
signthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopythereof.Ruleonthemeritsofdefenseof
violationofchainofcustody.
Answer: TheIRRofRA9165readilyreveals thatthecustodialchainruleis nottobe
rigorously applied, provided "the integrity andevidentiary value ofthe seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Moreover, the integrity of the
evidenceispresumedtobepreserved,unlessthereisashowingofbadfaith,illwill,orproof
thattheevidencehasbeentamperedwith.Evidently,theprosecutionestablishedthecrucial
linkinthechainofcustodyoftheseizeddrugs.(Peoplev.Quiamanlon)
BUYBUSTOPERATION
Question:AconfidentialinformantreportedtotheDrugEnforcementUnit(DEU)ofMakati
City that a certain "Vangie" was engaged in drug pushing activities. Hence, a buybust
operationwasplannedbytheDEU.VangiearrangedtomeetatStarbucksCafonRockwell
Drive,MakatiCity.SPO1Fullerosaccededtoherrequestandheadedtothecoffeeshop.He
gaveVangietheboodlemoneyafterexaminingtheplasticbags.Afterwards,hegavethepre
7 | Page

arrangedsignaltoalerthisteamthatthetransactionhadbeenconsummated.Thebackup
operativesarrivedwhilehewasintroducinghimselftoVangieasaDEUoperative.Shewas
placedunderarrestandlateridentifiedasSobangee.
RTC and CA found Sobangee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated
ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002,forsellingmethylamphetamineSec.5,Art.II
of RA No. 9165 or the hydrochloride. Sobangee claimed that the testimonies of the
prosecutionwitnessessufferedfrommajorinconsistencies,suchas:(1)thedatethealleged
informantcametotheDEUoffice;(2)thetimethebuybustteamlefttheofficetoconductits
operation;(3)theplacethattheteamfirstwenttobeforegoingtothebuybustatRockwell
Center,MakatiCity;(4)thelocationoftheoperativesduringthebuybustoperation;(5)the
sitewheretheillegalsubstancesseizedweremarked;(6)theamountinvolvedinthebuy
bust;(7)theofficerwhoinformedSobangeeofherconstitutionalrights;and(8)theidentity
oftheinformant.Istheconvictioncorrect?
Answer. Yes. Inordertosuccessfullyprosecuteanaccusedforillegalsaleofdrugs,the
prosecutionmustbeabletoprovethefollowingelements:1)Identityofthebuyerandseller,
theobject,andtheconsideration,2)thedeliveryofthethingsoldandthepaymentforit.
(Peoplev.Sabongee)
BUYBUSTOPERATION
Question:An informant arrived at the District AntiIllegal Drugs at the Southern Police
District,FortBonifacio,TaguigandreportedthatacertainPakswaspushingshabuonP.
MarianoSt.,Taguig.Ateamwasdispatchedtoconductabuybustoperation.PO2Boiserand
PO2LagoswalkedwiththeinformanttomeetPaks.Paks,satisfiedthatPO2Boise,was
indeedadruguser,agreedtosellP500.00worthofshabu.Hereachedfromhiscamouflage
shortsaplasticsachetandhandedittoPO2Boiser.Afterreceivingtheplasticsachetfrom
Paks,PO2Boiserexamineditunderthelightofalamppost.Seeingtheprearrangedsignal
actedoutbyPO2Boiser,PO2Lagoswenttothesceneandintroducedhimselfasapolice
officertoPaks.ThebuybustmoneywasthenseizedfromPaks.
RTCfoundPaksVicente,Jr.guiltyofthecrimecharged.Onappeal,Vicente,Jr.arguedthat
Sec.21oftheImplementingRulesandRegulations(IRR)ofRA9165werenotcomplied
with,sincethebuybustteamfailedtopresentapreoperationreportandphotographsofthe
seizeditems.Withthisargument,hesaidthattheseizeditemsarenowpollutedevidence.As
anappellatejudge,willyouupholdtheRTCruling?
Answer:Yes.Sec.21ofRA9165neednotbefollowedasanexactscience.Noncompliance
withSec.21doesnotrenderanaccusedsarrestillegalortheitemsseized/confiscatedfrom
himinadmissible.Itisnotaseriousflawthatcanrendervoidtheseizuresandcustodyof
drugsinabuybustoperation.Whatisessentialisthepreservationoftheintegrityandthe
evidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditems,asthesamewouldbeutilizedinthedeterminationof
theguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.(Peoplev.Vicente)
BUYBUSTOPERATION
Question: In a buybust operation conducted, the accused, Marlon Abetong, was caught
sellingshabutoapoliceposeurbuyer.TheRTCrenderedadecisionfindinghimguilty
beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The CA
affirmedhisconviction.Theaccusedcontendedthattheprosecutionfailedtosufficiently
provethattheintegrityoftheevidencewaspreserved.RaisingnoncompliancewithSec.21
ofRA9165,heargued,amongothers:(1)thatthemarkingsontheitemsseizeddonotbear
thedateandtimeoftheconfiscation,asrequired;(2)thataboutthreedayshavepassedsince
theitemswereconfiscatedbeforetheywerebroughttothecrimelaboratory;and(3)that
therewasneitheraninventorynoraphotographoftherecoveredplasticsachet.Wasthe
prosecutionabletoestablishtheguiltoftheaccusedbasedontheallegationofviolationof
thechainofcustody?
Answer:No.Inabuybustoperationconducted,theaccused,MarlonAbetong,wascaught
sellingshabutoapoliceposeurbuyer.TheRTCrenderedadecisionfindinghimguilty
8 | Page

beyondreasonabledoubtofaviolationofSection5,ArticleIIofR.A.9165.TheCAaffirmed
hisconviction.Theaccusedcontendedthattheprosecution failedtosufficientlyprovethat
theintegrityoftheevidencewaspreserved.RaisingnoncompliancewithSec.21ofRA9165,
heargued,amongothers:(1)thatthemarkingsontheitemsseizeddonotbearthedateand
timeoftheconfiscation,asrequired;(2)thataboutthreedayshavepassedsincetheitems
wereconfiscatedbeforetheywerebroughttothecrimelaboratory;and(3)thattherewas
neitheraninventorynoraphotographoftherecoveredplasticsachet.Helikewisehingedhis
appealonthefactthatInspectorLorilla,whohadtheonlykeytotheevidencelocker,didnot
testifyduringtrial.(Peoplv.Abetong)
BUYBUSTOPERATION;ALIBI
Question: TheTaguigpoliceformedabuybustteamuponreceiptofareportofillegal
activitiesofPagkalinawan.Hewasarrestedaftersachetsofshabuwererecoveredfromhim.
Pagkalinawan,interposedthedefenseofalibi.Hesaidthatarmedmenbargedintohishouse
andpointedagunathim.Hewasbroughttothepolicestationwhenthepolicecouldnotfind
anyprohibiteddrugs.
Pagkalinawan insists that what actually happened was an instigation and not a buybust
operation.Wasthereavalidentrapmentintheformofbuybustoperation?
Answer:Yes.Apoliceofficer'sactofsolicitingdrugsfromtheaccusedduringabuybust
operationorwhatisknownasadecoysolicitation,isnotprohibitedbylawanddoesnot
renderthebuybustoperationinvalid.(Peoplev.Pagkalinawan)
BUYBUSTOPERATION,CHAINOFCUSTODY
Question:Asaresultofabuybustoperation,DelaCruzwaschargedwithandconvictedof
thecrimeofdrugpushing.Inhisdefense,theaccuseddeniedsellingshabutoPO2Ibasco.In
short,theaccusedusedthedefenseofdenialandallegedaframeupbythearrestingofficers.
Onappeal,heimputedmaterialirregularitiesonthechainofcustodyoftheseizeddrugs.
Ruleontheirregularitiesonthechainofcustodyraisedbytheaccused.
Answer:Theprosecutionmustofferthetestimonyofkeywitnessestoestablishasufficiently
completechainofcustody.Thefailureofthepolicetocomplywiththeprocedureinthe
custodyoftheseizeddrugsraisesdoubtastoitsoriginsandalsonegatestheoperationofthe
presumptionofregularityaccordedtopoliceofficers.(Peoplev.DelaCruz)
TESTBUY
Question:SPO1DelaCruzwaspartofateamthatconductedatestbuyontoverifyareport
of Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug activities. When this was confirmed, a buybust
operationensued.SPO1DelaCruzsubsequentlymarkedthesachetthatwassoldtohimas
MDC1andthesachetfoundonthepersonofElizabethasMDC2.Thechemistryreport
confirmedthatthesubjectdrugswerepositiveforshabu.RTCconvictedtheaccused.
ElizabethimputesgravedoubtsonwhetherSPO1DelaCruzobservedtherequirementsof
RA9165oninventoryandphotographingoftheillegalsubstance,arguingthatsaidpolice
officerdidnotstatewhereandwhenhemarkedthesachetsofshabu.Willyouupholdthe
conviction?
Answer:IwillupholdtheRTCdecision.NoncompliancewiththeprovisionsofRA9165on
thecustodyanddispositionofdangerousdrugsisnotnecessarilyfataltotheprosecutions
case.Theconvictioncanbesustainedifthereareotherindependentevidencetoestablishthe
guiltoftheaccused.(Peoplev.Marcelino).
BUYBUSTOPERATIONS
Question: TheRegionalSpecialOperationsGroupIV(RSOGIV)receivedatipabouta
group of drug traffickers led by Isidro Arguson operating in Cavite. SPO2 Geronimo
Pastrana, PO3 Ramos, and PO2 Emerson Balosbalos the operation in front of the
McDonaldsbranchinP.OcampoSt.,PasayCity.ThesalewasthenconsummatedandPO3
9 | Page

Ramosgavehissignalandarrestedthem.Theaccused,bywayofdefense,allegedthatshe
justfinishedherlaundrywhenshetookherchildtoMcDonaldswhenshesawacommotion.
Shethensawawomanwhoalightedfromavanandpointedathertohercompanionsand
boardedherinsidethevancausinghertoloseholdofherchild.TheRTCandtheCAruled
againsttheaccused.Hence,thecase.Istheconvictionproper?
Answer: No. As embodied in Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165, i.e., the apprehending
officer/teamhavinginitialcustodyandcontrolofthedrugshallimmediatelyafterseizure
andconfiscation, physicallyinventoryandphotographthe [drug] inthe presenceofthe
accusedortheperson/sfromwhomsuchitemswereconfiscatedand/orseized,orhis/her
representativeorcounsel,arepresentativefromthemediaandtheDepartmentofJustice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventoryandbegivenacopythereof.(Peoplev.Cervantes)
CHAINOFCUSTODY
Question: ManuelRessurreccionwasconvictedofillegalsaleofshabu.Onappealtothe
SupremeCourthebroachestheviewthatSAIsidorosfailuretomarktheconfiscatedshabu
immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the drugs identity. Accused
appellantResurreccionnowpointstothefailureofthebuybustteamtoimmediatelymark
theseizeddrugsasacausetodoubttheidentityoftheshabuallegedlyconfiscatedfromhim.
Wasthereaviolationofthechainofcustodyrule?
Answer:No.Jurisprudencetellsusthatthefailuretoimmediatelymarkseizeddrugswillnot
automaticallyimpairtheintegrityofchainofcustody.Itisessentialfortheprosecutionto
introduceotherevidencetoestablishtheguiltoftheaccused.(Peoplev.Resureccion)
CHAINOFCUSTODY
Question:AninformanttippedofftheDrugEnforcementUnitoftheMarikinaPoliceStation
thatwanteddrugpusherWifredoLoiloalias"BoyBicol"wasathisNipahuthideoutinSan
Mateo,Rizal.WhentheteamreachedthesaidNipaHut,DelaCruzwasseenholdinga
shotgunbuthelaterondroppedhisshotgunwhenapoliceofficerpointedhisfirearmathim.
Theteamenteredthepremisesandsawaplasticbagofshabuanddrugparaphernalia.Dela
CruzwassubsequentlyarrestedandwasseparatelyindictedforviolationofRA9165andfor
illegalpossessionoffirearm.TheRTCacquittedaccusedappellantofillegalpossessionof
firearmandammunitionbutconvictedhimofpossessionofdangerousdrugs.Theaccused
appellantfiledaNoticeofAppealoftheRTCDecisiononthegroundthattheprosecutionhis
arrestwaspatentlyillegalandtheprosecutionfailedtoestablishthechainofcustodyofthe
illegaldrugallegedlyinhispossession.TheCAsustainedaccusedappellant'sconviction.
Wastheprosecutionabletoestablishpossessionofillegaldrugs?
Answer:No.Anaccusedcanbeheldtobeinconstructivepossessionofillegaldrugsifit
shownthattheyenjoydominionandcontroloverthepremiseswherethesedrugswerefound.
(Peoplev.DelaCruz)
MALVERSATIONOFPUBLICFUNDS
Question:TheCOASpecialAuditReportstatedthattherewereanomaliesinthepaymentof
salarydifferentials,allowances,andbenefits,amongothers.Pursuanttosuchfindings,three
informationswerefiledbytheOmbudsmanagainstMunibEstino,thenActingGovernor,and
ErnestoPescadera,theProvincialTreasurerduringEstinosstint.Thesaidchargesinvolve
malversationofpublicfundsunderArt.217oftheRevisedPenalCodeandtwoviolationsof
Sec.3(e)ofR.A.3019.TheSandiganbayan,intheconsolidatedcriminalcases,convicted
bothEstinoandPescaderaforviolationofSection3(e)ofR.A.3019forfailuretopaythe
Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) of the provincial government
employeesofSulubutacquittedthemastotheotherchargeforthesameviolation.Astothe
chargeofmalversationofpublicfunds,theSandiganbayanexoneratedEstinobutconvicted
Pescadera for failure to remit the GSIS contributions of the provincial government
employees.Istheaccusedguiltyofthecrimecharged?
10 | P a g e

Answer:No. ThereisnoproofthatPescaderamisappropriatedthesaidamountforhis
personaluse.Whiledemandisnotanelementofthecrimeofmalversation,itisarequisite
fortheapplicationofthepresumption.Withoutthispresumption,theaccusedmaystillbe
proved guilty under Art. 217 based on direct evidence of malversation. (Pescadera v.
People)
LIABILITY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER ANTIGRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICESACT
Question: Petitioner Uyboco, a private individual, and his coaccused was found guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtforviolatingSection3(e)ofRepublicActNo.3019,otherwise
knownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesActbytheSandiganbayan.Petitionerasserts
thattheSandiganbayanerredindeclaringtheexistenceofaconspiracyandinconvictinghim
intheabsenceofproofbeyondreasonabledoubtofsuchconspiracy.MayUybocobeheld
liableforviolationofRA3019?
Answer: Yes. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be
indictedand,iffoundguilty,heldliableforthepertinentoffensesunderSection3ofR.A.
3019.(Uybocov.People)
TREACHERY
Question: Oneevening,EstrellaDoctorCascoalongwithhermothernamedDamianaand
twocaretakersLiezlandAngelita,werewalkinghomefromDamianasmedicalcheckup
whenEstrellascousinsTonyTomasandBenedictoDoctor,togetherwithNestorGatchalian,
suddenlycameoutfromthesideoftheroad.Withoututteringaword,Tomasdrewagunand
shotEstrellatwice,whileGatchalian,withoutagun,allegedlyblockedtheroad,andDoctor
positionedhimselfatthebackofDamianaandAngelinaandpokedagunatthem.Estrella
felldownbutTomasfiredthreemoregunshotsattheformerwhenshewasalreadydownon
the ground. After which, the three accused fled from the scene of the crime. The RTC
convicted the accused Tomas, Doctor and Gatchalian of the offense of Murder and
appreciated the attendance of treachery and conspiracy which the CA affirmed with
modification.Hence,thispetitionwasfiled.IstheCAcorrectinaffirmingtheRTCdecision
appreciatingtheaggravatingcircumstanceoftreachery?
Answer:Yes. Foralevosiatoqualifythecrimetomurder,itmustbeshownthat:(1)the
malefactoremployedsuchmeans,methodormannerofexecutionastoensurehisorher
safetyfromthedefensiveorretaliatoryactsofthevictim;and(2)thesaidmeans,method
and manner of execution were deliberately adopted. Moreover, for treachery to be
appreciated,itmustbepresentandseenbythewitnessrightattheinceptionoftheattack.
(Peoplev.Tomas)
INCONSISTENCIESINTESTIMONIES
Question: Anthonywaschargedwithmurderandfrustratedmurder.Thetrialfoundhim
guiltyoftheoffensescharged.Onappeal,asidefromreiteratinghisalibi,healsopointedout
theinconsistenciesinthetestimoniesofprosecutionwitnesses.TheCAfoundnomeritin
Anthonyscontentions.Inreviewingthetestimonies ofthewitnesses,theappellatecourt
foundnoinconsistenciesthatwouldquestiontheircredibility.Hence,thispetition.Ruleon
accusedscontentionsofinconsistencies.
Answer:Itiselementarythatnotallinconsistenciesinthewitnessestestimonyaffecttheir
credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the
substanceoftheirdeclaration,theirveracity,ortheweightoftheirtestimonies.(Peoplev.
Domingo)
INCONSISTENCIESINTESTIMONIES,POSITIVEIDENTIFICATION
Question: RichardRoda,anAssistantManagerofNognogVideokeRestaurantinQuezon
City,noticedthatAmodia,Marino,andLooc,werebeatingJaime.Asaresultofthebeating
died.RodawenttoCampKaringalinQuezonCitytoreportwhathehadwitnessed.The
policethenfiledaninvestigationreportwhichbecamethebasisforthefilingofInformation
11 | P a g e

againstAmodiaetal.RTCruledthatAmodiaetal.wereguiltyofMurder.CAaffirmedthe
RTCdecision.CAgavecredencetothepositivetestimonyoftheprosecutioneyewitness
who,wasnotactuatedbyimpropermotivetotestifyagainstaccusedappellants.TheCA,
moreover, held that the killing was qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior
strength.
Amodia et al. contends that conviction is anchored on the positive testimony of the
prosecution eyewitness which was full of inconsistencies. They allege that it was
unbelievable that a person who had witnessed a crime should simply go home without
immediatelyreportingthemattertotheauthorities.Weretheaccusedpositivelyidentified
enoughtoconvictthem?
Answer: Yes. Positiveidentificationoftheaccused,whencategoricalandconsistentand
withoutanyshowingofillmotiveonthepartofaneyewitnesstestifyingonthematter,
prevailsoverdenialof[the]accused,whichifnotsubstantiatedbyclearandconvincing
evidence, is negativeandself servingevidence undeservingofweightin law. (Peoplev.
Amodia)
DEFENSEOFALIBIANDDENIAL
Question: OnNovember20,2001in aforested areanearby theplaceand house ofthe
accusedDidongandcompany,DidonghitwithhispieceofwoodthenapeofAhladdin(the
victimwhowasalsodrunkatthetime)thenheldbythehandbyNante.WhenNantereleased
hishold,DidongagainhitAhladdinonthebackoftheknees.AfterBoyet,NanteandDidong
stabbed Ahladdin, Fred Gongon shot him saying Siguraduhin niyo patay na yan. The
followingmorningthedeadbodyofAhladdinwasdiscovered.Consequently,basedonthese
establishedfactsDidongandcompanywerechargedofmurderqualifiedbytreachery.On
thischargeDidongmerelyprovidedthedefenseofalibianddenial.Wastheretreachery?
Answer: Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the
aggressors on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
themselves,therebyensuringitscommissionwithoutrisktotheaggressors,andwithoutthe
slightestprovocationonthevictimspart.
RAPEANDDEFENSEOFALIBI
Question: Theaccusedwas chargedofthecrimerapeofcertainAAA.Theprosecution
presentedthefactthatthevictimtogetherwithherfriends,wenttoadanceeventbutlateron
asshenoticedthatherfriendswerenolongeratthedancefloor,shedecidedtogohometo
hergrandmothershousewhenonherwayhome,Alveriosuddenlyappearedandrapedher.
Duringtheincident,Alveriowasarmedwithaknifewhichheusedtopokethevictimand
threatenedherthathewouldkillherifshetoldanyoneofwhathehasdone.Ontheother
hand,theaccuseddeniedalltheaccusationsagainsthimwithanalibi.TheRTCconvicted
AlveriowhichdecisionwasaffirmedbytheCA.Wastheconvictioncorrect?
Answer:Yes. Incasesinvolvingtheprosecutionfor rape,corroborationofthevictims
testimonyisnotanecessaryconditiontoaconvictionforrapewherethevictimstestimony
iscredible,orclearandconvincingorsufficienttoprovetheelementsoftheoffensebeyond
areasonabledoubt.(Peoplev.Alverio)
STATUTORYRAPE
Question:AAA,theprivatecomplainant,was11yearsoldwhileLindowastheirneighbor.
WhileAAAwassleeping,Lindotookherawaytoaplacenearacreek.Hetriedinsertinghis
penis into her vagina but there was no complete penetration. Not achieving full penile
penetration,hethenmadeherbendover,andinsertedhispenisintoheranus,causingherto
cryoutinpain.RTCfoundhimguiltyofstatutoryrapeunderArt.335oftheRPCinrelation
toR.ANo.7610.TheCAaffirmedthejudgmentandawardedexemplarydamages.Wasthe
convictioncorrect?

12 | P a g e

Answer:Yes.Themereintroductionofthemaleorganinthelabiamajoraofthevictims
genitaliaconsummatesthecrime;themeretouchingofthelabiabythepeniswasheldtobe
sufficient.(Peoplev.Lindo)
RAPE
Question:AAA,then15yearsold,wenttohergrandmothershouseuponlearningthather
fatherandunclewerequarrelingthere.Whenshecriedforhelp,ElmerBarberos,aneighbor,
wenttoherandtoldherthathewouldprotecther.BarberosbroughtAAAtohishouseand
rapedher.AAAwasabletoescapebyjumpingoutofthewindowwhensomeoneknockedat
thedoor.BoththeRTCandCAconvictedBarberosofthecrimeofrape.Istotalpenetration
necessarytocommitrape?
Answer:No. Fullpenilepenetrationofthepenisintothevaginaisnotrequiredforthe
commissionofrape,asmerepenileentryintothelabiaofthepudendumofthevagina,even
withoutruptureorlacerationofthehymen,isenoughtojustifyaconvictionforrape.(People
v.Barberos)
SWEETHEARTTHEORYINRAPE
Question:Ciaswaschargedwiththecrimeofrape.Inhisdefense,hearguedthatheandthe
victimhadbeencarryinganillicitaffairforaboutsixmonths.Heallegedthatinalltheir
previous assignations, she submitted herself to him voluntarily and willingly on each
occasionthattheyhadsexualintercourse.Isrelationshipadefenseinthecrimeofrape?
Answer:No.Aloveaffairdoesnotjustifyrapeforamandoesnothaveanunbridledlicense
tosubjecthisbelovedtohiscarnaldesiresagainstherwill.(Peoplev.Cias)
RAPEANDSWEETHEARTTHEORY
Question: AAAwasaloneinherhouseandwastakingabathwhenshenoticedthatthe
lightsinthelivingroomwereturnedoffwhichshethoughtwasdonebyherliveinpartnerso
shecalledhisname.However,uponopeningofthebathroomdoor,shesawRommelBelo
who was holding a bread knife and said "Sandali lang ito" and pushed her inside the
bathroom.BelokissedandtouchedAAA'sprivatepartswhilepointingtheknifeatAAAand
eventuallyhewasabletoinserthispenisintohervagina.Belo,inhisdefense,claimsthatit
wasaconsensualsexandthatAAAwashisgirlfriend.Further,heclaimsthattheabsenceof
bruisesandcontusionsonAAAsbody,basedonthemedicolegalreport,negatesthecrime
ofrape.TheRTCfoundBeloguiltyofrapeandwasaffirmedbytheCA.Istheconviction
properdespiterelationshipwiththevictim?
Answer:Yes.Sweetheart"theory,beinganaffirmativedefense,mustbeestablishedby
convincingevidencesomedocumentaryand/orotherevidencelikemementos,loveletters,
notes,photographsandthelike.(Peoplev.Belo)
RAPEandACTSOFLASCIVIOUSNESS
Question:Fourseparateinformationsforrapeandoneforactsoflasciviousnesswerefiled
againstAraojo.ThelattertagsAAAsaccountoftheallegedrapeincidents,which,forthe
mostpart,consistedofthesamedetails,asutterlyincredulous.If,asAAAalleged,shewas
raped,thentheresultsofhermedicalexaminationswouldhaveyieldedcompletehymenal
lacerations, considering AAAs tender age and the manner of the sexual assault. Araojo
theorizesthat,sinceAAAhadbeenhiredasababysitter,itispossiblethatshewasexposed
tovariousformsofexploitation.Isthevictimstestimonysufficienttowarrantconviction?
Answer: Yes. The credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in
prosecutionforrape.Withal,inpassinguponthecredibilityofwitnesses,thehighestdegree
ofrespectmustbeaccordedtothefindingsofthetrialcourt.(Peoplev.Araojo)
RAPECOMMITTEDBYAFATHER
Question:Onthreedifferentdates,Martinezallegedlyrapedhis13yearolddaughter,AAA,
whowasmentallyretarded.MartinezthreatenedtokillAAAifshewouldrevealtheincident
13 | P a g e

tohermother.However,AAAsteachernoticedthatsheappearedtobeunusuallyweak.
AwareofthefaCtthatMartinezhadsiredtwochildrenfromAAAseldersister,theteacher
askedAAAifherfatherhadrapedher,towhichAAAansweredintheaffirmative.The
teacherreportedthesametotheDSWD,andBBB,hermotherlearnedtherapeincident.
Martinezwasthenchargedwiththreecountsofqualifiedrape.Inhisdefense,Martinezraised
denialandalibi.RTCfoundMartinezguiltyofthreecountsofrapeunderArt.365ofthe
RPC.ConvincedofAAAscredibility,theCAaffirmedtheRTCdecision.Martinezargued
thatAAAstestimonyisnotcredibleforsheismentallyretarded.Ismentalretardationa
groundtodiscreditthecredibilityofthetestimonyofthewitness?
Answer:No.Anyonewhocanperceive,andperceiving,canmakeknownsuchperceptionto
others, may be a witness. Thus, mental retardation does not disqualify a person from
testifying. What is essential is the quality of perception, and the manner in which this
perceptionismadeknowntothecourt.(Peoplev.Martinez)
RAPE
Question: Adelado Anguac is the commonlaw spouse of BBB, the mother of AAA.
Sometimein1998whilesleepingwithhersiblingsinaroomintheirresidence,AAAwho
wasthen17yearsold,foundherselfsuddenlyawakenedbyAnguac whorapedher.The
sexualassaultonAAAwasrepeatedforfivetimes.AAAsubsequentlybecamepregnant.She
disclosedtheassaultstoherAunts.TwoseparateinformationswerefiledchargingAnguac
withrapeandviolationofRA7610.TheRTCfoundAnguacguilty.CAaffirmedtheRTCs
rulingbuttreatedthecrimeofrapechargedinCriminalCaseNo.RTC2757Iasaviolation
ofSec.5(b)ofRA7610insteadofSec.5(a)asfoundbythetrialcourt.Anguacontheother
hand, questioned the sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence. Was the CA correct in
convictingtheaccusedforSec.5(b)ratherSec.5(a)asfoundbytheRTC?
Answer:Yes.Thecharacterofthecrimeisdeterminedbytherecitaloftheultimatefacts
andcircumstancesintheinformation.Thetestimoniesofthevictimandthewitnesseswhich
buttressedherclaimofthecommissionofthecrimeprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthe
guiltofAnguac.(Peoplev.Anguac)
STATUTORYRAPE
Question: CruzwaschargedwithonecountofrapecommittedagainstAAA,9yearsold.
UponarraignmentCruzpleadednotguilty.MedicalexaminationresultshowedthatAAAhad
two(2)hymenallacerations.Forhispart,Cruzclaimedthatitwasimpossibleforhimto
commitrapeashehadbeensexuallyimpotentsince1995.Thiswasfurthercorroboratedby
hiswifebysayingthattheyseldomhadsexualintercourseafter1995.In2001,Cruzwas
diagnosedtobesufferingfromerectiledysfunction.
TheRTCfoundCruzguiltyforthecrimecharged.Onappeal,theCAaffirmedtherulingof
RTCandruledthathisimpotencywasnotprovenwithcertaintyandthatthemedicalfinding
oferectiledysfunctionwasbasedonanexaminationmorethanthreeyearsaftertherape
occurred;thus,nocategoricalconclusioncouldbemadethatCruzwasimpotentwhenthe
rapewascommitted.Wasthererapedespitedefenseofimpotency?
Answer:Yes.Impotencyasadefenseinrapecasesmustlikewisebeprovedwithcertaintyto
overcomethepresumptioninfavorofpotency.
STATUTORYRAPE
Question:UgoswaschargedwithrapingAAA,his7yearoldstepdaughter.Whiletheywere
lookingforAAAsmother,UgosbroughtAAAtoacreekandrapedher.Ugosdeniedthe
allegationsandstatedthatthevictimfellwhilelookingforhermotherbecausetheroadwas
darkandslippery.TheRTCfoundhimguilty,whichtheCAaffirmed.Ugoscontendsthatthe
testimoniesofAAAandhermotherrevealonlythecommissionofactsoflasciviousnessand
notrapesinceheonlyinsertedhisfingerintohersexorgan.Istheuseofafingersufficientto
committhecrimeofrape?
14 | P a g e

Answer: Yes. Rape can now be committed through sexual assault by inserting "any
instrumentorobject,intothegenitaloranalorificeofanotherperson."(Peoplev.Ugos)
QUALIFIEDTHEFT
Question:RespondentAmelioTria(Tria)isaformerbranchmanagerofPhilippineNational
Banks(PNB)MWSSbranch.MWSSopenedanaccountinPNBMWSS.OnApril22,2004,
PNBMWSSreceivedaletterfromMWSSinstructingthebanktoissueamanagerscheckin
theamountofP5,200,000.00infavorofacertainAtty.RodrigoReyes.Theemployeesof
PNB, after authentication and verification approved the request for the issuance of the
managerscheck.OnApril26,2004,TriaaccompaniedAtty.ReyestoPNBQuezonCity
branchsincePNBMWSShadinsufficientfundstopaytheamount.Hetoldtheemployeeof
PNBQCthatAtty.Reyesistheirvaluedclient.OnFebruary2,2005,ZaidaPulida(Pulida),a
MWSSemployeehandlingthesubjectbankaccountinquiredtoPNBabouttheP5,200,
000.00debitedtotheaccount.PulidanotifiedPNBthatMWSSdidnotapplyfortheissuance
ofthesaidmanagerscheck.Furthermore,uponverificationwiththeIntegratedBarofthe
Philippines,itwasconfirmedthattherewasnoRodrigoReyesincludedinitsroster.PNB
conducted its own investigation and held Tria liable for qualified theft. Tria denied the
allegationandcontendedotherbankemployeesshouldbeliablefortheloss.IsTriaguiltyof
qualifiedtheft?
Answer:Yes.Theftiscommittedbyanypersonwho,withintenttogain,butwithoutviolence
against,orintimidationofpersonsnorforceuponthings,shalltakethepersonalpropertyof
anotherwithoutthelattersconsent.Ifcommittedwithgraveabuseofconfidence,thecrime
oftheftbecomesqualified.(PNBv.Tria)
ESTAFATHROUGHFALSIFICATIONOFPUBLICDOCUMENTS
Question: Petitioners were officers of the Municipality of Paracelis,Mountain Province.
TheyissuedaCertificateofInspectionandAcceptanceinrelationtothecompletionofaroad
constructioninthesaidmunicipality.Asaresult,theGovernmentsubsequentlyissueda
checkforPhP106,970aspaymentfortheproject.AfterCOAinvestigation,petitionerswere
chargedwithEstafathruFalsificationofPublicDocuments.Itwasallegedthatpetitioners
madeitappearthattheyhavepersonallyinspectedtheconstructionprojectandthereafter
foundthesametohavebeenfullyaccomplished100%,whenintruthandinfact,theworkon
theaforesaidprojectwasnotyetfinished.Istheconvictioncorrect?
Answer:Yes.TheelementsofthecrimeofestafaunderArt.315,par.2oftheRPCare:(1)
theaccusedmadefalsepretensesorfraudulentrepresentationsastohispower,influence,
qualifications,property,credit,agency,business,orimaginarytransactions;(2)suchfalse
pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the
commissionofthefraud;(3)suchfalsepretensesorfraudulentrepresentationsconstitutethe
verycausewhichinducedtheoffendedpartytopartwithhismoneyorproperty;and(4)asa
resultthereof,theoffendedpartysuffereddamage.(Manangeyv.Sandiganbayan)
FALSIFICATIONOFPUBLICDOCUMENT
Question:Atty.RodolfoPactolinwasaformermemberoftheSangguniangPanlalawiganof
Misamis Occidental. Mayor Fuentes immediately approved and granted the request for
financialassistanceforasportsactivity.WhiletheMayorattended aconference,Mario
servedasOfficerinCharge.PactolinborrowedAbastillasletterfromtheassistanttreasurer
and altered the same. Afterwards, Pactolin filed a complaint against Mario with the
Ombudsman,allegingthatMarioillegallydisbursedpublicfundsinconnivancewiththethen
cityaccountant.Aggrieved,MarioinstitutedacriminalcomplaintagainstPactolinbeforethe
Sandiganbayan. Pactolin was charged of falsification of public document under Article
171(2)oftheRevisedPenalCode.IsPactolinguiltyoffalsification?
15 | P a g e

Answer:Yes.Thesettledruleisthatintheabsenceofsatisfactoryexplanation,onefoundin
possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of
falsification.(Pactolinv.Sandiganbayan)
ESTAFAunderART.315(b),RPC
Question: SpousesErlindaandEliseoAsejowenttothehouseofVilmaCastrotoborrow
PhP100,000tobeshowntothebank(showmoney)andmakeitappearthattheAsejoswere
financiallyliquid.ThespouseswentbacktoCastroshousewhereshereceivedtheamount
andsignedaTrustUndertaking.Whentheobligationbecamedue,Castrowenttothespouses
todemandpaymentbutshefailedtocollectthemoney.SpousesAsejowerechargedwith
EstafaunderArt.315(b).TheywerefoundguiltyaschargedbytheRTC.TheCAaffirmed
thejudgmentbutmodifiedthepenalty.Isformaldemandrequiredtoconvicttheaccused?
Answer:No.Demandunderthiskindofestafa[Art.315(b)]neednotbeformalorwritten.
Itissufficientthatalltheelementsofthecrimeareprovedbytheprosecution.(Asejov.
People)
PARTB:CONCEPTS,GENERALPRINCIPLESANDLEADINGCASES
I.Preliminaries
Q.WhatisthenatureandscopeofCriminalLaw?
A.(1)Generalitywillapplytopeoplewhocommitanycriminalactcommittedwithinthe
territoryofthePhilippinesandwillgenerallydealwiththecharacteristicoftheperson
accusedofcommittingthecrime;
(2)TerritorialityPhilippineswillhavejurisdictionovercrimescommittedinsideits
territoryexceptasprovidedforintreatiesandlawsofpreferentialapplicationandwill
normallydealwiththecharacteristicoftheplacewherethecrimewascommitted;and
(3)ProspectivitybasedonArt.22ofRPC,theappreciationofthecrimecommittedmust
takeintoconsiderationthedateofthepassageofthelawandgiveitretroactiveeffect(a)ifit
isfavorabletotheaccused;and(b)iftheaccusedisnotahabitualdelinquent.
Q.WhatprovisionsoftheBillofRightsarerelevanttoCriminalLaw?
A.TheBillofRights
Sec.1:dueprocessandequalprotectionclause;
Sec.2:rightagainstillegalarrest,illegalsearchandseizure(inrelationtoadmissionin
evidenceofextrajudicialadmissions,warrantlessarrest,warrantlesssearchandseizure
andplantedevidence);
Sec.3:privacyofcommunications(inrelationtoWireTappingLaw);
Sec.4freedomofreligion(inrelationtocrimeoffendingareligion);
Sec.6libertyofabode(inrelationtorestraintoftravel(issuanceofHoldDeparture
Order;illegaldetentioncommittedbyapublicofficeroraprivateindividual);
Sec.11freeaccesstocourts(inrelationtorighttoappropriatelegalrepresentation);
Sec.12(1)and(3)Mirandarights(inrelationtoextrajudicialconfessionsandwhenone
canbecomeastatewitness),(2)and(4)Rightswhileunderdetention(inrelationto
HumanSecurityActof2007andHumanTortureActof2009);
Sec.13Righttobail(inrelationtononbailableoffenseslikePlunder,Rebellion,etc.but
payattentiontoJPEv.Sandiganbayandecisionwhichintroducedanewgroundtogrant
bailwhichisnottextuallyprovidedintheConstitution);
Sec.14Presumptionofinnocence(inrelationtodegreeofproofrequiredtoconvict);
Sec.15Thesuspensionofthewritofhabeascorpus
Sec.16Righttospeedytrial;
Sec.16Natureofpenaltyofimprisonment(inrelationtoimpositionofpenaltiesunder
RPC,ProbationLaw,IndeterminateSentenceLaw,DiversionandRehabilitation);
16 | P a g e

Sec.17Naturefinesandphysicaldetentionincaseofconviction(inrelationto
appreciationofattendingcircumstancesinthecommissionofthecrime,suspensionof
deathpenalty);
Sec.17nonimprisonmentfordebtornonpaymentofapolltax;
Sec.18prohibitionagainstdoublejeopardy;and
Sec.22prohibitionagainstexpostfactlaw/billofattainder.
Q.Whataretheelementsofdoublejeopardy?
A.Doublejeopardyonlyapplieswhen:(1)afirstjeopardyattached;(2)ithasbeenvalidly
terminated;and(3)asecondjeopardyisforthesameoffenseasinthefirst.Afirstjeopardy
attachesonlyaftertheaccusedhasbeenacquittedorconvicted,orthecasehasbeen
dismissedorotherwiseterminatedwithouthisexpressconsent,byacompetentcourtina
validindictmentforwhichtheaccusedhasenteredavalidpleaduring
arraignment.SaturninoC.Ocampov.Hon.EphremS.Abando,etal,G.R.No.176830,
February11,2014
Q.Whatisthefruitofthepoisonoustreedoctrine?
A.TheConstitutionenshrinesintheBillofRightstherightofthepeopletobesecureintheir
persons,houses,papersandeffectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresofwhatever
natureandforanypurpose.Togivefullprotectiontoit,theBillofRightsalsoordainsthe
exclusionaryprinciplethatanyevidenceobtainedinviolationofsaidrightisinadmissiblefor
anypurposeinanyproceeding.However,theinterdictionagainstwarrantlesssearchesand
seizuresisnotabsoluteandthatwarrantlesssearchesandseizureshavelongbeendeemed
permissiblebyjurisprudenceinthefollowinginstances:(1)searchofmovingvehicles;(2)
seizureinplainview;(3)customssearches;(4)waiverorconsentedsearches;(5)stopand
frisksituations(Terrysearch);and(6)searchincidentaltoalawfularrest.Thelastincludesa
validwarrantlesssearchandseizurepursuanttoanequallywarrantlessarrest,for,whileasa
rule,anarrestisconsideredlegitimateifeffectedwithavalidwarrantofarrest,theRulesof
Courtrecognizespermissiblewarrantlessarrest,towit:(1)arrestinflagrantedelicto;(2)
arresteffectedinhotpursuit;and(3)arrestofescapedprisoners.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.
VicenteRom,G.R.No.198452,February19,2014.
Q.Isahearingnecessarytodetermineprobablecauseintheissuanceofawarrant?
A.No.AlthoughtheConstitutionprovidesthatprobablecauseshallbedeterminedbythe
judgeafteranexaminationunderoathoranaffirmationofthecomplainantandthewitnesses,
theSupremeCourthasruledthatahearingisnotnecessaryforthedeterminationthereof.In
fact,thejudgespersonalexaminationofthecomplainantandthewitnessesisnotmandatory
andindispensablefordeterminingtheaptnessofissuingawarrantofarrest.SaturninoC.
Ocampov.Hon.EphremS.Abando,etal,G.R.No.176830,February11,2014
Q.Whatistheruleontheadmissionofextrajudicialconfessiontoappreciatetheelement
ofconspiracy?
A.TheexceptionprovidedunderSection30,Rule130oftheRulesofCourttotherule
allowingtheadmissionofaconspiratorrequiresthepriorestablishmentoftheconspiracyby
evidenceotherthantheconfession.TheSupremeCourt,however,haspreviouslystressed
thatmereassociationwiththeprincipalsbydirectparticipation,withoutmore,doesnot
suffice.Relationship,associationandcompanionshipdonotproveconspiracy.Itmustbe
shownthatthepersonconcernedhasperformedanovertactinpursuanceorfurtheranceof
thecomplicity.Infact,mereknowledge,acquiescenceorapprovaloftheact,withoutthe
cooperationorapprovaltocooperate,isnotsufficienttoproveconspiracy.GerryA.
Salapuddinv.TheCourtofAppeals,Gov.JumAkbar,andNorRhamaJ.Indanan,G.R.No.
184681,February25,2013.
17 | P a g e

Q.Citethedistinctionbetweenmalaenseandmalaprohibitum.
(1)malaensebyitselftheactisinherentlywrong(ex.killinganotherperson)whilein
malaprohibitumtheactismerelyprohibitedbylaw(ex.smokingorjaywalking);
(2)goodfaithisadefenseinmalaensebutnotinmalaprohibitum;
(3)stagesofcommissionunderArt.6ofRPCisconsideredinmalaensebutnotinmala
prohibitum;
(4)degreeofparticipationunderTitleIIofRPCisconsideredinmalaensebutnotin
malaprohibitum;
(5)inmalaense,modifyingcircumstancesareconsideredindeterminingimposable
penaltybutnotmalaprohibitum;and
(6)inmalaense,generally,thecrimesarepunishedunderRPCwhilegenerally,crimes
consideredmalaprohibitumarepunishedunderspecialpenallaw.
II.CircumstancesAffectingtheAppreciationofCommissionofaCrime
Attendingcircumstanceinthecommissionofcrimes:justifying,mitigating,exempting
andaggravating(genericandqualifying),alternativecircumstances;appreciationof
eachcircumstancewilldependonthefactssurroundingthecriminalactasitwould
affectthecriminalliabilityandextentofliabilityoftheaccused.MEMORIZE
PERTINENTPROVISIONSOFTHERPC.
Q.Howwillqualifyingcircumstanceoftreacherybeappreciated?.
A.Thereistreacherywhentheoffendercommitsacrimeagainsttheperson,employing
means,methodsorformsintheexecutionthereofwhichtenddirectlyandspeciallytoinsure
itsexecution,withoutrisktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoffendedpartymight
make.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.WilfredoGundaAliasFred,G.R.No.195525,
February5,2014.
Q.Howisintenttokillestablishinthecrimeofmurder?
A.Thepetitionersintenttokillwasclearlyestablishedbythenatureandnumberofwounds
sustainedbytheirvictims.Evidencetoproveintenttokillincrimesagainstpersonsmay
consist,amongotherthings,ofthemeansusedbythemalefactors;theconductofthe
malefactorsbefore,atthetimeof,orimmediatelyafterthekillingofthevictim;andthe
nature,locationandnumberofwoundssustainedbythevictim.RodolfoGuevarraandJoey
Guevarrav.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.170462,February5,2014
Q.Whatisconspiracy?
A.Aconspiracyexistswhentwoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerningthe
commissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit.Todetermineconspiracy,theremustbea
commondesigntocommitafelony.Whiledirectproofisnotessentialtoestablishconspiracy
asitmaybeinferredfromthecollectiveactsoftheaccusedbefore,duringandafterthe
commissionofthecrimewhichpointtoajointpurpose,design,concertedaction,and
communityofinterests.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.JavierMorillayAvellano,G.R.No.
189833,February5,2014
Q.Isproofofpreviousagreementnecessarytoestablishconspiracy?
A.No.Conspiracymaybededucedfromthemode,method,andmannerinwhichtheoffense
wasperpetrated;orinferredfromtheactsoftheaccusedwhenthoseactspointtoajoint
purposeanddesign,concertedaction,andcommunityofinterests.Proofofaprevious
agreementanddecisiontocommitthecrimeisnotessential,butthefactthatthemalefactors
actedinunisonpursuanttothesameobjectivesuffices.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.John
AlvinPondivida,G.R.No.188969,February27,2013
18 | P a g e

Q.Whatareelementstoestablishselfdefense?
A.Byinvokingselfdefense,thepetitioners,ineffect,admittedtothecommissionoftheacts
forwhichtheywerecharged,albeitundercircumstancesthat,ifproven,wouldhave
exculpatedthembyinvokingthefollowingcircumstances:(1)unlawfulaggressiononthe
partofthevictims;(2)reasonablenecessityofthemeansemployedtopreventorrepelsuch
aggression;and(3)lackofsufficientprovocationonthepartofthepersonsresortingtoself
defense.Ofalltheburdensthepetitionerscarried,themostimportantofallistheelementof
unlawfulaggression.RodolfoGuevarraandJoeyGuevarrav.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.
No.170462,February5,2014
Therecanbenoselfdefense,whethercompleteorincomplete,unlessthevictimhad
committedunlawfulaggressionagainstthepersonwhoresortedtoselfdefense.SimonA.
Floresv.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.181354,February27,2013.
Q.Whatisalibi?
A.Alibiisaninherentlyweakdefensebecauseitiseasytofabricateandhighlyunreliable.To
meritapprobation,theaccusedmustadduceclearandconvincingevidencethathewasina
placeotherthanthesituscriminisatthetimethecrimewascommitted,suchthatitwas
physicallyimpossibleforhimtohavebeenatthesceneofthecrimewhenitwascommitted.
Alibicannotprevailoverandisworthlessinthefaceofthepositiveidentificationbya
crediblewitnessthatanaccusedperpetratedthecrime.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.Jonathan
UtoVelosoyRama,G.R.No.188849,February13,2013
Q.Whenisalibiapplicableasadefense?
A.Ithasbeenheldthatforthedefenseofalibitoprosper,theaccusedmustprovethe
following:(i)thathewaspresentatanotherplaceatthetimeoftheperpetrationofthecrime;
and(ii)thatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtobeatthesceneofthecrimeduringits
commission.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.AurelioJastiva,G.R.No.199268,February12,
2014
Q.Whatistheprobativevalueofanaffidavitiftheaffiantisnotpresentedincourt?
A.Anaffidavitishearsayunlessaffiantpresentedincourt.Itissettledthatwhileaffidavits
maybeconsideredaspublicdocumentsiftheyareacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublic
(here,apublicofficerauthorizedtoadministeroaths),theyarestillclassifiedashearsay
evidenceunlesstheaffiantsthemselvesareplacedonthewitnessstandtotestifythereonand
theadversepartyisaccordedtheopportunitytocrossexaminethem.Withtheprosecutions
failuretopresenttheaffianttoaffirmhisstatementshouldbetreatedashearsayand,thus,
inadmissibletoestablishthetruthorfalsityoftherelevantclaims.
Q.Howiscircumstantialevidenceappreciatedinestablishingonesculpability?
A.Circumstantialevidenceconsistsofproofofcollateralfactsandcircumstancesfromwhich
themainfactinissuemaybeinferredbasedonreasonandcommonexperience.Itis
sufficientforconvictionif:(a)thereismorethanonecircumstance;(b)thefactsfromwhich
theinferencesarederivedareproven;and(c)thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuch
astoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.RicardoL.AtienzaandAlfredoA.
Castrov.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.188694,February12,2014
Circumstantialevidence;whensufficientforconviction.Circumstantialevidenceisdefined
asthatevidencethatindirectlyprovesafactinissuethroughaninferencewhichthefact
finderdrawsfromtheevidenceestablished.Itissufficientforconvictionif:[a]thereismore
thanone(1)circumstance;[b]thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareproven;and
[c]thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyond
reasonabledoubt.Toupholdaconvictionbasedoncircumstantialevidence,itisessentialthat
thecircumstantialevidencepresentedmustconstituteanunbrokenchainwhichleadsonetoa
fairandreasonableconclusionpointingtotheaccused,totheexclusionoftheothers,asthe
guiltyperson.Thetesttodeterminewhetherornotthecircumstantialevidenceonrecordis
sufficienttoconvicttheaccusedisthattheseriesofcircumstancesdulyprovedmustbe
consistentwitheachotherandthateachandeverycircumstancemustbeconsistentwiththe
19 | P a g e

accusersguiltandinconsistentwiththeaccusersinnocence.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.
P/Supt.ArtemioE.Lamsen,etal,G.R.No.198338,February20,2013.
MinorityasaMitigatingCircumstance.ToestablishminorityonesCertificateofBirthmay
beintroducedasevidence.
Article68(2)oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthatwhentheoffenderisaminorover15
andunder18years,thepenaltynextlowerthanthatprescribedbylawshallbeimposedon
theaccusedbutalwaysintheproperperiod.Therationaleofthelawinextendingsuch
leniencyandcompassionisthatbecauseofhisage,theaccusedispresumedtohaveacted
withlessdiscernment.Thisisregardlessofthefactthathisminoritywasnotprovedduring
thetrialandthathisbirthcertificatewasbelatedlypresentedforourconsideration,sinceto
ruleaccordinglywillnotadverselyaffecttherightsofthestate,thevictimandhisheirs..
Peoplev.Agaceret.al.,January7,2013
PLEASEMEMORIZEallattendingcircumstancesBECAUSEYOUMIGHTBE
FACEDWITHQUESTIONSWHICHWILLCALLFORTHEAPPLICATIONOF
THESEDISTINCTIONSINCOMPUTATIONOFPENALTIES,ACTORSINTHE
COMMISSIONOFCRIMES,STAGESOFTHECOMMISSIONOFTHECRIME,
APPRECIATIONOFATTENDINGCIRCUMSTANCESANDAVAILMENTOF
PROBATION.
III.Feloniesandotherrelatedmatters
Classificationofcrimes;seeyourRPConcrimesagainstpersons,nationalsecurity,
committedbypublicofficersetc.andthoseunderSpecialPenalLaws;conceptof
impossiblecrimeandwhenonecanbeheldliableforit;
Stagesofcommissionofacrimeandactorsinvolved:attempted,frustratedand
consummated;Principal,accompliceandaccessory.Pleasenotethestageanddegreeof
participationwilldeterminethepenalties;actorsmayalsobemultipleoffendersand
maybecoveredunderanyofthefollowingrecidivism,quasirecidivism,habituality,
habitualdelinquency(natureofcrime,timeelementandnatureofaggravating
circumstancesarefactorswhichareconsideredifthedefendantiscovered)
Conspiracy;liabilityofconspirators.Assumingthattheprosecutionwitnessesfailedto
identifyexactlywhoinflictedthefatalwoundsonJoeyduringthecommotion,Erwins
liabilityisnotdiminishedsinceheandtheotherswithhimactedwithconcertinbeatingup
andultimatelykillingJoey.Conspiracymakesalltheassailantsequallyliableascoprincipals
bydirectparticipation.Sinceabout15men,includingaccusedErwin,pouncedontheirone
helplessvictim,relentlesslybludgeonedhimonthehead,andstabbedhimonthestomach
untilhewasdead;thereisnoquestionthattheaccusedtookadvantageoftheirsuperior
strength.TheSupremeCourtthusaffirmedthedecisionofthelowercourtsfindingaccused
Erwinguiltyofmurder.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.ErwinTamayoyBautisa,G.R.No.
196960,March12,2014.
Frustratedhomicide;elements.Thecrimeoffrustratedhomicideiscommittedwhen:(1)an
accusedintendedtokillhisvictim,asmanifestedbyhisuseofadeadlyweaponinhis
assault;(2)thevictimsustainedfatalormortalwound/sbutdidnotdiebecauseoftimely
medicalassistance;and(3)noneofthequalifyingcircumstanceformurderunderArticle248
oftheRevisedPenalCodeispresent.RodolfoGuevarraandJoeyGuevarrav.Peopleofthe
Philippines,G.R.No.170462,February5,2014Consummatedhomicide;elements.The
20 | P a g e

crimeofhomicideiscommittedwhen:(1)apersoniskilled;(2)theaccusedkilledthat
personwithoutanyjustifyingcircumstance;(3)theaccusedhadtheintentiontokill,whichis
presumed;and(4)thekillingwasnotattendedbyanyofthequalifyingcircumstancesof
murder,orbythatofparricideorinfanticide.RodolfoGuevarraandJoeyGuevarrav.People
ofthePhilippines,G.R.No.170462,February5,2014
Distinguishcompoundcrime(whenasingleactconstitutestwoormoregraveorless
felonies);complexcrimeproper(whenanoffenseisanecessarymeansforcommitting
theother);compositecrime(specialcomplexcrimecomposedoftwoormorecrimes
thatthelawtreatsassingleindivisibleanduniqueoffenseforbeingtheproductofa
singlecriminalimpulse);continuedcrime(3elementsmustconcur:pluralityofacts
performedseparatelyduringaperiodoftime;unityofcriminalintentandpurpose;and
unityofpenalprovisionviolated).
IV.Penalties
Generalprinciples;purposewhypenaltyisimposed;classificationofpenalties;
durationandeffectofpenalties.
UnderSection2,Rule120oftheRulesofCourttohavethejudgment,ifitwasofconviction,
state:"(1)thelegalqualificationoftheoffenseconstitutedbytheactscommittedbythe
accusedandtheaggravatingormitigatingcircumstanceswhichattendeditscommission;(2)
theparticipationoftheaccusedintheoffense,whetherasprincipal,accomplice,oraccessory
afterthefact;(3)thepenaltyimposedupontheaccused;and(4)thecivilliabilityordamages
causedbyhiswrongfulactoromissiontoberecoveredfromtheaccusedbytheoffended
party,ifthereisany,unlesstheenforcementofthecivilliabilitybyaseparatecivilactionhas
beenreservedorwaived."
A.ProbationLaw:natureandpurposeofthelaw;whenmaydefendantavailof
probationafterconvictionandnoappealismadeduringtheperiodperfectingan
appeal;itiserroronthepartofthecourttoissueaCommitmentOrderonthesame
dayofpromulgationbecausedefendantsrighttoappealhasnotyetprescribed;
conversely,ifdefendantfiledanappeal,hecannolongeravailofprobationandif
defendantfilesanapplicationforprobation,hecannolongerappeal;individualsfound
guiltyofdrugtraffickingcannotavailofprobation;probationalsoappliesevenif
penaltyisonlyafine;probationshallnotexceedsixyears;consequencesforviolating
thetermsofprobation;whenprobationisdeemedterminated.
Probation;appealandprobationaremutuallyexclusiveremedies.Asidefromthegoalsof
accordingexpediencyandliberalitytotheaccused,therationaleforthetreatmentofappeal
andprobationasmutuallyexclusiveremediesisthattheyrestondiametricallyopposedlegal
positions.Anaccusedapplyingforprobationisdeemedtohaveacceptedthejudgment.The
applicationforprobationisanadmissionofguiltonthepartofanaccusedforthecrime
whichledtothejudgmentofconviction.ThiswasthereasonwhytheProbationLawwas
amended:preciselytoputastoptothepracticeofappealingfromjudgmentsofconviction
evenifthesentenceisprobationableforthepurposeofsecuringanacquittalandapplying
fortheprobationonlyiftheaccusedfailsinhisbid.EnriqueAlmeroyAlcantarav.Peopleof
thePhilippines,etal,G.R.No.188191,March12,2014.
PLEASEREADSEC.9OFTHEPROBATIONLAWASTOWHOCANNOTAVAIL
OFTHEBENEFITSOFPROBATION.
21 | P a g e

B.IndeterminateSentenceLaw(ISLaw):purposesofthelaw;whereaspeciallaw
adoptedpenaltiesfromRPC,ISLawwillapplyjustasitwouldinfelonies.PLEASE
READSEC.2OFISLawWHENBENEFITSOFISLawMAYNOTBEAVAILEDOF
BYTHEDEFENDANT.Forexample,apersonconvictedofplunderwhichis
punishablebylifeimprisonmentcannotavailofISLaw.
PersonsnoteligibleforParole.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.WilfredoGundaAlias
Fred,G.R.No.195525,February5,2014.UnderArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode,
thepenaltyformurderisreclusionperpetuatodeath.Therebeingnootheraggravating
circumstanceotherthanthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery,theCourtofAppeals
correctlyheldthattheproperimposablepenaltyisreclusionperpetua,thelowerofthetwo
indivisiblepenalties.Itmustbeemphasized,however,thatappellantisnoteligibleforparole
pursuanttoSection3ofR.A.9346whichstatesthatpersonsconvictedofoffensespunished
withreclusionperpetua,orwhosesentencewillbereducedtoreclusionperpetuabyreason
ofthisAct,shallnotbeeligibleforparoleunderActNo.4180,otherwiseknownasthe
IndeterminateSentenceLaw,asamended.
C.GraduationofPenalty:graduationofpenaltiesmaybeappreciatedasfollowsstage
ofexecution:forfrustrated,1degree;forattemptedstage,2degreesexcept:for
frustratedhomicide,parricideormurder,1to2degreesandforattemptedhomicide,
parricideormurder,1to2degrees;natureofexecutionasanaccomplice,1degree
andasaccessory,2degrees;privilegedmitigatingcircumstanceforminority,1degree
andincompletejustificationorexemption(exceptaccident),1or2degrees.
Minorityasmitigatingcircumstance.Peoplev.Agaceret.al.,January7,2013.Thepenalty
imposeduponFranklin,beingaminor,mustbeaccordinglymodified.Thepenaltyformurder
isreclusionperpetuatodeath.Adegreelowerisreclusiontemporal.Therebeingno
aggravatingandordinarymitigatingcircumstance,thepenaltytobeimposedonFranklin
shouldbereclusiontemporalinitsmediumperiod,asmaximum,whichrangesfromfourteen
(14)years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)daytoseventeen(17)yearsandfour(4)months.
ApplyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,thepenaltynextlowerindegreeisprisionmayor,
themediumperiodofwhichrangesfromeight(8)yearsandone(1)daytoten(10)years.
Duetotheseriousnessofthecrimeandthemanneritwascommitted,thepenaltymustbe
imposedatitsmostsevererange.
ImpositionofTwoIndivisiblePenalties:Peoplev.Seraspe,January9,2013.UnderSection
15,ArticleIII,inrelationtoSection20,ArticleIV,oftheDangerousDrugsActof1972,as
amendedbyR.A.No.7659,theunauthorizedsaleof200gramsormoreofshabuor
methamphetaminehydrochlorideispunishablebyreclusionperpetuatodeathandafine
rangingfromfivehundredthousandpesostotenmillionpesos.Thetotalweightoftheshabu
confiscatedinthiscaseis983.5grams.Hence,theproperpenaltyshouldbereclusion
perpetuatodeath.Butsincethepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeathconsistsoftwo
indivisiblepenalties,appellantwascorrectlymetedthelesserpenaltyofreclusionperpetua,
conformablywithArticle63(2)oftheRevisedPenalCodewhichprovidesthatwhenthere
arenomitigatingoraggravatingcircumstancesinthecommissionofthedeed,thelesser
penaltyshallbeapplied.
ReclusionTemporaltoReclusionPerpetua,notcomposedofthreeperiods.Bacolodv.
People,July15,2013.Itisimperativethatthecourtsprescribetheproperpenaltieswhen
convictingtheaccused,anddeterminethecivilliabilitytobeimposedontheaccused,unless
therehasbeenareservationoftheactiontorecovercivilliabilityorawaiverofitsrecovery.
22 | P a g e

Theinformationspecificallyallegedthatthehouseburnedbytheaccusedwasaninhabited
dwelling.PursuanttoSection3(2)ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1613(AmendingtheLawon
Arson),thepenaltytobeimposedifthepropertyburnedisaninhabitedhouseordwellingis
fromreclusiontemporaltoreclusionperpetua.Notbeingcomposedofthreeperiods,
however,suchpenaltyshouldbedividedintothreeequalportionsoftime,andeachportion
formsoneperiodofthepenalty.Yet,reclusionperpetua,beinganindivisiblepenalty,
immediatelybecomesthemaximumperiod,leavingreclusiontemporaltobedividedintotwo
inordertofixthemediumandminimumperiodsofthepenalty.Thethreeperiodsofthe
prescribedpenaltyofreclusiontemporaltoreclusionperpetuaarethenasfollows:
Minimumperiod12yearsand1dayto16years;
Mediumperiod16yearsand1dayto20years;
Maximumperiodreclusionperpetua.
Accordingly,themaximumoftheindeterminatepenaltyinthiscaseshouldbewithinthe
rangeofthemediumperiodofthepenalty,i.e.,from16yearsand1dayto20years,because
neitheraggravatingnormitigatingcircumstanceattendedthecommissionofthecrime;and
theminimumoftheindeterminatesentenceshouldbewithintherangeofthepenaltynext
lowerindegreetothatprescribedforthecrime,withoutregardtoitsperiods.

GraduatingDeathPenaltyDeathpenaltyisstillthepenaltytobereckonedwith.With
thesuspensionofdeathpenalty,thenextimposablepenaltyshallapply.
D.Threefoldand40yearlimitationrule:distinguishsimultaneousservice(ex.
imprisonmentandfine)fromsuccessiverule(ex.wherethereismultiplepenaltiesof
imprisonment);threefoldruleonmaximumperiodofimprisonment;and40year
limitationrule.
E.SubsidiaryImprisonment:whendefendantshallbesubjectedtosubsidiary
imprisonmentafterfinalconviction;impositionofcivilliability
F.ExemptionfromCriminalLiabilityundertheJuvenileJusticeandWelfareAct:
DistinguishbetweenDiversionandRehabilitation;howitcanbeavailedof;
G.ModesandExtinctionofCriminalLiability:1.fromtheExecutiveBranch:actsof
clemencybythePresident;2.fromtheLegislativeBranch:amnesty;3.Prescriptionof
crimes;4.Prescriptionofpenalties;and5.pardonbyoffendedparty,whereallowed.
GeneralRule:Inresolvingtheissueofprescription,thefollowingmustbeconsidered,
namely:(1)theperiodofprescriptionfortheoffensecharged;(2)thetimewhentheperiodof
prescriptionstartstorun;and(3)thetimewhentheprescriptiveperiodisinterrupted.
V.ThefollowingarematterswhicharelikelytobeaskedunderSpecialPenalLaws:
1.R.A.3019AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct:Apublicofficermaybecharged
bothunderthislawandaprovisionoftheRPCex.whenaMayorandtheCity
Treasurerconnivetousepublicfundsnotforthepurposeintended,theymayalsobe
heldformalversationoffundsundertheRPC;orwhenaSheriffaltersadateof
executionofacourtorder,hemayalsobechargedwithfalsificationofpublic
documentsundertheRPC;thereiscomplexcrimeunderR.A.3019underboth
circumstances;PLEASENOTETHATTHEREISADISTICNTIONIN
PRESCRIPTIONOFCRIMESCOMMITTEDBYTHEPUBLICOFFICERUNDER

23 | P a g e

THERPCANDR.A.3019;reviewtheparticipationofprivateindividualsandrelatives
underthislaw.
ElementsofCorruptionunderSec.4(a)ofR.A.3019..Disiniv.Sandiganbayan.The
sufficiencyoftheallegationsintheinformationchargingtheviolationofSection4(a)ofR.A.
No.3019issimilarlyupheld.TheelementsoftheoffenseunderSection4(a)ofR.A.No.
3019are:thattheoffenderhasfamilyorclosepersonalrelationwithapublicofficial;thathe
capitalizesorexploitsortakesadvantageofsuchfamilyorclosepersonalrelationbydirectly
orindirectlyrequestingorreceivinganypresent,gift,materialorpecuniaryadvantagefrom
anypersonhavingsomebusiness,transaction,application,request,orcontractwiththe
government;thatthepublicofficialwithwhomtheoffenderhasfamilyorclosepersonal
relationhastointerveneinthebusinesstransaction,application,request,orcontractwiththe
government.
DirectBriberyandIndirectBribery,Disini,ibid.,Theelementsofcorruptionofpublic
officialsunderArticle212oftheRevisedPenalCodeare:thattheoffendermakesoffersor
promises,orgivesgiftsorpresentstoapublicofficer;andthattheoffersorpromisesare
madeorthegiftsorpresentsaregiventoapublicofficerundercircumstancesthatwillmake
thepublicofficerliablefordirectbriberyorindirectbribery.
AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct;offensesunderSection3(e)ofR.A.3019.Ina
catenaofcases,theSupremeCourt(SC)hasheldthattherearetwo(2)waysbywhicha
publicofficialviolatessection3(e)ofR.A.3019intheperformanceofhisfunctions,namely:
(1)bycausingundueinjurytoanyparty,includingtheGovernment;or(2)bygivingany
privatepartyanyunwarrantedbenefit,advantageorpreference.Theaccusedmaybecharged
undereithermodeorunderboth.Thedisjunctivetermorconnotesthateitheractqualifies
asaviolationofsection3(e)ofR.A.3019.Inotherwords,thepresenceofonewouldsuffice
forconviction.Tobefoundguiltyunderthesecondmode,itsufficesthattheaccusedhas
givenunjustifiedfavororbenefittoanother,intheexerciseofhisofficial,administrativeand
judicialfunctions.Theelementofdamageisnotrequiredforviolationofsection3(e)under
thesecondmode.Settledistherulethatprivatepersons,whenactinginconspiracywith
publicofficers,maybeindictedand,iffoundguilty,heldliableforthepertinentoffenses
undersection3ofR.A.3019.Consideringthatalltheelementsoftheoffenseofviolationof
section3(e)wereallegedinthesecondinformation,theSCfoundthesametobesufficientin
formandsubstancetosustainaconviction.IsabeloA.Brazav.TheHonorable
Sandiganbayan(1stDivision),G.R.No.195032,February20,2013.
Sandiganbayan;originalandexclusivejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan.The
SandiganbayanhasoriginalexclusivejurisdictionovertheclaimagainstAsianBank,forthe
SupremeCourthasruledinPresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernmentv.
Sandiganbayan,thattheSandiganbayanhasoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionnotonlyover
principalcausesofactioninvolvingrecoveryofillgottenwealth,butalsooverallincidents
arisingfrom,incidentalto,orrelatedtosuchcases.MetropolitanBankandTrustCompany,
assuccessorininterestofAsianBankCorporationv.Hon.EdilbertoG.Sandoval,et
al,G.R.No.169677,February18,2013
AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct;Section3(g);privatepersonsactinginconspiracy
withpublicofficersmaybeindicted.Theonlyquestionthatneedstobesettledinthepresent
petitioniswhetherhereinrespondent,aprivateperson,maybeindictedforconspiracyin
violatingSection3(g)ofR.A.3019evenifthepublicofficer,withwhomhewasallegedto
haveconspired,hasdiedpriortothefilingoftheInformation.Respondentcontendsthatby
reasonofthedeathofSecretaryEnrile,thereisnopublicofficerwhowaschargedinthe
24 | P a g e

Informationand,assuch,prosecutionagainstrespondentmaynotprosper.TheSupreme
CourtwasnotpersuadedanditsaidthattheonlythingextinguishedbythedeathofSecretary
Enrileishiscriminalliability.Hisdeathdidnotextinguishthecrimenordiditremovethe
basisofthechargeofconspiracybetweenhimandprivaterespondent.Stateddifferently,the
deathofSecretaryEnriledoesnotmeanthattherewasnopublicofficerwhoallegedly
violatedSection3(g)ofR.A.3019.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.HenryT.Go,G.R.No.
168539,March25,2014.
AntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct;Section3(g);privatepersonsactinginconspiracy
withpublicofficersmaybeindicted.Therequirementbeforeaprivatepersonmaybe
indictedforviolationofSection3(g)ofR.A.3019,amongothers,isthatsuchprivateperson
mustbeallegedtohaveactedinconspiracywithapublicofficer.Thelaw,however,doesnot
requirethatsuchpersonmust,inallinstances,beindictedtogetherwiththepublicofficer.If
circumstancesexistwherethepublicofficermaynolongerbechargedincourt,asinthe
presentcasewherethepublicofficerhasalreadydied,theprivatepersonmaybeindicted
alone.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.HenryT.Go,G.R.No.168539,March25,2014.

R.A.3019;Section3(e);proofoftheextentofdamageisnotessential.Thethirdelementof
theoffensethattheactoftheaccusedcausedundueinjurytoanyparty,includingthe
Government,orgaveanyprivatepartyunwarrantedbenefit,advantageorpreferenceinthe
dischargeofthefunctionsoftheaccusedwasestablishedhere.Proofoftheextentof
damageisnotessential,itbeingsufficientthattheinjurysufferedorthebenefitreceivedis
perceivedtobesubstantialenoughandnotmerelynegligible.DaniloO.GarciaandJoven
SD.Brizuelav.SandiganbayanandPeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.197204,March26,
2014.
LiabilityunderSection3(e)ofR.A.3019.Plamerasv.People,September4,2013.The
followingelementsmustconcurtobeliableunderSection3(e)ofR.A.3019:
1) Theaccusedmustbeapublicofficerdischargingadministrative,judicialorofficial
functions;
2) Hemusthaveactedwithmanifestpartiality,evidentbadfaithorgrossinexcusable
negligence;and
3) Thathisactioncausedundueinjurytoanyparty,includingthegovernment,orgiving
anyprivatepartyunwarrantedbenefits,advantageorpreferenceinthedischargeofhis
functions.
2.ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsof2002(R.A.9165)Reviewoftheconceptof
chainofcustodyasitrelatestotheevidenceandeventualprosecutionofthecase(Sec.
21);nomitigatingandaggravatingcircumstanceswillbeappreciatedunderlaw
becausemerepossessionoranyotheractunderthelawisconsideredmalaprohibitabut
knowledgemustbeestablishedbytheprosecutionthattheoffenderfreelyandconsciously
possessedthedangerousdrugwithoutauthority(animuspossidendi).
DangerousDrugsAct;chainofcustodyrule.Therearelinksthatmustbeestablishedinthe
chainofcustodyinabuybustsituation,namely:first,theseizureandmarking,ifpracticable,
oftheillegaldrugrecoveredfromtheaccusedbytheapprehendingofficer;second,the
turnoveroftheillegaldrugseizedbytheapprehendingofficertotheinvestigating
officer;third,theturnoverbytheinvestigatingofficeroftheillegaldrugtotheforensic
chemistforlaboratoryexamination;and,fourth,theturnoverandsubmissionofthemarked
illegaldrugseizedfromtheforensicchemisttothecourt.Inthiscase,theprosecution

25 | P a g e

establishedclearlytheintegrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheconfiscatedshabu.Peopleofthe
Philippinesv.GlennSalvadoryBalverde,etal,G.R.No.190621,February10,2014.
Exceptiontothechainofcustodyrule:Peoplev.RomeoOnget.al.,July3,2013.
Prosecutionshouldestablishthefollowinglinksinthatchainofcustodyoftheconfiscated
item:first,theseizureandmarking,ifpracticable,oftheillegaldrugrecoveredfromthe
accusedbytheapprehendingofficer;second,theturnoveroftheillegaldrugseizedbythe
apprehendingofficertotheinvestigatingofficer;third,theturnoverbytheinvestigating
officeroftheillegaldrugtotheforensicchemistforlaboratoryexamination;andfourth,the
turnoverandsubmissionofthemarkedillegaldrugseizedfromtheforensicchemisttothe
court.
Still,jurisprudencehasestablishedarareexceptionwithrespecttothefirstrequiredlink
immediateseizureandmarkingoftheseizeditemsinthepresenceoftheaccusedandothers
namely,that(a)theremustbejustifiablegroundsfornoncompliancewiththeprocedures;
and(b)theintegrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditemsareproperlypreserved.
DangerousDrugsAct;illegalpossessionofdrugs;elements.Withregardtotheoffenseof
illegalpossessionofdangerousdrugs,likeshabu,thefollowingelementsmustbeproven:(1)
theaccusedisinpossessionofanitemorobjectthatisidentifiedtobeaprohibiteddrug;(2)
suchpossessionisnotauthorizedbylaw;and(3)theaccusedfreelyandconsciously
possessesthesaiddrug.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.VicenteRom,G.R.No.198452,
February19,2014
DangerousDrugsAct;illegalsaleofdrugs;elements.Inasuccessfulprosecutionforillegal
saleofdangerousdrugs,likeshabu,thefollowingelementsmustbeestablished:(1)the
identityofthebuyerandtheseller,theobject,andtheconsideration;and(2)thedeliveryof
thethingsoldandthepaymenttherefor.Place.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.GlennSalvadory
Balverde,etal,G.R.No.190621.February10,2014.
DangerousDrugsAct;transportdefined.TransportasusedundertheDangerous
DrugsActmeanstocarryorconveyfromoneplacetoanother.Theveryactof
transportingmethamphetaminehydrochlorideismalumprohibitumsinceitispunishedasan
offenseunderaspeciallaw.Thefactoftransportationofthesackscontainingdangerous
drugsneednotbeaccompaniedbyproofofcriminalintent,motiveorknowledge.Peopleof
thePhilippinesv.JavierMorillayAvellano,G.R.No.189833,February5,2014
DangerousDrugsAct;buybustoperations;distinctionbetweenentrapmentand
instigation.Abuybustoperationhasbeenrecognizedinthisjurisdictionasalegitimateform
ofentrapmentoftheculprit.Itisdistinctfrominstigation,inthattheaccusedwhois
otherwisenotpredisposedtocommitthecrimeisenticedorluredortalkedintocommitting
thecrime.Whileentrapmentislegal,instigationisnot.Inentrapment,priorsurveillanceis
notnecessarytorenderabuybustoperationlegitimate,especiallywhenthebuybustteamis
accompaniedtothetargetareabytheinformant.Also,thepresentationofaninformantasa
witnessisnotregardedasindispensabletothesuccessofaprosecutionofadrugdealing
accusedinviewoftheneedtoprotecttheinformantfromtheretaliationoftheculpritarrested
throughhisefforts.Onlywhenthetestimonyoftheinformantisconsideredabsolutely
essentialinobtainingtheconvictionoftheculpritshouldtheneedtoprotecthissecurityis
disregarded.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.NoelBartolomeyBajo,G.R.No.191726,February
6,2013.
DangerousDrugsAct;illegalsaleofdangerousdrugs;elements.Toestablishthecrimeof
illegalsaleofshabuasdefinedandpunishedundersection5,ArticleIIofR.A.9165,the
26 | P a g e

prosecutionmustprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthefollowing:(a)theidentityofthebuyer
andtheseller,theidentityoftheobjectandtheconsiderationofthesale;and(b)thedelivery
ofthethingsoldandofthepaymentforthething.Thecommissionoftheoffenseofillegal
saleofdangerousdrugs,likeshabu,requiressimplytheconsummationoftheselling
transaction,whichhappensatthemomentthebuyerreceivesthedrugfromtheseller.In
short,theProsecutionmustshowthatthetransactionorsaleactuallytookplace,andpresent
incourtthethingsoldasevidenceofthecorpusdelicti.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.Arnold
TapereyPolpol,G.R.No.178065,

February20,2013
3.AntiviolenceagainstWomenandtheirChildrenActof2004(R.A.2562)Natureof
violenceisnotlimitedtophysicalbutmaycovereconomicandpsychologicalacts.
ReviewS.C.rulinginPeoplev.Genosaonbatteredwomansyndromewhichconsistsof
threephases:tensionbuildingphase;acutebatteringincidentandtranquil,lovingor
nonviolentphase.Batteredwomansyndromeisavaliddefensethatwillexoneratea
womanfromkillingherspouse/partner.
Dabalosv.RTC,Br.59,AngelesCity,January7,2013.TheCourtwillnotreadintoRepublic
Act(RA)No.9262aprovisionthatwouldrenderittoothlessinthepursuitofthedeclared
policyoftheStatetoprotectwomenandchildrenfromviolenceandthreatstotheirpersonal
safetyandsecurity.Thelawisbroadinscopebutspecifiestwolimitingqualificationsforany
actorseriesofactstobeconsideredasacrimeofviolenceagainstwomenthroughphysical
harm,namely:1)itiscommittedagainstawomanorherchildandthewomanisthe
offenderswife,formerwife,orwithwhomhehasorhadsexualordatingrelationshiporwith
whomhehasacommonchild;and2)itresultsinorislikelytoresultinphysicalharmor
suffering.Notably,whileitisrequiredthattheoffenderhasorhadasexualordating
relationshipwiththeoffendedwoman,forRA9262tobeapplicable,itisnotindispensable
thattheactofviolencebeaconsequenceofsuchrelationship.
4.BouncingChecksLaw(B.P.22):elementsofthecrime;anoffendercanbecharged
bothwithestafaforeachpartyoffendedandviolationofB.P.22foreachcountofchecks
dishonoredcoveredbytheprohibition(ex.ApyramidingscamcommittedbyZebrawas
uncoveredwhichvictimized200vendorsforwhich6posteddatedcheckswereissuedto
eachvendortopayinterestontheircapitalinvestment.Zebrashallbeheldon200
countsofestafaundertheRPCandasmanycountsofviolationofB.P.foreachcheck
dishonoreduponpresentment.);relatesituationwithdefinitionofcontinuedcrimeor
delitocontinuado.
LiabilityunderB.P.22.SanMateov.People,March6,2013.Tobeliableforviolationof
B.P.22,thefollowingessentialelementsmustbepresent:(1)themaking,drawing,and
issuanceofanychecktoapplyforaccountorforvalue;(2)theknowledgeofthemaker,
drawer,orissuerthatatthetimeofissuehedoesnothavesufficientfundsinorcreditwith
thedraweebankforthepaymentofthecheckinfulluponitspresentment;and(3)the
subsequentdishonorofthecheckbythedraweebankforinsufficiencyoffundsorcreditor
dishonorforthesamereasonhadnotthedrawer,withoutanyvalidcause,orderedthebankto
stoppayment.SincethereisinsufficientproofthatSanMateoactuallyreceivedthenoticeof
dishonor,thepresumptionthatsheknewoftheinsufficiencyofherfundscannotarise.For
thisreason,theCourtcannotconvictherwithmoralcertaintyofviolationofB.P.22
Estafa;syndicatedestafa;elements.Theelementsofsyndicatedestafaare:(a)estafaor
otherformsofswindlingasdefinedinArticle315and316oftheRevisedPenalCodeis
committed;(b)theestafaorswindlingiscommittedbyasyndicateoffiveormorepersons;
27 | P a g e

and(c)defraudationresultsinthemisappropriationofmoneyscontributedbystockholders,
ormembersofruralbanks,cooperatives,samahangnayon(s),orfarmersassociationsorof
fundssolicitedbycorporations/associationsfromthegeneralpublic.RafaelH.Galvezand
KatherineL.Guyv.AsiaUnitedBank/AsiaUnitedBankv.Gilbert,etal./GilbertGuy,etalv.
AsiaUntiedBank,G.R.Nos.187919/G.R.No.187979/G.R.No.188030,February20,2013
EffectofAcquittalonCivilLiability.NissanGalleryOrtigasv.Felipe,November11,
2013.Ifacquittalisbasedonreasonabledoubt,willnotrelievetheaccusedofthe
correspondingcivilliability.
5.AntiFencingLaw:Beingacrimeconsideredasmalumprohibitum,merepossession
ofastolengoodgivesrisetoprimafaciepresumptionofviolationoftheAntiFencing
Law.AquestioninvolvingsaleofUkayukayitemsmightbeasked.
ElementsofFencing.Ongv.People,April10,2013.Theessentialelementsofthecrimeof
fencingareasfollows:(1)acrimeofrobberyorthefthasbeencommitted;(2)theaccused,
whoisnotaprincipaloronaccompliceinthecommissionofthecrimeofrobberyortheft,
buys,receives,possesses,keeps,acquires,conceals,sellsordisposes,orbuysandsells,orin
anymannerdealsinanyarticle,item,objectoranythingofvalue,whichhasbeenderived
fromtheproceedsofthecrimeofrobberyortheft;(3)theaccusedkneworshouldhave
knownthatthesaidarticle,item,objectoranythingofvaluehasbeenderivedfromthe
proceedsofthecrimeofrobberyortheft;and(4)thereis,onthepartofoneaccused,intentto
gainforoneselforforanother.hanr
6.IllegalPossessionofFirearms(P.D.1866,asamendedbyR.A.No.8294):elementsof
thecrime;differentiatecriminalintentfromintenttopossess;howwillapersonbe
treatediffoundtohavepossessedanillegalfirearminaCOMELECcheckpoint,will
hebechargedforviolationoftheOmnibusElectionLaworforillegalpossessionof
firearm,orboth;reviewconceptofabsorptionincriminallawandwhenitwillandwill
notapply.
7.AntiMoneyLaunderingActof2001:definesuspicioustransactions,covered
transactions,coveredinstitution,andcoveredpersons;knowledgeoftheculprits
identityisnotessential;effectoffreezeorder(onlytheCourtofAppealsmayissuethis
order)
8.AntiHazingLaw:definitionofhazing;requisitesunderSec.2ofthelaw;liabilityof
personsunderSec.4ofthelawwhomayheldprincipalsandaccomplices;Readthe
LennyVillacaseandlatestdecisionpennedbyJusticeMendozaonthefraternity
rumbleinsidetheU.P.campusresultingtodeathofaU.P.student.Seethedissenting
opinionofJusticePeralta.
VI.OtherpossiblematterswhichmaybetakenupinCriminalLaw
1.Onprescriptionofacrime:Thereckoningdateofcrimeifnotknownrightafterits
commissionmaybecomputedfromthedateofdiscovery.Example:Ifacrimewas
committed10yearsfromitscommissiononOctober17,1993wasonlyreportedbyan
eyewitnessonOctober17,2003andtheculpritwasarrestedonlyonOctober17,2013,
prescriptionwillbecountedonlyfromOctober17,2003andnotfromOctober17,1993.

28 | P a g e

2.Oncriminalliability:IfTigerborrowedagunfromLiontokillKangaroobutTiger
didnotuseLionsgunbutheinsteadstabbedKangaroo.WillTigerhaveanycriminal
liability?IfTigeragreedwiththeplanofLion,hecanbeheldliableasanaccomplice.
3.Kidnapping:IfA,BandCstoppedatgunpointavancarryingawellknownartist
withherdriverandpersonalassistantinsidethevanandannouncedKidnapito.
Theyforciblytookoverthevan,hitthedriversheadandlefthimalongtheroadbut
theytookthepersonalassistantwiththem.Theyorderedtheartisttocalluphertalent
managertoaskforaransomofP5M.WhatcrimeswerecommittedbyA,BandC
(a)Astotheartistkidnappingandseriousillegaldetention
(b)Astothepersonalassistantseriousillegaldetention
(c)astothedrivergravecoercionanddependingoninjuriessustained,seriousorless
seriousphysicalinjuries
Peoplev.BettySalvador,April10,2013.wInorderfortheaccusedtobeconvictedof
kidnappingandseriousillegaldetentionunderArticle267oftheRevisedPenalCode,the
prosecutionisburdenedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtalltheelementsofthecrime,
namely:(1)theoffenderisaprivateindividual;(2)hekidnapsordetainsanother,orinany
mannerdeprivesthelatterofhisliberty;(3)theactofdetentionorkidnappingmustbe
illegal;and(4)inthecommissionoftheoffenseanyofthefollowingcircumstancesis
present:(a)thekidnappingordetentionlastsformorethanthreedays;(b)itiscommittedby
simulatingpublicauthority;(c)seriousphysicalinjuriesareinflictedupontheperson
kidnappedordetainedorthreatstokillhimaremade;or(d)thepersonkidnappedandkeptin
detainedisaminor,thedurationofhisdetentionisimmaterial.Likewise,ifthevictimis
kidnappedandillegallydetainedforthepurposeofextortingransom,thedurationofhis
detentionisimmaterial.
Peoplev.Nocum,April1,2013.Section2ofRA6539definescarnappingas"thetaking,
withintenttogain,ofamotorvehiclebelongingtoanotherwithoutthelatter'sconsent,orby
meansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersons,orbyusingforceuponthings."The
crimeofcarnappingwithhomicideispunishableunderSection14ofthesaidlaw,as
amendedbySection20ofRA7659.Toprovethespecialcomplexcrimeofcarnappingwith
homicide,theremustbeproofnotonlyoftheessentialelementsofcarnapping,butalsothatit
wastheoriginalcriminaldesignoftheculpritandthekillingwasperpetrated"inthecourse
ofthecommissionofthecarnappingorontheoccasionthereof."Thus,theprosecutioninthis
casehastheburdenofprovingthat:(1)MallaritooktheToyotaFXtaxi;(2)hisoriginal
criminaldesignwascarnapping;(3)hekilledthedriver,Medel;and(4)thekillingwas
perpetrated"inthecourseofthecommissionofthecarnappingorontheoccasion
thereof."oblesvirtu
4.CrimescoveredunderArt.365Incasesofcriminalnegligence,courtsmayimposea
penaltywithoutconsideringanymitigatingoraggravatingcircumstances.Thus,
voluntarysurrenderwillnotbeappreciated.
Negligence;Medicalnegligence;fourelementstheplaintiffmustprovebycompetent
evidence.Anactionuponmedicalnegligencewhethercriminal,civiloradministrative
callsfortheplaintifftoprovebycompetentevidenceeachofthefollowingfourelements,
29 | P a g e

namely:(a)thedutyowedbythephysiciantothepatient,ascreatedbythephysicianpatient
relationship,toactinaccordancewiththespecificnormsorstandardsestablishedbyhis
profession;(b)thebreachofthedutybythephysiciansfailingtoactinaccordancewiththe
applicablestandardofcare;(3)thecausation,i.e.,theremustbeareasonablycloseandcausal
connectionbetweenthenegligentactoromissionandtheresultinginjury;and(4)the
damagessufferedbythepatient.Dr.
FernandoP.Solidumv.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.192123,March10,2014
Resipsaloquitor;applicabilityinmedicalnegligencecases.Theapplicabilityofthe
doctrineofresipsaloquiturinmedicalnegligencecaseswassignificantlyandexhaustively
explainedinRamosv.CourtofAppeals,wheretheCourtsaidMedicalmalpracticecasesdo
notescapetheapplicationofthisdoctrine.Thus,resipsaloquiturhasbeenappliedwhenthe
circumstancesattendantupontheharmarethemselvesofsuchacharacterastojustifyan
inferenceofnegligenceasthecauseofthatharm.Theapplicationofresipsaloquiturin
medicalnegligencecasespresentsaquestionoflawsinceitisajudicialfunctiontodetermine
whetheracertainsetofcircumstancesdoes,asamatteroflaw,permitagiveninference.
Resorttoresipsaloquiturisallowedbecausethereisnootherway,underusualandordinary
conditions,bywhichthepatientcanobtainredressforinjurysufferedbyhim.Dr.Fernando
P.Solidumv.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.192123,March10,2014
5.CrimeofRapeComplexcrimeofrapewithhomicidemayresultifaftertheincident
ofrape,thevictimwaskilledwheretherewasnooriginalintenttokillher.Aggravating
circumstancesofdwelling,nocturnitydisguiseandifalcoholwasusedtoemboldenthe
offendermaybeappreciatedbythecourtinimposingthepenalty.
Rape;threeguidingprinciplesinrapeprosecutions.Thethreeguidingprinciplesinrape
prosecutionsareasfollows:(1)anaccusationofrapeiseasytomake,anddifficulttoprove,
butitisevenmoredifficulttodisprove;(2)bearinginmindtheintrinsicnatureofthecrime,
thetestimonyofthecomplainantmustbescrutinizedwithutmostcareandcaution;and(3)
theevidenceoftheprosecutionmuststandorfallonitsownmerits;andcannotdrawstrength
fromtheweaknessofthedefense.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.AurelioJastiva,G.R.No.
199268,February12,2014.
Rape;elements.Theelementsnecessarytosustainaconvictionforrapeare:(1)theaccused
hadcarnalknowledgeofthevictim;and(2)saidactwasaccomplished(a)throughtheuseof
forceorintimidation,or(b)whenthevictimisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconscious,
or(c)whenthevictimisunder12yearsofageorisdemented.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.
FelimonPatentesyZamora,G.R.No.190178,February12,2014
Rape;sweethearttheory.Forthesweethearttheorytobebelievedwheninvokedbythe
accused,convincingevidencetoprovetheexistenceofthesupposedrelationshipmustbe
presentedbytheproponentofthetheory.Forthe[sweetheart]theorytoprosper,the
existenceofthesupposedrelationshipmustbeprovenbyconvincingsubstantialevidence.
Failuretoadducesuchevidencerendershisclaimtobeselfservingandofnoprobative
value.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.MervinGahi,G.R.No.202976,February19,2014.
Rape;elementsofstatutoryrape;carnalknowledgeofafemalewithoutherconsentisthe
essenceofstatutoryrape.Theelementsofstatutoryrapearethat:(a)thevictimisafemale
under12yearsorisdemented;and(b)theoffenderhascarnalknowledgeofthevictim.
30 | P a g e

Consideringthattheessenceofstatutoryrapeiscarnalknowledgeofafemalewithouther
consent,neithertheuseofforce,threatorintimidationonthefemale,northefemales
deprivationofreasonorbeingotherwiseunconscious,northeemploymentonthefemaleof
fraudulentmachinationsorgraveabuseofauthorityisnecessarytocommitstatutory
rape.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.TomasTeodoroyAngeles,G.R.No.175876,

February20,
2013

6.Distinguishthecrimeofunjustvexationandactsoflasciviousness
7.Distinguishrobbery,theftandqualifiedtheftasgeneralrule,whencrimeofthis
natureiscommitted,intenttogainisanessentialelement;thesameprincipleappliesin
carnapping(AntiCarnappingActof1972,asamended)
ElementsofQualifiedTheft:Zapantav.People,March20,2013.Theelementsofqualified
theft,punishableunderArticle310inrelationtoArticles308and309oftheRevisedPenal
Code(RPC),are:(a)thetakingofpersonalproperty;(b)thesaidpropertybelongstoanother;
(c)thesaidtakingbedonewithintenttogain;(d)itbedonewithouttheowner'sconsent;(e)
itbeaccomplishedwithouttheuseofviolenceorintimidationagainstpersons,norofforce
uponthings;and(f)itbedoneunderanyofthecircumstancesenumeratedinArticle310of
theRPC,i.e.,withgraveabuseofconfidence.
Homicideonoccasionofrobbery,victimisimmaterial.Peoplev.WelvinDiu,etal.,April3,
2013.Whenhomicideiscommittedbyreasonorontheoccasionofrobbery,allthose
whotookpartasprincipalsintherobberywouldalsobeheldliableasprincipalsofthe
singleandindivisiblefelonyofrobberywithhomicidealthoughtheydidnotactuallytake
partinthekilling,unlessitclearlyappearsthattheyendeavoredtopreventthesame.
Ifarobbertriestopreventthecommissionofhomicideafterthecommissionoftherobbery,
heisguiltyonlyofrobberyandnotofrobberywithhomicide.Allthosewhoconspireto
commitrobberywithhomicideareguiltyasprincipalsofsuchcrime,althoughnotall
profitedandgainedfromtherobbery.Onewhojoinsacriminalconspiracyadoptsthe
criminaldesignsofhiscoconspiratorsandcannolongerrepudiatetheconspiracyonceithas
materialized.
Homicideissaidtohavebeencommittedbyreasonorontheoccasionofrobberyif,for
instance,itwascommittedto(a)facilitatetherobberyortheescapeoftheculprit;(b)to
preservethepossessionbytheculpritoftheloot;(c)topreventdiscoveryofthecommission
oftherobbery;or,(d)toeliminatewitnessesinthecommissionofthecrime.Aslongasthere
isanexusbetweentherobberyandthehomicide,thelattercrimemaybecommittedina
placeotherthanthesitusoftherobbery.
8.Distinguishlibel,internetlibelandoraldefamationmaliceisanessentialelementin
libelandunderArt.361,RPCproofoftruthshallbeadmissibleonlyifthesame
imputesacrimeorismadeagainstapublicofficerwithrespecttofacts
related/published.
JoseJesusM.DisiniJr.,etalv.TheSecretaryofJustice,etal,G.R.No.203335,February
11,2014:Theelementsoflibelare:(a)theallegationofadiscreditableactorcondition
concerninganother;(b)publicationofthecharge;(c)identityofthepersondefamed;and(d)
existenceofmalice.Thereisactualmaliceormaliceinfactwhentheoffendermakesthe
defamatorystatementwiththeknowledgethatitisfalseorwithrecklessdisregardofwhether
31 | P a g e

itwasfalseornot.Therecklessdisregardstandardusedhererequiresahighdegreeof
awarenessofprobablefalsity.
JoseJesusM.DisiniJr.,etalv.TheSecretaryofJustice,etal,G.R.No.203335,February
11,2014.
CyberlibelisactuallynotanewcrimesinceArticle353,inrelationtoArticle355ofthe
PenalCode,alreadypunishesit.Ineffect,Section4(c)(4)ofR.A.10175ortheCybercrime
PreventionActof2012merelyaffirmsthatonlinedefamationconstitutessimilarmeansfor
committinglibel.ButtheSupremeCourtsacquiescencegoesonlyinsofarasthecybercrime
lawpenalizesonlytheauthorofthelibelousstatementorarticle.
9.Distinctionbetweencrimeofrebellionandthatofseditionwhomayliable;elements
ofeachcrime;cancrimebeconsideredascomplexwithrobbery,complexwith
homicide,complexwithdamagetoproperty?

SaturninoC.Ocampov.Hon.EphremS.Abando,etal,G.R.No.176830,February11,2014.
Underthepoliticaloffensedoctrine,commoncrimes,perpetratedinfurtheranceofa
politicaloffense,aredivestedoftheircharacterascommonoffensesandassumethe
politicalcomplexionofthemaincrimeofwhichtheyaremereingredients,and,
consequently,cannotbepunishedseparatelyfromtheprincipaloffense,orcomplexedwith
thesame,tojustifytheimpositionofagraverpenalty.Thus,whenakillingiscommittedin
furtheranceofrebellion,thekillingisnothomicideormurderbutthekillingassumesthe
politicalcomplexionofrebellionasitsmereingredientandmustbeprosecutedandpunished
asrebellionalone
10.AntiTraffickinginPersonsActof2003(R.A.9208);AntiChildPornographyAct
of2009(R.A.9775),SpecialProtectionofChildrenagainstChildAbuse,Exploitation
andDiscriminationAct(R.A.7610,asamended)actspunishableandwhoareliable;
Incaseofaliens,violatingR.A.9775,maytheybesubjectedtobothdeportation
proceedingsandacriminalaction?YES;ReadtheconvictionofJudgeAdoracion
Angelesjudgewasnotsuspendedfromjudicialdutieswhileconvictionwaspending
appeal;issuanceofProtectionOrderevenatthebarangaylevel
BaloisAlbertoet.al.v.C.A.et.al.AsheldinPeoplev.Pangilinan:[I]fthevictimis12
yearsorolder,theoffendershouldbechargedwitheithersexualabuseunderSection5(b)of
RA7610orrapeunderArticle266A(exceptparagraph1[d])oftheRevisedPenalCode.
However,theoffendercannotbeaccusedofbothcrimesforthesameactbecausehis
rightagainstdoublejeopardywillbeprejudiced.Apersoncannotbesubjectedtwiceto
criminalliabilityforasinglecriminalact.Likewise,rapecannotbecomplexedwitha
violationofSection5(b)ofRA7610.UnderSection48oftheRevisedPenalCode(on
complexcrimes),afelonyundertheRevisedPenalCode(suchasrape)cannotbecomplexed
withanoffensepenalizedbyaspeciallaw.
Cabalov.People,June10,2013.Section5(b),ArticleIIIofRA7610pertinentlyreads:SEC.
5.ChildProstitutionandOtherSexualAbuse.Children,whethermaleorfemale,whofor
money,profit,oranyotherconsiderationorduetothecoercionorinfluenceofanyadult,
syndicateorgroup,indulgeinsexualintercourseorlasciviousconduct,aredeemedtobe
childrenexploitedinprostitutionandothersexualabuse.Asdeterminedinthecaseof
Olivarezv.CA(Olivarez),theelementsoftheforegoingoffensearethefollowing:(a)The
accusedcommitstheactofsexualintercourseorlasciviousconduct;(b)Thesaidactis
32 | P a g e

performedwithachildexploitedinprostitutionorsubjectedtoothersexualabuse;and(c)
Thechild,whethermaleorfemale,isbelow18yearsofage.
11.MurderandHomicide
Murder;elements.Toholdtheaccusedliableformurder,theprosecutionmustprovethat:(1)
apersonwaskilled;(2)theaccusedkilledhim;(3)thekillingwasattendedbyanyofthe
qualifyingcircumstancesmentionedinArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode;and(4)the
killingisneitherparricidenorinfanticide.PeopleofthePhilippinesv.MarkJosephR.
Zapuiz,G.R.No.199713,

February20,2013.
Homicide;intenttokill.Theintenttokill,asanessentialelementofhomicideatwhatever
stage,maybebeforeorsimultaneouswiththeinflictionofinjuries.Theevidencetoprove
intenttokillmayconsistof,interalia,themeansused;thenature,locationandnumberof
woundssustainedbythevictim;andtheconductofthemalefactorsbefore,atthetimeof,or
immediatelyafterthekillingofthevictim.Accusedsintenttokillwassimultaneouswiththe
inflictionofinjuries.Usingagun,heshotthevictiminthechest.Despiteabloodiedright
uppertorso,thelatterstillmanagedtoruntowardshishousetoaskforhelp.Nonetheless,
accusedcontinuedtoshootatthevictimthreemoretimes,albeitunsuccessfully.Thesebelie
theabsenceofpetitionersintenttokillthevictim.EdmundoEscamillayJugov.Peopleof
thePhilippines,G.R.No.188551,February27,2013.
12.IllegalUseofAlias
Illegaluseofaliases.Apersonwhousesvariousnamesandsuchcontainedhistruenames,
albeitattimesjoinedwithanerroneousmiddleorsecondname,oramisspelledfamilyname
inoneinstanceisnotguiltyofviolatingtheAntiAliasLawwhenhewasnotalsoshownto
haveusedthenamesforunscrupulouspurposes,ortodeceiveorconfusethepublic.The
Courtthatthedismissalofthechargeagainsthimwasjustifiedinfactandinlaw.Revelina
Limsonv.EugenioJuanGonzalez,G.R.No.162205,

March

31,2014.
13.Bigamy(BothdecisionswerepennedbyJusticePeralta)
Capiliv.People,July3,2013.Theelementsofthecrimeofbigamy,therefore,are:(1)the
offenderhasbeenlegallymarried;(2)themarriagehasnotbeenlegallydissolvedor,incase
hisorherspouseisabsent,theabsentspousecouldnotyetbepresumeddeadaccordingtothe
CivilCode;(3)thathecontractsasecondorsubsequentmarriage;and(4)thatthesecondor
subsequentmarriagehasalltheessentialrequisitesforvalidity.Jurisprudenceisrepletewith
casesholdingthattheaccusedmaystillbechargedwiththecrimeofbigamy,evenifthereis
asubsequentdeclarationofthenullityofthesecondmarriage,solongasthefirstmarriage
wasstillsubsistingwhenthesecondmarriagewascelebrated.
Peoplev.Odtuhan,July17,2013.TheFamilyCodehassettledonceandforallthe
conflictingjurisprudenceonthematter.Adeclarationoftheabsolutenullityofamarriageis
nowexplicitlyrequiredeitherasacauseofactionoragroundfordefense.Ithasbeenheldin
anumberofcasesthatajudicialdeclarationofnullityisrequiredbeforeavalidsubsequent
marriagecanbecontracted;orelse,whattranspiresisabigamousmarriage,reprehensible
andimmoral.
Whatmakesapersoncriminallyliableforbigamyiswhenhecontractsasecondor
subsequentmarriageduringthesubsistenceofavalidmarriage.Partiestothemarriage
shouldnotbepermittedtojudgeforthemselvesitsnullity,forthesamemustbesubmittedto
thejudgmentofcompetentcourtsandonlywhenthenullityofthemarriageissodeclaredcan
itbeheldasvoid,andsolongasthereisnosuchdeclaration,thepresumptionisthatthe
marriageexists.Therefore,hewhocontractsasecondmarriagebeforethejudicialdeclaration
ofnullityofthefirstmarriageassumestheriskofbeingprosecutedforbigamy.

14.OncomputationofpenaltiesItisimportanttorelatethefelonycommittedwiththe
correspondingpenaltyprescribedforsuchfelony,thenconsidertheattending
33 | P a g e

circumstanceswhichmayshortenorlengthentheservicesentenceandifISLawapplies,
thenthecorrespondingadjustmentswillhavetobemade.

34 | P a g e