DOCTRINES

MURDER
 BENJAMIN RUSTIA, JR., BENJAMIN RUSTIA, SR.,
AND FAUSTINO "BONG" RUSTIA V. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES OCTOBER 05, 2016 G.R. NO.
208351
Doctrine:
In a criminal prosecution for murder qualified by the
attendant circumstance of treachery, the means, method, or form
of the attack must be shown to have been consciously and
deliberately adopted by the offender before the same can be
considered to qualify the killing.
Otherwise, the killing amounts only to homicide. It is not sufficient
that the victim was unable to defend himself. The Prosecution must
show that the accused consciously adopted such mode of attack
to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.
ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARNEL
BALUTE
G.R. NO. 189272, JANUARY 21, 2015
J. PERLAS-BERNABE

In People vs. Ibaez, the Court exhaustively

explained that [a] special complex crime of
robbery with homicide takes place when a
homicide is committed either by reason, or on
the occasion, of the robbery.
To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide,
the prosecution must prove the following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property belonging to
another;
(2) with intent to gain;
(3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person; and
(4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the
crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was
committed.
A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the
main purpose, and [the] objective of the malefactor and
the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to
rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing
may occur before, during or after the robbery.
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or
on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed:
(a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit;
(b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot;
(c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the
robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission
of the crime.
In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the
RTCs finding that the prosecution was able to
establish the fact that Balute poked his gun at
SPO1 Manaois, took the latters mobile phone,
and thereafter, shot him, resulting in his death
despite surgical and medical intervention. This is
buttressed by Cristita and Blesildas positive
identification of Balute as the one who committed
the crime.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARK JASON
CHAVEZ Y BITANCOR ALIAS NOY,
G.R. NO. 207950, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
J. LEONEN
The court has held that what is imperative and essential
for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is
for the prosecution to establish the offenders intent to
take personal property before the killing, regardless of
the time when the homicide is actually carried out.
In cases when the prosecution failed to conclusively
prove that homicide was committed for the purpose of
robbing the victim, no accused can be convicted of
robbery with homicide.
ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE COMPARED
WITH DECEIT
 SOLEDAD TRIA VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 204755, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
J. REYES
Tria received pieces of jewelry from Seven Sphere for her to sell on
the condition that she will deliver the proceeds and to return if
unsold. Half of the jewelries were returned, but [she] failed to pay
the remaining value. She argued that the element of fraud is
missing since she returned the jewelry.
The Court held that all elements of estafa through
misappropriation or conversion are present. Trias argument implies
an admission of her receipt of the jewelry items and her failure to
account for all of them. The words convert and
misappropriate connote the act of using or disposing of
anothers property as if it were ones own, or of devoting it to a
purpose or use different from that agreed upon.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JULIE
GRACE K. VILLANUEVA
G.R. NO. 163662, FEBRUARY 25, 2015
The estafa charged in the information may be committed,
therefore, when:
(1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment
of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or
issuance;
(2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the
offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited are
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and
(3) the payee has been defrauded. The deceit should be the
efficient cause of the defraudation, and should either be prior
to, or simultaneous with, the act of the fraud.
 The deceit should be the efficient cause of the defraudation,
and should either be prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of
the fraud. In the present case, all the elements of estafa were
present. The first element was admitted by Villanueva, who
confirmed that she had issued the checks to Madarang in
exchange for the jewelry she had purchased. There is no
question that Madarang accepted the checks upon the
assurance of Villanueva that they would be funded upon
presentment.
The second element was likewise established because the
checks were dishonored upon presentment due to
insufficiency of funds or because the account was already
closed. The third element was also proved by the showing
that Madarang suffered prejudice by her failure to collect
from Villanueva the balance of P995, 000.00.
In her defense, Villanueva adverts to an agreement
with Madarang whereby the latter would deposit or
encash the checks only after being informed of the
sufficiency of funds in Villanueva's account.
This defense, however, crumbles because she did not
present proof of the supposed agreement. The
prosecution has proved the existence of all elements
of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, hence, the Supreme Court
AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals.
QUALIFIED THEFT
 JOEL YONGCO AND JULIETO LAOJAN VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 209373 (CONSOLIDATED), JULY 30, 2014
J. VELASCO, JR.

The elements of qualified theft, committed with grave abuse of

discretion, is enumerated as follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
The accused in this case, it bears stressing,
were guards and drivers with access to the
entrance and exit of the CEO premises. In
other words, they enjoyed the trust and
confidence reposed on them by their
employer to have access throughout the
CEO premises on account of their respective
duties. It was this trust and confidence that
was gravely abused by them that makes the
theft qualified.
BIGAMY
 NORBERTO A. VITANGCOL VS. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 207406. JANUARY 13, 2016
Doctrine:
Persons intending to contract a second
marriage must first secure a judicial
declaration of nullity of their first marriage. If
they proceed with the second marriage
without the judicial declaration, they are guilty
of bigamy regardless of evidence of the nullity
of the first marriage.
 ARTICLE 352
Performance of Illegal
Marriage Ceremony
Article 625 of the Family Code provides that [n]o
prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of
the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however,
for the contracting parties to appear personally before
the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of
not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take
each other as husband and wife.
Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352 of
the RPC, as amended, the rule was clear that no
prescribed form of religious rite for the solemnization of
the marriage is required.
However, as correctly found by the CA, the law sets the
minimum requirements constituting a marriage
ceremony: first, there should be the personal
appearance of the contracting parties before a
solemnizing officer; and second, their declaration in the
presence of not less than two witnesses that they take
each other as husband and wife.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage
ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and
formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking.
The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal. The
petitioners knowledge of the absence of these
requirements negates his defense of good faith.
LIBEL
 MARY ELIZABETH TY-DELGADO VS. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
PHILIP ARREZA PICHAY
G.R. NO. 219603, JANUARY 26, 2016
Doctrine:

In Zari v. Flores, we likewise listed libel as one of the

crimes involving moral turpitude. The Revised Penal Code
defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime,
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. The
law recognizes that the enjoyment of a private reputation n is
as much a constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty
or property.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
 D. SENIT, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 192914 | JANUARY 28, 2016
Doctrine:
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing or failing to perform such act, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other
circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
In Dumayag v. People, the Court held:

Section 37 of R.A. No. 4136, as amended, mandates all

motorists to drive and operate vehicles on the right side of
the road or highway. When overtaking another, it should
be made only if the highway is clearly visible and is free
from oncoming vehicle. Overtaking while approaching a
curve in the highway, where the driver's view is obstructed,
is not allowed. Corollarily, drivers of automobiles, when
overtaking another vehicle, are charged with a high
degree of care and diligence to avoid collision. The
obligation rests upon him to see to it that vehicles coming
from the opposite direction arc not taken unaware by his
presence on the side of the road upon which they have
the right to pass.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION
OF DRUGS
 YOLANDA LUY Y GANUELAS VS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO.
200087 OCTOBER 12, 2016
Doctrine:
Worthy to reiterate is that her mere possession
of the shabu constituted the crime itself. Her
animus possidendi the intent to possess essential
in crimes of mere possession like this - was
established beyond reasonable doubt in view of
the absence of a credible explanation for the
possession.
 CHAIN OF CUSTODY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDDIE
BARTE Y MENDOZA MARCH 1, 2017 G.R.
NO. 17974
Doctrine:
When there is failure to comply with the
requirements for proving the chain of custody in the
confiscation of contraband in a drug buy-bust
operation, the State has the obligation to credibly
explain such non- compliance; otherwise, the proof of
the corpus delicti is doubtful, and the accused should
be acquitted for failure to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JEHAR
REYES
OCTOBER 19, 2016 G.R. NO. 199271
Doctrine:

To convict the accused for the illegal sale

or the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
chain of custody of the dangerous drugs must
be clearly and competently shown because
such degree of proof is what was necessary to
establish the corpus delicti.
BOUNCING CHECKS
LAW
 ARIEL T. LIM VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
190834, NOVEMBER 26, 2014, PERALTA,
J.
Considering that the money value of two
cheques issued by petitioner has already
been effectively paid two years before the
informations against him were filed, the Court
finds merit in this petition. The Court holds that
petitioner herein could not be validity and
justly convicted or sentenced for violation of
B.P. 22.
Although payment of the value of the bounced
check, if made beyond the 5-day period
provided for in B.P. Blg. 22, would normally
extinguish criminal liability, the aforementioned
cases shows that the Court acknowledges the
existence of extraordinary cases where even if all
the elements of the crime of offense are present,
the conviction of the accused would prove to be
abhorrent to societys sense of justice.
The spirit of the law which, for B.P. Blg. 22, is the
protection of the credibility and stability of the banking
system, would not be served by penalizing people
who have evidently made amends for their mistakes
and made restitution for damages even before
charges have been filed against them.
In effect, the payment of the checks before the filing
of the information has already attained the purpose of
the law.
ANTI-HAZING
LAW
SEC. 4 Clearly states when the prima facie
evidence of participation as principal arise.

It states:
The presence of any person during the
hazing is PRIMA FACIE evidence as
participation therein as principal unless he
prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein.
 THE CA RULING
The CA Ruling that the appeal of Dungo and
Sibal was bereft of merit.
It stated that, in finding them guilty of violating
R.A. No. 8049, the RTC properly relied on
circumstancial evidenced adduced by the
prosecution. The CA painstakingly discussed
the unbroken chain of circumstancial
evidence to convict Dungo and Sibal as
principals in the crime of hazing.
It further found that the defense of denial and alibi
of Dungo and Sibal failed to cast doubt on the
positive identification made by the witnesses; and
that denial, being inherently weak, could not
prevail over the positive identification of the
accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
The CA also stated that Dungo and Sibal were not
only convicted based on their presence in the
venue of the hazing but also in their act of bringing
the victim to Villa Novaliches Resort for the final
initiation rites.
 INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW, ACT NO. 4103 as amended
[BAR Q. 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005,
2003, 2002, 1999, 1994, 1991, 1990,
1989, 1988]
1.If
a special law adopted
penalties from the RPC,
ISLAW will apply just as it
would in felonies.
Ex.
RA 7610 although a special law, adopted
the penalty defined in RPC.
2. The imposition of
indeterminate sentence is
mandatory in criminal cases.
3. When is ISLAW not applicable?
(MEMORIZE)
 1. Offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Habitual delinquents.
6. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded
sentence.
7. Those granted with conditional pardon and who violated the
terms of the same.
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not
exceed one year.
9. Those already serving final judgment upon the approval of this
Act.
 4. The law is not applicable if the
penalty is destierro. Why? It does not
involve imprisonment.
5. Rules:

SPL RPC

Maximum term -shall not exceed the -That, in view of the

max. fixed by law attending
circumstances, could
be properly imposed
under the rules of the
said Code

Minimum term -shall not be less than with the range of the
minimum fixed by penalty next lower to
law that prescribed by the
Code.
 *NOTE:
-Rules in offsetting are not applicable in crimes
punished under a SPECIAL LAW. The presence of any
generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating circumstances
will not affect the proper imposition of the penalty.
 If
the maximum term arrived and it does not exceed 1 year, ISLAW
will not apply.

Ifthe sentence is imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day for violation of

Comprehensive Drugs Act, the same is not correct as ISLAW
mandates the Court to set the minimum and maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
Maythe privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority be
appreciated even if the penalty
imposed is originally an indivisible
penalty?
PROBATION LAW
[BAR Q. 2012, 2010, 2009, 2005, 2004,
2003, 2002, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1994, 1993,
1992, 1990, 1986]
CONSEQUENCE IF THE PROBATIONER
VIOLATES ANY OF THE CONDITIONS
OF PROBATION (SEC. 15)
The court may order the arrest of the
probationer, hold an informal summary
hearing and may revoke his probation.
In which case, he has to serve the
sentence originally imposed.
Whoare disqualified to avail of
the benefits of Probation?
 1. sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years.
2. convicted of any crime against National Security or the Public Order.
3. Who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than two
hundred pesos.
4. Who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree.
5. Who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree
became applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof.
6. Who has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Sec. 4)
7. Any person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by
the Court. (Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9165)
If
the convict had already perfected
an appeal, an application for
probation cannot be granted.
No application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction
-By perfecting an appeal, petitioners ipso facto
relinquished the alternative remedy of probation.
-Under Sec.4, the filing of the application for
probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right
to appeal.
Awaiver of the right to appeal from a
judgment of conviction is NOT a waiver of
the civil liability ex delicto.
Probationmay be granted whether the
sentence imposed a term of
imprisonment or a fine only (Sec. 4).
Anorder granting or denying probation
shall not be appealable.
Prevailing
jurisprudence treats appeal and
probation as mutually exclusive because the
law is unmistakable about it and, therefore,
petitioner cannot avail herself of both.
Whatis the legal effect of probation?
-A conviction becomes final when the
accused applies for probation.
REMINDERS ON
DISQUALIFICATIONS:
1. Sentenced to serve more than
6 years
Exceptions:
a. For violation of Section 11 of RA 9165,
accused FIRST-TIME OFFENDER may avail of suspended
sentence. If there is a violation of any condition, the
court shall pronounce judgment of conviction. The
court, however, may in its discretion:
place the accused on probation even if the sentence
provided for under this Act is higher than that provided
under existing law on probation.
b.
Principle in People of the Philippines vs.
Arnel Colinares. Appeal is allowed
despite previous application for
probation.
Arneldid not appeal from a judgment
that would have allowed him to apply fro
probation. He did not have a choice
between appeal and probation.
Thelower court convicted Arnel of the wrong
crime, frustrated homicide that carried a penalty in
excess of 6 years. The Supreme Court lowered the
sentence from frustrated to attempted homicide
only with the penalty of 2 years and 4 months.
At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done
what was right and imposed on Arnel the correct
penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months
maximum, he would have had the right to apply
for probation. In this case, he cannot because of
the erroneous judgment of the RTC? Hence, appeal
is allowed.
 Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply
fro probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation.
The lower court convicted Arnel of the wrong crime, frustrated homicide that
carried a penalty in excess of 6 years. The Supreme Court lowered the
sentence from frustrated to attempted homicide only with the penalty of 2
years and 4 months.
At any rate, what is clear is that, had the RTC done what was right and
imposed on Arnel the correct penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months
maximum, he would have had the right to apply for probation. In this case,
he cannot because of the erroneous judgment of the RTC? Hence, appeal is
allowed.
R.A. 10707
Sec,4. Grant of Probation

Noapplication for probation shall be

entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction: PROVIDED,
That when a judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty is appealed or
reviewed, such judgment is modified through the
imposition of a probationable penalty, the
defendant shall be allowed to apply for
probation based on the modified decision before
such decision becomes final. The application for
probation based on the modified decision shall
be filed in the trial court were the judgment of
conviction imposing a non-probationable
penalty was rendered, or in the trial court where
such has since been re-raffled.
2. National Security and Public
Order
Probationis not applicable when the
accused is convicted of INDIRECT
ASSAULT (It is a crime against PUBLIC
ORDER).
3. Previous Conviction of not less than
one month and one day and/or a fine
of not less than two hundred pesos.
Ex.
A person convicted for another crime
with a penalty of 30 days imprisonment
does not disqualify him from applying for
probation
What
is the period of
probation?
a.
sentenced to a term of 1 year shall
not exceed 2 years

b.
sentenced to a term of more than 1
year imprisonment shall not exceed 6
years
ADONAI is my Rock, my fortress and deliverer,
my God, my Rock, in whom I find shelter,
my Shield, the power that saves me,
my stronghold
PSALMS 17-18
Thank you!