2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

SPECIAL
PENAL LAWS
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra
COVERAGE:
1. Anti-Arson Law (P.D. No. 1613);
2. New Anti-Carnapping Act (R.A. No. 10883);
3. Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610, as

amended);
4. Anti-Child Pornography Law (R.A. No. 9755);
5. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
6. Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612);

COVERAGE:
7. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No.

3019, as amended);
8. Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049);
9. Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6235);
10. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. No.

532);
11. Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended);

COVERAGE:
12. Anti-Sexual Harassment (R.A. No. 7877);
13. Anti-Torture Act (R.A. No. 9745)
14. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. No. 9208);
15. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children

Act (R.A. No. 9262)
16. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.Blg. 22);
17. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No.

9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640)
COVERAGE:
18. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. No. 1866, as

amended by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591);
19. Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as

amended);
20. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344,

as amended by R.A. No. 10630, and in relation to
P.D. No. 603);
21. Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829);
22. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended);

COVERAGE:
23. Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115);
24. Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175)
25. Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) – defining

acts of terrorism; and
22. Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

ANTI-ARSON LAW
(P.D. 1613)
KINDS OF ARSON:
1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree
No. 1613;
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1613.
 The laws on arson in force today are P.D. No. 1613

and Article 320 of the RPC, as amended by R.A.
No. 7659. The provisions of P.D. No. 1613 that are
inconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2 on
destructive arson are DEEMED REPEALED)
SIMPLE ARSON
(SECTION 1, P.D. NO. 1613)
There is simple arson when any person burns or
sets fire to the property of another, or his own
property under circumstance which expose to
danger the life or property of another.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
(ARTICLE 320 OF THE RPC, AS AMENDED BY
R.A. NO. 7659)
A. Burning of:
i. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one

single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous
burnings, committed on several or different occasions;
ii. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to

the public in general or where people usually gather or
congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited
to, official governmental function or business, private
transaction, commerce, trade workshop, meetings and
conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose
such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient
dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals…
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
R.A. NO. 7659)
ii. … regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that
there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it
is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building
is actually inhabited or not;
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
R.A. NO. 7659)
A. Burning of:
iii. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or

airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or
for public use, entertainment or leisure;
iv. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any

appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the
service of public utilities;
v. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose

of concealing or destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing
bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from
insurance.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
R.A. NO. 7659)
B. There is also Destructive Arson:
i. When the arson is committed by 2 or more persons,

regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn
or destroy the building or the burning merely
constitutes an overt act in the commission of another
violation of the law
ii. When any person shall burn:

1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military
powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse,
archives or general museum of the Government
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials
OTHER CASES OF ARSON
Burning of:
a. Any building used as offices of the Government or

any of its agencies;
b. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
c. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil, well or
mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
d. Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop or
grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
e. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill, or mill central;
f. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf, or
warehouse
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF ARSON (SECTION 4, P.D. NO. 1613)
a. If committed with intent to gain;

b. If committed for the benefit of another;
c. If the offender be motivated by spite or hatred
towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned; or
d. If committed by a syndicate – planned or carried
out by three or more persons
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ARSON
There is prima facie evidence of arson in the following
instances, to wit:
a. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part

of the building or establishment;
b. If substantial amount of flammable substances or

materials are stored within the building not of the
offender nor for the household;
instances, to wit:
c. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or

combustible substances or materials soaked therewith
or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a
fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found
in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property; and
d. If the building or property is insured for substantially

more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of
the policy
instances, to wit:
e. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance

more than two fires have occurred in the same or other
premises owned or under the control of the offender
and/or insured;
f. If shortly before the fire a substantial portion of the

effects insured and stored in a building or property had
been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary
course of business;
g. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration

was made before the fire in exchange for the desistance of
the offender or for the safety of the person or property of
the victim.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARSON
Conspiracy to commit arson is punishable by

prision mayor in its minimum period.
NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH

HOMICIDE
Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613 provides that, “if by reason or
on occasion of arson, death results, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death is imposed.”
Thus, homicide is absorbed.

NEW ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT
OF 2016
(R.A. NO. 10883)
REPEAL OF R.A. NO. 6539, ALSO KNOWN
AS THE “ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972”
 R.A. No. 10883, otherwise known as the “New

Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016,” repealed R.A.
No. 6539, also known as the “Anti-Carnapping
Act of 1972.”
PUNISHABLE ACTS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF R.A. NO. 10883
1. Carnapping (Section 3, R.A. No. 10883)
 Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a

motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, or by using force upon things.
 Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime

of carnapping is committed by criminal groups, gangs or
syndicates or by means of violence or intimidation of any
person or persons or forced upon things; or when the
owner, driver, passenger or occupant of the carnapped
vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the carnapping
shall be denied bail when the evidence of guilt is strong.
2. Concealment of Carnapping (Section 4, R.A. No.
10883)
 Any public official or employee who directly commits the

unlawful acts defined in R.A. No. 10883 or is guilty of
gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the
commission of any of the said unlawful acts shall, in
addition to the penalty prescribed for this offense, be
dismissed from the service, and his/her benefits forfeited
and shall be permanently disqualified from holding
public office.
3. Failure to Register Motor Vehicle (Section 6, R.A.
No. 10883)
 Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any

power other than muscular power using the public
highways, except road rollers, trolley cars, street
sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders,
forklifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on
public highways; vehicles which run only on rails or
tracks; and tractors, trailers and traction engines of all
kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers
having any number of wheels, when propelled or
intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor
vehicle, shall be classified as a separate motor vehicle
with no power rating (Section 2[e], R.A. No. 10883).
3. Failure to Register Motor Vehicle (Section 6, R.A.
No. 10883)
 All motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not

registered with the LTO shall be considered as a
carnapped vehicle, an untaxed importation or coming
from illegal source and shall be confiscated in favor of the
government (Sections 6 and 8, R.A. No. 10883).
4. Willfully encoding in the registry of motor vehicles a non-
existing vehicle or without history, new identity of
already existing vehicle or double/multiple registration
(“KAMBAL”) of vehicle (Section 7, R.A. No. 10883);
5. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor

Vehicle Engines, Engine Blocks and Chassis (Section 14,
R.A. No. 10883)
 Defacing or tampering with a serial number refers to the
altering, changing, erasing, replacing or scratching of the
original factory inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever
any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its engine,
engine block or chassis which is different from that which is
listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicle
imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be
considered to have a defaced or tampered serial number.
6. Identity Transfer (Section 15, R.A. No. 10883)
 Identity transfer refers to the act of transferring the
engine number, chassis number, body tag number, plate
number, and any other identifying marks of a motor
vehicle declared as “total wreck” or is beyond economic
repair by concerned car insurance companies and/or law
enforcement agencies after its involvement in a vehicular
accident or other incident and registers the same into
another factory-made body or vehicle unit, of the same
classification, type, make or model (Section 2[d], R.A. No.
10883).
7. Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates (Section

16, in relation to Section 2[d], R.A. No. 10883).
8. Sale of Second Hand Spare Parts (Section 17, R.A.
No. 10883)
 Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from

a carnapped vehicle used in assembling another vehicle
(Section 2[i], R.A. NO. 10883).
DUTY OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TO
REPORT (SECTION 9, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Within seven (7) days after the arrival of an imported
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block, chassis or
body, the Collector of Customs of a principal port of
entry where the imported vehicle or parts enumerated
above are unloaded shall report the shipment to the
LTO, specifying the make, type and serial numbers, if
any, of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine
block, chassis or body, and stating the names and
addresses of the owner or consignee thereof.
 If the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine

block, chassis or body does not bear any serial number,
the Collector of Customs concerned shall hold the
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine block,
chassis or body until it is numbered by the
LTO: Provided, That a PNP clearance shall be required
prior to engraving the engine or chassis number.
DUTY OF IMPORTERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND SELLERS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES TO KEEP RECORD OF STOCKS
(SECTION 10, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person engaged in the importation,

distribution, and buying and selling of motor
vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks,
chassis or body shall keep a permanent record of
one’s stocks, stating therein their type, make and
serial numbers, and the names and addresses of
the persons from whom they were acquired and
the names and addresses of the persons to whom
they are sold, and shall render accurately a
monthly report of his/her transactions in motor
vehicles to the LTO.
DUTY OF MANUFACTURERS OF ENGINE BLOCKS,
CHASSIS OR BODY TO CAUSE THE NUMBERING OF
ENGINE BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY MANUFACTURED
(SECTION 11, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine

blocks, chassis or body shall cause the numbering
of every engine block, chassis or body
manufactured in a convenient and conspicuous
part thereof which the LTO may direct for the
purpose of uniformity and identification of the
factory and shall submit to the LTO a monthly
report of the manufacture and sale of engine
blocks, chassis or body.
CLEARANCE AND PERMIT REQUIRED FOR ASSEMBLY
OR REBUILDING OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(SECTION 12, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild

or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a motor vehicle
shall first secure a certificate of clearance from the
PNP: Provided, That no such permit shall be issued
unless the applicant shall present a statement under
oath containing the type, make and serial numbers of
the engine, chassis and body, if any, and the complete
list of the spare parts of the motor vehicle to be
assembled or rebuilt together with the names and
addresses of the sources thereof.
 In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on

motor boats, motor bancas, water crafts and other light
water vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from
the PNP, which office shall in turn furnish the LTO
pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle engines
including their type, make and serial numbers.
CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR SHIPMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES, ENGINE
BLOCKS, CHASSIS OR BODY
(SECTION 13, R.A. NO. 10883)
 The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a

report to the PNP within seven (7) days upon boarding
all motor vehicles being boarded the “RORO”, ferry,
boat, vessel or ship for interisland and international
shipment.
 The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles

in all interisland and international shipping vessels
without a motor vehicle clearance from the PNP,
except cargo trucks and other trucks carrying goods,
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
Board (LTFRB)-accredited public utility vehicles (PUV)
and other motor vehicles carrying foodstuff and dry
goods.
FOREIGN NATIONALS (SECTION 20, RA 10883)
 Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions

of R.A. No. 10883 shall be deported immediately
after service of sentence without further
proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration.
REWARD (SECTION 19, R.A. NO. 10883)
 Any person who voluntarily gives information

leading to the recovery of carnapped vehicles and
for the apprehension of the persons charged with
carnapping shall be given monetary reward as
the PNP may determine.
 The PNP shall include in their annual budget the

amount necessary to carry out the purposes of
Section 19, R.A. No. 10883.
 Any information given by informers shall be

treated as confidential matter.
PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ (183 SCRA 763)
People v. Dela Cruz 183 SCRA 763
FACTS:
The accused killed the owner of the vehicle and
stole the taxi owned by the victim.
HELD:
The crime of carnapping with homicide is
committed when there is taking, with intent to gain
of a motor vehicle which belonged to another,
without the latter’s consent or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things.
IZON V. PEOPLE (107 SCRA 118)
FACTS:
The two accused were held liable for violation of
the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. The accused
assailed the imposable penalty contending that the
information did not allege that the motorized
vehicle stolen was using the public highway.
HELD:
A motorized vehicle is a motor vehicle, which is
defined as any vehicle propelled by any power
othen than muscular power using public highways.
Public highways are those free for use of every
person, thus not limited to a national road.
PEOPLE V. GAWAN (657 SCRA 713)
FACTS:
Accused were charged with the crime of Carnapping as defined
under Section 2 of R.A. 6539. The accused-appellants assail their
conviction due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 are the following: (1) That there is
an actual taking of the vehicle; (2) That the vehicle belongs to a
person other than the offender himself; (3) That the taking is
without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; and (4) That the offender
intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle. The records of this
case show that all the elements of carnapping are present and
were proven during trial. The tricycle, which was definitively
ascertained to belong to Biag, as evidenced by the registration
papers, was found in Lagat and Palalay’s possession.
PEOPLE V. LAGAT (2011)
FACTS: The victim left home to “pasada” his tricycle.
The next morning, his wife was informed that her
husband was killed and that his tricycle was used to
steal palay.
HELD: The accused committed qualified carnapping.

There is carnapping when there was a taking of a
vehicle which belongs to another, without the consent of
the owner with use of violence, intimidation or force,
with intent to gain. It is qualified when the driver,
passenger was killed during the taking or carnapping.
Motor vehicle is defined as any vehicle propelled by any
power other than muscle power using public highways.
In this case, the tricycle was a motor vehicle taken by
force from the owner who was killed during the
carnapping.
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
(R.A. NO. 7610, AS AMENDED)
CHILDREN, DEFINED.
SEC. 3(A), R.A. NO. 7610
Children refers to person below eighteen (18) years
of age or those over but are unable to fully take
care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition.
CHILD ABUSE
(SECTION 3[B], R.A. NO. 7610)
It is the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child, which includes any of the following:
1. Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty,

sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
2. Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades
or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being;
3. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for
survival, such as food and shelter; or
4. Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
Note:
Child abuse is committed, not slight/serious

physical injuries as defined and punished under
Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code, if the victim is
a child (Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 179090, 5 June
2009)
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL
ABUSE
(SECTION 5[A], R.A. NO. 7610)
 Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution, which includes any of
the following:
 Acting as procurer of child prostitute;
 Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute;
 Taking advantage or influence to procure a child as
prostitute;
 Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
 Giving monetary consideration goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
MALTO V. PEOPLE (1997)
FACTS: Malto was a philosophy professor at an
exclusive school for girls. He had carnal relations
with one of his students who was 17 years old.
Malto argues that they are a couple.
HELD: Malto violated R.A. 7610 or the Special

Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act. There was lascivious
conduct and intercourse as a result of coercion or
influence of the professor and the victim was under
18 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime.
MALTO V. PEOPLE (CONT.)
Sweetheart Theory
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness
and rape, felonies committed against or without the
consent of the victim. It operates on the theory that the
sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the
accused and the victim were lovers and that she
consented to the sexual relations.
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct

in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart
defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse
with another person.
LAVIDES V. COURT OF APPEALS (2000)
FACTS:
Lavides was charged with violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610 for luring a sixteen (16)-year old girl into a
hotel to have carnal knowledge. Subsequently, 12
informations for the same violation was filed against
him.
HELD:
Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious
act with a child under the circumstances
mentioned in Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160 is thus a
separate and distinct offense. The offense is similar
to rape or act of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal
Code in which each act of rape or lascivious conduct
should be the subject of a separate information.
SEC. 5[A], R.A. NO. 7610 V. ART. 336 RPC
VARIANCE PRINCIPLE
People v. Quimvel
G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017
FACTS:
The victim, a seven (7) year-old girl, was
awakened when accused laid on top of her and
inserted his hand in the victim’s panty. Accused
was charged for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation
to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
ISSUE
Whether accused may be held liable for the crime of

lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610 in view of the supposed failure of the
Information to allege all elements necessary in
committing said crime.
RULING
 Before an accused can be held criminally liable
for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610, the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness
as penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC must be
met in addition to the requisites of sexual abuse
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, to wit:
 The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct.
 The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
 That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years
of age
RULING
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts
pertaining to or connected with child prostitution
wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On
the other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a
child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not
only a situation where a child is abused for profit
but also one in which a child, through coercion,
intimidation or influence, engages in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct. Hence, the law
punishes not only child prostitution but also
other forms of sexual abuse against children.
CHILD ABUSE
Children are deemed to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse under the following
circumstances:
1. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse

or lascivious conduct with a child; and
2. The victim is under twelve (12) years of age.
ART. 336, RPC V. SEC. 5[B], R.A. 7610
PEOPLE V. CAOILI
G.R. NO. 196342, 8 August 2017
FACTS:
Accused was charged with rape by sexual
intercourse for having committed the following acts
unto his 14 years 1 month and 10 days old
daughter: (1) kissed her lips; (2) touched and
mashed her breast; and (3) inserted finger into her
vagina.
ISSUE:
May accused be held criminally liable for acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC or
“Lascivious conduct” under Section 5(b) of R.A.
7610.
RULING:
Accused may be convicted for the crime of
lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610
which is subsumed in the crime of rape by sexual
intercourse.
COMPARISON OF ART. 336, RPC AND SEC.
5[B], R.A. 7610
Acts of Sexual Abuse / Lascivious
Lasciviousness Conduct
Basis Revised Penal Code R.A. No. 7610
Elements of the crime:
Punishable act: Lewdness Sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct
Offended party: Under 12 years old, A child exploited in
whether male or prostitution or subjected to
female other sexual abuse aged
below 18 years old, whether
male or female
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINATION OF
PROPER CHARGE AND PENALTY
 The age of the victim is into consideration in designating or
charging the offense, and in determining the imposable penalty.
 If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the nomenclature
of the crime should be “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610.” Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period.
 If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or more than
twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years of age, or is eighteen
(18) years old or older but is unable to fully take care of
herself/himself or protect herself/himself from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition, the crime should be designated as
"Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610," and the
imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua.
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL
ABUSE
(SECTION 5[C], R.A. NO. 7610)
 Those who derive profit or advantage, whether as
manager or owner of the establishment, where
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco,
bar, resort or establishment serving as cover or
which engages in prostitution.
SEXUAL ABUSE V. CHILD ABUSE
People v. Montinola
G.R. No. 178061, 9 July 2011
FACTS:
Accused was charged with six counts of rape. On
one charge, the RTC and CA convicted the accused
for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
HELD: Accused should be punished under Section

5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. Said provision covers acts of
lasciviousness while Section 10(a) covers other acts
of abuse.
OTHER ACTS PUNISHABLE
1. Child Prostitution (Section 5, R.A. No. 7610);
2. Attempt to commit child prostitution (Section 6, R.A. No.

7610);
3. Child trafficking (Section 7, R.A. No. 7610);
4. Attempt to commit child trafficking (Section 8, R.A. No.

7610);
5. Engagement of children in the worst forms of child labor

(Section 12-D, R.A. No. 7610); and
6. Engagement of children in obscene publications (Section

9, R.A. No. 7610);
OTHER ACTS PUNISHABLE
7. Other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation
and other conditions prejudicial to the child’s
development (Section 10, R.A. No. 7610);
8. Employment of children as model in advertisement

directly or indirectly promoting alcoholic beverages,
intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its byproducts,
gambling or any form of violence or pornography
(Section 14, R.A. No. 7610); and
9. Discrimination of children of indigenous cultural

communities (Section 20, R.A. No. 7610).
ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
ACT OF 2009
(R.A. NO. 9775)
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
It is any public or private representation, by
whatever means, of a child engaged in real or
simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a child for
primarily sexual purposes.
UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS
(SECTION 4, R.A. NO. 9775)
It shall be unlawful for any person:
a. To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce

a child to perform in the creation or production
of any form of child pornography;
b. To produce, direct, manufacture or create any

form of child pornography;
c. To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute,

broadcast, advertise, promote, export or import
any form of child pornography;
d. To possess any form of child pornography with the
intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast:
Provided. That possession of three (3) or more articles
of child pornography of the same form shall be prima
facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish
or broadcast;
e. To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a

venue for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not
limited to, dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas,
houses or in establishments purporting to be a
legitimate business;
f. For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication

companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;
g. For a parent, legal guardian or person having

custody or control of a child to knowingly permit
the child to engage, participate or assist in any
form of child pornography;
h. To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;
i. To engage in pandering of any form of child

pornography;
j. To willfully access any form of child

pornography;
k. To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts

stated in this section. Conspiracy to commit any
form of child pornography shall be committed
when two (2) or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of any of
the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it;
and
l. To possess any form of child pornography.

SYNDICATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
The crime of child pornography is deemed

committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group
of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another.
ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO
VOYEURISM ACT OF 2009
R.A. NO. 9995
VOYEURISM, DEFINED.
SECTION 3, R.A. NO. 9995
Photo or video voyeurism means the act of taking
photo or video coverage of a person or group of
persons performing sexual act or any similar
activity or of capturing an image of the private area
of a person or persons without the latter’s consent,
under circumstances in which such person/s
has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the
act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting,
sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar
activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular
phones and similar means without the written
consent of the person involved.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or
group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of the
private area of a person/s such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks
or female breast without the consent of the
person/s involved and under circumstances in
which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy;
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without
consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or

distributed, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether it be the original copy or
reproduction thereof; or
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 9995
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be
published or broadcast, whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or
video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or
any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and other similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)

shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record
or take photo or video coverage of the same was
given by such person/s. Any person who violates
this provision shall be liable for photo or video
voyeurism as defined herein.
EXEMPTION
SEC. 6, R.A. NO. 9995
A peace officer who is authorized by written order
of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial
of the crime of photo or video voyeurism.
Requisites for the exemption to apply:
1. Such order was issued only upon written
application and examination under oath of any
witnesses that the peace officer may produce;
2. Showing of reasonable grounds to believe that
photo or video voyeurism has been committed or
is about to be committed; and
3. Such evidence is essential for conviction.
INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
SEC. 7, R.A. NO. 9995
Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof,
obtained or secured by any person in violation of
the preceding sections shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative
or administrative hearing or investigation.
ANTI-FENCING LAW
(P.D. NO. 1612)
FENCING
(SECTION 2[A], P.D. NO. 1612)
Fencing is an act of any person who, with intent to
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or
shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in
any article, item, object or anything of value which
he knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
and theft.
PRESUMPTION OF FENCING
Mere possession of any goods, article, item, object
or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
At any rate, the law does not require proof of

purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as
mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a
presumption of fencing. (Capili v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 139250, 15 August 2000)
CAPILI V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 139250, 15 AUGUST 2000
Facts:
Diokno and her mother owned several pieces of
jewelry. Some were stolen by their former houseboy
Manzo and he was accordingly charged with
qualified theft. Manzo then testified that he sold
the jewelries to accused Capili and his wife for a
price and informed them that those were from his
former employers. The alleged stolen jewelries
were then recovered from the accused.
Issue: Is Capili guilty of fencing?

CAPILI V. PEOPLE (CONT.)
HELD:
Yes, all of the essential elements of fencing are
present in this case. These are: (1) a crime of
robbery or theft has been committed; (2)the
accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in
the commission of the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possesses, acquires, conceals, sells
or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner
deals in any article or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;
(3) knows or should have known that the said
article has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of theft or robbery; and (4) intent to gain for
himself or for another.
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT
CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
1. Persuading, inducing or influencing another

public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit such violation
or offense (Section 3[a], R.A. No. 3019, as
amended);
2. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other part, wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under
the law (Section 3[b], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
3. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any

gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit,
for himself or for another, from any person for whom
the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has
secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any
Government permit or license, in consideration for
the help given or to be given, without prejudice to
Section thirteen of R.A. No. 3019, as amended
(Section 3[c], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
4. Accepting or having any member of his family

accept employment in a private enterprise
which has pending official business with him
during the pendency thereof or within one year
after its termination (Section 3[d], R.A. No.
3019, as amended);
5. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions (Section 3[e],
R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
Elements of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, as amended:
a) the accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial or official functions;
b) he must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;
and
c) his action caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government, or gave any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his functions (SP01
Lihaylihay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191219, 31
July 2013)
6. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act
within a reasonable time on any matter pending
before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his
own interest or giving undue advantage in favor
of or discriminating against any other
interested party (Section 3[f], R.A. No. 3019, as
amended);
7. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not
the public officer profited or will profit thereby
(Section 3[g], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
8. Directly or indirectly having financing or

pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity,
or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution
or by any law from having any interest (Section
3[h], R.A. No. 3019, as amended);
9. Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board,
panel or group of which he is a member, and which
exercises discretion in such approval, even if he
votes against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group
(Section 3[i], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).
 Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against

those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
10. Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any
person not qualified for or not legally entitled to
such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or
of a mere representative or dummy of one who
is not so qualified or entitled (Section 3[j], R.A.
No. 3019, as amended);
11. Divulging valuable information of a confidential

character, acquired by his office or by him on
account of his official position to unauthorized
persons, or releasing such information in
advance of its authorized release date (Section
3[k], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).
PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
a. It shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such
family or close personal relation by directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift
or material or pecuniary advantage from any other
person having some business, transaction,
application, request or contract with the
government, in which such public official has to
intervene (Section 4[a], R.A. No. 3019, as amended).
 Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by

consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The
word "close personal relation" shall include close
personal friendship, social and fraternal connections,
and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy
which assures free access to such public officer.
PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
b. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly

to induce or cause any public official to commit
any of the offenses defined in Section 3 of R.A.
No. 3019 (Section 4[b], R.A. No. 3019, as
amended).
PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RELATIVES
It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by
consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the
President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the
Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in
any business, transaction, contract or application with the
Government
 This shall not apply to any person who, prior to the

assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom
he is related, has been already dealing with the
Government along the same line of business, nor to any
transaction, contract or application already existing or
pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor
to any application filed by him the approval of which is not
discretionary on the part of the official or officials
concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites
provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to
law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official
capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
It shall be unlawful for any Member of the Congress
during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire
or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific
business enterprise which will be directly and
particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution
authored by him previously approved or adopted by the
Congress during the same term.
 This prohibition shall apply to any other public officer

who recommended the initiation in Congress of the
enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and
acquires or receives any such interest during his
incumbency.
PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of

Congress or other public officer, who, having such
interest prior to the approval of such law or
resolution authored or recommended by him,
continues for thirty (30) days after such approval to
retain such interest.
EXCEPTION
Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere
ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according
to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from
the provisions of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
TERMINATION OF OFFICE
No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire
pending an investigation, criminal or
administrative, or pending a prosecution against
him, for any offense under R.A. No. 3019, as
amended, or under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on bribery.
ASILO V. PEOPLE (2011)
FACTS:
A criminal complaint for violation of Sec. 3€ of
Republic Act No. 3019 was filed against Accused et,
al. for taking advantage of their official positions in
causing the demolition of a public market stall
leased by the municipal government in favor of the
private complainants.
HELD:
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 provides:
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
It is undisputable that the first two requisites of
the criminal offense were present at the time of the
commission of the complained acts and that, as to
the remaining elements, there is sufficient amount
of evidence to establish that there was an undue
injury suffered on the part of the private
complainants and that the public officials
concerned acted with evident bad faith when they
performed the demolition of the market stall.
SANTILLANO V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Engr. Santillano was found guilty of three

counts of violation of Section 3€ of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices At. However, Engr. Santillano argued
that the decision of the Sandiganbayan was
contrary to law since he is a private person and not
a public officer.
SANTILLANO V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
The fact that one of the elements of Section
3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 is “that the accused is a public
officer” does not necessarily preclude its application
to private persons who are being charged with
conspiring with public officers in the commission of
the offense thereunder.
In all three (3) criminal cases, the prosecution was

able to establish that Ecleo, Jr. and Navarra
approved overpayments made to Engr. Santillano.
SISON V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Petitioner, a mayor of small provincial
municipality, was charged with violating Sec. 3 (e)
of R.A. No. 3019 after a post-audit indicated that
he authorized the procurement of several supplies
and equipment without public bidding. Likewise,
he failed to comply with the personal canvass
requirements for local government acquisitions
under R.A. No. 7160. Petitioner insisted that he
was innocent of the charges since he was merely
following the acquisition practices of his
predecessors.
SISON V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
Petitioner’s defense was untenable. He was grossly
negligent in all the purchases that were made
under his watch, and which caused undue
damage to the Municipality. Petitioner’s admission
that the canvass sheets sent out by de Jesus to the
suppliers already contained his signatures because he
pre-signed these forms only proved his utter disregard
of the consequences of his actions. He also admitted
that he knew the provisions of RA 7160 on personal
canvass but he did not follow the law because he was
merely following the practice of his predecessors. This
was an admission of a mindless disregard for the law in
a tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable,
considering that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought
to implement the law to the letter. Sadly, however, he
was the first to break it.
ANTI-HAZING LAW
(R.A. NO. 8049)
HAZING
Hazing is initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a
fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the
recruit, neophyte, or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish, and similar
tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to
physical or psychological suffering or injury.
(Sec. 1, R.A. No. 8049)
PERSONS LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Officers and members of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization who actually participated in the
infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
principals if the person subjected to hazing
suffers any physical injury or dies as a result
thereof; (Sec. 4, par.1, R.A. No. 8049)
2. Owner of the place where the hazing is

conducted shall be liable as an accomplice when
he has knowledge of the hazing conducted
therein but failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.4, R.A. No.
8049)
3. Parents shall be liable as principals when they

have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted
in the home of one of the officers or members of
the fraternity, sorority or organization, but
failed to prevent the same; (Sec. 4, par.4, R.A.
No. 8049)
4. School authorities and faculty members shall be

liable as accomplices when they consent to the
hazing or have actual knowledge thereof, but
failed to take any action to prevent the same
from occurring; (Sec. 4, par.5, R.A. No. 8049)
5. Officers or members of the organization, group,
fraternity or sorority shall be liable as
principals if they actually planned the hazing or
have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to
take any action to prevent the same from
occurring; (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)
6. Officers, former officers or alumni of the

organization, group, fraternity or sorority shall
be liable as principals if they knowingly
cooperated in carrying out the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present thereat; (Sec.
4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)
7. The fraternity or sorority’s adviser shall be
liable as principal if he was present when the
acts constituting the hazing were committed
and failed to take any action to prevent the
same. (Sec. 4, par.6, R.A. No. 8049)
 The presence of any person (whether or not a
member of the fraternity/sorority) during the
hazing is prima facie evidence of participation
therein as a principal unless he prevented the
commission of prohibited acts. (Sec. 4, par.7, R.A.
No. 8049)
 The mitigating circumstance that there was no

intention to commit so grave a wrong shall not
apply. (Sec. 4, par.8, R.A. No. 8049)
PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS (VILLA CASE)
G.R. NO. 151258, 1 FEBRUARY 2012
FACTS:
Twenty-six members of a fraternity were

charged for the crime of homicide for the death of a
neophyte law student who joined the initiation
rites but died due to multiple beatings. The private
complainants assailed the acquittal of some of the
accused since their conspiracy to inflict serious
injuries upon the deceased caused his death.
PEOPLE V. COURT OF APPEALS (CONT.)
HELD:
The presence of an ex ante situation in this

case, fraternity initiation rites does not
automatically amount to the absence of malicious
intent or dolus manus. If it is proven beyond
reasonable doubt that the perpetrators were
equipped with a guilty mind whether or not there
is a contextual background or factual premise they
are still criminally liable for intentional felony.
ANTI-HIGHJACKING LAW
(R.A. NO. 6235)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
a. 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; (Sec.
1, par. 1, R.A. No. 6235)
b. To compel an aircraft of foreign registry to land in

Philippine territory or to seize or usurp the control
thereof while it is within the said territory; (Sec. 1,
par. 2, R.A. No. 6235) and
c. To ship, load or carry in any passenger air-craft

operating as a public utility within the Philippines,
any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous
substance or material. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 6235)
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
(P.D. NO. 532)
PIRACY
It is an attack upon or seizure of any vessel or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof of its
cargo, equipment or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things,
committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in,
Philippine Waters. (Sec. 2 (d), P.D. No. 532)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Piracy - Attacking or seizing any vessel while the

vessel is within Philippine waters; (Sec. 2 (d), P.D. No.
532)
2. Highway Robbery/Brigandage - Seizing or taking

away the whole or part of the vessel or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings of its
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things while the vessel is in
Philippine waters; (Sec. 2 (e), P.D. No. 532)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
3. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands

or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage -- Knowingly aiding or
protecting pirates, such as giving them information
about the movement of police or other peace officers
of the government, or by acquiring or receiving
property taken by the pirates or in any manner
derives any benefit therefrom. (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 532)
 Philippine Waters shall refer to all bodies of
water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays
around, between and connecting each of the Islands
of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its
depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other
waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or
legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction. (Sec. 2 (a), P.D. No. 532)
 Vessel shall refer to any vessel or watercraft used

for transport of passengers and cargo from one place
to another through Philippine Waters. It shall
include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used
in fishing. (Sec. 2 (b), P.D. No. 532)
PIRACY UNDER RPC AND
PIRACY UNDER P.D. NO. 532, COMPARED
RPC P.D. 532

High seas;
Where Committed Philippine Waters Philippine Waters
Strangers
(persons other
than the
Persons who may
passenger or Any person
commit
member of the
complement of
the vessel)
PEOPLE V. PULUSAN (290 SCRA 35)
FACTS: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the
McArthur Highway. Out of the 6 passengers, the only
woman, Marilyn was successively raped by the accused
at a talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and
stabbed on after the other. They were convicted of
robbery with homicide although they were charged with
highway robbery. What was the crime committed?
HELD: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery.

Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the
accused were organized for the purpose of committing
robbery indiscriminately. In this case, there was no
proof that the 4 accused previously attempted to commit
armed robberies.
PEOPLE V CATANTAN,
GR NO 118075, 5 SEPT 1997
FACTS:
One early morning, the Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan
were on their boat catching fish. Suddenly, a pump boat
approached theirs. Catantan boarded the Pilipil’s boat and
pointed a revolver at Eugene. Eugene was tied and Juan was
told to drive the boat. When the engine of the boat stopped,
the brothers were forced to paddle to another boat with a new
engine. The attackers took another pump boat and left the
Pilapil brothers.
HELD:
Piracy was committed as defined by P.D. 532. Any attack or
seizure of any vessel or the taking away of the whole or part
thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of
the passengers or complement, by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things by any person
in Philippine waters is piracy. The compulsion to go
elsewhere is part of the act of seizing the boat.
PEOPLE V. TULIN, G.R. NO. 111709, 30
AUG 2001
FACTS: A cargo vessel carrying barrels of petroleum
was boarded by a group of pirates as it was travelling
near Mindoro. The crew was forced to repaint the vessel
to prevent identification. It was taken to Singapore
where the kerosene, gasoline and diesel cargo were
transferred to another vessel. The defendants were
charged with piracy. One of the accused claims that
since the crime was committed in Singapore, the trial
courts had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
HELD: The attack was committed in Mindoro, which is

part of the Philippine waters. The cargo was transferred
in Singapore. Piracy is a continuing crime and the
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is
still part of the act of piracy.
ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH
Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any
person within the purview of Section 2 of R.A. No.
7080 acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of
the following means or similar schemes under
Section 1 (d) of R.A. No. 7080, as amended:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse,

or malversation of public funds or raids on the
public treasury; (Sec. 1(d)(1), R.A. No. 7080, as
amended)
SECTION 1 (D), R.A. NO. 7080, AS
AMENDED
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form
of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity
in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position of the
public officer concerned; (Sec. 1(d)(2), R.A. No. 7080,
as amended)
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or

disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; (Sec.
1(d)(3), R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
AMENDED
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or

indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any
other form of interest or participation including
promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking; (Sec. 1(d)(4), R.A.
No. 7080, as amended)
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or

commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; (Sec. 1(d)(5), R.A. No. 7080, as
amended) or
AMENDED
6. By taking undue advantage of official position,

authority, relationship, connection or influence
to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines. (Sec. 1(d)(6), R.A. No. 7080, as
amended)
PERSONS LIABLE (SEC. 2, R.A. NO. 7080,
AS AMENDED)
a. any public officer who, by himself or in

connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or
series of overt or criminal acts, in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00) .
PERSONS LIABLE (SEC. 2, R.A. NO. 7080,
AS AMENDED)
b. any person who participated with said public

officer in the commission of plunder shall be
punished by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolute disqualification from holding any
public office.
 For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder,
it shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance
of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate
or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of
overt or criminal acts indicative of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. (Sec.
4, R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
PRESCRIPTION
The crime punishable under R.A. No. 7080 shall
prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right
of the State to recover properties unlawfully
acquired by public officers from them or from their
nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel. (Sec. 6, R.A.
No. 7080, as amended)
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (2001)
FACTS: On 4 April 2001, the Office of the
Ombudsman filed the Sandiganbayan 8 separate
Informations, one of which imputed plunder as an
offense against Estrada.
On 14 June 2001, Estrada moved to quash the

Information in Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground
that the facts alleged therein did NOT constitute
an indictable offense since the law on which it was
based was unconstitutional for vagueness and that
the Amended Information for Plunder charged
more than 1 offense. The same was denied hence
this petition for certiorari.
HELD: We discern nothing in the foregoing that is
vague or ambiguous - as there is obviously none - that
will confuse petitioner in his defense.
Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to
provide for the statutory definition of the
terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in
Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in
Sec. 4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render
the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being
impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, hence, violative of his
fundamental right to due process.
HELD:
The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A
statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely
because general terms are used therein, or because of
the employment of terms without defining them; much
less do we have to define every word we use. Besides,
there is no positive constitutional or statutory command
requiring the legislature to define each and every word
in an enactment. Congress is not restricted in the form
of expression of its will, and its inability to so define the
words employed in a statute will not necessarily result
in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the
legislative will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from
the whole act, which is distinctly expressed in the
Plunder Law.
FACTS:
After the dismissal of his petition in 2001, Estrada now
assails the charge of Sections 3(a) to (d) of R.A. No. 3019
under one information.
HELD:There is no denying the fact that the plunder of an

entire nation resulting in material damage to the national
economy is made up of a complex and manifold network of
crimes. In the crime of plunder, therefore, different
parties may be united by a common purpose. In the case
at bar, the different accused and their different criminal acts
have a commonality to help the former President amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. Sub-paragraphs (a)
to (d) in the Amended Information alleged the different
participation of each accused in the conspiracy.
HELD:
The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore,
is not that each accused agreed to receive protection money
from illegal gambling, that each misappropriated a portion of
the tobacco excise tax, that each accused ordered the GSIS
and SSS to purchase shares of Belle Corporation and receive
commissions from such sale, nor that each unjustly enriched
himself from commissions, gifts and kickbacks; rather, it is
that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to
participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of
and/or for former President Estrada.
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. PEOPLE (2016)
FACTS:
Arroyo was charged with conspiracy to commit
plunder by accumulating P365 Million worth of ill-
gotten wealth from Phil. Charity Sweepstakes
Office.
HELD:
The corpus delicti of plunder is amassment,
accumulation or acquisition of ill-gotten wealth
valued at not less than P50 Million. The failure to
establish the corpus delicti should lead to the
dismissal of the criminal prosecution.
ENRILE V. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 213455, 11 AUGUST 2015
FACTS:
Enrile, et al. was charged for plunder under R.A 3019.
Alleging that the charge against him was too broad, Enrile
filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars.
HELD:
Since the crime of plunder may be done in connivance or in
conspiracy with other persons, and the Information filed
clearly alleged that Enrile and Reyes conspired with one
another and with Napoles, Lim and De Asis, then it is
unnecessary to specify, as an essential element of the offense,
whether the ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P172M
had been acquired by one, by two or by all of the accused. In
the crime of plunder, the amount of ill-gotten wealth
acquired by each accused in a conspiracy is immaterial
for as long as the total amount amassed, acquired or
accumulated is at least P50 million.
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT
(R.A. NO. 7877)
WORK, EDUCATION OR TRAINING -RELATED,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, DEFINED. (SEC. 3, R.A.
NO. 7877)
Work, education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
trainor, or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether
the demand, request or requirement for submission
is accepted by the other.
In a work-related or employment environment,
sexual harassment is committed when:
1. The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or

in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions,
promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the
sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in any way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said
employee (Sec. 3(a)(1), R.A. No. 7877);
2. The above acts would impair the employee's rights or

privileges under existing labor laws (Sec. 3(a)(2), R.A.
No. 7877); or
3. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile,

or offensive environment for the employee (Sec. 3(a)(3),
R.A. No. 7877).
In an education or training environment, sexual
harassment is committed:
1. Against one who is under the care, custody or

supervision of the offender; (Sec. 3(b)(1), R.A. No. 7877)
2. Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship

or tutorship is entrusted to the offender; (Sec. 3(b)(2),
R.A. No. 7877)
3. When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving

of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and
scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or
other benefits, privileges, or consideration; (Sec.
3(b)(3), R.A. No. 7877) or
4. When the sexual advances result in an intimidating,

hostile or offensive environment for the student,
trainee or apprentice. (Sec. 3(b)(4), R.A. No. 7877)
 Any person who directs or induces another to
commit any act of sexual harassment, or who
cooperates in the commission thereof by another
without which it would not have been committed,
shall also be held liable. (Sec. 3, par. 4, R.A. No.
7877)
LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER, HEAD OF
OFFICE, EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING
INSTITUTION
The employer or head of office, educational or

training institution shall be solidarily liable for
damages arising from the acts of sexual
harassment committed in the employment,
education or training environment if the employer
or head of office, educational or training institution
is informed of such acts by the offended party and
no immediate action is taken. (Sec. 5, R.A. No.
7877)
ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009
(R.A. NO. 9745)
TORTURE (SECTION 3 (A), R.A. NO. 9745)
An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a
third person information or a confession;
punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having
committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or
a third person; or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of a
person in authority or agent of a person in
authority. It does not include pain or buffering arising
only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
ACTS PUNISHABLE
Acts of Torture which shall include, but not limited to
the following (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9745):
 Physical Torture- a form of treatment or

punishment inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her
custody that causes severe pain, exhaustion,
disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the
body; (Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 9745) and
 Mental or Psychological Torture- Acts committed

by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority which are calculated to affect or confuse the
mind and/or undermine a person’s dignity and
morale. (Sec. 4(b), R.A. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY (SEC. 6, R.A. NO. 9745)
Freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment is an absolute
right.
Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading

treatment or punishment as criminal acts shall apply to
all circumstances.
A state of war or threat of war, internal political

instability, or any other public emergency, or a
document or any determination comprising an order of
battle shall not and can never be invoked as a
justification for torture and other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment.
PROHIBITED DETENTION
Secret detention places, solitary confinement,
incommunicado or other similar forms of detention,
where torture may be carried out with impunity
are prohibited. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9745)
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
 Any person who actually participated or induced

another in the commission of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution of
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment by previous
or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal.
(Sec. 13, par. 1, R.A. No. 9745)
 Any superior military, police or law enforcement

officer or senior government official who issued
an order to any lower ranking personnel to
commit torture for whatever purpose shall be
held equally liable as principals. (Sec. 13, par. 2,
R.A. No. 9745)
The immediate commanding officer of the unit
concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior
public official of the PNP and other law enforcement
agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the
crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that
shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether
directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by
his/her subordinates. (Sec. 13, par. 3, R.A. No. 9745)
If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the
circumstances at the time, should have known that acts
of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being
committed, or has been committed by his/her
subordinates or by others within his/her area of
responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or
immediately after its commission, when he/she has the
authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture
or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to
negligence shall also be liable as principals. (Sec. 13,
par. 3, R.A. No. 9745)
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an
accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment is being committed and without having
participated therein, either as principal or
accomplice, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner:
 By themselves profiting from or assisting the

offender to profit from the effects of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment; (Sec. 13, par. 4, R.A.
No. 9745)
 By concealing the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment and/or destroying the effects or
instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or
 By harboring, concealing or assisting in the

escape of the principal/s in the act of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment: Provided, That the accessory
acts are done with the abuse of the official's
public functions. (Sec. 13, par. 4, R.A. No.
9745)
APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCLUSIONARY
RULE
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as
a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence
in any proceedings.
Exception:
if the same is used as evidence against a person or
persons accused of committing torture. (Sec. 8, R.A.
No. 9745)
TORTURE AS A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CRIME
Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be
absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as
a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or
commission thereof. In which case, torture shall
be treated as a separate and independent
criminal act whose penalties shall be
imposable without prejudice to any other
criminal liability provided for by domestic
and international laws. (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9745)
EXCLUSION FROM THE COVERAGE OF
SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW
In order not to depreciate the crime of torture,

persons who have committed any act of torture
shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or
similar measures that will have the effect of
exempting them from any criminal proceedings
and sanctions. (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY OF REFOULER
No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited
to another State where there are substantial
grounds to believe that such person shall be in
danger of being subjected to torture. For the
purposes of determining whether such grounds
exist, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign
Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the DOJ, in
coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR,
shall take into account all relevant considerations
including, where applicable and not limited to, the
existence in the requesting State of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights. (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 9745)
APPLICABILITY OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as
they are applicable shall be suppletory to R.A. No.
9745. Moreover, if the commission of any crime
punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against
Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal
Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code is
attended by any of the acts constituting torture and
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment as defined herein, the penalty to be
imposed shall be in its maximum period. (Sec. 22,
R.A. No. 9745)
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
ACT OF 2003
(R.A. NO. 9208)
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
It is the recruitment, transportation, transfer or
harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders by means of threat or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of
power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person or the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person for the purpose of
exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms
of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs (Sec 3(a), R.A.
No. 9208).
ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
judicial to commit any of the following acts:
1. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide

or receive a person by any means, including
those done under the pretext of domestic or
overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery (Sec. 4(a), R.A. No. 9208);
2. To introduce or match for money, profit or material,
economic or other consideration, any person or, as
provided for under R.A. No. 6955, any Filipino
woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the
purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or
trading him/her to engage in prostitution,
pornography (Sec. 4(b), R.A. No. 9208);
3. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for

the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering selling, or
trading them to engage in prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage (Sec.
4(c), R.A. No. 9208);
4. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans
consisting of tourism packages or activities for the
purpose of utilizing and offering persons for
prostitution, pornography or sexual Sec. 4(d), R.A.
No. 9208;
5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in

prostitution or pornography Sec. 4(e), R.A. No. 9208;
6. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the

purpose of prostitution, pornography sexual
exploitation, forced-labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt-bondage Sec. 4(f), R.A. No. 9208;
7. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a
person by means of threat or use of force, fraud,
deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the
purpose of removal or sale of organs of said
person (Sec. 4(g), R.A. No. 9208); and
8. To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage

in armed activities in the Philippines or abroad
(Sec. 4(h), R.A. No. 9208).
ACTS THAT PROMOTE TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS
The following acts which promote or facilitate
trafficking in persons shall be unlawful:
1. To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be

used any house, building or establishment for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons (Sec.
5(a), R.A. No. 9208);
2. To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,

tampered or fake counseling certificates,
registration stickers and certificates of any
government agency which issues these certificates
and stickers as proof of compliance with government
regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons (Sec.
5(b), R.A. No. 9208);
PERSONS
3. To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute,
or cause the advertisement, publication, printing,
broadcasting or distribution by any means,
including the sue of information technology and the
internet of any brochure, flyer or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in persons (Sec.
5(c), R.A. No. 9208);
4. To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or

fraud for purposes of facilitating the acquisition of
clearances and necessary exit documents from
government agencies that are mandated to provide
pre-departure registration and services for
departing persons for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(d), R.A. No. 9208);
PERSONS
5. To facilitate, assist or help in the exist and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and
local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports
who are in possession of unissued, tampered or
fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons (Sec. 5(e), R.A. No.
9208);
6. To confiscate, conceal or destroy the passport, travel

documents, or personal documents or belongings of
trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
prevent them from leaving the country or seeking
redress from the government or appropriate
agencies (Sec. 5(f), R.A. No. 9208); and
PERSONS
7. To knowingly benefit from, financial or
otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services
of a person held to a condition of involuntary
servitude, forced labor or slavery (Sec. 5(g), R.A.
No. 9208).
QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
1. When the trafficked person is a child (Sec. 6(a),
R.A. No. 9208);
2. When the adoption is effected through R.A. No.

8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-country
Adoption Act” and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage (Sec. 6(b), R.A. No.
9208);
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate or

in large scale (Sec. 6(c), R.A. No. 9208);
4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian or a person who exercises
authority over the trafficked persons or when
the offense is committed by a public officer or
employee (Sec. 6(d), R.A. No. 9208);
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to

engage in prostitution with any member of the
military or law enforcement agencies (Sec. 6(e),
R.A. No. 9208);
6. When the offender is a member of the military
or law enforcement agencies (Sec. 6(f), R.A. No.
9208); and
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of

trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted
with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or
the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS) (Sec. 6(g), R.A. No. 9208).
PEOPLE V. CASIO
G.R. NO. 211465, 2 DECEMBER 2014
FACTS:
Casio, by acting as a procurer for different
customers, for money, profit or any other
consideration, was accused of hiring and/or
recruiting a minor for the purpose of prostitution
and sexual exploitation, in violation of Sec. 4, Par.
(a), qualified by Sec. 6, Par (a), of R.A. 9208.
PEOPLE V. CASIO
G.R. NO. 211465, 2 DECEMBER 2014
HELD:
The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or
receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall
also be considered as "trafficking in persons.”
Moreover, the victim’s consent is rendered meaningless

due to the coercive, abusive or deceptive means
employed by perpetrators of human trafficking.
Thus, Casio performed all the elements of trafficking in

persons in the commission of the offense when she
peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to
decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for
money. The offense was also qualified because the
trafficked persons were minors.
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
ACT
(R.A. NO. 9262)
ELEMENTS
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another,

commits an act or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial

emotional or psychological distress to her (Sec.
3(a), R.A. 9262; Ang v. Sagud, G.R. No. 182835,
20 April 2010)
A single act of harassment is enough to
commit an offense
Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes “any act or

series of acts” that constitutes violence against
women. This means that a single act of harassment
which translates into violence, would be enough.
The object of the law is to protect women and
children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly
committed would license isolated ones (Ang v.
Sagud, supra)
It is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of the dating or sexual relationship
While it is required that the offender has or had a

sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman,
for R.A. 92622 to be applicable, it is not indispensable
that the act of violence be a consequence of such
relationship (Dabalos v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 193960, 7
January 2013).
Note: It is immaterial whether the relationship had

ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence of such
relationship between the offender and the victim when
the physical harm was committed (Dabalos v.
Quiambao, supra).
Abuses through Conspiracy
While Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the
offender be related or connected to the victim by
marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of
the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal
Code (Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852, 30
September 2008).
ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN
1. Physical violence or acts that include bodily
or physical harm;
2. Economic abuse or acts that make or attempt

to make a woman financially dependent;
3. Psychological violence or acts or omissions

causing or likely to cause mental or emotional
suffering of the victim; and
4. Sexual violence or acts which are sexual in

nature (Sec 3(a), R.A. No. 9262).
PUNISHABLE ACTS
a. Causing physical harm to the woman or her
child (Sec. 5(a), R.A. No. 9262);
b. Threatening to cause the woman or her child

physical harm (Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 9262);
c. Attempting to cause the woman or her child

physical harm (Sec. 5(c), R.A. No. 9262);
d. Placing the woman or her child in fear of

imminent physical harm (Sec. 5(d), R.A. No.
9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
e. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her

child to engage in conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct
which the woman or her child has the right to engage
in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's
or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force
or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of
physical or other harm, or intimidation directed
against the woman or child. This shall include, but not
limited to, the following acts committed with the
purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the
woman's or her child's movement or conduct (Sec. 5(e),
R.A. No. 9262):
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the
woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or
her children of financial support legally due her or
her family, or deliberately providing the woman's
children insufficient financial support;
3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or
her child of a legal right;
4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any
legitimate profession, occupation, business or
activity or controlling the victim's own money or
properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or
common money, or properties (Sec. 5(e)(1-4), R.A.
No. 9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
f. Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm
on oneself for the purpose of controlling her
actions or decisions (Sec. 5(f), R.A. No. 9262);
g. Causing or attempting to cause the woman or

her child to engage in any sexual activity which
does not constitute rape, by force or threat of
force, physical harm, or through intimidation
directed against the woman or her child or
her/his immediate family (Sec. 5(g), R.A. No.
9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
conduct, personally or through another, that alarms
or causes substantial emotional or psychological
distress to the woman or her child. This shall
include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or

private places;
2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence
of the woman or her child;
3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property
of the woman or her child against her/his will;
4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or
inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her
child; and
5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence (Sec.
5(h), R.A. No. 9262);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
i. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her
child, including, but not limited to, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of
financial support or custody of minor children of
access to the woman's child/children (Sec. 5(i),
R.A. No. 9262).
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9262; People v. Genosa,
G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004).
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-
called cycle of violence which has three phases:
 Tension-building phase- minor battering occurs. It

could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another
form of hostile behavior
 Acute battering incident- characterized by
brutality, destructiveness and sometimes, death. The
battered woman deems this incident as
unpredictable, yet also inevitable
 Tranquil, loving (or at least nonviolent) phase-
the couple experience profound relief. The batterer
may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards
his partner. On the other hand, the battered woman
tries to convince herself that the battery will never
happen again (People v. Genosa, supra).
PEOPLE V. GENOSA (2004)
FACTS:
Accused wife was convicted of parricide for

killing her husband, and was sentenced to death.
Accused asked for a reopening of the case in order
to prove her state of mind during the killing, in
that she is a battered wife (battered wife
syndrome).
PEOPLE V. GENOSA (2004)
HELD:
If accused can prove that she indeed was a

battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense
as a species of self-defense. Having been proven to
be a victim of domestic violence of the husband,
this can be self-defense because since the wife
already always assumes, and correctly that the
husband would beat her up again, she may be
justified in taking steps to protect herself.
PEOPLE V. SALES (658 SCRA 367)
FACTS:
Accused, in a fit of anger, beat his nine (9)-

year old son with a piece of woood inflicting upon
the latter mortal wounds, which caused the death
of the son.
PEOPLE V. SALES (658 SCRA 367)
HELD:
The crime of parricide under Art. 246 of the

Revised Penal Code is committed when: (1) a
person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
accused; (3) the deceased is a father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or
the legitimate spouse of accused.
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
(B.P. BLG. 22)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
A. Making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds (Sec. 1, B.P. 22).
Elements:
i. A person makes or draws and issues any check to
apply or account or for value;
ii. A person knows that at the time of issue he does
not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check upon its
presentment; and
iii. The check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or
would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
B. Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full

amount of the check (Sec. 1, B.P. 22).
Elements:
i. A person has sufficient funds with the drawee
bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check;
ii. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain
a credit to cover the full amount if presented
within a period of 90 days from the date of
appearing thereon; and
iii. The check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
REQUISITES FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY
a. A person makes, draws or issues a check as
payment for account or for value;
b. That the check was dishonored by the bank due
to a lack of funds, insufficiency of funds or
account already closed;
c. The payee or holder of such check gives a
written notice of dishonor and demand for
payment;
d. That the maker, drawer or issuer, after
receiving such notice and demand refuses or
fails to pay the value of the check within five (5)
banking days (Campos v. People, G.R. No.
187401, 17 September 2014).
NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY (181 SCRA 1)
FACTS:
Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all

dishonored. He was charged with 9 counts of estafa
under the RPC. 1 count of violation of BP 22.
Nievas invokes double jeopardy.
NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY (181 SCRA 1)
HELD:
No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.
Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-
existing obligations, crime against poperty and is
mala in se. BP 22: deceit and damage not required
because mere issuance gives presumption of guilt,
can be for a pre-existing debt, crime against public
order and is mala prohibitum.
QUE V. PEOPLE (154 SCRA 160)
FACTS: Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks
were used to pay for the purchase made in Sta.
Mesa. Checks were issued NOT to pay for an
obligation but just to guarantee payment. Checks
later dishonored.
HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.

Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt
NOT important as law does not distinguish--
included as long as it was an issued check that
subsequently bounced.
LIM LAO V. CA (274 SCRA 572)
FACTS: Lim was an officer in a company where
she signed checks, while it was her superior who
filled the blanks. Check which she signed as issuer
was dishonored. Convicted for violating BP 22 as
law creates a presumption of knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds when check is issued.
HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge

of the insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is
rebuttable by contrary evidence. Also, no notice of
the dishonor was given to her; notice only given to
the employer which is not sufficient as law requires
personal notice.
MITRA V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with several counts of B. P.
Blg. 22 after failing to make good on checks issued
by her. She, however, consistently maintained that
she never received a notice of dishonor, and cannot
thus be convicted for the offense. During one
hearing, complainant successfully served a demand
letter upon accused. The latter still failed to comply
with the demand. Accused was later convicted.
MITRA V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Accused’s claim that she had no knowledge of the
dishonor of the checks was clearly untrue. Though
it is possible that she failed to receive the initial
demand letter sent by complainant, records
indicate that she received the second demand letter
while attending a hearing held before the lower
court. This notwithstanding, accused still failed to
fund the checks.
RESTERIO V. PEOPLE (2012)
FACTS:
In this case, Amada issued a China Bank Check in
the amount of P50,000.00 payable to the
complainant. When the check was presented for
payment, it was dishonored. Amada argued that
the check was just issued as collateral and it was
not even hers. She claims that she merely
borrowed the check of a friend so that she could use
it as collateral for the transaction with the
complainant. The complainant also presented
registry receipts to show that he has sent notices of
dishonor to Amada.
RESTERIO V. PEOPLE (2012)
HELD:
According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the
checks were merely issued as collateral or that
Amada was not the owner of the same is
immaterial. B.P. 22 punishes the mere act of
issuing a worthless check since the law is a malum
prohibitum. The law did not look either at the
actual ownership of the check or of the account
against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at
the intention of the drawer, maker, or issuer.
However, the Court also said that the presentation
of registry receipts is not enough to establish that
notice of dishonor was given to the accused.
SAN MATEO V. PEOPLE (692 SCRA 660)
FACTS:
Petitioner San Mateo issued postdated checks in
partial payment of the assorted yarns bought from
ITSP International. When Sehwani deposited one
of the checks, it was dishonored for insufficiency of
funds. San Mateo failed to settle her outstanding
account, despite Sehwani’s requests for payment.
HELD:
Relating to the second element of violation of B.P.
22, Section 2 of said law creates the presumption
that the issuer of the check has been aware of the
insufficiency of funds when he has issued a check
and the bank dishonors it. This presumption,
however, arises only after it has been proved that
the issuer has received a written notice of dishonor
and that, within five days from receipt thereof, has
failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment.
In this case, there is no basis in concluding that
San Mateo knew of the insufficiency of her funds.
While she may have requested to Sehwani to defer
depositing all checks, this did not amount to an
admission that, when she issued the checks, she
knew that she would have no sufficient funds in the
drawee bank to pay for them.
THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10640)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec. 4,
R.A. No. 9165);
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,

distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs
and / or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals (Article II, Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165);
3. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous

drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals are used or sold (Article II, Sec. 6, R.A.
No. 9165);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
4. Being employees of the den, dive or resort
(Article II, Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9165):
a. Any employee of a den, dive, or resort who is aware
of the nature of the place as such
b. Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is aware
of the nature of the place as such and shall
knowingly visit the same
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or

controlled precursors and essential chemicals
(Article II, Sec. 8, R.A. No. 9165)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
6. Illegal diversion of any controlled precursor and
essential chemical (Article II, Sec. 9, R.A. No. 9165);
7. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument,

apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous
chemicals (Article II, Sec. 10), R.A. No. 9165;
8. Possession of dangerous drug (Article II, Sec. 11,

R.A. No. 9165);
9. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and

other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs (Article II,
Sec. 12, R.A. No. 9165)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
10. Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social
gatherings or meetings will merit maximum penalty
regardless of quantity and purity (Article II, Sec. 13, R.A.
No. 9165);
11. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus for

dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings, or
meetings merit maximum penalty (Article II, Sec. 14, R.A.
No. 9165);
12. Use of dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 15, R.A. No.
9165);
Note: This section will not apply where the person

tested positive is also found to have in his possession
dangerous drugs; section on "possession of dangerous drugs"
will apply)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
13. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as
dangerous drugs (Article II, Sec. 16, R.A. No. 9165);
14. Maintenance and keeping of original records of

transactions on dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals (Article II, Sec.
17, R.A. No. 9165);
15. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs

(Article II, Sec. 18, R.A. No. 9165); and
16. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs (Article II,

Sec. 19, R.A. No. 9165).
ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY
(ART. II, SEC. 26, R.A. NO. 9165)
Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following shall
be punishable:
a. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled

precursors and essential chemicals;
b. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and /
or controlled precursors and essential chemicals;
c. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous
chemicals are used or sold;
d. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals;
e. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous
drugs.
SALIENT FEATURES
 Plea-Bargaining Provision - A person charged
under R.A. No. 9165 shall not be allowed to avail of
the provision on plea-bargaining (Article II, Sec.
23, R.A. No. 9165) .
 Non-Applicability of the Probation Law - A

person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing
cannot avail of the privilege granted by the
Probation Law (Article II, Sec. 24, R.A. No. 9165).
 Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - A

positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs
shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the commission of a crime by an offender (Article
II, Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Rules on Possession and Use of Dangerous Drugs
(Sections 11 and 15 of R.A. No. 9165):
 If the person apprehended or arrested is found to be
positive for use of any dangerous drug, he shall be
imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first
offense (Section 15, R.A. No. 9165).;
 If he is apprehended using any dangerous drug for the

second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day
to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00) (Section 15, R.A. No. 9165).;
 If he is found to have in his/her possession such quantity

of dangerous drugs provided for under Section 11, R.A. No.
9165, he shall be punished for possession only (Section
15, in relation to Section 11, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code;
Applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law -
 Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the

contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall
not apply to the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 except in the
case of minor offenders (Article II, Sec. 98, R.A. No. 9165).
 Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts

punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in R.A.
No. 9165 shall be reclusion perpetua to death (Article II,
Sec. 98, R.A. No. 9165).
 If the offense is punished by a special law (e.g. R.A. No.

9165), the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall
not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same (Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence
Law).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code;
Applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law -
 People v. Mantalaba (G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011)

The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can
now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be
imposed. Applying the rules, the proper penalty should be one degree
lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been
appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the
penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the
maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion
temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor
aggravating circumstance. The ISLAW is applicable in the present
case because the penalty which has been originally an indivisible
penalty (reclusion perpetua to death), where ISLAW is inapplicable,
became a divisible penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the
presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, would be the
proper imposable penalty.
SALIENT FEATURES
 Voluntary Submission of a Drug Dependent to
Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation - A
drug dependent or any person who violates Section
15 of R.A. No. 9165 may, by himself/herself or
through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative
within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity,
apply to the Board or its duly recognized
representative, for treatment and rehabilitation of
the drug dependency (Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
 Upon such application, the Board shall bring forth

the matter to the Court which shall order that the
applicant be examined for drug dependency
(Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation -
 If the examination by a DOH-accredited physician

results in the issuance of a certification that the
applicant is a drug dependent, he/she shall be
ordered by the Court to undergo treatment and
rehabilitation in a Center designated by the Board
for a period of not less than six (6) months: Provided,
That a drug dependent may be placed under the care
of a DOH-accredited physician where there is no
Center near or accessible to the residence of the drug
dependent or where said drug dependent is below
eighteen (18) years of age and is a first-time offender
and non-confinement in a Center will not pose a
serious danger to his/her family or the community
(Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES

Confinement, Treatment and Rehabilitation -
 Confinement in a Center for treatment and

rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year, after
which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall be
apprised by the head of the treatment and
rehabilitation center of the status of said drug
dependent and determine whether further
confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
dependent and his/her family or the community
(Section 54, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the
Voluntary Submission Program - A drug dependent
under the voluntary submission program, who is finally
discharged from confinement, shall be exempt from the
criminal liability under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165
subject to the following conditions:
1. He/she has complied with the rules and regulations of

the center, the applicable rules and regulations of the
Board, including the after-care and follow-up program
for at least eighteen (18) months following temporary
discharge from confinement in the Center or, in the
case of a dependent placed under the care of the DOH-
accredited physician, the after-care program and follow-
up schedule formulated by the DSWD and approved by
the Board: Provided, That capability-building of local
government social workers shall be undertaken by the
DSWD (Section 55, R.A. 9165);
SALIENT FEATURES
 Exemption from the Criminal Liability Under the
Voluntary Submission Program – conditions:
2. He/she has never been charged or convicted of any

offense punishable under R.A. No. 9165, the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended; the Revised Penal Code, as amended; or any
special penal laws (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165);
3. He/she has no record of escape from a Center: Provided,

That had he/she escaped, he/she surrendered by
himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse,
guardian or relative within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, within one (1) week from the
date of the said escape (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165); and
4. He/she poses no serious danger to himself/herself,

his/her family or the community by his/her exemption
from criminal liability (Section 55, R.A. No. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Filing of Charges Against a Drug Dependent

Who is Not Rehabilitated Under the
Voluntary Submission Program –
• A drug dependent, who is not rehabilitated after

the second commitment to the Center under the
voluntary submission program, shall, upon
recommendation of the Board, be charged for
violation of Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 and
prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted,
he/she shall be credited for the period of
confinement and rehabilitation in the Center in
the service of his/her sentence (Section 58, R.A. No.
9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Compulsory Confinement of a Drug
Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the
Voluntary Submission Program –
 Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to

the contrary, any person determined and found to
be dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon
petition by the Board or any of its authorized
representative, be confined for treatment and
rehabilitation in any Center duly designated or
accredited for the purpose (Section 61, R.A. 9165).
• A petition for the confinement of a person alleged

to be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center
may be filed by any person authorized by the
Board with the Regional Trial Court of the
province or city where such person is found
(Section 61, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
o Compulsory Confinement of a Drug
Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the
Voluntary Submission Program -
• After the petition is filed, the court, by an order,

shall immediately fix a date for the hearing, and a
copy of such order shall be served on the person
alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs, and to
the one having charge of him (Section 61, R.A.
9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
o Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent
Who Refuses to Apply Under the Voluntary
Submission Program -
• If after such hearing and the facts so warrant, the court
shall order the drug dependent to be examined by two (2)
physicians accredited by the Board. If both physicians
conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the
court shall order his/her discharge. If either physician finds
him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a hearing
and consider all relevant evidence which may be offered. If
the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall issue an
order for his/her commitment to a treatment and
rehabilitation center under the supervision of the DOH. In
any event, the order of discharge or order of confinement or
commitment shall be issued not later than fifteen (15) days
from the filing of the appropriate petition (Section 61, R.A.
9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Compulsory Submission of a Drug

Dependent Charged with an Offense to
Treatment and Rehabilitation –
• If a person charged with an offense where the

imposable penalty is imprisonment of less than six
(6) years and one (1) day, and is found by the
prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the
proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the prosecutor
or the court as the case may be, shall suspend all
further proceedings and transmit copies of the record
of the case to the Board. (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
 Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent
Charged with an Offense to Treatment and
Rehabilitation –
 In the event the Board determines, after medical

examination, that public interest requires that such
drug dependent be committed to a center for treatment
and rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for his/her
commitment with the regional trial court of the
province or city where he/she is being investigated or
tried (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
Rehabilitation –
 Where a criminal case is pending in court, such petition

shall be filed in the said court. The court shall take
judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the case and
shall proceed to hear the petition. If the court finds him
to be a drug dependent, it shall order his/her
commitment to a Center for treatment and
rehabilitation. The head of said Center shall submit to
the court every four (4) months, or as often as the court
may require, a written report on the progress of the
treatment. If the dependent is rehabilitated, as certified
by the center and the Board, he/she shall be returned to
the court, which committed him, for his/her discharge
therefrom (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
SALIENT FEATURES
Rehabilitation –
 Thereafter, the prosecution for any offense punishable

by law shall be instituted or shall continue, as the case
may be. In case of conviction, the judgment shall, if the
accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation
center to have maintained good behavior, indicate that
he/she shall be given full credit for the period he/she
was confined in the Center: Provided, however, That
when the offense is for violation of Section 15 of R.A.
No. 9165 and the accused is not a recidivist, the penalty
thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the
Center upon his/her release therefrom after
certification by the Center and the Board that he/she is
rehabilitated (Section 62, R.A. 9165).
PEOPLE V. MARIACOS (2010)
FACTS:
Accused, her companion and a policeman were
onbaord a jeepney. Based intelligence reports, the
policeman approached them to check their bag.
Upon inquiring, Accused and her companion ran.
However, Accused was arrested where her bags
were searched in the precinct. Bricks of marijuana
were discovered.
PEOPLE V. MARIACOS (2010)
HELD:
When a person is charged with illegal possession or
transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership
thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of
ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not
necessary. Accused’s alleged lack of knowledge does
not constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal
intent and good faith are not exempting
circumstances where the crime charged is malum
prohibitum, as in this case.
PEOPLE V. NOQUE (2010)
FACTS:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation, Noque sold
drugs to two (2) policemen and was caught with
shabu in his house.
HELD:
The prosecution successfully proved that the
Accused violated Sec. 15, Article III of R.A. No.
6425. The prosecutions evidence establised the
concurrence of the elements of an illegal sale of
drugs, , to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and
seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
PEOPLE V. DITONA (638 SCRA 835)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with violation of R.A. No.
9165. He alleges that the evidence seized is
inadmissible as the policemen did not observe the
proper documentation of the evidence seized.
PEOPLE V. DITONA (638 SCRA 835)
HELD:
The accused was acquitted. To successfully prosecute an
accused for selling illegal drugs, the prosecution has to
prove: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment for it. In this case, the
prosecution failed to establish the required chain of
custody of the prohibited drugs through the testimonies
of the police officers. While the RTC noted that SPO1
Flores and PO3 Ventura placed their initials, “AF” and
“NV,” on the seized drugs, they did not identify the
markings as theirs during their direct testimonies, nor
did they testify when and where they made such
markings. Moreover, they failed to show how the seized
drugs reached the laboratory technician who examined
it and how the same were stored pending turnover to
the court.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS
PEOPLE V. NICART (2012)
FACTS:
In this case, the accused were charged and
convicted of violation of illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.
Sometime in July 2003, the authorities received

information that a certain “Milo” was engaged in
drug pushing. Based on this information, the
authorities conducted a buy-bust operation where
the accused were arrested.
HELD:
The Court, having found all the requisites of the
crime, affirmed the conviction of the accused and
reiterated the requisites for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs which are as follows:
 the identities of the buyer and the seller, the

object of the sale, and the consideration;
 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
for the thing; and
 the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
as evidence
HELD:
The Court also stated that the requisite of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs are likewise present.
The Court enumerated the requisites as follows:
 the accused is in possession of an item or

object that is identified to be prohibited or
dangerous drug;
 such possession is not authorized by law; and
 the accused freely and consciously possessed
the drug.
PEOPLE V. CATUBAY (2016)
FACTS:
A team composed of members of the Intelligence
Operatives Section of the PNP, PDEA and NBI
implemented a buy-bust operation against Amaro
Catubay.
When Catubay received the mark money,

they went inside Catubay’s house where the sachet
of shabu was given. Catubay was immediately
placed under arrest. The rest of the buy-bust team
then entered Catubay’s residence to serve and
implement the search warrant.
HELD:
For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the
following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. In the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money consummate the illegal transaction. What
matters is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
prohibited drug, the corpus delicti as evidence.
HELD:
In this case, the Court believes and so-holds that
all the requisites for the illegal sale of shabu were
met. As demonstrated by the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and the supporting
documents they presented and offered, the
identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited
drug, and the marked money, have all been proven
by the required quantum of evidence.
PEOPLE V. ZACARIA (2016)
FACTS:
After SP02 Montederamos showed the money to
Zacaria, the latter handed one (I) plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance to SP02
Montederamos, who immediately called the other
police officers.
Zacaria assails his conviction stating that

there was no illegal sale as no money changed
hands.
PEOPLE V. ZACARIA (2016)
HELD:
As correctly held by the lower courts, the elements
of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or sale of
illegal drugs: (1) the identities of the buyer and
seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it,
are present. The fact that no money changed hands
is not a fatal defect. There is no requirement that
in buy-bust operations, there must be a
simultaneous exchange of the marked money and
the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and
the pusher.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (2012)
FACTS:
Zafra and Marcelino were charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs while Daluz was charged
with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The lone
witness, a policeman, saw accused Zafra and accused
Marcelino holding shabu while accused Daluz was
holding drug paraphernalia. He was conducting
surveillance operations, by himself, in front of a certain
sari-sari due to reported drug trafficking in the area.
There he saw all three (3) accused standing and facing
each other. Thus, he single-handedly arrested them and
brought them to the Police Station where he personally
marked the seized items.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (2012)
HELD:
Being the sole witness, the credibility of SPO4
Mendoza is questionable and his inconsistent
statements being fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Possession of drug paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu
are two different offenses under R.A. No. 9165.
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the

acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is
unexplained and puts the proof of corpus delicti,
which is the illegal object itself in serious doubt.
PEOPLE V. ZAFRA (CONT.)
Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural
requirements does not necessarily render the
seizure and custody of the items void and invalid;
the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a)
there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance,
and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are shown to have been properly
preserved. These conditions, however, were not met
in this case as the prosecution did not even attempt
to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4
Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the
handling of the seized items.
PEOPLE V. RELATO (2012)
FACTS:
The accused was charged with violating Section 5
of R.A. 9165 (sale of illegal drugs). The contention
of the accused is that the procedure laid down in
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not followed.
HELD:
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 provides for the procedure
to be followed in the seizure and custody of
prohibited drugs and paraphernalia, or the chain of
custody rule.
PEOPLE V. RELATO (2012)
HELD:
This procedure was not followed by the buy-bust
team.
First, no photograph was taken;
Second, the team did not immediately mark
the seized items at the scene of the crime. The
marking immediately after seizure is the starting
point in the custodial link, because succeeding
handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items
will use the markings as reference.
PEOPLE V. RELATO (CONT.)
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, the State not
only carries the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense, but also bears the
obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in
which the State will not discharge its basic duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
EXCEPTION TO CHAIN OF
CUSTODY RULE
PEOPLE V. SABADLAB (2012)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with Illegal possession and
sale of shabu through a buy-bust operation
conducted by the police. He assails his conviction
because: (1) his name was incorrectly spelled; (2) no
PDEA agent was present; and (3) lack of prior
surveillance.
PEOPLE V. SABADLAB (2012)
HELD:
First, the fact that the report did not contain his name
accurately shall not necessarily mean that the identity
of the accused was not proven.
Second, the provision requiring close coordination with
the PDEA on all drug related matters, as well as the
Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the law
cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an
arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or
evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest
inadmissible; and
Lastly, a prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the
validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation.
PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA (2012)
FACTS:
Accused was arrested pursuant to a buy-bust
operation. Accused now assails his conviction on
the ground that the chain of custody rule was not
properly applied when handling the evidence seized
from him.
HELD:
The rule on chain of custody demands the identification
of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the
purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements
of illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time
they are seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court. Here, the buy-bust team did not
mark the sachets until after reaching the police station.
Even so, the omission did not destroy the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated items. The
Court was satisfied that the police officers brought the
confiscated sachets of shabu to the police station
immediately after the buy-bust operation, and turned
them over to the investigator on-duty for marking.
It has been held that a non-compliance with the
regulations is not necessarily fatal to render
an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence
of his guilt, for what is of the utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the confiscated
items that will be utilized in the
determination of his guilt or innocence.
PEOPLE V. FIGUEROA (2012)
The main defense of the accused was that the police
officers violated Sec. 86 of R.A. No. 9165, requiring the
PNP to maintain close coordination with the PDEA on
all drug related matters. Such defense, however, is not
meritorious. Said provision does not invalidate
operations on account of the law enforcers’ failure to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA. The law is
silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part
of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA
prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This silence
cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an
arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or
evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest
inadmissible.
POSIQUIT V. PEOPLE (2012)
In this case the police received a report that a certain
group was conducting a “pot session.” Thereafter, the
police mobilized its search team to locate the group.
Upon arrival of the search team’s vehicle in front of the
house where the session is being held, the accused and
his group started to scamper. Despite their efforts, the
police were still able to apprehend them. The accused
argues that the prosecution failed to establish that he
was in conspiracy with his other co-accused to use or
possess illegal drugs.
The Supreme Court said, however, that the

circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the
crime of possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165.
The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of
dangerous drugs does not exist.
PEOPLE V. POSADA (2012)
FACTS: A buy bust operation was conducted by the
police. Emily was paid P250 for a sachet of shabu. She
went home and got a purse where a sachet of shabu was
placed. Upon giving the poseur buyer the sachet, her
husband Roger appeared and gave her 12 sachets of
shabu which were put inside Emily’s purse. The police
arrested Emily on the spot while Roger ran to his house.
The police secured a search warrant and arrested Roger
and confiscated paraphernalia from the accused.
HELD: Constructive possession, that is, the relation

between the owner of the drug and the drug itself when
the owner is not in actual physical possession, but when
it is still under his control and management and
PEOPLE V. POSADA (2012)
subject to his disposition. In other words, we
recognize the fact that a person remains to be in
possession of the prohibited drugs although he may
not have or may have lost physical possession of
the same.
While Roger had lost physical possession of the

said 12 sachets of shabu, he had constructive
possession of the same because they remain to be
under his control and management.
PEOPLE V. BRILLANTES (2012)
FACTS:
Accused was convicted for Illegal Possession and
sale of drugs. While pending appeal, Accused died.
ISSUE: Is there any civil liability for violation of

R.A. No. 9165?
HELD: There is no civil liability involved in

violations of R.A. No. 9165 since there is no private
offended party involved as there is in fact no
reference to civil liability in the decision.
ESTIPONA V. LABRIGO
G.R. NO. 226679, 15 AUGUST 2017
FACTS:
Estipona was charged with violation of Sec. 11 of
R.A. No. 9165. He filed a Motion to Allow the
Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea
and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation
of Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 9165. However, the judge
denied his motion stating that Sec. 23 states that
plea bargaining in drug cases is prohibited.
Estipona argues that Sec. 23 is unconstitutional.
ESTIPONA V. LABRIGO
G.R. NO. 226679, 15 AUGUST 2017
HELD:
Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate
rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the
Court’s exclusive domain and no longer shared
with the Executive and Legislative departments.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
FIREARMS
(P.D. NO. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A.
NO. 8294 AND R.A. NO. 10591)
PUNISHABLE ACTS
1. Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms
and ammunition (Sec. 28, R.A. No. 10591);
Aggravating Circumstances:
a. Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded
magazine;
b. Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to
guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal
weapon sight and the like;
c. Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm
muffler or firearm silencer;
d. Accompanied with an extra barrel;
e. Converted to be capable of firing full automatic
bursts.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
2. Use of Loose Firearm in the commission of a
crime – considered as an aggravating
circumstance (Sec. 29, R.A. No. 10591);
3. Carriage of registered firearm outside of

residence by a license person without any legal
authority therefor (Sec. 31, R.A. No. 10591);
4. Unlawful Manufacture, sale, importation,

acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms
or ammunition or instruments (Sec. 32(a), R.A.
No. 10591);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
6. Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by any
laborer, worker or employee of a licensed
firearms dealer of parts of firearms or
ammunition which the company manufactures
and sells, and other materials used by the
company in the manufacture or sale of firearms
or ammunition (Sec. 32(b), R.A. No. 10591);
6. Arms smuggling (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 10591);
7. Unlawful tampering, obliteration or alteration

of firearm’s identification (Sec. 34, R.A. No.
10591);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
9. Planting evidence or the willful and malicious
insertion, placing and/or attachment or parts
thereof in the person, house, effects or in the
immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for
the purpose of implicating or incriminating the
person, or imputing the commission of any
violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 10591 to
said individual (Sec. 38, R.A. No. 10591);
10. Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light

weapon to the Firearms and Explosives Office
(FEO) of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
within 30 days from discovery (Sec. 40(a), R.A.
No. 10591);
PUNISHABLE ACTS
11. Failure to notify the FEO of the PNP of a
licensed person’s change of residence or office
address, other than that indicated in the license
card, within 30 days from transfer (Sec. 40(b),
R.A. No. 10591); and
12. Illegal transfer or registration of firearms to any

person who has not yet be obtained or secured
the necessary license or permit thereof (Sec. 41,
R.A. No. 10591).
NEW FIREARMS LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM
THE OLD FIREARMS LAW
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
R.A. NO. 8294 (New Firearms Law /
(Old Firearms Law) Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act)
When another crime is also committed
The unlawful manufacture, sale, If the use of a loose firearm is
acquisition, disposition or inherent in the commission of a
possession of firearms or crime punishable under the RPC
ammunition is punishable or other special laws – the use of
provided no other crime was loose firearm is an aggravating
committed (Sec.1 of P.D. 1866, as circumstance (Sec. 29). Hence, the
amended by R.A. 8294). What is penalty for the use of a loose
punished is the other crime. firearm is not imposed.
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
NO. 8294 (New Firearms Law /
When another crime is also committed
Nevertheless, when the other offense However, if the crime is committed
involved is not one of those enumerated by the person without using the loose
under R.A. 8294 (homicide, murder, firearm, the violation of this law shall
rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and be considered as a distinct and
attempted coup d'état), then the separate offense (Sec. 29).
separate case for illegal possession of
firearm should continue to be
prosecuted. This is because the word
“committed” taken in its ordinary sense,
and in light of the Constitutional
presumption of innocence, necessarily
implies a prior determination of guilt by
final conviction resulting from successful
prosecution or voluntary admission
(Celino, Sr. v. CA, G.R. No. 170562, 29
June 2007).
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591

R.A. NO. 8294 (New Firearms Law /
When considered as an aggravating circumstance
If homicide or murder is If the use of a loose firearm is

committed with the use of inherent in the commission of a
unlicensed firearm – the use of crime punishable under the RPC
unlicensed firearm is an or other special laws – the use of
aggravating circumstance. loose firearm is an aggravating
circumstance (Sec. 29).
P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
(Old Firearms Law) (New Firearms Law / Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act)
When absorbed as an element of another crime

If the manufacture, sale, If the use of a loose firearm is
acquisition, disposition or in furtherance of, or incident to,
possession of firearms or or in connection with the crime of
explosives is in furtherance of or (RIA):
incident to, or in connection with 1. Rebellion,
the crime of (RISA): 2. Insurrection, or
1. Rebellion, 3. Attempted coup d'état,
2. Insurrection, the violation shall be absorbed
3. Sedition, or as an element of the crime of
4. Attempted coup d'état, rebellion or insurrection, or
the violation is absorbed as an attempted coup d'état (Sec. 29).
element of rebellion, or
insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d'état.
PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM (2000)
FACTS:
Four informations were filed against Ladjaalam in
the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, three
of which he was found guilty, to wit: (1)
maintaining a drug den; (2) illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition; and (30 direct assault
with multiple attempted homicide.
ISSUE:
Can the use of an unlicensed firearm be considered
as an aggravating circumstance?
PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM (2000)
HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides
that any person who shall unlawfully possess any
firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, unless
no other crime was committed. Furthermore, 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. Since the crime committed was
direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal
possession of firearm cannot be deemed an
aggravating circumstance.
AGOTE V. LORENZO (2005)
FACTS:
Agote was charged to have violated Presidential
Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Posssession of Firearms)
and a COMELEC resolution (gun ban). He carried
a .38 caliber revolver with four (4) live bullets in a
public place during election. During the pendency
of the case, R.A. No. 8294 was approved into law.
The trial court found Agote liable of the charges
against. Agote assails that the penalty for illegal
possession of firearms had already been reduced
pursuant to R.A. No. 8294.
AGOTE V. LORENZO (2005)
HELD:
Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person
guilty of a felony. Republic Act No. 8294 lowers the
penalty for illegal possession of firearms depending
on the class of firearm possessed. The lighter penalty
may be imposed to a person who shall unlawfully
possess any firearm or ammunition, “unless no other
crime was committed”.
But as violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or
the Gun Ban was also committed by the petitioner at
the same time, the Court cannot but set aside
petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of
firearm.
EVANGELISTA V. PEOPLE (2010)
FACTS:
Teofilo Evangelista was an OFW from Angola on
his way back to the Philippines. While he was in
Dubai Airport, the authorities discovered that
Evangelista was carrying an Israeli submachine
gun with ammunition without license. This was
reported to the PAL Officers in Dubai and the gun
was handed to the pilot. Upon arriving at NAIA, he
was arrested by the Customs police and was made
to sign a Customs Declaration Form. In his
defense, Evangelista claims that he had no actual
possession of the firearms as it was with the plane
pilot
EVANGELISTA V. PEOPLE (2010)
HELD:
To be guilty of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition, one does not have to be in actual
possession thereof. The law does not punish
physical possession alone but possession on general
including constructive possession or the subjection
of the thing to the owner’s control. It is a state of
mind but the real intent could be determined based
on his prior or contemporaneous acts and
surrounding circumstances explaining how he
came into possession. The Customs declaration
form and admissions during trial were used as
basis for showing he owned and possessed the
items.
THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
(ACT NO. 4103, AS AMENDED)
 In imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code for the offense (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103).
 If the offense is punished by any other law, the court

shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum
term prescribed by the same (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103).
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Under Sec. 2, Act No. 4103:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
to the following:
1. persons convicted of offenses punished with death

penalty or life-imprisonment;
2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal
to commit treason;
3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition or espionage;
4. those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the high
seas or Philippine waters;
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
5. those who are habitual delinquents;

6. those who have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
7. those who having been granted conditional pardon by
the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms
thereof;
8. those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one (1) year;
9. those already sentenced by final judgment at the time
of approval of Act No. 4103; and
10. Those convicted for violation of the laws on terrorism,
plunder and transnational crimes. (Sec. 2, Act No.
4103).
PEOPLE V. MANTALABA (2011)
FACTS: Allen Mantalaba was arrested by the
authorities in an entrapment operation. Allen was
17 years old when he was arrested. He was found
guilty and was imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
HELD: Minority must be recognized or appreciated

in fixing the penalty. Since minority is a special
mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be one
degree lower. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the proper penalty should be prision mayor as
minimum and reclusion temporal as maximum.
PEOPLE V. ROMUA
G.R. NO. 126175, 29 MAY 1997
FACTS:
Accused was convicted for the rape of a 24-year old
mental retardate. The Regional Trial Court,
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 14 years
and 8 months.
PEOPLE V. ROMUA
G.R. NO. 126175, 29 MAY 1997
HELD:
For offense in which the law prescribes the single,
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, it is the
first paragraph of Art. 63 of the Revised Penal
Code and not the Indeterminate Sentence Law
which applies.
PEOPLE V. JARANILLA
G.R. NO. L-28547, 22 FEBRUARY 1974
FACTS:
Jaranilla et, al. were charged with robbery with
homicide with the following aggravating
circumstances: (1) use of motor vehicle; (2)
nocturnity; (3) band; (4) contempt to or insult to
public authorities; and (5) recidivism. Except for
Jaranilla, his co-accused were found guilty for the
crime of robbery with homicide. The other co-
accused appealed their conviction.
PEOPLE V. JARANILLA
HELD:
The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred
pesos is punishable by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods (Art. 309[3],
Revised Penal Code). That penalty should be
imposed in its maximum period because only
aggravating circumstances are present.
As co-principals in the theft of six fighting cocks,
they are each sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as
minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional as maximum and (b) ordered
to indemnify solidarily the complainant, Valentin
Baylon, in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500).
LADINO V. GARCIA (1996)
FACTS:
Accused was charged with the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide. Accused offered to plead
guilty, which was conformed to by the prosecutor and
the respondent judge. Pursuant to the plea of guilty to
the crime of homicide, the trial court rendered an Order
reciting the aforestated antecedents, declaring both
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide, and sentencing each of them to a prison term
of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years, 4 months
and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to severally pay
the civil liability. Accused now asssails the penalty
imposed on him in light of the ISL.
LADINO V. GARCIA (1996)
HELD:
The trial court must have also proceeded on the
hypothesis that where a lesser penalty has been
imposed for an offense lighter than that in the original
indictment, because of the agreement among the
accused, the prosecutor and the offended party for such
reduced liability, the Indeterminate Sentence Law
should not apply in toto.
From that undisputable and obvious premise, it
follows that the aforecited provisions of Act No. 4103, as
amended, shall necessarily apply. Also on that score,
it should be kept in mind that to determine
whether an indeterminate sentence and not a
straight penalty is proper, what is considered is
the penalty actually imposed by the trial court,
after considering the attendant circumstances,
and not the imposable penalty.
AGONCILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS (1998)
FACTS:
Agoncillo, et. al. were found guilty of illegal fishing
with the use of an explosive. The Regional Trial
Court meted out the penalty of twenty (20) years
imprisonment unto Agoncillo, et. al. Then,
Agoncillo et, al. assailed the penalty imposed upon
him and his companions.
AGONCILLO V. COURT OF APPEALS (1998)
HELD:
The penalty imposed by law for illegal fishing if
explosive is actually used is imprisonment ranging
from twenty (20) years to life imprisonment. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if, as in
this case, the offense is punished by a law other
than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum term prescribed by
the same. The trial court therefore erred when it
sentenced petitioners to "suffer a straight penalty
of twenty (20) years imprisonment."
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY
R.A. NO. 10630
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
(SEC.6, R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A.
NO. 10630 )
 A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall be
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344, as amended.(Par. 1, Sec.
6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
 A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen

(18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment,
in which case, such child shall be subjected to
appropriate proceedings. (Par. 3, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344
as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
(SEC.6, R.A. NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A.
NO. 10630 )
 A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time

of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability. A child is deemed to be
fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.(Par.
2, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No.
10630)
 The exemption from criminal liability does not

include exemption from civil liability. (Par. 4, Sec. 6,
R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
SERIOUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY CHILDREN
WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY (SEC.20,R.A. NO. 9344, AS
AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10630 )
 A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15)
years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide,
kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is
killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive
arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is
killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by
more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be
deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603 (The Child and
Youth Welfare Code), as amended, and shall be mandatorily
placed in a special facility within the youth care faculty or
‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention
and Support Center. (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by
R.A. No. 10630)
REPETITION OF OFFENSES (SEC.20,R.A.
NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630 )
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15)
years of age and who commits an offense for the second time
or oftener shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D. No.
603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive
intervention program supervised by the local social welfare
and development officer, provided that:
1. the child was previously subjected to a community-based

intervention program;
2. if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be
placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the
child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written
authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child;
and
REPETITION OF OFFENSES (SEC.20,R.A.
NO. 9344, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO.
10630 )
3. if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse
or fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary
commitment, the proper petition for involuntary
commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or
the LSWDO pursuant to P.D. No. 603, as amended. (Sec.
20-B, R.A. No. 9344 as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO.
10630
1. Creation of “Bahay – Pag-asa” (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 )
 Bahay Pag-asa refers to a 24-hour child-caring

institution established, funded and managed by local
government units (LGUs) and licensed and/or
accredited nongovernment organizations (NGOs)
providing short-term residential care for children in
conflict with the law who are above 15 but below 18
years of age who are awaiting court disposition of their
cases or transfer to other agencies or jurisdiction. Part
of the features of a ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ is an intensive
juvenile intervention and support center. This will
cater to children in conflict with the law (par. 1, Sec. 4
[s] of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).
.
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO.
10630
 Prior to the amendment, youth offenders are placed

in a “Youth Detention Center.” The new law, R.A. No.
10630, renames the temporary housing “Bahay Pag-
asa” and mandates the creation of a multidisciplinary
team for the protection of children composed of a
social worker, psychologist or mental health
professional, medical doctor, educational/guidance
counselor, and barangay council representative. (par.
3, Sec. 4 [s] of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No.
10630).
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. NO. 10630
2. Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes
(Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 )
 Any person who, in the commission of a crime,

makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the
use of children, including any person who abuses
his/her authority over the child or who, with abuse
of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities
of the child and shall induce, threaten or instigate
the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed
in its maximum period (Sec. 20-C of R.A. No. 9344,
as amended by R.A. No. 10630).
 This is a new provision.

3. Violations of Local Ordinances (Sec. 57, R.A. No.

 No penalty shall be imposed on children for said

violations, and they shall instead be brought to
their residence or to any barangay official at the
barangay hall to be released to the custody of their
parents (Sec. 57-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by
R.A. No. 10630).
3. Violations of Local Ordinances (Sec. 57, R.A. No.

 This is a new provision. Prior to the amendment, a

child may not be penalized for status offenses,
vagrancy, prostitution, mendicancy, and sniffing of
rugby (Secs. 57 and 58 of R.A. No. 9344). With the
enactment of R.A. No. 10630, the violation of local
ordinances is added to the list of offenses that shall
not be punished if committed by a child. (Sec. 57-A
of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630).
ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (2008)
FACTS:
At the time of commission of rape, the accused was
13 years old while the victim was 6. The case was
pending when the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006 (R.A. 9344) was enacted amending among
others the age of criminal irresponsibility being
raised from 9 to 15 years old. At the time of the
promulgation of judgment, the accused already
reached the age of majority.
ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (2008)
HELD:
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A.
9344) should be applied. By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the
age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9
to 15 years old, this law is evidently favorable to the
accused. Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of
the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly
proven by the certificate of live birth, by petitioner's
own testimony, and by the testimony of his
mother. Furthermore, petitioner’s age was never
assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and
the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the
commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age.
Under R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted from criminal
liability.
PEOPLE V. MONTICALVO (2013)
FACTS:
Monticlavo, a 17-year old male, was charged for the
rape of a minor suffering a mental disorder. The
trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Monticlavo alleged that at the time of the
commission of the offense, he was only 17 years old.
Thus, he is entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority.
PEOPLE V. MONTICALVO (2013)
HELD:
This Court finds merit in Monticalvo’s assertion that he
was a minor during the commission of the crime
charged. During trial, upon order of the trial court, the
Local Civil Registrar of Bobon, Northern Samar,
brought before it their office records, particularly
appellant’s Certificate of Live Birth containing the fact
of birth of the latter. Appellant’s Certificate of Live
Birth shows that he was born on 23 February 1985.
Indeed, at the time of the commission of the crime
charged on 9 December 2002, appellant was only 17
years old, a minor. Thus, he is entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article
68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
PEOPLE V. CORDOVA (1993)
FACTS:
Estorque, et. al were charged for double murder.
The trial court found the accused guilty for the
murder of the victims. Upon appeal, Estorque
alleged that during the time of the commission of
the offense, he was still thirteen (13) years old.
PEOPLE V. CORDOVA (1993)
HELD:
There is a further obstacle that stands in the way of
Estorque's conviction. While it has been proven he was
only thirteen years old at the time of the incident, there
are no allegations in both informations that Estorque
had acted with discernment. And even if we are to
consider the allegations that he had committed the
imputed acts "with intent to kill" as sufficient
compliance — as we have in the past — he would still
not be held liable as no proof was offered during
trial that he had so acted with discernment.
Accordingly, even if he was indeed a co-conspirator or
an accessory, he would still be exempt from criminal
liability.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
P.D. NO. 1829
PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 1, R.A. NO. 1829)
Any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing
any of the following acts: (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 1829)
 preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal

proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or
the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats; (Sec.
1[a], R.A. No. 1829)
 altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper,
record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity,
authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as
evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [b], R.A. No. 1829)
 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; (Sec. 1 [C], R.A. No. 1829)
 publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of

concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution
of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other
personal circumstances for the same purpose or
purposes; (Sec. 1 [D], R.A. No. 1829)
 delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by

obstructing the service of process or court orders or
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts; (Sec. 1 [e], R.A. No.
1829)
 making, presenting or using any record, document,

paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and
with intent to affect the course or outcome of the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases; (Sec. 1 [f], R.A. No. 1829)
 threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction
of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of
any immediate member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of,
or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a
person from appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1 [h], R.A. No. 1829) and
 giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or

prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending
the offender or from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in
confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of
background information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the
investigator or to the court. (Sec. 1 [i], R.A. No. 1829)
THE PROBATION LAW
P.D. NO. 968
PROBATION (SEC. 3, P.D. NO. 968)
Probation is a disposition under which an accused,

after conviction and sentence, is released subject to
conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer. It is a privilege
granted by the court; it cannot be availed of as a
matter of right by a person convicted of a crime. To
be able to enjoy the benefits of probation, it must
first be shown that an applicant has none of the
disqualifications imposed by law. (Sec. 3 [a], P.D.
No. 968)
DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS (SEC. 9, P.D. NO. 968)
Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is intended

for offenders who are 18 years of age and above, and
who are not otherwise disqualified by law. Offenders
who are disqualified are those:
 sentenced to serve a maximum term of

imprisonment of more than six (6) years; (Sec. 9 [a],
P.D. No. 968)
 convicted of subversion or any offense against the

security of the State, or the Public Order; (Sec. 9 [b],
P.D. No. 968)
DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS (SEC. 9, P.D. NO. 968)
 who have previously been convicted by final

judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of
not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of
not more than Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00);(Sec. 9
[c], P.D. No. 968)
 who have been once on probation; (Sec. 9 [d], P.D.

No. 968) and
 who are already serving sentence at the time the

substantive provisions of this law became. (Sec. 9 [e],
P.D. No. 968)
PROBATION CONDITIONS (SEC. 10, P.D. NO. 968)
 The mandatory conditions require that the

probationer shall:
a. present himself to the probation officer designated

to undertake his supervision at each place as may be
specified in the order within 72 hours from receipt of
said order, (par. 1, Sec. 10[a], P.D. No. 968)
and
b. report to the probation officer at least once a month

at such time and place as specified by said officer.
(par. 1, Sec. 10[b], P.D. No. 968)
PROBATION CONDITIONS (SEC. 10, P.D. NO. 968)
 Special or discretionary conditions are those

additional conditions imposed on the probationer
which are geared towards his correction and
rehabilitation outside of prison and right in the
community to which he belongs. (par. 2, Sec. 10, P.D.
No. 968)
EFFECTIVITY OF THE PROBATION ORDER
(SEC. 11, P.D. NO. 968)
 A violation of any of the conditions may lead either

to a more restrictive modification of the same or the
revocation of the grant of probation. Consequent to
the revocation, the probationer will have to serve the
sentence originally imposed. (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 968)
REVOCATION OF PROBATION (SEC. 15,
P.D. NO. 968)
 At any time during probation, the court may issue a
warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any
serious violation of the conditions of probation. The
probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
immediately be brought before the court for a
hearing of the violation charged. The defendant
may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In
such case, the provisions regarding release on bail
of persons charged with crime shall be applicable to
probationers arrested under this provision. An
order revoking the grant of probation or modifying
the terms and conditions thereof shall not be
appealable. (Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968)
TERMINATION OF PROBATION (SEC. 16,
P.D. NO. 968)
 After the period of probation and upon
consideration of the report and recommendation
of the probation officer, the court may order the
final discharge of the probationer upon finding
that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of
his probation and thereupon the case is deemed
terminated. (par. 1, Sec. 15, P.D. No. 968)
FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS (1995)
FACTS:
Francisco was found guilty by the MTC for multiple

grave oral defamation by his employees. He
elevated the case to the RTC, which affirmed the
MTC decision in toto. Francisco failed to appeal on
the RTC’s decision making it final. The MTC issued
a warrant of arrest, but before he was arrested,
Francisco filed an application for probation which
the MTC denied.
FRANCISCO V. COURT OF APPEALS
HELD:
Francisco is no longer eligible for probation. No

application for probation shall be entertained after
the judgment is final. Francisco lost his right to
probation when he appealed the MTC decision to
the RTC. The law considers appeal and probation
mutually exclusive remedies.
PABLO V. JUDGE CASTILLO (2000)
FACTS:
Pablo was charged with a violation of the Bouncing
Checks Law, in three (3) separate informations, for
issuing three bad checks.
On the first complaint, Pablo was adjudged guilty
of the said violation.
Subsequently, Pablo was found guilty for violating

the Bouncing Checks Law on the two (2) remaining
complaints. After judgment, he applied for
probation. His probation was denied due to the
conviction of the previous complaint.
PABLO V. JUDGE CASTILLO (2000)
HELD:
Section 9 paragraph (c) is in clear and plain language,
to the effect that a person who was previously convicted
by final judgment of an offense punishable by
imprisonment of not less than one month and one day
and/or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos, is
disqualified from applying for probation. This provision
of law is definitive and unqualified. There is nothing
in Section 9, paragraph (c) which qualifies
"previous conviction" as referring to a conviction
for a crime which is entirely different from that
for which the offender is applying for probation or
a crime which arose out of a single act or
transaction as petitioner would have the court to
understand.
SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (1999)
FACTS:
Accused Santos issued 54 checks which were
dishonored. Accused was charged with 54 counts of
violation of B.P. 22 in 54 separate informations.
After trial, she was found guilty for all 54
violations.
Subsequently, Accused applied for probation
and such application was granted by the trial court.
However, the appellate court reversed the trial
court’s decision due to her actions in thwarting the
satisfaction of her civil liabilities.
SANTOS V. COURT OF APPEALS (1999)
HELD:
Her issuing subject fifty-four (54) bouncing checks is a serious
offense. To allow petitioner to be placed on probation would be to
depreciate the seriousness of her malefactions. Worse, instead of
complying with the orders of the trial court requiring her to pay
her civil liability, she even resorted to devious schemes to evade
the execution of the judgment against her. Verily, petitioner is
not the penitent offender who is eligible for probation within
legal contemplation. Her demeanor manifested that she is
incapable to be reformed and will only be a menace to society
should she be permitted to co-mingle with the public.
With respect to the fourth issue, petitioners contention that her
probation is fait accompli is equally untenable. The six (6) year
period of probation which commenced on June 30, 1995, has not
yet been completed. Furthermore, even if the said period has
expired, such lapse of the period of probation does not detract
from the fact that the order granting probation was tainted with
grave abuse of discretion. Probation having been improperly
granted, there is no probation to speak of.
COLINARES V. PEOPLE (2011)
FACTS:
Colinares was charged and found guilty of
frustrated homicide by the RTC of Camarines Sur.
Since the penalty meted out exceeded six (6) years,
he did not qualify for probation. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Colinares argued that he should be entitled to

apply for probation in case the Court metes out a
new penalty on him that makes his offense
probationable. The Supreme Court found Colinares
guilty of attempted homicide only.
HELD:
But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser
crime of attempted homicide and holds that the
maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be
lowered to imprisonment of four months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and
four months of prision correccional, as
maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but
fair to allow him the right to apply for probation
upon remand of the case to the RTC.
HELD:
In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was
guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of
attempted homicide, is an original conviction that
for the first time imposes on him a probationable
penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the
start, it would have found him guilty of the correct
offense and imposed on him the right penalty of
two years and four months maximum. This would
have afforded Arnel the right to apply for
probation.
TRUST RECEIPTS LAW
P.D. NO. 115
TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (SEC. 4, P.D. NO. 115)
 This is any transaction by and between a person

referred to as the entruster, and entrustee, whereby the
entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security
interests over certain specified goods, documents or
instruments, releases the same to the possession of the
entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the
entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt.“
(Sec. 4, P.D. No. 115)
TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION (SEC. 4, P.D. NO. 115)
 The entrustee binds himself to hold the designated

goods, documents or instruments in trust for the
entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods,
documents or instruments with the obligation to turn
over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent
of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in
the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments
themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed
of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified
in the trust receipt, or for other purposes according to
the P.D. No. 115. (Sec. 4, P.D. No. 115)
PUNISHABLE ACTS (SEC. 13, P.D. NO. 115)
The failure of an entrustee to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or
instruments covered by a trust receipt to the
extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as
appears in the trust receipt or to return said
goods, documents or instruments if they were
not sold or disposed of in accordance with the
terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime
of estafa, punishable under the provisions of
Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. (Sec.
13, P.D. No. 115)
WHEN THE VIOLATION IS COMMITTED BY A
JURIDICAL ENTITY (SEC. 13, P.D. NO. 115)
If the violation or offense is committed by a

corporation, partnership, association or other
juridical entities, the penalty shall be imposed
upon the directors, officers, employees or other
officials or persons therein responsible for the
offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities
arising from the criminal offense. (Sec. 13, P.D. No.
115)
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT
R.A. NO. 10175
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
A. Offenses against the confidentiality,
integrity and availability of computer
data and systems:
 Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any

part of a computer system without right. (Sec. 4
[a.1], R.A. No.10175)
 Illegal Interception. – The interception made by
technical means without right of any non-public
transmission of computer data to, from, or within a
computer system including electromagnetic
emissions from a computer system carrying such
computer data. (Sec. 4 [a.2], R.A. No.10175)
 Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless

alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
computer data, electronic document, or electronic
data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses. (Sec. 4 [a.3],
R.A. No.10175)
 System Interference. — The intentional alteration

or reckless hindering or interference with the
functioning of a computer or computer network by
inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting,
deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer
data or program, electronic document, or electronic
data message, without right or authority, including
the introduction or transmission of viruses. (Sec. 4
[a.4], R.A. No.10175)
5. Misuse of Devices. (Sec. 4 [a.5], R.A.
No.10175)
 The use, production, sale, procurement,

importation, distribution, or otherwise making
available, without right, of:
a) A device, including a computer program,
designed or adapted primarily for the
purpose of committing any of the offenses
under R.A. No.10175; or
b) A computer password, access code, or similar
data by which the whole or any part of a
computer system is capable of being accessed
with intent that it be used for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under R.A.
No.10175.
5. Misuse of Devices. (Sec. 4 [a.5], R.A.
No.10175)
 The possession of an item referred to in

paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with
intent to use said devices for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this
section.
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES(SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
6. Cyber-squatting. (Sec. 4 [a.6], R.A. No.10175) –
The acquisition of a domain name over the
internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy
reputation, and deprive others from registering
the same, if such a domain name is:
i. Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an

existing trademark registered with the
appropriate government agency at the time of the
domain name registration:
ii. Identical or in any way similar with the name of
a person other than the registrant, in case of a
personal name; and
iii. Acquired without right or with intellectual
property interests in it.
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES(SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
B. Computer-related Offenses:
1. Computer-related Forgery. (Sec. 4 [b.1], R.A.

No.10175)
i. The input, alteration, or deletion of any
computer data without right resulting in
inauthentic data with the intent that it be
considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if
it were authentic, regardless whether or not the
data is directly readable and intelligible; or
ii. The act of knowingly using computer data
which is the product of computer-related forgery
as defined herein, for the purpose of
perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
2. Computer-related Fraud. (Sec. 4 [b.2], R.A.

No.10175) — The unauthorized input, alteration, or
deletion of computer data or program or
interference in the functioning of a computer
system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent
intent: Provided, That if no damage has yet been
caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1)
degree lower.
3. Computer-related Identity Theft. (Sec. 4 [b.3],

R.A. No.10175) – The intentional acquisition, use,
misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion
of identifying information belonging to another,
whether natural or juridical, without right:
Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused,
the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.
CYBERCRIME OFFENSES, (SEC. 4, R.A. NO.10175)
C. Content-related Offenses: (Sec. 4 [c], R.A. No.10175)
1. Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance,

control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any
lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity,
with the aid of a computer system, for favor or
consideration. (Sec. 4 [c.1], R.A. No.10175)
1. Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited

acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or
the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed
through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty
to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that
provided for in Republic Act No. 9775. (Sec. 4 [c.2], R.A.
No.10175)
3. Unsolicited Commercial Communications. (Sec.
4 [c.3], R.A. No.10175) — The transmission of
commercial electronic communication with the use
of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or
offer for sale products and services are prohibited
unless:
 There is prior affirmative consent from the

recipient; or
 The primary intent of the communication is for
service and/or administrative announcements
from the sender to its existing users, subscribers
or customers; or
 The following conditions are present:

a) The commercial electronic communication
contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the
recipient to reject. receipt of further commercial
electronic messages (opt-out) from the same
source;
b) The commercial electronic communication does
not purposely disguise the source of the electronic
message; and
c) The commercial electronic communication does
not purposely include misleading information in
any part of the message in order to induce the
recipients to read the message.
4. Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as
defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed through a computer system or
any other similar means which may be devised in
the future. (Sec. 4 [c.4], R.A. No.10175)
OTHER OFFENSES (SEC. 5, R.A. NO.10175)
a. Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of

Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or
aids in the commission of any of the offenses
enumerated in R.A. No.10175 shall be held
liable.
b. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. —

Any person who willfully attempts to commit
any of the offenses enumerated in R.A.
No.10175 shall be held liable.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS UNDER THE CYBERCRIME
PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012
(DISINI ET AL., V. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
1. Void for being Unconstitutional

• Section 4(c)(3) of R.A. No. 10175 that penalizes
posting of unsolicited commercial communications;
• Section 12 thereof that authorizes the collection or
recording of traffic data in real-time; and
• Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the
Department of Justice to restrict or block access to
suspected Computer Data.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
UNDER THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
2. Valid and Constitutional:

• Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system
without right;
• Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including
transmission of viruses;
• Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring
domain name over the internet in bad faith to the prejudice
of others;
• Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or
misuse of identifying information belonging to another;
• Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or
consideration;
• Section 4 (c)(2) that penalizes the production of child
pornography;
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)

• Section 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when
crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code are
committed with the use of information and communications
technologies;
• Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;
• Section 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to
require service providers to preserve traffic data and
subscriber information as well as specified content data for
six months;
• Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data
under a court-issued warrant;
• Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and
examination of computer data under a court-issued
warrant;
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
• Section 17 that authorizes the destruction of

previously preserved computer data after the
expiration of the prescribed holding periods;
• Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in
relation to cybercrime investigations;
• Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation
and Coordinating Center (CICC);
• Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and
Functions; and
• Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal
Code that penalizes libel.
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
3. Partly Valid and Unconstitutional
• Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as valid and

constitutional with respect to the original author of the post;
but void and unconstitutional with respect to others who
simply receive the post and react to it; and
• Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the

commission of cybercrimes as valid and constitutional only
in relation to:
• Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;

• Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception;
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
• Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission

of cybercrimes as valid and constitutional only in relation to:
• Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;
• Section 4(a)(4) on System Interference;
• Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices;
• Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;
• Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related Forgery;
• Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud;
• Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft; and
• Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex.
But void and unconstitutional with respect to:

 Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;
 Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications; and
 Section 4(c)(4) on online Libel.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNDER THE
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT 0F 2012
G.R. NO. 203335 , 11 FEBRUARY 2014)
4. Lastly, the Court resolved to leave the determination

of the correct application of Section 7 that authorizes
prosecution of the offender under both the Revised Penal
Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases, with the
exception of the crimes of:
• Online libel as to which, charging the offender under

both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353
of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the
proscription against double jeopardy; as well as
• Child pornography committed online as to which,

charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of R.A.
No. 10175 and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a violation of
the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is void
and unconstitutional.
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
(R.A. NO. 9372)
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF
TERRORISM (SEC. 3, R.A. NO. 9372)
 Offender commits an act punishable under any of

the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or
under any of the enumerated special penal laws;
 Commission of the predicate crime sows and
creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace; and
 Offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
TERRORISM
It is committed by any person who engages in any of the
following acts punishable under RPC and special laws:
A. Under the RPC
 Piracy in general and mutiny in the high seas or in

the Philippine waters (Art. 123, RPC)
 Rebellion or Insurrection(Art. 134, RPC)
 Coup d’etat including acts committed by private
persons(Art. 134-A, RPC)
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267,
RPC)
 Murder (Art. 248, RPC)
 Crimes involving Destruction ( Art. 320,RPC)
TERRORISM
B. Under Special Laws
 Decree codifying the laws on illegal and unlawful

possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or
disposition of firearms, ammunitions or explosives.
 Law on Arson ( P.D. No. 1613)
 Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery of Law of
1974 (P.D. No. 532)
 Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968
(R.A. No. 5207)
 Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Waste Control
Act of 1990(R.A. No. 6969)
 Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6265)
TERRORISM
Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under
R.A. No. 9372, there must first be a predicate
crime actually committed to trigger the
operation of the key qualifying phrases in the
other elements of the crime, including the
coercion of the government to accede to an unlawful
demand. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement
Network Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No.
1788552, 5 October 2010)
Note: The benefit of Parole under the

Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to
persons convicted under R.A. No. 9372. (Sec. 3, R.A.
9372)
WHO MAY BE LIABLE
1. Conspirator (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9372)
Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to
commit the same
Penalty: Forty years imprisonment
2. Accomplice (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9372)

Any person who, not being a principal or conspirator,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous
or simultaneous acts.
Penalty: 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years
imprisonment.
WHO MAY BE LIABLE
3. Accessory (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)
Any person who having knowledge of the
commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy
to commit terrorism, and without having
participated therein, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner:
a. Profiting himself or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime;
b. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime
or the effects or instruments thereof in order to
prevent its discovery; or
c. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape
of the principal or conspirator.
WHO MAY BE LIABLE
Exception (Not Liable):
Those who are such with respect to their: (i)
spouses, (ii) ascendants, (iii) descendants, (iv)
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, or (v) relatives by affinity within the same
degrees. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)
Exception to the exception (Liable):

Accessories falling within the provisions of
subparagraph (a). (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9372)
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND
INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF
COMMUNICATION
General Rule:
Notwithstanding R.A. No. 4020 (The Anti-Wire

Tapping Law), a police or law enforcement official and
members of his team may, upon written order of the
Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record any
communication between members of a judicially
declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group
of persons or of any person charged with or suspected
of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism. (Sec. 7, R.A. No. 9372)
SURVEILLANCE OF SUSPECTS AND
INTERCEPTION AND RECORDING OF
COMMUNICATION
Exception:
Communications between:
1. Lawyers and clients

2. Doctors and patients
3. Journalists and their sources
4. Confidential business correspondence . (Sec. 7,
R.A. No. 9372)
REQUISITES FOR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR
JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT AND
RECORD COMMUNICATION (SEC. 8, R.A. 9372)
1. There must be an ex parte application by the police

or law enforcement official;
2. The applicant must have been duly authorized in

writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council; and
REQUISITES FOR FORMAL APPLICATION FOR
JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO INTERCEPT AND
RECORD COMMUNICATION (SEC. 8, R.A. 9372)
3. Examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and

the witnesses he may produce to establish that:
a) There is probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts that the said Crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, is
being committed or is about to be committed;
b) There is probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts that evidence which is essential to the
conviction of any charged or suspected person, will be
obtained; and
c) There is no other effective means for acquiring such
evidence.
EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 125 OF RPC
(SEC. 19, R.A. 9372)
In the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack,

suspects may be detained for more than three (3)
days upon written approval of:
1. Municipal, city, provincial or regional official of

Human Rights Commission;
2. Judge of MTC, RTC or Sandiganbayan; or
3. Justice of CA nearest the place of arrest.
EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 125 OF RPC
(SEC. 19, R.A. 9372)
The written approval must be procured within
five (5) days after the date of detention;
Provided that within three (3) days after detention,
suspects whose connection with the terror attack or
threat is not established shall be released
immediately.
If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays,

Holidays or after office hours, the police or law
enforcement personnel shall bring the arrested
person to the residence of any of the officials
mentioned that is nearest the place where the
accused was arrested.
ACCESS DEVICES
REGULATION ACT OF 1998
R.A. NO. 8484
PROMINENT TERMS (SEC. 3)
Access Device – any card, plate, code, account

number, electronic serial number, personal
identification number, or other telecommunications
service, equipment, or instrumental identifier, or
other means of account access that can be used to
obtain money, good, services, or any other thing of
value or to initiate a transfer of funds (other than a
transfer originated solely by paper instrument);
Counterfeit Access Device – means any access

device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or
forged, or an identifiable component of an access
device or counterfeit access device;
Unauthorized Access Device – means any access

device that is stolen, lost, expired, revoked,
canceled, suspended, or obtained with intent to
defraud;
Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon

book, or other credit device existing for the purpose
of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or
services or any thing of value on credit;
Device Making or Altering Equipment – means

any equipment, mechanism or impression designed
or primarily used for making or altering or re-
encoding an access device or a counterfeit access
device;
Credit Card – means any card, plate, coupon

book, or other credit device existing for the purpose
of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or
services or any thing of value on credit;
Device Making or Altering Equipment – means

any equipment, mechanism or impression designed
or primarily used for making or altering or re-
encoding an access device or a counterfeit access
device;
Trafficking – means transferring, or otherwise

disposing of, to another, or obtaining control of,
with intent to transfer or dispose of.
PROHIBITED ACTS (SEC. 9)
The following acts are punishable:
 Producing, using, trafficking in one or more
counterfeit access devices;
 Trafficking in one or more unauthorized access
devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;
 Using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized
access device;
 Possession of counterfeit access devices;
 Producing, trafficking, possession, or custody of

device-making or altering equipment without
being in the business or employment, which
lawfully manufactures or deals with such;
 Allowing, inducing, permitting or enticing
another to produce, use or traffic in counterfeit
access devices or access devices fraudulently
applied for;
 Multiple imprinting on more than one
transaction record, sales slip or similar
document, making it appear that the device
holder has entered into another transaction;
 Disclosing any information imprinted on the
access device;
 Obtaining money or anything of value through
the use of access device, with intent to defraud or
gain and fleeing thereafter;
 In possession, without authority from the owner
of the access device or the access device company,
an access device, or any material, such as slips,
carbon paper, or any other medium, on which the
access device is written, printed or otherwise
indicated;
 Writing or causing to be written on sales slips,
approval numbers from issuers of access devices,
when in fact no such approval was made;
 Making any alteration without the access device
holder’s authority;
 In possession, without authority from the owner
of the access device or the access device company,
an access device, or any material, such as slips,
carbon paper, or any other medium, on which the
access device is written, printed or otherwise
indicated;
 Writing or causing to be written on sales slips,
approval numbers from issuers of access devices,
when in fact no such approval was made;
 Making any alteration without the access device
holder’s authority;
 effecting transaction, with one or more access devices
issued to another person or persons, to receive
payment or any other thing of value;
 Without the authorization of the issuer of the access
device, soliciting a person for the purpose of:
 Offering an access device; or
 Selling information regarding or an application to obtain
an access device; or
 without the authorization of the credit card system
member or its agent, causing or arranging for another
person to present to the member or its agent, for
payment, one or more evidence or records of
transactions made by credit card.
SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE (2011)
FACTS:
Mr. Yu received a call from someone who pretended to
be a credit card agent from a financing firm to offer loan
assistance. He was asked to submit several documents
and identification cards to allegedly process his
application. After submitting the documents to the
agent, Mr. Yu never heard of the application again. He
eventually found out that his credit cards were used to
buy mobile phones and apply for several phone lines.
His name and accounts were used but the suspect used
a different picture and his signature was forged. The
suspect was arrested in an entrapment operation. Upon
knowing that the suspect applied for a credit card with
Metrobank, the authorities set up an entrapment
operation. When the suspect signed the receipt of the
credit card, he was arrested.
SOLEDAD V. PEOPLE (2011)
HELD:
Under R.A. 8484 sec. 9(e), possession of one or
more counterfeit access devices or fraudulently
applying for access devices is prohibited. In this
case, the suspect used the victim’s identity by
representing himself to be Mr. Yu by presenting
fake identification cards and forging his signature.
His fraudulent application and eventual possession
made him a possessor of the counterfeit access
device.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE
R.A. NO. 8293
PUNISHABLE ACTS – TRADENAMES,
TRADEMARKS, SERVICE MARKS
Infringement
Elements:
 Registration of TN, TM or SM
 Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction
and application of reproduction)
 Use is without owner’s consent
 Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake
or deceive
 regardless of whether or not there is actual
sale
Unfair Competition
Elements:
1. Person has established goodwill (has
identified in the mind of the public his goods,
business or services), whether or not a registered
mark is employed
2. Another person passes of the goods he
deals in for those of the person who has established
goodwill
3. By means contrary to good faith (malice
and intent to deceive are essential)
The following are DEEMED to have committed

unfair competition:
(a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of

another or such appearance as is likely to deceive
the public or defraud another of his legitimate
trade + to influence purchasers to believe that the
goods offered are those of another + sells the goods
(includes subsequent vendor and agent of any
vendor)
(b) induces the false belief that he is offering the

services of another who has established goodwill +
by any artifice or device
(c) makes any false statement in the course of trade

or any other act contrary to good faith + act or
statement calculated to discredit the business of
another
False Designation of Origin / False

Description of Fact
Elements:
1. Use in commerce of any false designation of
origin, false description or representation of
fact, which:
1. Is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of
goods by another person
2. Misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and
geographic origin of goods in commercial
advertising or promotion
PUNISHABLE ACTS – PATENTS
Repetition of Infringement
Elements:
1. Existence of a final judgment against the
offender in a civil action for infringement of
patent
2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with him
repeats the infringement after the finality of the
judgment
PUNISHABLE ACTS – COPYRIGHT
Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions
of the law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral
rights etc.) or of aiding or abetting such infringement;
Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a

work has in his possession an article which he knows, or
ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the
purpose of:
 Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade, offering or
exposing for sale, or hire, the article;
 Distributing the article for purposes of trade, or for
any other purpose to an extent that will prejudice the
rights of the copyright owner in the work; or
 Trade exhibit of the articles in public.
COCA-COLA V. GOMEZ (2008)
FACTS:
Coca-Cola Corporation filed a case against Pepsi
for violation of the Intellectual Property Code.
Coca-Cola alleges that Pepsi in the Bicol Region
was hoarding coke bottles to impede the circulation
of the product in the region. A search was
conducted on the premises of Pepsi and the
authorities indeed found coke bottles on the Pepsi
property. According to Coke, the bottles were
eventually crushed to conceal any proof of the
hoarding activity. The petitioners claim that the
alleged hoarding by Pepsi is a violation of Section
168.3 of the IP Code.
COCA-COLA V. GOMEZ (2008)
HELD:
Under all the above approaches, we conclude that the
"hoarding" - as defined and charged by the petitioner -
does not fall within the coverage of the IP Code and of
Section 168 in particular. It does not relate to any
patent, trademark, trade name or service mark that the
respondents have invaded, intruded into or used
without proper authority from the petitioner. Nor are
the respondents alleged to be fraudulently "passing off"
their products or services as those of the petitioner. The
respondents are not also alleged to be undertaking any
representation or misrepresentation that would confuse
or tend to confuse the goods of the petitioner with those
of the respondents, or vice versa.
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION C. L.C. BIG
MAK BURGER, INC. (2004)
FACTS:
McDonalds Corp. filed a trademark infringement
and unfair competition case against L.C. Big Mak
Burger. The use of the name creates confusion in
the minds of the consumers. In its defense, Big
Mak claims that they are distinct from the
McDonalds product even though they also sell
hamburgers, they use a different wrapper, a
different mascot and they sell different products
like pizza and siopao.
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION C. L.C. BIG
MAK BURGER, INC. (2004)
HELD:
For trademark infringement, the test of dominancy is
now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of
the Intellectual Property Code which defines
infringement as the colorable imitation of a registered
mark xxx or a dominant feature thereof.
Absent proof that respondents adoption of the Big Mak

mark was due to honest mistake or was fortuitous, the
inescapable conclusion is that respondents adopted the
Big Mak mark to ride on the coattails of the more
established Big Mac mark.
Thus, we hold that confusion is likely to result in the

public mind. We sustain petitioners claim of trademark
infringement.
TORRES V. SPOUSES PEREZ (2012)
FACTS:
The petitioner was convicted of unfair competition
against the defendant. Torres registered the
products she supplied to SM under the vendor code
of the Perez spouses. The said vendor code was in
the name of a partnership involving the
respondents.
However, upon the dissolution of the partnership,
SM retained the supplier’s code even though it was
Torres who was supplying the products.
TORRES V. SPOUSES PEREZ (2012)
HELD:
The key elements of unfair competition are
"deception, passing off and fraud upon the public."
No deception can be imagined to have been foisted
on the public through different vendor codes, which
are used by SM only for the identification of
supplier’s products.
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
OF 2001
R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A. No. 9194
IMPORTANT TERMS (SEC. 3)
Covered institution refers to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust
entities, and all other institutions and their
subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated
by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) insurance companies and all other

institutions supervised or regulated by the
Insurance Commission; and
(i) securities dealers, brokers,
salesmen, investment houses and other similar
entities managing securities or rendering services
as investment agent, advisor, or consultant;
(ii) mutual funds, close-end
investment companies, common trust funds, pre-
need companies and other similar entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations,
money changers, money payment, remittance, and
transfer companies and other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or
financial derivatives based thereon, valuable
objects, cash substitutes and other similar
monetary instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission
‘Covered transaction’ is a transaction in cash or

other equivalent monetary instrument involving a
total amount in excess of Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. (As
amended by RA 9194)
‘Suspicious transactions’ are transactions with
covered institutions, regardless of the amounts
involved, where any of the following circumstances
exist:
(1) there is no underlying legal or trade
obligation, purpose or economic justification;
(2) the client is not properly identified;
(3) the amount involved is not commensurate
with the business or financial capacity of the client;
(4) taking into account all known
circumstances, it may be perceived that the client's
transaction is structured in order to avoid being the
subject of reporting requirements under the Act;
(5) any circumstance relating to the
transaction which is observed to deviate from the
profile of the client and/or the client's past
transactions with the covered institution;
(6) the transaction is in any way related to
an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that
is about to be, is being or has been committed; or
(7) any transaction that is similar or
analogous to any of the foregoing.
“Monetary instrument” refers to:
(1) coins or currency of legal tender of the
Philippines, or of any other country;
(2) drafts. checks and notes;
(3) securities or negotiable instruments,
bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates,
trust certificates, custodial receipts or deposit
substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction
tickets and confirmations of sale or investments
and money marked instruments; and
(4) other similar instruments where title
thereto passes to another by endorsement,
assignment or delivery.
“Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission or
series or combination thereof involving or having
direct relation to the following:
Kidnapping for ransom R.A 9165
R.A. No. 3019 Plunder under R.A. No. 7080
Robbery and extortion Jueteng and masiao
Piracy on the high seas Qualified theft
Swindling Smuggling
R.A. No. 8792 Hijacking, destructive arson
Fraudulent practices under the Felonies and offense of a similar
Securities Regulation Code nature under the penal laws of
other countries
Money Laundering Offense. — Money laundering is
a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby
making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary

instrument or property represents, involves, or
relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
transacts or attempts to transact said monetary
instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property involves the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any
act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of
money laundering referred to in paragraph (a)
above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act
to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
(ii) mutual funds, close-end
investment companies, common trust funds, pre-
need companies and other similar entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations,
money changers, money payment, remittance, and
transfer companies and other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or
financial derivatives based thereon, valuable
objects, cash substitutes and other similar
monetary instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission
REPUBLIC V. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS,
INC. (2006)
FACTS:
The Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC) issued freeze orders against various bank
accounts of respondents for activities relating to
money laundering.
Accordingly, before the lapse of the period of
effectivity of its freeze orders, the AMLC filed with
the Court of Appeals (CA) various petitions for
extension of effectivity of its freeze orders.
REPUBLIC V. CABRINI GREEN & ROSS,
INC. (2006)
HELD:
R.A. 9194 transferred to the Court of Appeals the
authority to issue freeze orders from the Anti-
Money Laundering Council as well as to extend its
effectivity. Prior to R.A. 9194, the AMLC had the
authority to issue freeze orders of bank accounts
under investigation by itself. At present, the AMLC
needs to file a petition before the CA who will issue
the freeze order after determination of probable
cause.
REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT (2008)
FACTS:
The Republic filed a complaint in the RTC Manila
for civil forfeiture of assets (with urgent plea for
issuance of temporary restraining order [TRO]
and/or writ of preliminary injunction) against the
bank deposits maintained by Glasgow in CSBI.
REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT (2008)
HELD:
RA 9160, as amended, and its implementing rules and
regulations lay down two conditions when applying for
civil forfeiture:
(1) when there is a suspicious transaction report
or a covered transaction report deemed suspicious after
investigation by the AMLC and
(2) the court has, in a petition filed for the
purpose, ordered the seizure of any monetary
instrument or property, in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, related to said report.
For civil forfeiture cases in violation of R.A. 9160, the

RTC is the proper venue to file the complaint. The RTC
may issue summons or cause the publication as notice of
petition against the defendant. (IRR of R.A. 9160)
BANK SECRECY LAW
R.A. No. 1405
MANDATE (SEC. 2)
All deposits of whatever nature with banks or
banking institutions in the Philippines including
investments in bonds issued by the Government of
the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its
instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an
absolutely confidential nature and may not be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, except upon
written permission of the depositor, or in cases
of impeachment, or upon order of a competent
court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty
of public officials, or in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the subject matter of
the litigation.
PROHIBITED ACT (SEC. 3)
It shall be unlawful for any official or

employee of a banking institution to
disclose to any person other than those
mentioned in Section two hereof any
information concerning said deposits.
EXCEPTION TO BANK SECRECY RULE
Bank deposits may be inquired, examined and
looked into in any of the following cases:
1. Written permission of depositor;
2. Impeachment cases;
3. Court order in bribery and dereliction of duty

cases against public officials;
4. Deposit is the subject of the litigation;
5. Anti-graft cases, as provided in the Anti-Graft

Law; or
6. Deposit may be inquired into by the AMLC
without a court order.
ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT
R.A. No. 4200
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap
any wire or cable, or by using any other device
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept,
or record such communication or spoken word
by using a device commonly known as
dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie-talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
2. Be a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence, to
knowingly possess any tape record, wire record,
disc record, or any other such record, or copies
thereof, of any communication or spoken word
secured either before or after the effective date of
this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to
replay the same for any other person or persons; or
to communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions
thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other
person; and
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
3. Willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid,
permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared
to be unlawful in the preceding section or who
violates the provisions of the following section or of
any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits or
cause such violation.
EXCEPTIONS
Nothing is this Act shall render it unlawful or

punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized
by a written order of the Court, to execute any of
the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving
the crimes of:
 Treason
 Espionage
 Mutiny in the high seas
 Provoking war and disloyalty in case war
 Piracy
EXCEPTIONS
 Kidnapping
 Rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion
 Violations of CA 616, punishing espionage
and other offenses against national security;
and
 Sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition.
GANAAN V. IAC (1986)
FACTS:
Accused Ganaan overheard a telephone
conversation and offered such conversation as
evidence.
ISSUE:
Is an extension telephone among the prohibited
devices under the Anti-Wiretapping Act?
GANAAN V. IAC (1986)
HELD:
No. The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the
use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
communication. There must be either a physical
interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement.
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.
RAMIREZ V. CA (248 SCRA 590)
FACTS:
Ramirez filed a complaint for damages against
Garcia alleging that the latter vexed and
humiliated her during a conversation. She recorded
the conversation secretly and introduced as
evidence a verbatim transcript of the said
recording. Accordingly, Ramirez was charged of
violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
RAMIREZ V. CA (248 SCRA 590)
HELD:
The law makes no distinction as to whether the
party sought to be penalized ought to be a party
other than or different from those involved in the
private communication. The statute's intent to
penalize all persons unauthorized to make such
recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier
"any". Consequently, even a person privy to a
communication who records his private
conversation with another without the
knowledge of the latter will qualify as a
violator under this provision of R.A. 4200.
DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012
R.A. No. 10173
consent refers to any freely given, specific,
informed indication of will, whereby the data
subject agrees to the collection and processing of
his or her personal sensitive personal, or privileged
information. Consent shall be evidence by written,
electronic or recorded means.
data subject refers to any individual whose

personal, sensitive personal, or privileged
information is processed
data processing systems refers to the structure
and procedure by which personal data is collected
and further processed in an information and
communications system or relevant filing system,
including the purpose and intended output of the
processing;
personal data refers to all types of personal

information
personal information refers to any information,
whether recorded in a material form or not, from
which the identity of an individual is apparent or
can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the
entity holding the information, or when put
together with other information would directly and
certainly identify an individual.
personal information controller refers to a
natural or juridical person, or any other body who
controls the processing of personal data, or
instructs another to process personal data on its
behalf.
sensitive personal information refers to
personal information:
 About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital
status, age, color, and religious, philosophical or

political affiliations;
 About an individual’s health, education, genetic
or sexual life of a person, or to any proceeding for
any offense committed or alleged to have been
committed by such person, the disposal of such
proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such
proceedings;
 Issued by government agencies peculiar to an
individual which includes, but not limited to,
social security numbers, previous or current
health records, licenses or its denials, suspension
or revocation, and tax returns; and
 Specifically established by an executive order or

an act of Congress to be kept classified.
RIGHTS OF A DATA SUBJECT
SEC. 34, IRR OF R.A. NO. 10173
1. right to be informed;
2. right to object;
3. right to access;
4. right to rectification;
5. right to erase or block;
6. right to damages; and
7. right to data portability.
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Punishable Act Min Jail Maximum Minimum Maximum
Term Jail Term Fine Fine
Unauthorized processing
Personal information 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00
Sensitive personal 3 years 6 years P500,000.00 P4,000,000.00

information
Access due to negligence
Personal information 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00

information
Improper disposal
Personal information 6 months 2 years P100,000.00 P500,000.00
Sensitive personal 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

information
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Punishable Act Min Jail Max Jail Min. Fine Max Fine
Term Term
Processing for Unauthorized

Purposes
Personal information 1 year & 6 5 years P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

months

information
Intentional Breach 1 year 3 years P500,000.00 P2,000,000.00
Concealment of security 1 year & 6 5 years P500,000.00 P1,000,000.00

breach months
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Punishable Act Min Jail Max Jail Min. Fine Max Fine
Term Term
Malicious Disclosure 1 year & 5 years P500,000 P1,000,000

6 months
Unauthorized Disclosure
Personal information 1 year 3 years P500,000 P1,000,000
Sensitive personal 3 years 5 years P500,000 P2,000,000

information
Combination of Acts 3 years 6 years P1,000,000 P5,000,000
Large Scale Maximum penalty in corresponding scale of

penalties
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951
(AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED
PENAL CODE)
SIGNED INTO LAW ON 29 AUGUST 2017.
PERTINENT AMENDMENTS
 Light felonies as defined under Article 9 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) are: (a) infractions of
law or the commission of which the penalty
of arresto menor; or (b) fine not exceeding Forty
thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided.
SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES UNDER ARTICLE 26
OF THE RPC WAS REVISED AS FOLLOWS:
Under R.A. No. 10951

Penalty Under old RPC
If it exceeds
If it exceeds
Afflictive Php1,200,000.00
Php6,000.00
Php40,000.00 to
Php200.00 to
Correctional Php1,200,000.00
Php6,000.00
Light Less than Php200.00 Less than Php40,000.00

PENALTIES FOR ROBBERY UNDER
ARTICLES 299 AND 302 OF THE RPC
Article Felony Under old RPC Under R.A. No. 10951
299 Robbery in an Any armed person who Any armed person who shall
inhabited house or shall commit robbery in an commit robbery in an inhabited
public building or inhabited house or public house or public building or
edifice devoted to building or edifice devoted edifice devoted to religious
worship. to religious worship, shall worship, shall be punished
be punished by reclusion by reclusion temporal, if the
temporal, if the value of the value of the property taken
property taken shall exceed shall exceed Php50,000.00 x x x
Php250.00 x x x
When the offenders do not When the offenders do not

carry arms, and the value carry arms, and the value of
of the property taken the property taken exceeds
exceeds Php250.00, the Php50,000.00, the penalty next
penalty next lower in lower in degree shall be
degree shall be imposed. imposed.
The same rule shall be The same rule shall be applied
applied when the offenders when the offenders are armed,
are armed, but the value of but the value of the property
the property taken does not taken does not exceed
exceed Php250.00. Php50,000.00.
When said offenders do When said offenders do
not carry arms and the not carry arms and the
value of the property value of the property
taken does not exceed taken does not exceed
Php250.00, they shall Php50,000.00, they shall
suffer the penalty suffer the penalty
prescribed in the two prescribed in the two (2)
next preceding next preceding
paragraphs, in its paragraphs, in its
minimum period. minimum period.
302 Robbery in Any robbery committed in Any robbery committed
an an uninhabited place or in a in an uninhabited
uninhabited building other than those place or in a building
place or in a mentioned in the first other than those
private paragraph of Article 299, if mentioned in the first
building. the value of the property paragraph of Article
taken exceeds 250 pesos, 299, if the value of the
shall be punished by prision property taken exceeds
correccional if any of the Php50,000.00 shall be
following circumstances is punished by prisión
present x x x correccional in its
medium and maximum
periods x x x
When the value of the property When the value of the

takes does not exceed property taken does not
Php250.00, the penalty next exceed Php50,000.00, the
lower in degree shall be penalty next lower in
imposed. degree shall be imposed.
PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER
ARTICLE 309 OF THE RPC
Penalty Value of Property under Value of Property under
Old RPC R.A. No. 10951
Prision mayor in its More than Php12,000.00 More than Php1,200,000.00

minimum and medium but does not exceed but does not exceed
periods Php22,000.00 Php2,200,000.00
If the value of the thing If the value of the thing

stolen exceeds stolen exceeds
Php22,000.00 amount the Php2,200,000.00, the
penalty shall be the penalty shall be the
maximum period of prision maximum period of prision
mayor, and one year for mayor, and one (1) year for
each additional each additional
Php10,000.00, but the total Php1,000,000.00, but the
of the penalty which may total of the penalty which
be imposed shall not exceed may be imposed shall not
20 years. exceed 20 years
PENALTIES FOR THEFT UNDER
Prision correccional in More than Php6,000.00 More than
its medium and but does not exceed Php600,000.00 but does
maximum periods Php12,000.00. not exceed
Php1,200,00.00
Prision correccional in More than Php200.00 but More than Php20,000.00
its minimum and does not exceed but does not exceed
medium periods Php6,000.00. Php600,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Over Php50.00 but does over Php5,000.00 but does
medium period to not exceed Php200.00. not exceed Php20,000.00
prision correccional in
its minimum period
Arresto mayor to its full Over Php5.00 but does not Over Php500.00 but does
extent exceed Php50.00 not exceed Php5,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Does not exceed Php5.00 Does not exceed
minimum and medium Php500.00
periods
Penalty Value of Property Value of Property under
under Old RPC R.A. No. 10951
Arresto menor If the theft is committed under

or a fine not the circumstances enumerated
exceeding 200 in paragraph 3 of the next
pesos preceding article and the value
of the thing stolen does not
exceed Php5.00. If such value
exceeds said amount, the
provision of any of the five
preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
Arresto If the theft is committed under the

menor or a fine circumstances enumerated in
not exceeding paragraph 3 of the next preceding
Php20,000.00 article and the value of the thing
stolen does not exceed Php500.00. If
such value exceeds said amount, the
provisions of any of the five preceding
subdivisions shall be made applicable.
Arresto menor When the value of the thing

in its minimum stolen is not over Php5.00, and
period or a fine the offender shall have acted
not exceeding under the impulse of hunger,
Php50.00 poverty, or the difficulty of
earning a livelihood for the
support of himself or his family.
Arresto menor in its minimum When the value of the thing
period or a fine of not exceeding stolen is not over Php500.00, and
Php5,000.00 the offender shall have acted
under the impulse of hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of
earning a livelihood for the
support of himself or his family.
PENALTIES FOR MALVERSATION
UNDER ARTICLE 217 OF THE RPC
Penalty Value of Property Value of Property
under Old RPC under R.A. No. 10951
Prisión does not exceed does not exceed

correccional in its Php200.00 Php40,000.00
medium and
maximum periods
Prisión mayor in its more than Php200.00 more than

minimum and but does not exceed Php40,000.00 but does
medium periods Php6,000.00. not exceed
Php1,200,000.00
Prision mayor in its more than Php6,000.00 more than

maximum period to but is less than Php1,200,000.00 but
reclusion temporal in Php12,000.00 does not exceed
its minimum period Php2,400,000.00
Reclusion temporal in more than Php12,000.00 more than

its medium and but is less than Php2,400,000.00 but
maximum periods Php20,000.00 does not exceed
Php4,400,000.00
Reclusion temporal in more than

its maximum period Php4,400,000.00 but
does not exceed Eight
million Php8,800,000.00.
Reclusion perpetua exceeds Php20,000.00 exceeds Php8,800,000.00

PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER
Penalty Value of Property under Value of Property
Old RPC under R.A. No.
10951
Prision correccional Over Php12,000.00 but does not over Php2,400,000.00 but
in its maximum exceed Php22,000.00 does not exceed Four
period to prision million Php4,400,000.00
mayor in its
minimum period
If such amount exceeds If such amount exceeds

Php22,000.00, the penalty Php4,400,000.00, the
provided in this paragraph shall penalty provided in this
be imposed in its maximum paragraph shall be
period, adding one year for each imposed in its maximum
additional 10,000 pesos; but the period, adding one year
total penalty which may be for each additional
imposed shall not exceed 20 Php2,000,000.00; but the
years. total penalty which may
be imposed shall not
exceed 20 years.
PENALTIES FOR ESTAFA UNDER
Prision correccional in Over Php6,000.00 but Over Php1,200,000.00

its minimum and does not exceed but does not exceed
medium periods Php12,000.00 Php2,400,000.00
Arresto mayor in its Over Php200.00 but Over Php40,000.00 but

maximum period to does not exceed does not exceed
prision correccional in Php6,000.00 Php1,200,000.00
its minimum period
Arresto mayor in its Does not exceed Does not exceed

maximum period Php200.00 Php40,000.00
THE PENALTIES AND/OR FINES FOR THE
FOLLOWING CRIMES HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Treason (Art. 114);
 Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art.
115);
 Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse
in the service of those legally obtained (Art. 129);
 Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat,
rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136);
 Sedition (Art. 140);
 Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
 Inciting to sedition (Art. 142)

R.A. NO. 10951:
 Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress
and similar bodies (Art. 143);
 Disturbance of proceedings (Art. 144);
 Illegal associations (Art. 147);
 Direct assaults (Art. 148);
 Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
 Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its

committees or subcommittees, by the
Constitutional Commissions, its committees,
subcommittees or divisions (Art. 150);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or the agents of such person (Art. 151);
 Tumults and other disturbances of public order;
tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to
cause disturbance (Art. 153);
 Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful detainer (Art 154);
 Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);
 Making and importing and uttering false coins

(Art. 163);
 Mutilation of coins; importation and utterance of
mutilated coins (art. 164);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer; importing and
uttering such false or forged notes and
documents (Art. 166);
 Counterfeiting, importing and uttering
instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);
 Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);
 Falsification by public officer or employee or

notary or ecclesiastic minister (Art.171);
 Falsification by private individual and use of
falsified documents (Art. 172);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 False medical certificates, false certificates of
merits or service, etc. (Art. 174);
 Manufacturing and possession of instruments or
implements for falsification (Art. 176);
 Using fictitious name and concealing true name
(Art. 178);
 False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);
 False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art.
181);
 False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
 Importation and disposition of falsely marked
articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or
other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
exhibitions and indecent shows (Art. 201);
 Prostitutes (Art. 202);
 Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor (Art.

209);
 Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213);
 Prohibited transactions (Art. 215);
 Possession of prohibited interest by a public

officer (Art. 216);
 Malversation of public funds or property (Art.
217);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Failure of accountable officer to render accounts
(Art. 218);
 Failure of a responsible public officer to render
accounts before leaving the country (Art. 219);
 Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (Art. 221);
 Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents (Art. 226);
 Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);
 Opening of closed documents (Art. 228);

R.A. NO. 10951:
 Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229);
 Public officer revealing secrets of private
individuals (Art. 230);
 Open disobedience (Art. 231);
 Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
 Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234);
 Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
 Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);
 Prolonging performance of duties and powers
(Art. 237);
 Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239);
 Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Orders or requests by executive officers to any
judicial authority (Art. 243);
 Unlawful appointments (Art. 244);
 Abortion practiced by a physician (Art. 259);
 Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);
 Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art.

266);
 Slight illegal detention (Art. 268);
 Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);
 Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271);

R.A. NO. 10951:
 Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);
 Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with
his custody: indifference of parents (Art. 277);
 Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);
 Qualified trespass to dwelling (Art. 280);
 Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);
 Grave threats (Art. 282);
 Other light threats (Art. 285);
 Grave coercions (Art. 286);
 Light coercions (Art. 287);
 Other similar coercions (Art. 288);

R.A. NO. 10951:
 Formation, maintenance and prohibition of
combination of capital or labor through violence
or threats (Art. 289);
 Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence (Art. 290);
 Revealing secrets with abuse of office (Art. 291);
 Revelation of industrial secrets (Art. 292);
 Robbery in an inhabited house or public building

or edifice devoted to worship (Art. 299);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private
building (Art. 302);
 Theft (Art. 309);
 Theft of the property of the National Library and

National Museum (Art. 311);
 Occupation of real property or usurpation of real
rights in property (Art. 312);
 Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
 Swindling (Art. 315);
 Other deceits (Art. 318);
 Special cases of malicious mischief (Art. 328);

R.A. NO. 10951:
 Other mischiefs (Art. 329);
 Destroying or damaging statues (Art. 331);
 Simulation of births, substitution of one child for

another and concealment or abandonment of a
legitimate child (Art. 347);
 Libel by means of writing or similar means (Art.
355);
 Threatening to public and offer to prevent such
publication for a compensation (Art. 356);
R.A. NO. 10951:
 Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the
course of official proceedings (Art. 357);
 Slander (Art. 358);
 Slander by deed (Art. 359);
 Intriguing against honor (Art. 364); and
 Imprudence and negligence (Art. 365).

Thank You!

2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

2018 Special Penal Laws Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

SPECIAL

1. Anti-Arson Law (P.D. No. 1613);

2. New Anti-Carnapping Act (R.A. No. 10883);

3. Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610, as

4. Anti-Child Pornography Law (R.A. No. 9755);

5. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

6. Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612);

7. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No.

8. Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049);

9. Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6235);

10. Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. No.

11. Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended);

12. Anti-Sexual Harassment (R.A. No. 7877);

13. Anti-Torture Act (R.A. No. 9745)

14. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. No. 9208);

15. Anti-Violence against Women and their Children

16. Bouncing Checks Law (B.P.Blg. 22);

17. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No.

18. Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. No. 1866, as

19. Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as

20. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344,

21. Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829);

22. Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended);

23. Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115);

24. Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. No. 10175)

25. Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) – defining

22. Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

 The laws on arson in force today are P.D. No. 1613

i. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one

ii. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to

iii. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or

iv. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any

v. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose

i. When the arson is committed by 2 or more persons,

ii. When any person shall burn:

a. Any building used as offices of the Government or

a. If committed with intent to gain;

a. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part

b. If substantial amount of flammable substances or

c. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or

d. If the building or property is insured for substantially

e. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance

f. If shortly before the fire a substantial portion of the

g. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration

Conspiracy to commit arson is punishable by

NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH

Thus, homicide is absorbed.

 R.A. No. 10883, otherwise known as the “New

 Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a

 Any person charged with carnapping or when the crime

 Any public official or employee who directly commits the

 Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled by any

 All motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not

5. Defacing or Tampering with Serial Numbers of Motor

7. Unlawful transfer or use of vehicle plates (Section

 Second hand spare parts refer to the parts taken from

 If the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, engine

 Any person engaged in the importation,

 Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine

 Any person who shall undertake to assemble or rebuild

 In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on

 The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall submit a

 The PPA shall not allow the loading of motor vehicles

 Foreign nationals convicted under the provisions

 Any person who voluntarily gives information

 The PNP shall include in their annual budget the

 Any information given by informers shall be