Frequently Asked Questions

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
PROF. PLAZO
BOOK 1
(2012) (1998)
Q: What are the limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation?
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without due process of law
3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment
(2015)
Q: Give example of ex post facto law
1. Makes an act criminal and punishable, but which was innocent when done
2. Aggravates crime, making it greater than when committed
3. Inflicts greater punishment than when committed
4. Authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than when committed
5. Regulates civil rights and remedies such as – imposing penalty for act which was lawful
when done
6. Deprives the accused of some lawful purposes or means.
(2015)
Q: What is bill of attainder?
A: It is a legislative act which inflict punishment without trial
(1996)
Q: What are the theories/school of thoughts of Criminal Law?
1. Classical theory – Human person is a moral creature with free will to choose between good
and evil; that human beings act with reference to the principle of pleasure and pain. They will not
do a criminal act if threaten with punishment equivalent to the possible gain in committing a
crime.
2. Positivist theory – This school of thought consider man as a social being and his act are
attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the
solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed.
(1998) (1988) (1978)

Q: What are the Characteristics of Penal Laws?
1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity
(2015)
Q: What is meant by generality?
A: Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine, regardless of
the nationality, gender or age of the accused
(2014) (2011)
Exception to the Generality Principle of RPC
1. Treaties or treaty stipulations
2. Law of preferential application
3. Principle of Public International Law
(2014)
- Sovereign’s head of the State and persons with diplomatic status and immunity are not
subject to the Revised Penal Code.
But consuls are not.
(2012) (1986) (1982)

Q: Is there an exception wherein we can apply the RPC outside the Philippine territory?
A: Yes. The enumerations provided in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
(2008) (1994)
- Bigamy committed abroad not subject to our jurisdiction
(2008) (1982)
Q: What is the rationale of Art. II of the RPC as an exception to the territoriality rule?
Answer:
Exception No. 1 – The Philippine ship or airship is considered an extension of the
Philippine Territory.
Exception Nos. 2 & 3 – aim to protect Philippine currency notes and obligations or
securities to preserve our economic stability.
Exception No. 4 – aims to promote the integrity and efficiency of public administration
Exception No. 5 – aims to safeguard the existence of the State.
(2013)
Q: What is meant by prospectivity?
A: Penal Laws apply only to acts or omissions that happened at the time of their effectivity. They
do not apply to acts or omissions that took place before their effectivity.
(2000)
Par. 1 of Art. II – Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
Rule 1 – What determines Philippine nationality of the ship or airship is not that of the
owner but the place of its registration (MARINA) of the Philippines
Rule 2 - This provision is only applicable if the ship is on the high seas.
Address: Unit 2, 4th Floor, España Place Building, 1139 Adelina Street corner España Boulevard 2
Sampaloc, Manila (Beside UST near Morayta Street)
* www.villasislawcenter.com / www.facebook.com/villasislawcenter / www.remediallawdoctrines.blogspot.com /
villasislawcenter@gmail.com / mvplawoffice@gmail.com
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Rule 3 - When the Philippine ship or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the
crime committed on the said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign
country
(2015) (2011)
Rule regarding Foreign vessel
Q: Does the Philippine Court have jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign
warship in our territorial water?
A: No. Warships are always reputed to be the territorial of the country to which they belong and
cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.
Q: How about foreign merchant vessel?

A: Yes.
(2015) (2012) (2011)

What are of two kinds of felonies under the RPC?
A: 1. Intentional (dolo-malice) – When the act is performed with deliberate intent
Elements:
a. Intelligence
b. freedom
c. INTENT
2. Culpable (culpa-fault) – When the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Elements:
a. Intelligence
b. Freedom
c. Imprudence (lack of skill or deficiency in action)
Negligence (Lack of foresight or deficiency of perception)
(1996)
Q: May crime be committed without criminal intent?
Ans. Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is a culpable felony, wherein
intent is substituted by negligence or imprudence, and also in malum prohibitum, or if an act is
punishable by special law
(2013) (2011) (2006) (1999) (1984) (1978)

Motive is important and may be used only:
1. to prove intent/freedom/intelligence or lack thereof
2. to prove the identity of offender when there is doubt
3. to prove the truth as between to different set of fact/theories.
(1996) (1984)
Distinguish Motive from intent
A: Motive – is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result
Intent – is the purpose for using particular means to bring about a desired result.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2005) (2003) (2001)(1999) (1997) (1988)(1978)
Q: Give the distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita
1. As to moral trait of the offender
Mala in se – the moral trait is considered. Liability will arise only when there is
dolo or culpa
Mala prohibita – the moral trait of the offender is not considered. It is enough
that the prohibited act was done
2. As to use of good faith as a defense

Mala in se – good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless the
crime is the result of culpa
Mala prohibita – good faith is NOT a defense
3. As to the degree of accomplishment of the crime.
Mala in se – the degree is taken into account in punishing the offender.
Mala prohibita – the degree is not taken into account, the crime is always
consummated
4. As to the application of mitigating and aggravating circumstances
Mala in se – mitigating and aggravating are taken into consideration
Mala prohibita – not taken into consideration except if the SPL provides otherwise
(2009)
Mitigating is not available in RA 9165 (Dangerous Drug Act of 2002)
5. As to the degree of participation

Mala in se – degree of participation is applicable.
Mala prohibita – not applicable. All perpetrators are considered principals,
except if the SPL provides otherwise
(2012) (2001)
(Sec. 4 PD 532) – a person who knowingly and in manner, aids protects highway
robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of the police officers or
acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of highway robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of principal
offers and punished in accordance with the rules in the RPC.
6. As to what laws are violated

Mala in se – violation of RPC
Mala prohibita – violation of Special Penal Laws.
(2003) (1985) (1977)

Q: What are the requisite of mistake of fact?
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed t
hem to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
(2013) (2008) (2007) (2005) (2001) (1999) (1997) (1996)

Q: Who incurs criminal liability?
A: Art. 4 of the RPC criminal liability shall be incurred
(1) By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
(2) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
(2015) (2012) (2011) (1999) (1996) (1995) (1993) (1989)

Q: What are the instances where the resulting injury is different from that intended by the
offender?
(a) Mistake in the identity of the victim (error in personae);
(b) Mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus);
(c) The injury result is greater than that intended (praeter intentionem).
(2008) (2004) (2003) (2001) (1994) (1997) (1996) (1976) (1975)

Q: What are the doctrines enunciated by the Supreme Court in holding an offender liable for the
resulting injury even if not intended by him?
1. Proximate cause rule
2. Acceleration of death rule
3. Instilling fear rule
(2008) (1994)
Proximate cause rule
Problem: While Esmeraldo, Zaldy and Felix were walking home, Fernando, Gesmundo and Juan
Suddenly emerged on the roadside and without a word, Fernando hacked Esmeraldo with his
bolo hitting him on the forehead and causing him to fall down. He was ran over by a vehicle; his
head was busted and died as a consequence. Is Fernando liable for the death of Esmeraldo
though his act was not the direct cause of Esmeraldo’s death?
Ans. Yes.
(2003)
Problem: The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost
beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started
hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B realizing that A was
indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital but she died of heart attack. It
turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. Is the husband liable?
Ans. Yes.
(2004) (2001) (1997) (1996) (1976) (1975)

Instilling fear rule - Similar questions
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Problem: Two individuals boarded a jeepney going to Rotanda of Taft avenue. When the
jeepney reached Harrison Boulevard, the two shouted “This is a holdup, Don’t move”. One
woman passenger jumped out of the jeepney. She died later. Are the holduppers liable for the
death of the woman?
Ans. Yes.
(1996)
Q: Is there an exception to Article 4(1)?
A: Yes, if there is sufficient intervening cause.
(2012)
Problem: If A, in attempting a suicide jumped out of the window to kill himself, but when he
dropped to the ground he fell on an old woman who died as a consequence. Is A liable for the
death of the old woman?
Answer: A is not criminal liable for intentional homicide under art. 4 (1) because A was not
committing a felony when he attempted to commit suicide. A is not liable also under Art 365
(criminal negligence) because A is not required to exercise diligently, prudently or with due care
since A is committing suicide.
(2015) (2014) (2013) (2012) (2009) (2008) (2004) (2000)

(1998) (1994) (1976)
Q: What are the requisites of Impossible Crime
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. That the act done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either
inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the
RPC. (2009)
(2012)
There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the offender has already performed
the acts for the execution of the crime.
(2000)
Impossible crime is limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against
persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against persons
or property, the accused could not be convicted of impossible crime of kidnapping.
(2012)
The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
(2012)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Stealing a worthless check constitutes impossible crime. There is impossibility to
accomplish the crime of theft since the check has no value.
Problem: Baby purchased on credit various merchandises from Mega Foam. In payment thereof,
baby handed to Mega Foam’s collector, Jacinto, a postdated BDO check in the amount
P10,000.000. Instead of remitting the check to Mega Foam, Jacinto deposited the check in the
Land Bank account of her brother-in-law and former employee of Mega Foam. The check was,
however, dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. Is Jacinto liable for
consummated theft or impossible crime of theft?
Answer: Not consummated theft. For theft to be committed, the personal property subject of the
theft must have some value. Jacinto may have unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to
Mega Foam, but the same was without value because it was dishonored. However, Jacinto
committed an impossible crime of theft. Where it not for the fact that the check bounced, she
would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. (Jacinto vs. People
592 SCRA 426, July 13, 2009 citing Intod vs. CA)
(2012)
Attempted and Frustrated felony Felony (Art. 6, RPC)
Q: When is there an attempted felony?
A: There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
(2009)
Q: When is there an frustrated felony?
A: Frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will if the perpetrator.
Problem: One night, Chito entered the boarding room of Malou. Chito pressed on her face piece
of cloth soaked in a chemical. Chito pinned her down on the bed and held her tightly. Malou
continued fighting off her attacker by kicking him until at last her right hand got free. She was
able to ran away after squeezing the sex organ of Chito. All the time, Chito was fully clothed and
had not attempt to undress Malou. Is Chito liable for attempted rape?
Answer: No, there is no overt act of rape in the present case. Overt act is some physical activity
or deed, indicating the intention or preparation. Chito’s act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth
in the face of Malou which would induce her to sleep cannot be construed as an overt act of rape.
Chito did not commence at all the performance of any act indicative if an intent or attempt to
rape Malou. (Baleros vs. People, 483 SCRA 10, February 22, 2006)
Rule in Estafa cases

Problem: Tomas Flores forged the signature of Dycaico in a PBC check then deposited the same
in his SBTC account. Dycaico complained with SBTC bank. When Tomas about to withdraw the
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
money he was apprehended by NBI agents. Is Tomas liable for attempted or consummated
estafa?
Answer: There are two elements of estafa: (1) deceit and (2) damage. Where apart from deceit,
there was merely an intent to cause damage, only attempted estafa is committed. Here, since only
the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself was shown. Tomas is only liable for
attempted estafa (Koh Tieach Heng vs. People 192 SCRA 533, December 21, 1990)
Rule in Rape
Problem: Orita held Chritina and poked a knife at her neck. He made her hold his penis and
insert it in her vagina. Orita could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her
as she kept on moving. Is it correct to convict Orita for frustrated rape?
Answer: Orita committed consummated rape. The uniform rule for consummation of rape is that
perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rapture of the hymen or
Laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction (People vs. Ortia 184 SCRA 105,
April 3, 1990);
Slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate the rape (People vs. Hangdaan, 201 SCRA
568 Sept. 13, 1991)
NOTE: However, there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched
the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for
the accused to be convicted of consummated rape. Absent of any showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
(People vs. Campuhan,329 SCRA 270 [2000] )
Never been asked in the Bar
Labia or pudendum
NOTE: TOUCHING when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact,
stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the
victims vagina
(2000) (1998)
Rule in Theft and Robbery
Problem: Valenzuela and calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket
within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North Edsa by Lago a security guard hauling a push
cart with cases of detergent (tide bar) The guard caught them while on the act of unloading the
detergent in an open space. Charged, the two argued that they are liable only for frustrated theft
only. Is their contention correct?
Answer: No. the crime committed is consummated theft. In theft under Art. 308, there is only
one operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft, that is the taking of personal
property of another. The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not an
element of theft. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense
could only be attempted theft. (Valenzuela vs. People, 525 SCRA 306, June 21, 2007, En banc.)
(2015) (2004)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Rule in Arson PD 1613 amending Art. 320 to 326-B of the RPC
Attempted, frustrated or consummated arson:

1. A person, intending to burn a wooden structure, collects some rags, soaks them in gasoline
and places them beside the wooden wall of the building. When he is about to light a match to set
fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who chases him away.
➢ The crime committed is attempted arson, because the offender commences the
commission of the crime directly by overt acts
2. Placing the rags soaked in gasoline beside the wooden wall of the building and lighting a
match) but he does not perform all the acts of execution (the setting of fire to the rags) due to the
timely intervention of another who chases away the offender.
➢ If that person is able to light or set fire to the rags but the fire was put out before any part
of the building was burned, it is frustrated.
➢ But if before the fire was put out, it had burned a part of the building, it is consummated.
(2004)
Burning a suitcase together with all its contents
(2012)
Q: When is there conspiracy?
A: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
(Art. 8)
Q: When is there proposal?
A: There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons. (Art. 8)
(2015) (2012)
Q:What are the two concepts of conspiracy under Art. 8?
(1) Conspiracy as a crime
(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
(2013) (2012) (1994)

Conspiracies punishable by law
(a) Conspiracy to commit treason (Art. 115)
(b) Conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art. 136)
(c) Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat (Art. 136)
(d) Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 142)
(e) Conspiracy to commit terrorism (Sec. 4 of Human Security Act of 2007 R.A. No. 9372)
(f) Conspiracy to commit arson (Sec. 7 PD. 1613)
(g) Conspiracy in Dangerous Drug act (Sec. 26 of PD. 6425)
(h) Conspiracy to commit child pornography (Sec. 4 [k] RA 9775
(2012)
Proposal Punishable by law
(a) Proposal to commit treason
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(b) Proposal to commit rebellion
Note: Proposal to commit sedition is not punishable
(2012)
Art 9 (based on the highest imposable penalty)
Grave felonies – penalty imposed is capital punishment or afflictive (see Art 25) [Prision mayor
to Death]
Less grave felonies – penalty is correctional (see Art 25) [suspension/destierro/arresto
mayor/prision correctional]
Light felonies
• Where penalty arresto menor OR fine of P200 (or both)
– Theft (under Art 309, par. 7 & 8 only)
– Alteration of boundary marks
– Malicious mischief
– Intriguing against honor
– Slight physical injuries
• Punishable only if consummated (2012)
– Unless committed against persons/property – punishable at any stage
(2011) 2000) (1989) (1982) (1981) (1980) (1978)

Q: What are the requisite of self-defense?
(1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (Par. 1)
(2014)
A person acting in self-defense is not committing a felony, any injury he might caused in
defending himself will fall under Accident under Par 4 of art. 12.
Accused-appellants' flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed, their
concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the
crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully
warranted the RTC’s rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger. (People v.
Vargas, et al., G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012)
(1996) (1991) (1990)

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
- originally required to be coupled with an attack against the person of the owner of the
possessor thereof. The prevailing rule now is, allows the defense on one’s property by reasonable
means without requiring that one making the defense be also personally attacked. This rule is in
consonance with Art 429 of the Civil Code.
(2016) (2002)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Defense of Relative
Take note that there is an additional element with respect to defense of relative, that is “In
case the provocation was given by the person attacked the one making a defense had no part
therein” in the case A took part in the provocation hence he cannot claim self defense.
Relatives included:
Spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree.
(2016) (2002) (1993)

Defense of strangers
Person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
(2011) (2004) (1991)

State of Necessity or avoidance of evil or injury
(a) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists – Injury to himself;
(b) that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it – Instinct of self
preservation is always superior a person’s mind;
(c) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it – this must
clearly shown by the circumstance of the incident
(2016) (2015) (2014) (2013) (2011) (2010)

BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME
(2016) (2015) (2010)

The 3 phases of the “cycle of violence”
(1) The tension building phase (minor battering)
(2) The acute battering incident (brutal battering)
(3) The tranquil, loving (or, at least nonviolent) phase
R.A. 9262-Anti-VAWC
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense – Victim-survivor who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense.
Salient Features:
• Victim-survivors of battered women syndrome (BWS)
– Do not incur criminal/civil liability (justifying circumstances need not be present)
BWS = scientifically defined pattern of psychological/behavioral symptoms of women in
battered relationships due to cumulative abuse
• Due to: economic/physical/psychological/sexual violence
• Relationship = wife/former wife; persons w/ common children; in dating/sexual
relationship/including parents by virtue of conspiracy
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
ART 12. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
(2010) (1992) (1991)

Par. 1 An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
(2014) (2012) (2011)

RA 9344 “An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System”
Salient features:
1. “Child” is below 18 years of age.
2. Child offender is called “child in conflict with the law”
3. It has a retroactive effect, applied to all crime committed prior to May 20, 2006. (Madali
vs. People 495 SCRA 274 August, 2009)
4. Allows the retroactive application of the Act to those who have been convicted and are
serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age 18
years at the time of the commission of the offense.
RULE under R.A. 9344

 Person 15 years old and below (even if acted with discernment)
a) EXEMPT from criminal liability not civil liability
b) Applicable to RPC and Special laws
c) Intervention
(2009)
Intervention - refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that
caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment
program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other activities that will
enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well being)
(2009)
Person between 16 and 17 years of age
(a) Who do not act with discernment
Exempt from criminal liability
(b) Who act with discernment
 NOT Exempt but proceeded with diversion proceedings to determine liability
• The surrounding circumstances demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing
and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the
minor’s cunning and shrewdness
(2015) (2014)
Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is always considered as a modifying
circumstance in the imposition of the penalty of a child in conflict with the law
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2013)
Under Sec. 6 of RA 9344, the exemption from criminal liability of a child does not
include the exemption from civil liability. If the child is exempted from criminal liability, the
person who has legal authority or control (i.e. the father or the mother) is principally liable
pursuant to Art. 101 of the RPC
(2009)
Diversion – refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the
responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court
proceedings.
Who sill conduct the Diversion process?

1. If the imposable penalty of the crime committed is not more than six (6) years  law
enforcement officer or Punong Barangay
2. In victimless crime – if the imposable penalty of the crime is more than six (6) years 
the local welfare and development officer
3. If the imposable penalty is more than six (6) years  by the court
(2009) (2013) (2003)

When do we apply the automatic Suspension of Sentence
 A child, under 18 years of age (16 & 17) at the time of the commission of the offense but has
not reached 21 years old, who is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall not
pronounce a judgment of conviction but place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence without need of application.
(1992) (1989) (1977)

PURE ACCIDENT (Par. 4)
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. with due care
3. he causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. without fault or intention of causing it
Problem: Felixberto and Susan, husband and wife, were at their house on that fateful day. When
Felixberto awaken, he asked his wife Susan to get his service from the cabinet adjacent to their
bed. As she was handing the pistol to him, it suddenly fired, hitting Felixberto at his left temple.
Susan Claimed that it was an accidental shooting
Answer: Susan is liable for parricide. To avail of the exempting circumstance of accident, the
offender must be performing a lawful act with due care. The pointing of the gun towards her
husband cannot be considered as performing a lawful act with due care. Susan held the gun in
one hand and extended it towards her husband who was still lying in bed.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Prudence dictated that when handing over a gun, the muzzle should not be pointed to a
person. Here the muzzle of the gun was pointed at her husband. Besides, a gun does not fire
unless there was pressure on the trigger (People vs. Latosa, 621 SCRA 586, June 23, 2010)
(1998)
Q: What are the distinction between Justifying circumstance and Exempting circumstance?
1. Justifying – a person who acts by virtue of justifying circumstance does not transgress
the law that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing
unlawful in the acts as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person is in itself both
just and lawful.
Exempting – There is crime but the actor is not criminally liable. (The act is not
justified)
2. Justifying – No civil liability except in par. 4

Exempting – There is civil liability except in par 4 and 7
(2015) (2011) (2003) (1995) (1991) (1985) (1984)(1978) (1990)

Q: Distinguish entrapment form Instigation
A: 1. Instigation – the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the
commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal.
Entrapment – ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing.
2. Instigation – the accused must be acquitted

Entrapment – the accused must be convicted
3. Instigation – the idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from the police officer
Entrapment – that means originated from the mind of the criminal
ART. 13 Mitigating circumstances
(2014) (2013) (2012)

Q: What are the distinction between ordinary mitigating and privileged mitigating? (2012)
1. Ordinary – Par 2 to 10 of Art. 13
Privileged – Art. 64, 68 and 69
Art. 64. two or more mitigating without aggravating (next lower degree)
Art. 68. Penalty for under 18 yrs old (one degree lower)
Art. 69. Incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting
(2011)
There is a question “what is the effect of the mitigating circumstance in a crime”
2. Ordinary – If not offset by an aggravating circumstance it will operate to reduce the penalty to
the minimum period
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Privileged – It operates to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees
(2013) (1984)
INCOMPLETE JUSTFYING (Art. 13 Par. 1) (Art. 69)
1. Incomplete self-defense,
Note: In this case, unlawful aggression must always present.
Rule:
a. absence of element of “lack of sufficient provocation” – one degree lower
b. absence of element of “reasonable necessity to prevent aggression” – two
degrees lower
(2000)
THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AS THAT
COMMITTED (Art. 13 par. 3)
Problem: Mandy and Mary, husband and wife had a heated argument. Mandy collected the
clothes of Mary and started pouring kerosene on the cloths. Mandy also poured kerosene on
Mary and setting both the clothes and his wife on fire. Mary died. Mandy argued he had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong. Decide.
Answer: Mandy is liable for the death of Mary. Art. 13 par 3 of the RPC addresses the intention
of the offender at the particular moment when he executed or commits the criminal act. Taking
into consideration the weapon, the mode of attack and the injury sustained. Mandy knew the fatal
injuries that could cause when he poured kerosene all over his wife and lit a match to ignite a
fire. (People vs. Maglian, 646 SCRA 770, March 30, 2011)
(2011) (1993)(1988)
VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE (Art. 13 par.5)
 “grave offense” should not constitute an offense. If yes, it might fall under Justifying
circumstance of self-defense or defense of relative if all the elements are present.
 Grave offense – gravity determined by attenuating & personal circumstances;
involving moral injury
 Vindication ≠ revenge
Distinguish provocation from vindication

1. Provocation Par. 4 – it is made directly only to the person committing a felony.
Vindication Par. 5 – the grave offense may be committed against his spouse, ascendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relative by affinity within the same
degree
2. Provocation – It is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act
and that there be no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the
crime.
Vindication –admits of an interval of time between the grave offense done by the
offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused ( Proximate )
(2013) (1988)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION (Par. 6 Art. 13)
Requisites:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him
Jealousy
 The present rule is that passion or obfuscation arising from jealousy, but with a legitimate
basis is mitigating.
 Arise from lawful sentiments
 On this consideration, the resulting remarks made by the victim against the wife of one
of the accused was considered as a valid basis for obfuscation on the part of that accused,
but not with respect to the same remarks against the mistress of the other accused who
also attacked the victim for such offense.
(2013)
May claim mitigating, if it arises from jealousy of a man who has been living-in with the
woman for the past 20 year.
(2013) (2012 )(2011) (2009) (1999) (1997) (1996) (1992)

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (Par. 7 Art. 13)
Elements:
a. That the offender had not been actually arrested
b. That the offender surrender himself to a person in authority or to his agent
c. That the surrender was voluntary
d. That the surrender was spontaneous – indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for
convenience nor conditional
(2009)
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under Art.
365 since in such cases, the court are authorized to impose a penalty without Art. 62 regarding
mitigating and aggravating circumstance
(2000) (1995)
Q: Who are persons in authority?
A: Art. 152 – Any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a
member of some court or government corporation, board or commission, shall be deemed a
person in authority. A barangay captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person
in authority
(2000)
Q: Who are agents of Person in authority?
A: Any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent
authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and protection and security of life and
property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who
comes to the aid of person in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
BP Blg. 873 amended Art. 152 – persons in authority includes:
a. Teachers
b. Professors
c. Persons charged with the supervision of public or duty recognized private school,
colleges and universities
d. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance shall be deemed person in authority
(2013) (1999) (1997) (1993) 1992) (1985)

PLEA OF GUILTY (Par. 7 Art. 13)
Elements: That the offender confessed his guilt
1. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court
that is t try the case
2. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution
3. That confession must be unconditional
(2011) (1993)
PHYSICAL DEFECT (Par. 8 Art.)
- must relate to the crime committed
- Must be proven
- physical defect must prove that such defect restricts his freedom of action and
understanding
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMTANCES (Art. 14)
(2012) (2011) (1999)

Kinds of aggravating circumstances:
1. Generic – those which apply to all crimes
2. Qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime
(2003)
Q: When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?
A: A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by
law as included in the definition of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.
(1999) (1984)
Q: What are the distinctions between the two?
1. Generic – Increase the penalty to the maximum period
Qualifying – It gives the crime its proper and exclusive name
2. Generic – May be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Example: Nighttime can be offset by
voluntary surrender.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Qualifying – May not be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Example: Treachery cannot
be offset by voluntary surrender, hence, the crime would still be murder.
(2000) (1991)
People vs. Rebucan 654 SCRA 726 July 27, 2011 – The SC held that both generic and
qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information or complaint, otherwise,
they will not be appreciated even if proved during the trial. This requirement is clearly stated in
Sections 8 and 9 Rule 110.
(2008) (1996) (2013) (1976)

Dwelling
 Dwelling should mean exclusively used for living quarters, it does not include house of
prostitution or combined house and store.
 However, it includes room of the bedspacer thus, the crime of rape against a woman who
was renting a bedspace in a boarding house is aggravating
 Include boarding houses or Lease apartment
 Dwelling should includes the stairs BUT not at the foot or about to step on the first rung
of the ladder.
 However, where the victim was hacked at the top of the rung of the stairs, then killed
after he fell to the ground, dwelling is aggravating
 This circumstance is also present where the victim was hit inside his house by a shot fired
at the outside (People vs. Bagsit GR No. 148877, August 19, 2003)
 Include the terrace (Pp vs. Rios, 333 SCRA 823, June 19, 2000
 This circumstance is also present where the victim was taken from his house and then
killed in the field/outside. (People vs. Uycoque, et al., 246 SCRA 769, July 31, 1995)
(1981)
Dwelling is not aggravating
a. Where the victim gave provocation (Pp v. Molina 311 S 517, July 28, 1999)
b. Victim is not a dweller of the house or where he merely went to his neighbors house
c. The dwelling of the victim is also that of the perpetrator (Pp v. Morales GR. L-35413,
November 7, 1979)
(1981)
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
Requisites of abuse of confidence
1. The offended party had trusted the offender
2. The offender abused such trust; and Such abuse facilitated the commission of the crime.
(2008) (1997) (1996) (1994)

Nighttime
 nighttime – Art. 13 of CC from sunset to sunrise
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
 It is not however the period or the time that is material. It is more of the darkness or
nocturnity that is material
The crime was committed at 11:00 in the evening but in front of a lamppost – there is
no aggravating
(2011) (1996)
Uninhabited place
 presupposes that the place is at considerable distance from the town or nearest houses
or could not readily be seen and where people do not regularly pass at short intervals
 The impossibility of the victim to receive or secure aid from third person. (Pp. v.
Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35, January 4, 19940
 also appreciated where the victim was attacked in a banca at sea
(2012) (1996) (1994)

Band (en cuadrilla)
 there is a band whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have acted together in
the commission of the offense. Thus at least 4 must be the number. (People vs. Abdul, et al., 310
SCRA 246, July 13, 1999)
 arms not limited to firearm, any object capable of inflicting injuries
People vs. Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394, January 26, 1989 – stone was considered as an “arm”
(2014) (2013) (2012) (2009) (2001) (1993) (1989)

RECIDIVISM (Par. 9)
 this is ordinary aggravating applicable in all offenses
Q: Who is Recidivist – is one, at the time of his trial for one crime (from arraignment), he shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this code
(2012) (1984)
Q: Who are Quasi-Recidivist?
A: Where the accused was serving sentence for another crime shall commit another crime.
(1991)
A parolee who commits a felony cannot be a quasi-recidivist
(1989)
REITERACION (Par. 10) The offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two (2) or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty
 The if the crimes are embraced in the same title of the code the accused will be
considered also a recidivist
(1989)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
IN CONSIDERATION OF PRICE REWARD OR PROMISE (Par. 11)
- the price, reward or promise must be the primary reason or primordial motive for the
commission of the crime
 The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer to material things or that the
same were actually delivered, it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal by
inducement be accepted by the principal by direct participation before the commission of
the offense.
(2009) (1997) (1996) (1991)

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (Par. 13)
Elements:
1. The time when the accused determined to commit the crime
2. An act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination
Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his
- This is absorbed in aggravating circumstances of price, reward or promise but only

insofar as the inducer is concerned since he obviously reflected thereon in planning the
crime
- Evident premeditation is generally inherent in robbery, theft, estafa and arson
- In robbery with homicide, evident premeditation is aggravating if the plan is not only to
rob but also to kill.
(2012) (2009) (2008) (1997) (1993) (1992) (1985) (1980) (1979)

TREACHERY (Par. 16)
- This is specific and qualifying circumstance. Applicable only to crimes against person
and it qualifies the killing into murder
 treachery means employing methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might take.
 Usually treachery is present if the attack is from behind however, even if the attack is
frontal, treachery may also be considered if the attack on the victim is sudden.
 The treacherous mode of attack must have been deliberately chosen by the accused in
order to deprive the victim of the chance to either to fight or
 (2009) Treachery is present when accused disconnected the tube of the patient confined
at the ICU)
 (1997) –stabbing the victim while the latter was sound asleep is treachery
(2012) (2011) (1976)

Treachery is absorbed in the following:
1. Abuse of superior strength
2. Employing means to weaken the defense
3. En cuadrilla
4. Aid of armed men
5. Nighttime
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
6. Disregard of age, sex or rank
(1997)
UNLAWFUL ENTRY (Par. 18)
- The act of the accused in affecting entrance by opening or way not intended for the
purpose such as widow, ceiling, etc.
 If the offender commits a crime inside the dwelling, there would be the two (2)
aggravating circumstances of unlawful entry and dwelling.
(2013) (1993)
USE OF PERSON UNDER 15 AND USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE (Par 20)
Under 15 – is intended to prevent or discourage the exploitation of such minor
Motor vehicle – increase the liability of offenders who avail of speedy means of
transportation to take them and to escape from the locus delicti (crime scene)
 it must be deliberately adopted and not merely incidental
 it must be shown that without it, the offense charged could not have been committed.
(1994) (1988)
CRUELTY (Par. 21)
Where the offender performed other acts with the evident intention to prolong the physical
suffering.
 It is essential that the accused was alive while the sadistic acts were being committed
against him by the accused.
Cruelty – physical suffering/ordeal
Ignominy – mental ordeal
Aggravating circumstances not provided under RPC

1. Under Sec 25 of RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(2005)
“a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance
in the commission of a crime by the offender and the application of the penalty provided for in
the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable”
(2008) (2004) (2001)

2. Use of unlicensed firearm PD No. 1566 as amended by R.A. No. 8294.
“Sec. 1 par 3 - If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,
such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance”
“Sec. 3 – When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the RPC or Special law
with the use of explosives like pill box, molotov cocktail bomb, firebombs or other incendiary
devices which result in the death of any person such use shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance”
(2009)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
This is a special aggravating circumstance NOT generic hence cannot be offset by a
mitigating circumstance.
(2008)
3. Organized/Syndicated Crime Group RA No. 7659 “Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes
“Art. 62 (1)(a) – The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by
any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any
crime”
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE (ART. 15)

 Are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according
to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
(2011)
Relationship
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender (Parents-in-law and brothers and
sisters-in-law – must be living together)
(2012)
- there are two views on whether the extinguishment of marriage by death of the spouse
dissolves the relationship by affinity for purposes of absolutory cause. The first holds that
relationship by affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage, while the second
maintains that relationship continues even after the death of the deceased. The principle of pro
reo calls for the adoption of the continuing affinity view because it is more favorable to the
accused
(2013) (2012) (2008) (2000)

When relationship mitigating and when aggravating
1. Exempt in crimes against property such as:
a. Art. 332 - Theft, Swindling (estafa). Malicious mischief – includes qualified theft
b. Art. 312 – Usurpation of real rights
c. Art. 314 - Fraudulent insolvency
2. Aggravating in crimes against chastity
(2003) (2000) (1978)

INTOXICATION
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Mitigating
- If not habitual
- not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
Aggravating
- If habitual
- Subsequent to the plan
(2013)
DEGREE OF CRIMINAL PARTICIPATION (ART. 17 to 20)
Q: Who are participants of the crime?
A: 1. Principal
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories
Q: what at the three classes of principals?
A: 1. Direct participation
2. Inducement or induction
3. Indispensable cooperation
(2014) (2008) (2003) (2000) (1984) (1998) (1997)

Principal by direct participation
- Those who take part in the execution of the act.
 If there are several participants of the crime

Rule:
a. If there is conspiracy, then all of the actors are principals by direct participation.
b. If there is no conspiracy, the criminal liability of the actors is individual (People vs.
Mercado, 275 SCRA 581, July 1997)
c. Mere acquiescence to a crime, absent any criminal participation, does not make one a
co-conspirator. (2008)
d. If there is conspiracy, the act of the other accused of running out of the crime scene
before the crime is committed upon hearing the sirens of the police car is not spontaneous
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. (2003)
Q: What are the two levels/types of conspiracy?
1. As a crime (art. 8)
2.As a mode of committing a crime (Lazarte vs. Sandiganbayan, 377 SCRA 556, February 26,
2002)
(2016)
Q: What are the kinds of multiple conspiracies?
1. Wheel or circle conspiracy
2. Chain conspiracy
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
3. Enterprise Conspiracy (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 377 SCRA 556)
Accused Joseph Estrada was convicted of the crime of plunder under the “wheel or circle of
conspiracy” in which there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or
more person or groups (the spokes), he was considered as the hub by receiving P545M from
illegal gambling; 200M in tabacco excise tax; P1.1B shares of stock of the Belle Corporation
(2005) (2003) (1998) (1994) (1992) (1991) (1986) (1976)

Implied conspiracy
 When the participants do not expressly agree on the commission of the crime but
acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a
common criminal objective.
PROBLEM: Elena, wife of Elpidio, issued a check to Johnny. Elpidio assured that the checks
issued by his wife were good checks. The checks bounced. WON Elpidio who is not drawer of
the checks may be held liable for BP 22 together with his wife. Decide
Answer: Yes, by virtue of conspiracy. Although Elpidio is not the drawer of the checks, he,
however, coaxed Johnny to exchange the checks with cash by guaranteeing that the checks were
good checks and funded. In all the transaction, Elpidio was present and personally received the
money (People vs. Hernando, 317 SCRA 617, October 28, 1999)
(2002) (1976)
Principal by Inducement
 Those who directly force or induce others to commit the crime 2 classes of principal by
induction
1. Those who directly induce others to commit the crime.
2. Those who directly force another to perpetrate the offense
2 ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime

1. By giving price, reward or promise
2. By using words of command
(1981)
- such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor.
(2000)
Principal by indispensable cooperation
 Those who cooperates in the commission of the offense by another act without which the
offense would not have been accomplished
(2016) (2005) (2012) (2009) (2011)

ACCOMPLICES
 One who, not having participated as principals, cooperated in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous act.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
 Accomplices should not conspire with the commission of the crime (2005)
 There must be causal connection between the act of the principal and the act of the
accomplice (2009)
People vs. Magno, 322 SCRA 4994, January 19, 2000) – Rigor by providing a beaming
flashlight at the victim to assist Magno in taking a good aim at the victim is an accomplice
(2012) (2007)
Differences between principal by indispensable cooperation (co-conspirator) and accomplices
They have one thing in common, they knew and agree with the criminal design.
1. Principal by IC – know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided
upon such course of action.
Accomplice – come to know about it after the principal have reached the decision, and
only then do they agree/concur to cooperate in its execution.
2. Principal by IC - they conspired with the principal
Accomplice – they merey agree/concur
3. Penalty
Co-conspirator – same penalty as the principal
Accomplice – One degree lower
(2014) (2013) (2004) (1988) (1985) (1984)

ACCESSORIES
(1) By profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
(2016) (2014) (2013)(2010)(2005)(1998)(1995) (1992)(1990)(1988) (1985) (1984)(1981)

Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612)
 This law does not modify or repeal Art. 19 of the RPC. The state may choose to
prosecute the fence either as an accessory under the RPC or under this decree.
Elements:
1. A crime of robber or theft has been committed
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or dispose, or
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime.
3. 3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article , item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft
(2009)
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Problem: If a municipal treasurer, misappropriated the personal computers entrusted to her and
sold this to other person, this other person is not liable under PD 1612 BUT he may be liable as
an accessory to the crime of Malversation.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Problem (2010) Ukay-ukay – not liable
(2001) (2000)
Q: What is Corpus delicti?
A: It does not only mean the body of the person killed. It is the body or the material substance
upon which the a delicti has been committed.
(2000)
Elements of Corpus Delicti
1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the bases of the criminal act
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result
(2001)
- non-recovery of the body of the victim is not bar to the prosecution of a Murder, but the
fact of death and identify of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt
(2008(1982)
3) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.
Art 19 (3), in case of a private individual assisting the escape of the principal, the
principal must have committed the crimes of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the
life of the chief executive or is know to be a habitually guilty of some other crime
(2011) (2008) (2005)

PD. No. 1829, Sec. 1
Sec. 1 (i) and (c) of PD. 1829 provides:

“harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to
prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction”
(1978)
Q: Is it necessary that, If the principal was acquitted, the accessory must also be acquitted?
It depends!
a. If accused was acquitted because of self-defense, the accessory must also be acquitted.
b. If the accused was acquitted because of insanity or the case was dismissed because the
principal died during the trial, the accessory will not be acquitted.
(2010) (2000)
Art. 20 Accessory exempt from criminal liability when the principal is his/her
a. Spouse
b. Descendants
c. Ascendant
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
d. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same
degree.
They are not exempt however in par (1) of Art. 19, (Profit by the effects of the crime or
assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime) because such acts are promoted not by
affection but by a detestable greed.
(2005)
Note: Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of art. 19 is exempt by reason of relationship
to the principal, even if such public officer acted with abuse of his official functions REASON
BEING: ties of blood is more powerful incentive that the call of duty. HOWEVER, he will still
be liable under PD. 1829, obstruction of justice. (Obstruction of justice)
PD. 1829, obstruction of justice.

- Committed also by destroying evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal
case
(2013) (2012) (2011) (2009) (2005) (2004) (2001) (2000) (1999) (1996) (1995) (1991)
COMPLEX CRIME (Art. 48)
Q: What are the two kinds of complex crime?
1. Compound crime (delito compuesto)
- when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
2. Complex crime proper (delito complejo)
- when an offense is necessary means for committing another crime
Illustration:
1. A single act of burning the house of the victim with the main objective of killing Gaffud
and his daughter resulted into two grave offense constitutes Complex crime of double
murder – People vs. Gaffud, 566 S 76, 2008
2. Lacao’s single act of assaulting the policeman, resulted into two grave or less grave
offenses, of murder and direct assault of an agent of a person in authority. (People vs.
Lacao, Sr. 201 SCRA 317, September 4, 1991)
3. The single act of stabbing his wife, Jesus committed the grave felony of parricide as well
as the less grave felony of unintentional abortion. Pp. vs. Paycana Jr., 551 SCRA 657
(2008)
(1999)
Rule in case of an automatic riffle
- When the offender made use of an automatic firearm, the acts committed are
determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the
offender need only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by
a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act
of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the
number of bullets which actually produced them.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2009)
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER (delito complejo)
 An offense is necessary means for committing another offense
Illustration:
- The rule has been applied by the Supreme Court in Estafa through falsification of public
document. When a falsified Deed of Sale or SPA was presented to deceive a person from
buying a property as held in the case of (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vs.
William Sato 612 SCRA 272 Feb. 11, 2010)
(2009) (1984)
Q: Is there a complex crime of Estafa through falsification of private document?
A: None, because the element damage in falsification of private document is the same element
needed in Estafa. Such damage can only be utilized once. And since it can be used only once, it
cannot furnish the element of damage in the other crime. This is called “Doctrine of common
elements”
(1988)
There is no complex crime in the following cases
1. Where one of the offense is penalized by a special law
a. Estafa through issuance of bouncing check
b. Murder/homicide with illegal possession of firearm
(2011) (2005)
Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one single penalty for special complex crime or
composite crimes
a. Rape with homicide (Art. 266-B)
b. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with killing of the victim (Art. 267)
c. Robbery with homicide (Art. 294 [1])
d. Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide (Art.297)
e. Arson resulting in homicide (Art. 320 as amended by RA. 7659)
(2004) (2003)
Distinguish an ordinary complex crime and special complex crime
• Ordinary – made up of two or more crimes but with a single penalty which is the most
severe penalty will be imposed in its maximum period
• Special – made up of two or more crime but wit a single/specific penalty provided in the
Revised Penal Code
(2009) (2005) (1996) (1995)

DELITO CONTINUADO (Continued/continuous crime not continuing crime)
Elements:
a. Plurality of acts performed during a period of time.
b. Unity of penal provision violated
c. Unity of criminal intent or purpose
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(Santiago vs. Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214 December 2, 1993)
(1996)
Problem:Five robbers robbed, one after the other five housed occupied by different families
located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence
Answer: One crime of robbery
(2009)
No delito continuado
Two estafa cases, one of which committed during the period from January 19 to
December 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956. The acts were committed on
different occasions. (People vs. Dichupa, 113 Phi. 306 [1961])
– Each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived and different
times or dates and in different amounts
In the latest case of Paera vs. People 649 SCRA 384, May 30, 2011 –
FACTS: This is a case regarding a dispute in water supply, Peara was surprised to see Indalecio
(first victim) near the water tank and he said “I will kill you” and then Peara came across
Diosetea (second victim) when he was chasing Indalecio he uttererd “I don’t spare anyone,
even if you are a woman, I will kill you” and Peara crossed path with Vicente while running
after Indalecio and said “even if you are old, I will crack open your skull”
Ruling: the SC held that the accused committed three (3) counts of grave threats because of the
following reasons
1. Having spoken the threat and at different points in time to Indalecio, Diosetea and
Vicente
2. Absence of foreknowledge of the presence of other two victims in the scene.
3. The accused in these case was surprised by the presence of the other two individuals.
4. The threat cannot be said to have arose in a single mental resolution
(1994)
Q: Distinguish delito continuado from continuing crime
A: Delito continuado or continuous crime – is a term used to denote as only one crime a
series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of
division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, violating
one and the same penal provision. One information should be filed.
Continuing offense – is one whose essential ingredients took place in more than one
municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and
the case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality. This is pertinently
used with reference to the venue
(2007)
Q: What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?
A: Imprisonment/destierro and:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a
profession or calling
6. Fine and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
(2013)
Art. 70- the scales are for the purpose of successive service of sentence impose on the same
accused in consideration on their severity and nature (if the accused is to serve two or more
penalties)
MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT CONSIDERED PENALTIED (Art. 24)

1. Temporary detention by reason of insanity or imbecility or illness requiring confinement
in a hospital
2. The commitment of a minor to any welfare institution
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings
(2000) (1999)
In Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 201 SCRA 417, September 6, 1991 – the SC held that
the 90 days preventive suspension issued by the Sandiganbayan is merely a measure of
prevention not a penalty. A person under preventive suspension remains entitled to the
constitutional presumption of innocence as his culpability must still be established.
(2005)
Reclusion Perpetua – 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. (indivisible penalty)
(2001) (1995) (1991)

Reclusion perpetua v. Life imprisonment
1. Reclusion perpetua is imposed by the RPC, while life imprisonment is by SPL
2. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for only 40 years while life imprisonment does
not appear to have any definite extent or duration
3. Reclusion perpetua carries accessory penalties while it is not so in life imprisonment
Note: (2009) – Life imprisonment is unfavorable to the accused.
(2007)
In what case is destierro punishable
1. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior (Art. 284)
3. A a penalty for the concubine in concubinage
4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one or more degrees destierro is the proper
penalty
(2005)
Q: Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty? Explain
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Ans. yes
(1998)
– a crime of evasion of service of sentence may be committed even if the penalty is
destierro, especially if the accused went to a prohibited place.
(1995) (1984) (1980)

PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT DEDUCTED FROM TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT (Art. 29)
Preventive imprisonment – Is the period of detention undergone by an accused where the
crime with which he is charged ins non-bailable or even bailable, he is unable to post the
requisite bail.
Q: when is the detention prisoner entitled to full credit of his preventive imprisonment?
a. 100% - If he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoner
b. 4/5 – if he does not agree
Except
1. Recidivist and habitual delinquents
2. Those who failed to surrender upon summoned by the court in order to serve sentence
(2015) (2009) (2004) (1990)

PARDON (Art. 36)
Effects of Pardon
1. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage.
EXCEPTION when any or both such rights is/are expressly restored by the term of the
pardon (Joseph Estrada case)
2. Shall not exempt the culprit from payment of the civil liability
3. If absolute pardon – merely extinguishes criminal liability, removed her disqualification,
and restored her eligibility for appointment to office. The pardonee has to re-apply for a
new appointment (Mansanto vs. Factoran, Jr, 170 SCRA 191)
4. The pardonee only excused him from serving sentence but did not erase the effects of the
conviction, unless expressly remitted by the pardon
Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning power
1. Can be exercised only after conviction “by final judgment”
2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment
(2005)
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (Art. 38)
1. The reparation of the damage caused
2. Indemnification of the damage caused
3. Fine
4. Costs of the proceeding.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(BAR)
Q: Pecuniary liability and pecuniary penalty?
A: The term "pecuniary penalties" (las pecuniarias) in article 89 refers to the fine and costs (I
Viada, Codigo Penal, 4th Ed., p. 565). That term is not the same as the "pecuniary liabilities"
(responsabilidades pecuniarias) in article 38 which include reparation and indemnit
(2005)
Rule in imposition of fine
- The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the crime and
not jointly and severally. Any of the convicted accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the
fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment.
(2013) (1977)
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY (Art. 39))
 Additional penalty of imprisonment imposed by the court in case the convict is insolvent
to pay the fine
 It should be expressly imposed in the judgment of conviction
 this penalty may be imposed if the penalty is prision correccional or less aside from fine
 shall not relieve the convict from paying the fine if the financial capacity improves.
 Applicable only to debt ex contratu not in penalty imposed by law
(2005)
- The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may
prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the
alternative penalties at the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise the judgment
cannot attain finality.
(1978)
ACCESSORY PENALTIES (Art. 73, 40 t0 45 and 30 to 34)
 Unlike subsidiary imprisonment, accessory penalties need not be expressly stated in the
judgment of conviction. Art. 73 provides that whenever a penalty is imposed, it is
understood that accessory penalties are also imposed.
(2011) (1993)
Factors affecting the degree of penalty
1. Degree of Participation
2. Degree of Execution
3. Art. 68 (2) -Privileged mitigating of minority over fifteen and under eighteen - one
degree lower
4. (Art. 69) Incomplete justifying and exempting circumstance
a. absence of element of lack of sufficient provocation (one degree lower)
b. absence if reasonable necessity to prevent aggression (two degrees lower)
5. Art. 64 (5) - two or more mitigating without aggravating (one degree lower)
(2013)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE (Art. 70)
The most severe penalty should be served first, subject to 3-fold rule
3-fold rule
a. The maximum/total penanty shall not be more than 3 times the length of time
corresponding to the most severe penalty impose upon him
b. But in no case to exceed 40 year
(2014) (2012) (1991)

HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
(Art. 62 last Paragraph)
Requisite of Habitual Delinquency
1. Only in crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification (FRETSEL)
2. That after conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed and with 10 years
from his last release of first conviction he was again convicted of any of the said crime
for the second time
3. That after the second time or after serving sentence for the second offense, he again
committed and within 10 days from his last conviction, he again convicted of any of said
offense, the third time or oftener
(1991)
Habitual delinquent cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information
and proven during the trial.
(2012) (2001) (1986)

Habitual distinguished from Recidivism
1. Habitual – the crimes are specified (FRETSEL)

Recidivism – crime must be embraced in the same title of the RPC
2. Habitual – duration of 10 years from the last release or last conviction

Recidivism – No period of time between the first conviction and the last conviction
3. Habitual – the accused must be found guilty the third time or oftener of the crimes
specified.
Recidivism – the second offense is enough
4. Habitual – an additional penalty is also imposed
Recidivism – serves to increase the penalty only to the maximum
(2014) (2013) (2012) (2011) (2010) (2009) (2005) (2004) (2003) (2002) (2001) (1992) (1991)
(1990) (1981)
PROBATION LAW
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2001) (1989) (1984)
Q: When probation may be granted?
1. Granted only after conviction
2. Before the accused perfected an appeal
3. Filing an application for probation is a waiver of right to appeal
4. Accessory penalties are suspended once probation is granted
Illustrations:
If during the appeal, the convict’s sentence was reduced by the appellate court making the new
penalty probationable – Colinares vs. People 662 SCRA 266 December 13, 2011
Mustapha Dimakuta vs. People G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015
FACTS: Accused was convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness Section 5 Paragraph (b), Article III
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discriminatory Act. and was sentenced to Indeterminate sentence of 10 years
to 17 years. Thereafter accused appealed to CA, the contention of the accused is this “no
evidence showing that the act done without the victim's consent or through force, duress,
intimidation or violence upon the person of the victim”
The CA modified the decision – for failure of the prosecution to show that the act was attended
by force, duress, intimidation or violence upon the person of the victim, the accused is liable
only for Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC and punished for (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as
maximum.
Q: Can the accused applied for probation under the Colinares Rule?
RULING: If you Appeal questioning your conviction, even if the appellate court reduced the
penalty within the probationable period, you are not entitled to apply for probation. Where an
accused files an appeal for the sole purpose of correcting the penalty imposed to qualify him for
probation or where he files an appeal specifically claiming that he should be found guilty of a
lesser offense necessarily included with the crime originally filed with a prescribed penalty
which is probationable.
(2012) (2002) (2001) (1985) (1995) (1993) (2004)

Q: When will it be denied?
1. If the penalty is more than 6 years (6yrs and 1 day)
2. The crime is against national security or public order
3. Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished
with imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or fine of not less than
two hundred pesos
4. If the accused need correctional treatment
5. There is undue risk of committing another crime
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
6. If granted it would depreciate the seriousness of the offense
(2013)
- denied also if the crime committed is alarm and scandals because it affects public order.
(2002)
Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended an order granting or denying probation is not
appealable
(2012) (2005)
Period of probation
Period of Probation. —
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than
one year shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six
years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more
than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate
established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
(2012) (2010) (2005) (2003) (1999) (1995) (1994) (1991) (1990) (1988) (1984) (1982) (1975)
INDETEMINATE SENTENCE LAW (Act. No. 4103)
Not applicable in the following:
As to penalty
1. Death
2. Life imprisonment
3. Does not exceed 1 year
4. Destierro
5. Suspension only
As to crime
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy to commit treason
3. Proposal to commit treason
4. Misprision of treason
5. Rebellion
6. Sedition
7. Espionage
8. Piracy
As to person
1. Habitual delinquents
2. Those fugitive of judgment
3. Those who violated the condition of their pardon
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2007) –
those who violated the penalty of destierro – entering into a prohibited area, are not
entitled to ISLAW
(2012) (2009) (2002)

RULE of ISLAW
1. In RPC
a. The maximum term – is that which could be properly imposed under the RPC
considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
b. The minimum term – is within the range of the penalty one degree lower than that
prescribed by the RPC without considering the circumstances
(2014) (1999) (1989)
2. If the penalty is imposed by SPL
a. the maximum – must not exceed the maximum term fixed by said law.
b. the minimum term – must not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same
(2007)
Q: Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of
prohibited substances?
Ans. Yes.
(1991)
Factors to consider to arrive at the correct penalty. Determine the crime committed
1. Stage of execution and degree of participation
2. Determine the penalty
3. Consider the modifying circumstances
4. Determine whether ISLAW is applicable
(1991) (1988)
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Art. 89)
Q: When can there be a total extinction of criminal liability?
1. Death of the convict
2. Service of the sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute Pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the woman
(2007)
Resignation or separation from office is not a ground for extinguishing criminal liability
under Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
(2015) (2013) (2004) (2000) (1990) (1987) (1981)

Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Death of the accused
a. Before final judgment
a.1 criminal liability and civil liability are totally and permanently extinguished
b. After final judgment
b.1 criminal liability – extinguished
b.2 civil liability – not extinguished and it can be enforced against the estate of the
deceased
c. After promulgation of judgment but not yet final, on account of an appeal or a motion
for reconsideration duly filed.
1 criminal liability – extinguished
2 civil liability – civil liability arising from the offense is extinguished
NOTE: in this circumstance, the offended party nevertheless is allowed to file a separate
civil action, this time based on either contract, quasi-contract, law or quasi-delicts (Art. 1157)
other sources of obligation (Pp. vs Bayotas 236 SCRA 239 September 2, 1994)
(2013) (2000) (1975)

Exceptions to the Rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability:
a. When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of a
felony;
b. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt
has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, CC)
c. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstances, like insanity
d. Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation
e. Where there was a proper reservation for filing of a separate civil action
f. In cases of independent civil actions provided for Art. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the CC
g. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA 314 SCRA 370)
h. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA 314 SCRA 370)
(2009) (2006)
Amnesty and Absolute pardon
a. Amnesty- granted in favor of a class of persons
Pardon – may be granted to individual or group of person
b. Amnesty – granted before or after conviction
Pardon – granted only after conviction
c. Amnesty – usually political offenses
Pardon – any crime
d. Amnesty – an official act of the President with the concurrence of congress
Pardon – Private act of the president hence, concurrence of congress is not
required
e. Amnesty – it obliterates the penalty hence the ex-convict is cleansed of the
circumstance of recidivism.
Pardon – convict can still be considered recidivist
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
NOTE: Both amnesty and pardon do not extinguish civil liability ex delicto
(2007)
Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty under PD No. 724
1. Rebellion or insurrection
2. Coup d’etat
3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup d’etat
4. Disloyalty of public officers or employs
5. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
6. Sedition
7. Conspiracy to commit sedition
8. Inciting to sedition
9. Illegal assembly
10. Illegal association
11. Direct Assault
12. Indirect Assault
13. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such person
14. Tumults and other disturbance of public order
15. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances
16. Illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in furtherance
of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection
17. Violation of Articles of War
a. Art. 59 (Desertion)
b. Art. 62 (Absence without leave)
c. Art. 67 (Mutiny)
d. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny of Sedition)
e. Art. 94 (Various crimes)
f. Art. 96. (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman)
g. Art. 97 (General Article)
(2015) (2010) (2009) (2004) (2001) (2000) (1994)

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME (Art. 90)
 It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender or file criminal
action after the lapse of a certain period of time.
1. Reclusion perpetua - 20 years

Reclusion temporal - 20 years
2. Prision mayor
(afflictive penalties) - 15 years
3. Correctional penalty - 10 years
4. Arresto mayor - 5 years
5. Libel - 1 year
6. Grave oral defamation - 6 months
7. Grave slander by deed - 6 months
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
8. Light offenses - 2 months
(2010) (2001) (1977)

RULE
 the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of discovery of the crime by
the offended party, the authorities or their agents
 The period shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
acquitted, or are unjustly stopped for any reason not imputable to him
“offended party” can either be the state or the private offended party (Garcia vs. Court of
Appeal, et al 266 SCRA 678, January 27, 1997)
(2001)
The filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary
investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of prescriptive in as much as the jurisdiction
of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegation in the complaint or information, not
by the result of proof. (People vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193)
(1995) (1993) (1989)

Exception to the discovery rule:
Constructive notice rule
 In falsification involving sale/conveyances of real properties, the period of prescription
starts to run form the registration of the deed in the Register of Deeds (People vs. Reyes
175 SCRA 597
 However, constructive notice rule should not be applied in the crime of bigamy – the
registration of a marriage contract is different from the registration of a deed of real
property (Sermonia vs. CA 233 SCRA 155, June 14, 1994)
(2015)
PRESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY (Art. 92)
 Prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the state to execute the final
sentence of conviction after the lapse of a certain period of time.
1. Death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years
2. Afflictive penalties - 15 years
3. Reclusion temporal - 15 years
4. Prision mayor - 15 years
5. Correctional penalties - 10 years
6. Arresto mayor - 5 years
7. Light penalties - 1 year
The penalty, to be subject of prescription must have been imposed by final judgment
Illustration: (2015)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Prescription is interrupted (2015)
1. He should give himself up
2. Be captured
3. Go to foreign country with which the Philippines has no extradition treaty
4. Should commit another crime
BOOK II
(2012)
Art. 114 Treason
Elements of treason
1. That the offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the
2. Philippines;
3. That there is a war in which the Philippine is involved;
4. That the offender either-
a. Levies war against the Government
b. adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort
(2010)
Art. 116. Misprision of treason
Elements:
1. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the Government and not a foreigner.
2. That he has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the Government
3. That he conceals or does not disclose and make known the same as soon as possible to the
governor or fiscal of the province or mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides
(2012)
Art. 117. Espionage
Two ways of committing espionage
1. By entering, without authority therefore, a warship, fort, or naval or military
establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plans photography or other data
of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in paragraph No. 1 of Art. 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Problem: Aragoncillo, an intelligence officer of the AFP, accessed the AFP’s computer database
and downloaded pertinent top-secret documents including among others a report and analysis on
the Scarborough stand-off situation written by a navy officer. Thereafter, Aragoncillo sent these
top-secret files to a US High Government Official. Did Aragoncillo commit a crime?
Answer: Yes, Aragoncillo committed the crime of espionage. The document certainly pertains to
national security. One of the acts punished as espionage is by unlawfully obtaining information
relating to national defense. In fact, even if the information was lawfully obtained, if the person
disclosed the information to a foreign representative without authority, it is still espionage. (USA
vs. Aragoncillo and Aquino D.C. Crim. No. 05-cr-00719)
(2007)
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on high seas or in Philippine waters
Two ways or modes of committing piracy
1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine waters;
2. By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part of it
cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers
(2016) (2007)
Art. 123. Qualified piracy
Qualifying circumstances:
1. Whenever the offense have seized the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
P.D. No. 532 states that the attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or taking away of the
whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers committed by any person including a passenger or member of the complement of said
vessel shall be considered Piracy (must be in conspiracy with the pirates) without conspiracy, the
act would be robbery on the seas.
(2007)
Classes of arbitrary detention
1. Arbitrary detention be detaining a person without legal ground (Art. 124)
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities (Art. 126)
3. Delaying release (Art. 126)
(1992) - violation of a traffic ordinance by entering a one-way street is not a valid reason to
arrest and detain the driver. Such only merits the issuance of a traffic violation ticket.
(2007)
Q: What are the legal grounds for a public officer to detain a person?
A: a. commission of a crime
b. violent insanity
c. ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital.
(2007)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Q: What are the requisites of an arrest in flagrante delicto?
A: 1. The person to be arrested performed an overt act
2. Such overt act is
(a) done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer, (People vs. Molina,
February 19, 2001)
(b) or hears the disturbance created and proceeds at once in the scene of the crime (US vs.
Samonte, 16 Phil 515; US vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil 472)
(1990)
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within:
a. twelve (12) hours, for crimes or crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or t
heir equivalent; or
b. eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or
their equivalent; or
c. thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties,
or their equivalent.
(2012)
Art. 127. Expulsion
Two acts are punishable under Article 127.
1. By expelling a person from the Philippines
2. By compelling a person to change his residence.
(2009) (2002) (1989)

Art. 128. Violation of domicile
Acts punishable:
1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or
2. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner;
or
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
having been required to leave the same.
(2002)
Q: Violation of domicile vs. trespass to dwelling
a. The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under the color of authority; In
trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person of public officer acting in a private capacity
b. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways, while Trespass to dwelling is
committed only in one way; that is by entering the dwelling of another against the express or
implied will of the latter.
(2012) (1998) (1991) (1988)

Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection
Elements:
1. That there be (a) public uprising, and (b) taking arms against the government
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either –
(a) to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws:
(1) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof; or
(2) any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or
(b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers
or prerogatives
(1990) - Rebellion cannot be complexed with, BUT absorbs acts committed in furtherance
thereof (People vs. Hernandez supra) and (Ponce Enrile vs. Salazar, etc. et al GR No. 92163,
June 5, 1990)
(1990) - Offense which were not committed in the furtherance of the rebellion but for personal
reasons or motives are to be punished separate even if committed simultaneously with the
rebellion acts (People vs. Geronimo 90 Phil. 95; People vs. Oliva et al., Gr. No 106826, Jan. 18,
2001)
(2004)
Rebellion vs. Coup d’etat
1. Rebellion - is committed when a multitude of persons rise publicly in arms for the
purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government, to be replaced by a government
of the rebels It is carried out by force and violence, but need not be participated in by any
member if the military, national police ot any public officer.
Coup d’etat - is committed when members of the military, Philippine National Police, or
public officer acting as principal offenders, launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth,
threat, violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, military camp or installation, communication networks, public facilities or
utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental powers, for
the purpose of seizing or diminishing state powers.
2. Rebellion - requires a public uprising,
Coup d’etat - may be carried out singly or simultaneously and the principal offenders
must be members of the military, national police or public office, with or without civilian
support. The criminal objective need not be to overthrow the existing government but
only to destabilize or paralyze the existing government.
(2013) (2012) (2002) (1999)(1991)

Art. 134-A Coup d’ etat
(2005) - could not be committed in a frustrated stage for the reason that this crime, the accused
cannot perform all the acts of execution without consummating the felony.
(2003) - there is a complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion and complex crime of coup d’etat
with sedition
(1999)- public school teacher may be liable of this crime
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(1987)
Art. 141 – Conspiracy to commit sedition
- Prision correccional in its medium period and fine not exceeding 2,000
(2012)
Art. 142. Inciting to sedition –
(2012) – Depriving Congress of its legislative powers is an object of rebellion. Hence, inciting
others to attain the purpose or rebellion by means of speeches or writing constitutes inciting to
sedition.
(2007)
Different acts of inciting to sedition
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, etc.
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace.
3. Writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government or any of the duly
constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace.
(2012)
Art. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity –
1. By using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of the National
Assembly from (1) attending the meeting of the Assembly or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from (2)
expressing his opinion, or (3) casting his votes.
2. By arresting or searching any member thereof while the National Assembly is in regular or
special session, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under the Code
by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
(2012)
Art. 146. Illegal assemblies –
Forms of Illegal Assemblies:
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the commission
of the crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in
authority
(2013) (2012) (2009) (2002) (1993)

Art. 148 Direct Assault
Two ways to commit:

1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of sedition & rebellion
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2012) – If the offender prevented by force the holding of a popular election in certain precincts
without public uprising, he may be held liable for direct assault (Art. 139)
2 Without public uprising by attacking, by employing force or seriously intimidating or by

seriously resisting any person in authority (PA) or any of his agents (APA), while engaged
in the performance of official duties, or on the occasion of such performance
(2001) – committed also if the assault is directed on the Brgy. Chairman

(2001) – laying hand on a brgy. Tanod is not direct assault
Past Questions:
(2009) – There is a complex crime of DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED

HOMICIDE – Example – Firefight between the bank robbers and the responding policemen.
AND if one policeman killed another crime of Robbery with Homicide (special complex crime)
(2002) – a person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a
person in authority
(2000) – there is complex crime of direct assault with murder
(1993) - There is complex crime of direct assault with serious physical imjury
(1987)
Direct assault is qualified when:
1. Committed with a weapon;
2. Offender is a public officer or employee;
3. Offender lays hands upon a person in authority
(1990)
ARTICLE 151 RESISTANCE & DISOBEDIENCE TO APERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE
AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON
(2012)
ARTICLE 153. TUMULTS & OTHER DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER
(2013)
ARTICLE 155 ALARMS & SCANDALS
(2014) (2012) (2009) (2002) (1989)

ARTICLE 156 DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Committed in two ways:

1. By removing a prisoner confined in jail or penal institution – to take away a person from
confinement with or without the active participation of the person released
2. By helping said person to escape – furnish material means to facilitate escape
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Note:
1. committed by private individual or public official not in custody with the prisoner
2. Detention or sentence prisoner
3. If the offender is a public officer who is actually and presently in custody or charge of the
prisoner, (e.g. a guard on duty) he is liable of for infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
4. If the delivery of the prisoner was committed through bribery, the briber commits
corruption of the public officer under Art. 212 and delivering prisoner form jail
(2009) (1989) (2012)

ARTICLE 157 EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Elements:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. That he is serving his sentence, which consists in deprivation of liberty;
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.
(2015) – cannot be committed by detention prisoner
(2012)
ARTICLE 159 OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SENTENCE (CONDITIONAL PARDON)
Note: this is a distinct crime since the code imposes a specific penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum period if the unserved portion is less than six years.
(2012)
ARTICLE 160 COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING THE SERVICE OF
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE (QUASI-RECIDIVISM)
Q: Is accused who was serving sentence by final judgment is a quasi-recidivist if he

commits evasion of service of sentence by escaping from jail?
A: It is submitted that there can be no circumstance of quasi-recidivism in this situation. The
operative circumstance that constitute quasi-recidivism here is the fact that the convict was
serving sentence under a final judgment. The same circumstance is also an essential element of
evasion of Par 1 of Art. 62 provides that a circumstance which is an element of or is included by
the law in defining a crime shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty.
(1999)
ARTICLE 169 HOW FORGERY IS COMMMITTED
How committed:
1. By giving to treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the
appearance of a true and genuine document;
2. By erasing, substituting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signatures
contained therein.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2014) (2012) (2009)
ARTICLE 171 FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
Essential element: That the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public or
ecclesiastical minister
Forgery vs. Falsification

Forgery - As used in Art. 169 refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank
notes or any instruments payable to the bearer or to order. Forgery is committed by giving the
appearance of authenticity to bank notes, obligations and securities, or by erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering the figures or words thereon.
Falsification - The commission of any of the eight (8) acts mentioned in Art. 171 on legislative
(only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private documents,
or wireless, or telegraph
(1992)
Art. 171 and 172 does not require that the document is required by law. The sanctity of
the public document, a residence certificate cannot be taken lightly as being a “mere scrap of
paper”. Intent to cause damage, or actual damage is not an indispensable requisite of public
document.
(2014) (1987)
ARTICLE 172 FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS
Essential Elements
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual
2. The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position
(2007) (1989)
Falsification of private document by any person;
(1991) – being the possessor and user of the falsified document he is presumed to be the forger
or falsifier and the offense of introducing falsified document is already absorbed in the main
offense of forgery or falsification.
(1984)
A: None, because the damage in falsification of private document is the same in Estafa. Such
damage can only be utilized once. And since it can be used only once, it cannot furnish the
element of damage in the other crime. This is called “Doctrine of common elements”
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2000)
ESTAFA CAN BE COMPLEXED WITH FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL, PUBLIC OR
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT. – provided that the falsification must be necessary means to
commit the estafa
(1987)
Use of falsified documents. (3)
Introducing in a judicial proceeding
- That the offender knew that the document was falsified by another person;
(2012)
Art. 174 Issuance of false Medical certificate
(2015)
ARTICLE 177 USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
(2007)
Alias may be allowed in the following
(5) pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and
in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice.
(COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 142, as amended by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6085 An Act
Regulating the Use of Aliases)
(1994)
ARTICLE 181 FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT
– it is not necessary that the criminal case were the accused testified is terminated first
(2005) (1996)
ARTICLE 183 PERJURY
Two ways of committing perjury:
1. By falsely testifying under oath;
2. By making a false affidavit.
(2005) – in application for naturalization, when the applicant stated under oath that he was living
with his lawful wife when in fact he was living with his mistress.
(2012) (1993) – subornation of perjury – procuring another to swear falsely and testify under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury - principal by inducement.
(1987) – there is no perjury if the accused did not sign the document freely and voluntarily but
due to the force employed by the policeman
False testimony v. Perjury
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
1. False testimony is committed in judicial proceedings and statement given by the witness is not
required by law, whereas perjury does not take place in judicial proceedings but the statement
given by the declarant is required by law.
– Thus, perjury may be committed in the government prosecutor’s office (People vs. Bautista,
CA 40 O.G. 2491) or it may be made in an affidavit or sworn statement filed with the complaint
in the municipal trial court and later attached to the information. (People vs. Cabero 61 Phil.
121)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002
(2013)
Salient Features:
(2010) – convicted felon not entitled to probation (sec. 24)
(2004) – plea-bargaining or plea to a lesser offense is no longer allowed (Sec. 23)
In a 21-page en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, the high
court granted the petition of Salvador Estipona, Jr. who is facing a charge for possession of 0.084
gram of shabu in March 2016. The Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional a
provision in Republic Act (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act which
prohibits plea bargaining in drug-related cases.
(2000) - The failure to present the buy-bust or marked money is not indispensable, as long as the
sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented
before the court.
(BAR) - Notwithstanding the provisions of the law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use
of dangerous drugs shall be a QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE in the
commission of a crime by an offender, and the applicable penalty provided for in the RPC shall
be applicable. (Sec. 25)
Acts Punished:
(2007)
4. Employment in and visiting a den, dive or resort. (Section 7) – It is essential that the person is
aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.
(2006)
Other Acts Punished Under RA 9165
1. Misappropriation, misapplication or failure to account seized, confiscated or surrendered DD,
CP/EC and plants which are sources of DD, instruments, paraphernalia or lab equipment,
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
including proceeds/ properties obtained from the unlawful act (Sec. 27) – this provision is
usually committed by police officer
Cases:
1. Under Section 5 of Article II of RA No. Article II of R.A. No. 9165), the law penalizes
not only the sale but also the delivery of prohibited drugs (People vs. Enriquez, 281
SCRA 103, October 23, 1997)
2. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be
accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge. (People vs. Morilla, 715
SCRA 452, February 5, 2014)
3. The instant case, the mere fact that the accused were Chinese nationals as well as their
penchant for making reference to China where they could obtain money to bribe the
apprehending officers does not necessarily mean that the confiscated drugs came from
China. The speedboat on which the accused were apprehended was docked on the coast
of Ambil Island in the Municipality of Looc, Occidnetal Mindoro. Thus it could have
easily come from other locality within the country and not necessarily from China.
Although not liable for importation, nonetheless they are liable for possession (People vs.
Chi Chan Liu, 746 SCRA 476, January 21, 2015)
(2002)
In the absence of animu possidendi (intent to possess), there is no basis to impute
criminal liability upon her. Although criminal intent is not required in mala prohibita, still, a
person to be criminally liable should know the existence of the drug. Without knowledge, there
is no crime committed (Sps. Veroy vs. Layague, 210 SCRA 97, June 18, 1992)
(2013) (2005)
- He can only be charged for possession of the shabu under Section 11. This is because
Section 15 of the law states that when a person is charged for possession of dangerous drugs, he
cannot at the same time, be charged with use of dangerous drugs.
(2016) (2009)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE”
It may refer to the time the illegal drugs were seized or to the time it is being
authenticated as evidence in the prosecution of the crime.
Rule – The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, (1) physically inventory and (2) photograph the same
in the presence of the [a] accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a [b] representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and [c]. any elected public official who shall be required to sign
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof (Section 21[1], Article II of RA. No.
9165) (People vs. Garcia, 580 SCRA 259, February 25, 2009)
(2016)
The following links must be established:
First – the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer.
Second – the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer
Third – the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination and
Fourth – the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court
Cases:
1. There are cases when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of
the seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place
of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases.
(People vs. Dahil 745 SCRA 221 January 12, 2015)
2. Marking in the absence of the accused is not compliance with the chain of custody
(People vs. Mendoza, 727 SCRA 113 June 23, 2014)
3. The act of marking the cellophane only and not the individual plastic sachets taints the
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti (People vs. Sorin, 754 SCRA 594)
Question: What is the effect if non-compliance with “chain custody rule?

Answer: Accused must be acquitted
ILLEGAL GAMBLING (Articles 195-199 as amended by P.D. NO. 1606

AND FURTHER AMENDED BY RA. NO. 9287
RA NO. 9287
(April 2, 2004
(2005) – Jueteng
ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
RA NO. 7080 as amended by RA No. 7679
(2014)
– Elements of Plunder
1. The offender is a public officer holding a public office in the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines
2. The offender amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a
combination of overt or criminal acts of misuse, misappropriation, conversion or
malversation of public funds, receiving kickbacks from persons in connection with a
government contract or project by reason of his office or position and illegally or
fraudulently conveying or disposing of assets belonging to the National Government
or any of its subdivisions and
3. The aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least P50 million.
(2014) – The predicate crimes are already absorbed in the crime of plunder.
R.A. 7610 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL

PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (2005)
(2016) (1993) –keeping company of minor who is the (10) years or more younger than the
offender is a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage
parlor, beach resort and similar places
(2006)– it is committed when the accused brought a Child to house as maid for the purpose of
repaying her mother’s loan
(2004) – under sec 2(b) it is not necessary that accused maltreatment of a child be “habitual” to
constitute child abuse. It is committed whether habitual or not.
(2002) – consented rape with a minor of 13 years of age, constitutes “Child Abuse” – which
includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the instricsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years.
Cases:
1. Two crimes may arise for (1) Rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-B by inserting the
finger. (2) Acts of lasciviousness under Sec. 5 (b) of R.A. No 7610
Par. (b) – lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with
a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers also not only a situation where a child is
abused for profit but also one in which a child through coercion, intimidation or intimidation,
engages in any lascivious conduct. Hence, the foregoing provision penalized not only child
prostitution, the essence of which is profit but also other forms of sexual abuse of children
(People vs. Bonaagua 650 SCRA 620 June 6, 2011)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2013)
ARTICLE 200 GRAVE SCANDAL
Important Elements:
1. That such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs.
2. That the act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view.
(2016)
Misfeasance – improper performance of some act which might lawfully be done
Malfeasance – the performance of some act which ought not to be done
Nonfeasance – is the omission of an act which person out to do
(2013)
ARTICLE 206 UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
(1992) (1991)
ARTICLE 208 PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
(2012)
ARTICLE 209 BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR —
REVELATION OF SECRETS
(2014) (2009) (2005) (2001)

ARTICLE 210 DIRECT BRIBERY
Acts Punished
1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present, an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of official duties.
2. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime in connection with the performance of his official duty.
3. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something which it is his official duty
to do, in consideration of a gift or promise.
NOTE:
- If the public officer refuses to be bribed, the offeror alone is liable and not for attempted
bribery but for attempted corruption of a public official (Art. 212)
- For direct bribery, it is essential that the act desired by the briber to be done by the public
officer is in connection with the performance of the latter‘s official duties.
- IF NOT, it will be indirect bribery for receiving gifts by reason of his office
(2001) – a sheriff who accepted a money “in consideration” of the prompt enforcement of the
writ
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2005) (1997)(1993)
ARTICLE 211 INDIRECT BRIBERY
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he accepts gifts;
3. That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
Direct Bribery vs. Indirect bribery

1. As to consideration
In both crimes the public officer receives gift
2. As to existence of agreement
Direct bribery - There is agreement between the public officer and the giver of gift or
present.
Indirect bribery - No such agreement exists
3. As to necessity of the performance of the act
Direct bribery - The offender agrees to perform or performs an act or refrains from
doing something, because of the gift or promise.
Indirect bribery - It is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even
promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his
office.
(2010)
ARTICLE 211-A QUALIFIED BRIBERY
(2010) Who’s Liable?

1. Judge – No, because he is not a law enforcer
2. Prosecutor – Yes, if refrain from prosecuting a case (also Art. 208 Dereliction of Duty)
3. Police officer – Yes, if refrain from arresting
(2014)(2009)(1993)
ARTICLE 212 CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Elements:
1. That the offender makes, offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
Committed even if there’s no offer or promise made.
(2005) – donations from the proceeds of jueteng
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2012) (2008) (2001) (1999) (1990)
ARTICLE 217 MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY—PRESUMPTION
OF MALVERSATION
(1996) –a public officer charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of illegal use of
public funds under Art. 220 (technical malversation) because the latter crime is not necessary
included nor does it necessary include the crime of malversation.
(1994) – failed to return a service firearm
(2005) – committed by a a government employee who abandoned or negligence, left the

government car assigned to him for his official use and for which he was accountable, with the
ignition key in thecar unlocked.
Note:
1. entering into a simulated contract is malverstion (People vs. Pantaleon, Jr., et. al. 581 SCRA
140, March 13, 2009
2. Failure to liquidate a cash advance is also malversation (Martirez vs. People, 312 SCRA 806,
August 1999)
3. A non-accountable public officer or a private person who conspires with an accountable
officer is also guilty of malversation (Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 161784-86, April 26,
2005
4. “vale” system is punishable under this article. – The SC held that the grant of loans through
the “vale” system is a clear case of an accountable officer consenting to improper use of public
funds by other persons, which is punishable by law.
5. Return of misappropriated funds does not extinguish criminal liability
(Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan 232 SCRA 53
6. Malversation may extend to government property. (Calingin case)
7. Direct evidence of actual misappropriation is not a defense
8. Reimbursement is not a defense
9. Demand is NOT necessary in malversation. Damage to the government is also not necessary.
10. May also be liable under RA 3019
(2016) (2015)
ARTICLE 220 ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
The crime under this Article is also referred to as TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
(2015) – good faith is not a defense
(2012) (2009) (1997) (1996)

ARTICLE 223 CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING TO EVASION
Elements:
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
2. That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by
final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.
(1997) (1996) – As the custodian of the prisoner, he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation
of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of being deprived of
his liberty which can be considered real ad actual evasion of service
Distinction:
Delivering Prisoners from jail (Art. 156) - Offender: usually committed by an outsider. It may
also apply to an employee of the penal establishment, provided he does not have custody or
charge of such person.
Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art. 223) - Offender: public officer who had the
prisoner in his custody or charge who was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape
(2014) (1989) (2012)

ARTICLE 224 EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
Elements:
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence.
Liability of escaping prisoner:

1. If the fugitive is serving sentence by reason of final judgment, he is liable for evasion of the
service of sentence under Art. 157. (2009)
2. If the fugitive is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability.
(1991)
ARTICLE 226 REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(2012) (1999)
ARTICLE 235 MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
(1999) - But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit the
crime and tortured/maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later released because the
agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the violence
employed to compel such confession without the offended party being confined in jail.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2012)
ARTICLE 237 PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND POWERS
(2012)
ARTICLE 238 ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE
(2015) (2007) (1999) (1997) (1996) (2012)

ARTICLE 246 PARRICIDE
Elements:
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused; and
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.
(1999) - regardless whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate for father, mother,
or child. However, with respect to the other ascendant, descendant or MUST be legitimate.
(2012) – Killing a legitimate brother is not parricide since he is just a collateral relative of the
accused.
(2015) (1994) – there’s a complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion
(1991) (1988)
ARTICLE 247 DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
(2016) – surprise in the “very act of sexual intercourse.

(2007) - wherther there is a crime or not? Ans. Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro
(2001) - “immediately thereafter” – discovery, escape, pursuit and killing may form one
continuous act
(2016) (2015) (2007) (2001) (1999) (1996) (1991)(1989)(2012)

ARTICLE 248 MURDER
Common modifying circumstance:

1. Treachery
(2012) – Killing of a three-day old baby constitutes murder qualified by treachery.
2. By means of inundation, fire, poison, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or

assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of
any other means involving great waste and ruin; (2001)
Explosive – (1991)
Fire – (2012), if a single act of burning the house of victims with the main objective of
killing them resulting in their deaths resulted in the complex crime of double murder committed
by means of fire.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
It is not necessary that the attack should come from behind for it to be considered as
treachery. Frontal attack generally negated treachery but if the attack is sudden and unexpected,
treachery is present.
People vs. Feliciano Jr., 724 SCRA 148 May 5, 2014 - Sigma Rho Fraternity vs. Apha Phi Beta,
the incident happened at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the University of
the Philippines. The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the
victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves
(2013) (2008) (2000) (1996) (1994) (1990)

ARTICLE 249 HOMICIDE
(2007) – faithhealing, homicide only

(2005) – inserting a rusty and oversized vibrator into the vegina of a woman that caused her
death.
(2003) - Even if the would inflicted was only slight, the accused is liable for attempted homicide
because he inflicted said injury with the use if a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is
inherent in the use of a firearm.
(2012) (1995) – there is a complex crime of homicide with assault upon person in authority.
(1997)
ARTICLE 251 DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
(2010) – involving rival fraternity not tumultuous Affray
Important Elements:
1. That there be several persons;
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally, otherwise, they may be held liable as co-conspirators;
(2008)
ARTICLE 253 GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
(2008)– lovers who agreed to commit suicide by shooting each other. However, one survives.
(2012) (2007) (1999)

ARTICLE 255 INFANTICIDE
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Infanticide – is the killing of any child less than three days of age, whether the killer is the parent
or grandparent, any other relative of the child, or a stranger.
(1999) – the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed if the accused is related to the
child within the degree defined in the ctime of parricide.
(2012)
ARTICLE 256 INTENTIONAL ABORTION
(2007) Infanticide vs. Abortion
Answer: In the crime of infanticide, which is killing of a child less than 3 days of age, it is
necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, (7 months) that is capable of independent
existence. So even if the child who was expelled prematurely and deliberately were alive at birth,
the offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an intrauterine life of 6 months is not
viable ( People vs. Paycana, Jr, 551 SCRA 657)
(2012)
ARTICLE 257 UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Latest Jurisprudence
(1994) People vs. Paycana Jr. 551 SCRA 657 – the woman was killed by her husband is
already 7 months pregnant, the SC held that the father is liable complex crime of Parricide
with unintentional abortion. Here the father was very aware that her wife is pregnant.
People vs. Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35, January 4, 1994 – the husband here was unaware that
her wife when he killed here was pregnant. The SC ruled that the accused is liable for
complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion
ARTICLE 266-A THE ANTI-RAPE LAW (RA 8353)

(2005) (2000)– rape is not a continued crime. Each rape constitutes one count.
(2013) (1998) – there is a composite crime of rape with homicide
In rape with homicide, it is immaterial that the person killed is someone other than the woman
victim of rape. (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)
(2002)
Acts considered rape under RA 8353
1. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
2. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances
required in rape be present.
3. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person’s penis into the victim’s mouth or
anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.
(2000)
– Only rape is committed if the detention is merely incidental and not necessary means to
commit the rape.
Inserting a finger into a 10 year old girl is rape under Art. 266-A, Rape through sexual
assault under par 2, Article 266-A Take note that the penalty here is only prision mayor
considering, that he act also constitute acts of lasciviousness under Sec. 5 (b) Art. III of RA No.
7610, the appropriate penalty would be reclusion temporal. Par b punishes sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected
to other sexual abuses. (People vs. Chingh, 645 SCRA 573, March 16, 2011)
Although the penis was thrice inserted in her private organ, the same constituted one (1) count of
rape. xxx During trial, the victim testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and
withdrew his penis after about ten (10) seconds but inserted it again after ten (10) seconds. After
five (5) seconds, he withdrew it again but inserted it once more after five (5) seconds. (People v.
Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8, 2011)
Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate with the mental
age below 12 years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason. (People v. Butiong, G.R. No.
168932, October 19, 2011)
(2015)
ARTICLE 266-B QUALIFIED RAPE
Rape under both acts of committing it is qualified by the following:
Note: Rape is punishable by death if it falls under any of 4-14 circumstances.
(2009) (2007) (1998)

4. When by reason of or on occasion of rape, homicide is committed (special complex crime);
(2015)
5. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law
spouse of the parent of the victim;) – must be alleged in the information
• In one case, the information alleged that the victim is the step daughter of the accused.
The victim was the daughter of the accused’s common law wife by the latter’s previous
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
relationship with another. The accused, however, is the common law partner of the
victim’s mother but this was not the one alleged in the information. Death penalty cannot
be imposed.
• Echegaray case – he was only a lover of the wife of the mother. No evidence was
offered to prove that Echegaray was the father of the victim.
(2013) (2007) (2005) (1997) (1996) (1991) (1988)

ARTICLE 267 KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
(2004) – voluntary release is not absolutory

(1999) – coercion vs. illegal detention
In coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious
intimidation approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person
from doing something not prohibited, by law or to compel him to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong;
Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of a person,
thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was no intent to
lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not
committed.
(2016) (2005) (2014) (2005) (1991

Qualifying circumstances:)
1. If the purpose is to extort ransom
2. When the victim is killed or dies a consequence of the detention;
3. When the victim is raped; or
(2014) (2012) – this will constitue special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape.
(2016) – special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide.
(2016) – special complex crime of kidnapping with murder, it is immaterial that other crimes
were committed such as multiple rapes and arson. Since multiple rapes and arson are committed
by reason or on occasion of kidnapping with murder
Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether
the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and
murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate
crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art.
267, as amended by RA No. 7659. (People v. Dionaldo, et. al. G.R. No.. 207949, July
23, 2014)
(2007)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
ARTICLE 268 SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
(2005) – voluntary release is mitigating.
(2012)
ARTICLE 269 UNLAWFUL ARREST
(2002)
ARTICLE 270 FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR/KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO
RETURN A MINOR
(2002)
Father or mother may commit crimes under Arts. 270 & 271 - where they are living separately
and the custody of the minor children has been given to one of them
(2009)
ARTICLE 273 EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
(2006)
ARTICLE 274 SERVICES RENDERED UNDER COMPULSION IN PAYMENT
(2014) (2012) (1994)

ARTICLE 280 QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
- committed by private individual
(2014) Qualifying Circumstance: If committed by means of violence/intimidation.
(1994) – the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated
homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious offense,
trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza 53 Phil 788)
DISTINGUISH - Art. 128. Violation of domicile – If committed by public officer
(1988) (1987)
ARTICLE 282 GRAVE THREATS
(2012) (1998)
ARTICLE 286 GRAVE COERCION
(2012) - accused is liable for grave coercion because he used violence in seizing the property by
reason of his mistaken belief that he owned it.
(2010) (2009) (2007)

Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Unjust Vexation
(2009) – While doing dirty dancing accused dipped his private parts in the girl’s buttocks (lewd
design is not yet apparent). But if after the music had stopped, he continues rubbing his penis it
will be acts of lasciviousness, it is apparent now that there’s lewd design on the part of the man.
(1994) – the acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive
and touching of her breast as mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes
unjust vexation. If there’s lewd design, the same constitute acts of lasciviousness.
R.A. NO. 4200: ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT
(2013) (1993) – An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof
cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension
in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (RA 9208 AS AMENDED BY RA 10364

APPROVED ON JANUARY 28, 2013)
(2012) – adoption or facilitating the adoption of child for the purpose of prostitution constitutes
trafficking in person (Sec. 4 [f])
(2014) – accused recruited ganda in the guise of making her a commercial model, the deceit that
accused employed in order to recruit Ganda for the purpose of prostitution making him liable of
this crime.
PERSONS ARTICLE 294 ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF

PERSONS
Acts Punished under this Article:
1. (a) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide is committed;
(b)or when the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
(1998) (1995) (2015) (2009) (2003) (1999) (1988)
(2009) (2007)– even if the victim of the robbery is different from the person killed
(bystander) or even one of the robbers killed by the policemen or killed by another robber
(2005) (1999) – robbery with rape. – eventhough the conspiracy among the offenders was
only to commit robbery and only one accused committed the rape, as long as the other
accused were present and aware of the rape and having done nothing to stop the rape.
(1996) – if the rape was committed not in the presence of the accused and the other
accused was not aware. Only the accused who raped will be liable for robbery with rape.
(2014) (2009) – robbery with homicide even if the killing was not intentional
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(1997) – two separate crimes of robbery and rape since the primary intent of objective of
the accused was only to rape and robbery was merely an afterthought.
(1996) – Robbery with homicide because the killing whereby reason (to prevent
identification) and on the occasion of the robbery.
(2016) – Robbery with rape even if the place of robbery is different from that of rape, as
long as the raped committed on occasion or by reason of robbery.
(2016) – robbery with homicide, it is immaterial that aside from the homicides rapes are
committed by reason or on occasion of the crime. (Pp. vs. Diu April 3, 2013)
(2002) – the non-employment of force upon things is of no moment because robbery is

committed not only by employing force upon thins but also by employing violence against or
intimidation of persons.
(1988) Attempted Robbery with Homicide
RULE IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

1. If the homicide was consummated – the case will not fall under Art. 48 (complex crime)
but under either Art. 294 (Robbery with homicide) or Art. 297 (attempted and frustrated
robbery with homicide)
2. If the homicide was not consummated but was a necessary necessary means to commit
any stage of the robbery it will be a complex under Art. 48 – Robbery with attempted or
frustrated homicide.
3. If the homicide was neither consummated nor a necessary means to commit any stage of
the robbery these felonies are separate and distinct offenses – such as the homicide was
committed after the robbery
ARTICLE 296 DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY INCURRED BY THE

MEMBERS THEREOF
(2016) (2010) – Robbery by a band committed by 4 individual. If robbery with homicide – the
existence of 4 will constitute only an aggravating circumstance
ARTICLE 299 ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE/PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE

DEVOTED TO WORSHIP (ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS)
- There must entrance by breaking any wall, roof, floor, door (padlock is an intergral
part of the main door) or window
(2000) – committed when a coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain nad
broken outside
Gulmatico vs. People 536 SCRA 82, October 15, 2007 – If the door was merely pushed, not
broken open robbery is not committed. Only theft
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2009) (2008)
ARTICLE 304 POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR SIMILAR TOOLS
(2000) Highway Robbery PD 534 vs. Ordinary Robbery committed on a highway

1. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately against
persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the potentiality they offer; while in
ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is committed only against predetermined
victims.
2. It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one who
roams in public highways and carries out his robbery in public higways as venue, whenever the
opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the RPC when the commission thereof
in a public highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand.
3. In OD 532, there is frequency in the commission thereof in a public highway and
against persons travelling thereat, whereas ordinary Robbery is only occasional against a
predetermined victims without frequency in public highways.
(2012) Brigandage PD 532 vs. Robbery in Band under Art. 295

1. Brigandage - Purpose: commit robbery in highway; or to kidnap person for ransom; or
any other purpose attained by force and violence
Robbery in Band – Purpose: commit robbery, not necessarily in highways
2. Brigandage - Agreement is to commit several robberies.
Robbery in Band - Agreement is to commit a particular robbery.
3. Brigandage – Mere formation is punished.
Robbery in Band - Actual commission of robbery is necessary.
(2012)
ARTICLE 307 AIDING OR ABETTING A BAND OF BRIGANDS
(2015) (2014) (2010) (1989) (2012) (2001) (1998

ARTICLE 308 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
(2015) (2012) (2001) (1998) – committed by a policeman who sold the bracelet after it was
turned over to him by the person who found the bracelet. It is enough that the bracelet belonged
to another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.
(2014) – the presence or absence of an injury is not an element of theft
(2010) – includes puppy/dog
Laurel vs. Abrogar, 576 scra 41 January 13, 2009; HPS Softwatre and Communication
Corporation vs. PLDT, 687 SCRA 426 December 12, 2012 business of providing
telecommunication services is personal property can be subject of theft and also international
calls. This is case regarding bypassing of cables, antenna or airwaves. Here Baynet was able to
make a local calls using local lines and even international lines without going through the NDD
National Direct Dial lines. A telephone call can be the object of theft because it is capable of
appropriation although not capable of – asportation – which is defined as –carrying away-
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2016) (2014) (2002) (2008) (2007) (1992)
ARTICLE 310 QUALIFIED THEFT
(2016) – Slaughtering the horse, which thecaretaker/ accused physically possessed, and selling
its meat shall be considered qualified theft and violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974
(P.D. No. 533)
(2014) – Being a bank teller, she had only the physical possession, not juridical possession of the
money received by her.
(2008) – Mail carrier who took the the contents of a mail which is money order
(2008) – As to the caretaker but simple theft as to the co-conspirator who is not a caretaker
(2007) – Qualified theft is the offense committed pursuant to
a. Sec. 1 PD No. 330 and Sec. 68 PD No. 705 – defining the offense committed by any
person who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes or smuggles timber or other forest
products in violation of existing laws, rules and regularions, from any public forest reserves and
other kinds of public forest or even privately owned forest lands
(1992) – theft of large cattle is qualified theft
(2002) - If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption,
or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance
(2008) - People vs. Salonga, 359 SCRA 310 June 21, 2001 – a crime of Qualified theft through
falsification of commercial document may also be committed. Forging the signatures of officers
in the check and taking the proceeds of the check.
ANTI CARNAPPING ACT of 1972 (R.A. 6539)

(2016) (2012) (2008) (1999) (1998)
(1999) – there is a crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14. Considering that the killing
“in the course of” or “on the occasion of” a carnapping.
(2012) – The last clause of Sec. 14 of RA No. 6539 as amended by RA No. 7659 provides: “the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of
the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping
or on the occasion thereof.” The amendment clarifies the intention of the law to make the offense
a special complex crime, in the same way that robbery with homicide. As such, the killing
merely qualifies the crime of carnapping which for lack of specific nomenclature may be known
as qualified carnapping or carnapping in aggravated form. People vs. Lagat, 657 SCRA 713,
September 14, 2011
(2012) - If a motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway, is forcibly taken at gun
point by the accused who happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of the vehicle at the time
of the unlawful taking would not necessarily put the offense within the ambit of PD 532
(highway brigandage). The crime would be Anti-CArnapping Act of 1972
(2016) – The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the Anti-CArnapping Law
(RA 6539) and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(1996) (1988)
ARTICLE 312 OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS
IN PROPERTY
(2016) (2015) (2014) (2012) (2010) (2005) (2002) (1999) (1997) (1996) (1992) (1991) (1990)
(1989)
ARTICLE 315 SWINDLING/ESTAFA
(2010) – To be syndicated the perpetrator must comprise of 5 or more under PD 1689

(2005) – Estafa is committed when the accused defrauded the owner of the establishment by
falsely pretending to possess credit with the credit card company when he used a fake credit
card. (also violated Section 9(a) of the RA 8484 penalizing among others, the act of using a
counterfeit access device.
(2002) – NOT estafa – conversion by the buyer of the thing sold on credit.
(1999) – There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must be
obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts not by mere negligence
(1997) – mere disturbance of propert right, even if temporary, would be sufficient to cause
damage.
(1996) – Money market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such that non-payment
thereof would not give rise to estafa through misappropriation or conversion
(1992) – failure to return a borrowed horse is estafa under Ar. 315. The accused has the
obligation to return the same and his failure to return the same makes him liable under this
Article.
(1991) – When the painting job was finished, the complainant wanted to get the car but the
accused refused to deliver until payment is made and appropriate the car and applied the amount
to the repainting cost and labor.
(2012) - the person who ran away with a cellphone which was handed to him upon his presence
that he had to make an emergency call, is liable for estafa
(2014) – Estafa is committed by any person who shall ask money from another for the alleged
purpose of bribing a government employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the
money to his own personal use and benefit Art. 315 (2)(c)
(2014) – Estafa thru issuance of bouncing check – if the check was issued simultaneous with the
transaction in order to defraud another.
(2014) – Damage or intent to cause damage is not considered in attempted estafa, only in
consummated estafa
(2016) – Estafa is committed when accused defrauded the investors by falsely pretending to
possess business or imaginary transactions
(2016) (2015)
B. Estafa with abuse of confidence/Estafa by misappropriation/conversion (Article 315 No.1-B)
Important element:
a. it must be received in trust/deposit
b. there must be a demand made
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2015) – if there is an agreed period for the return of the thing received in trust and the accused
failed to return it within the agreed period, demand is unnecessary
(2005)
THEFT VS. ESTAFA
1. Theft -he offender takes the thing without the owner’s consent
Estafa - The offender receives the thing from the offended party.
1. Theft - The offender acquires only the material or physical possession of the thing
Estafa - The offender acquires also the juridical possession of the thing and the
offender misappropriates it
(2005) – if the property was placed in the warehouse business and it was taken by the accused
(the owner) – theft is committed.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. Blg. 22)

(2014) (2013) (2010) (2003) (2002) (1996) (1995) (1990)
(2013) (1993)
Question; Is there a complex cime of estafe with falsification of public, official or commercial
documents
A: Yes. This is because damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary in the falsification of
official, public or commercial document. What is being punished in the falsification of these
kinds of documents is the violation of the public faith accorded to the said documents and the
destruction of the truth proclaimed therein.
(2008) (1984)
(2012) (1989)
ARTICLE 327 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
(2016) (2015) (2008) (2002) (1991) (1988)

ARTICLE 333 ADULTERY – prision correccional med to max
Who are liable?
1. The married woman who engages in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.
2. The man who, knowing of the marriage of the woman, has sexual intercourse with her. (2002)
Note:
1. even if the marriage is void ad initio.
2. Every one act of sexual intercourse constitutes one crime/count of adultery.
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
3. The man ho had carnal knowledge with a married woman not knowing her to be married
is not guilty of adultery
4. Can be prosecuted only by the offended apouse (Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA 653,
June 30, 1989)
(2005) (2002) (1994) (1991)

ARTICLE 334 CONCUBINAGE – prision correccional min to med
Who are liable?
1. The married man
2. The woman who knew that the man was married
committed by the following acts:

a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling (mistress must live therein as such);
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife
(proof of actual sexual relations not required as long as it can be inferred);
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place (as husband and wife);
(2016) (2013) (2007)

ARTICLE 336 ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
(2016) – the act of touching the chest and sex organ of a girl who is under 12 are merely acts of
lasciviousness and not attempted rape because intent to have sexual intercourse is not clearly
shown. To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that the erectile penis is in the
position to penetrate. Accused is also liable under Sec. 5 RA No. 7610. However, the accused
shall be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under RPC but the penalty imposable is that
prescribed by RA 7610
(2014)
ARTICLE 342 FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
(2014) – there is a complex crime of abduction with rape
• If girl is under 12 – crime is ALWAYS FORCIBLE ABDUCTION even if she

voluntarily goes with her abductor.
• Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible abduction. The intent to seduce the girl is
sufficient.
• Can be committed if the girl is more than 18 y/o
CASES:
People vs. Almero 730 SCRA 190 July 18, 2014 - if the abduction is a necessary means to
commit rape it will be complex crim of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
Garces vs. People, 527 SCRA 827 [2007] – But id the real objective of the offender is to rape,
the offender is only liable for that crime of rape, not forcible abduction with rape. Rape is
absorbed the forcible abduction.
Madsali vs. People, 611 SCRA 596, February 4, 2010 – The information should state that the
taking away of a woman is with lewd design; if lewd design does not qualify the taking away bu
qualifies the rape, then the offender cannot be convicted of forcible abduction with rape but with
the special complec crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape.
(2012) (2008) (2004) (1996

ARTICLE 349 BIGAMY
Lasanas vs. People, 727 SCRA 98, June 23, 2014 – In case the second marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity, Bigamy is committed.
Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr. 700 SCRA 702 July 3, 2013 – If the second marriage is not
valid because there was no marriage license, there is no bigamy.
Capili vs. People, 700 SCRA 443, July 3, 2013 – A person may still beconvicted even if his
second marriage was declared void (here it was declared void not because of lack of essential
requisite of marriage but because of psychological incapacity of the other spouse.
(2016) (2013) (2003) (2002)

ARTICLE 353 LIBEL
(2003) - thee person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes, otherwise
the crime against honor is not committed
(2002) – NOT COMMITTED - when several individual published in a newspaper that a person
who is nomindated in a govn’t post is a druf dependent, corrupt and had several mistresses.
Because they made the denunciation out of moral or social duty and thus absence of malice.
(2013) – A pleading is absolutely privileged when the defamatory statement therein is
legitimately related thereto, or so pertinent to the subject of the controvery that it may become
the subject of the inquiry in the course of the trial. Although statement in the Answer are
privileged communication, malicious statement against the counsel for plaintiff are not, for being
Irrelevant and impertinent statements are not protectd by the privileged communication rule.
(2016) – the president of the publishing company, managing editor, and writer of the defamatory
articles are all liable for Libel
(2016)
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
1. Private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral
or social duty.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative, or other proceedings which are not of confidential nature or of any
statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed
by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
(2016) - the report made by C describing a lawyer in the Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot
be considered as “fair” and “true” since he did not do research before making his allegations, and
it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not “fair and true reports,”
but merely wild accusations. He has written and published the subject articles with reckless
disregard or whether the same were fales or not.
(2005) (2002) (1988)

ARTICLE 355 LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITINGS OR SIMILAR MEANS
(2005) – defamation made in a television program is libel under “similar means”
Committed by means of:

1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
5. Radio – (2002)
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic
10. Or any similar means
• Defamation through amplifier system is slander not libel.
(1993) (1990)
ARTICLE 358 SLANDER/ORAL DEFAMATION
Kinds:
1. Simple slander
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature
Grave oral defamation

(1990) – defamation in a political meeting, when feelings are running high and people could not
think clearly, only amount to light slander.
(1994) (1987)
ARTICLE 359 SLANDER BY DEED
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2016)
ARTICLE 360 PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL
(2009)
ARTICLE 361 PROOF OF TRUTH
(2013) (2008) (2007)

ARTICLE 365 IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
(2008) – a pharmacist who committed a mistake in giving the right medicine that caused the
death the death of another
Anti-Money Laudering Act

(RA 9160)
(2010) – Only CA can authorize the inquiry

(2009) – There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must know the identities of
the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. To establish liability under RA
9160, it is sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, making them appear to
have originated from legitime sources.
(2005) – proceeds from an unlawful activity such as jueteng and donated to a government entity.
RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(2003) (2005)
(2001) –secs. 8A and 9 expressly exempts those who serve the Government in an honorary
capacity from filing statement of Assets and Lisbilities, and from resigning and divesting
themselves of interest from any private enterprises.
HOWEVER, he is liable under Sec. 7 of RA3019 which requires all public officers within 3o
days from assuming public office to file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities.
RA NO. 8042 Migrant Workers Act
(2015) (2012) – Estafa may be charged and convicted separately of the crime of illegal
recruitment.
Anti-Hijacking law of RA 6235
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2013) It shall be ulawful for any person to compel a change in the course or destination of an
aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight (Section
1)
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT RA 3019

(2014) (2013) (2009) (2005) (2003) (2001) (2000)
(1999) (1997) (1991) (1988) (1986) (1985)(1984)(1983)
- This is a malum prohibita (2000)
(2000) – suspension applies to all public officials indicted upon a valid information under RA
3019 whether they be appointive or elective official; or permanent or temporary employees, or
pertaining to the career or non-career service.
(1999) – Suspension of the accused pendente lite is not violative of the constitutional provision
against ex-post facto law.
(1999) – pre-condition for suspension
1. There must be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at a specific date of
hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to RA 3019
2. There must be determination of a valid information against the accused.
(2010)
Section 3 (b)
Public officer requests AND/OR receives a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit
Gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit is for the public officer or any person
The gift etc. = contract or transaction with the govt.
Public officer has the right to intervene in contract or transaction in his official capacity
Marencillo vs. People GR Nos. 142369-70, April 13, 2007 – the SC held that A public official
may be convicted both of direct bribery and of violation of section 3 (b) of RA 3019; there is no
double jeopardy.
There is no double jeopardy in the following:
(1) Estafa through falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 301 (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28
August 18, 2006)
(2) Falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of Section 3(e) of RA
3019 (Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408 January 31, 2005)
The term ―transactio is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary

consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene. Preliminary
Investigation is not a transaction under the law. (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
188165, December 11, 2013)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
(2016) (1997)
Section 3 (e)
- causing undue injury to any party including the government
- giving unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to any private party
- Through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross negligence
- The injury must be quantifiable in money. It has reference to material injury, not to any
damages which are subject of speculation or on the suffering of some moral damages
UNDUE INJURY IS SUFFERED EITHER BY THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE
PARTY
UNDUE INJURY IS SHOWN IN THESE CASES:

1. Deviation from the material specifications indicated in the project plans and the use of
substandard materials. {Ripalda vs People, Grefiel vs SB, March 20, 2009}
2. No deliveries were made (ghost deliveries) despite disbursements of money fr the govt.
{Baldebrin vs SB, March 22, 2007}
3. Allowing the unauthorized encashment of checks without following the usual banking
procedure requiring prior verification by the bookkeeper & the submission of addtl documents to
determine genuineness of signatures of prior endorsers. This caused undue injury to the real
payee or beneficiary of the checks. {Victoriano vs People, Nov 30, 2006}
(2016)
Section 3 (g)
Entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction that is manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
- CONTRACTS, TRANSACTIONS, AGREEMENTS, UNDERTAKING INVOLVING
the GOVERNMENT MUST ALWAYS BE the LEAST COSTLY BUT THE MOST
BENEFICIAL.
Where a private person has been charged of conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A.
3019 but the public officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the
filing of the information, the private person may be indicted alone. (People v. Go, G.R. No.
168539, March 25, 2014) Private persons may be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA
3019 if they conspired with public officer. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Pracvtices Act which is "to repress certain acts of public officers and
private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.‖
(Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013)
Q: May the police force be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and
extralegal killing? (2008)
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626
A: No. “Enforce disappearance and extralegal killing” is not per se a criminal offense although it
is wrongful. The grant of writ of amparo only provides a relief; it does not establish a basis for a
crime. Unless the writ was issued because of specific overt acts shown to have been committed
by the respondent police officer and such acts are crimes under penal laws., no criminal charge
may be routinely filed just because the petition for the writ was granted.
Q: Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (2008)
A: Not necessarily, since there are human rights violations which do not amount to criminal
offenses. In this country, there can be no crime when there is no law punishing an act or
omission as a crime.
God bless!
Tel. No. (02) 241-4830 / Cel. Nos. (0949) 343-6092; (0922) 898-8626

Frequently Asked Questions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frequently Asked Questions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

(1998) (1988) (1978)

(2012) (1986) (1982)

Q: How about foreign merchant vessel?

(2015) (2012) (2011)

(2013) (2011) (2006) (1999) (1984) (1978)

2. As to use of good faith as a defense

5. As to the degree of participation

6. As to what laws are violated

(2003) (1985) (1977)

(2013) (2008) (2007) (2005) (2001) (1999) (1997) (1996)

(2015) (2012) (2011) (1999) (1996) (1995) (1993) (1989)

(2008) (2004) (2003) (2001) (1994) (1997) (1996) (1976) (1975)

(2004) (2001) (1997) (1996) (1976) (1975)

(2015) (2014) (2013) (2012) (2009) (2008) (2004) (2000)

Rule in Estafa cases

Attempted, frustrated or consummated arson:

(2013) (2012) (1994)

(2011) 2000) (1989) (1982) (1981) (1980) (1978)

(1996) (1991) (1990)

(2016) (2002) (1993)

(2011) (2004) (1991)

(2016) (2015) (2014) (2013) (2011) (2010)

(2016) (2015) (2010)

(2010) (1992) (1991)

(2014) (2012) (2011)

RULE under R.A. 9344

Who sill conduct the Diversion process?

(2009) (2013) (2003)

(1992) (1989) (1977)

2. Justifying – No civil liability except in par. 4

(2015) (2011) (2003) (1995) (1991) (1985) (1984)(1978) (1990)

2. Instigation – the accused must be acquitted

ART. 13 Mitigating circumstances

(2014) (2013) (2012)

Distinguish provocation from vindication

(2013) (2012 )(2011) (2009) (1999) (1997) (1996) (1992)

(2013) (1999) (1997) (1993) 1992) (1985)

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMTANCES (Art. 14)

(2012) (2011) (1999)

(2008) (1996) (2013) (1976)

(2008) (1997) (1996) (1994)

(2012) (1996) (1994)

(2014) (2013) (2012) (2009) (2001) (1993) (1989)

(2009) (1997) (1996) (1991)

- This is absorbed in aggravating circumstances of price, reward or promise but only

(2012) (2009) (2008) (1997) (1993) (1992) (1985) (1980) (1979)

(2012) (2011) (1976)

Aggravating circumstances not provided under RPC

(2008) (2004) (2001)

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE (ART. 15)

(2013) (2012) (2008) (2000)

(2003) (2000) (1978)

(2014) (2008) (2003) (2000) (1984) (1998) (1997)

 If there are several participants of the crime

Q: What are the two levels/types of conspiracy?

(2005) (2003) (1998) (1994) (1992) (1991) (1986) (1976)

2 ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime

(2016) (2005) (2012) (2009) (2011)

(2014) (2013) (2004) (1988) (1985) (1984)

(2016) (2014) (2013)(2010)(2005)(1998)(1995) (1992)(1990)(1988) (1985) (1984)(1981)

(2011) (2008) (2005)

Sec. 1 (i) and (c) of PD. 1829 provides: