«SX XX B@«XXEXXEeEe idem — Coren prey Bushy neihioreel (L., Same fs SO et Re fod RR pt b mt nw hes —thet re CL iA est) do) BR. Serauitio COMPACT Sef oa Hes pn REVIEWER i IN CRIMINAL LAW sot gna mies Slee ay ERE Eee, dove foe poy ! Cotlos Hece mone vercle ml - Zero, nothing i as Nay~ rot merely tnig but alsa: pot onl torn aa ) ditto iege ,0€ peste fv dedec poem Cuffian. a bru person pimp = 6 men whe solicits clenls fer a enecvale fo lecsen te chende ae Vieor 3) Weekew 1 mised ot boi, bane- woe, harm feign - predend Keviar~ £1 ber eemo2ePn on viet ATTY. LEONOR D. BOADO mm aching @ rahi? SECOND EDITION stihl ‘ ae Mahal, pakatértanclaan ma, Pegribry ko dl maclalaho. Kun noon at ngayon mae fats manshabin Se dadetes ie 4 P42 tdrt rates Pep) Philippine Copyright, 2007 ISBN 978-971-23-4916-4 No portion of proceedings with proper ¢ Any copy of this book without thecorrespond- ing number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR No. 0539 ISBN 978.971.23-4916-4 Masri Printed by REX PRINTING Company, inc. nei oe Cocky PREFACE AND DEDICATION It is generally admitted that Criminal Law is the most diff- teresting branch of law. Relatively the shortest, consist- articles and a number of special and amendato- {is a most perplexing subject matter because a slight changes the crime committed or erases the existence ily the bar reviewees in mind. ‘This work is likewise in memory of the author's professors in the University of the East College of Law, especially the Crimi- nal Law professors who will always be her “Sirs.” Special gratitude to Ms. Remy Cabasal-Hadap, librarian at the Legal Office Library, Commission on Audit (COA), Quezon City and Ms. Reina Afos of the Office of Legal Affairs, COA. ‘October 20, 2007. LDB fehs pon focit Teum, nisi mens sit tea — There Con be > crime whey the criminal mind ts wating‘This textbook was written under the auspices of the Profes- sional Chair program of the “Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Reynato 8. Puno Library” Collegeof Law, University of East July 28, 2004. Antonio R. Tupaz Dean UE. College of Law ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface and Dedicati Article 10 — Special Law: CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL ‘srdcle 12 — Beempting x Cicumstances RA. No. 9344 — Juvenile Justice and Welfare ‘Act of 2006. In contempt of or wit Age, sex, rank, dwelling ‘Abuse of confidence/ obvious ungratefulness. Committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, etc. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band, aid of armed men... eR Ss BERERES SB ssgge see &BELEEECEEE eee EEE Eee Eee rete CeCe eee ree eee eee eee eee eee eee ener epee ee teer eer eee eee ert eeeeeeeeeeeeaee ‘On the occasion and by means of caa Aticle 71 — Graduated Sca Ww f or misfortune... 2 n9 racion, habitwal delingueney ‘and divism 121 dE Article 65 — Rules when penalty not composed ‘Abuse of superior strength ‘of 3 periods 124 Treachery (alevosia) Article 76— Legal 124 Ignominy and cruelty... “Article 66 — Imposi 125 — Unlawful entry, breaking of door “Asticle 68 — Penalty on minors 125 Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle. Article 69 — Penalty for inctmplete justification and exemption.. 126 Article 70 — Successive service of sentences 128 je eee ee : Article 75 — Increasing or reducing fine . 129 ! pangs : : Article 77— Complex penalty . 130 a Article 19 — Accessories INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW. 131 Article 20 — \ eae PROBATION i Article 89 — Presidential Decree No. x fee Article 81 — Execution of Death Penalty. 139 Articles 21 Article 89 — Total extinction of er 139 Article 23 — Pardon by the offended Article 94 — Partial Extinction 139 rc Article 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executiv Article 36 — Pardon by the 139 | Article 24 : ‘Article 23 — Pardon by the Offended... 139 ‘Article 29 — Deduction of Preventive, Article 95 — Conditional Pardé 146 a imprisonment Article 98 — Deduction for loyalty 148 Article 25 — Classification of penalties. stiles 100-113 — Civil Liabilit 149 RA. No. 9846 — Abolition of Death Penalty... Article 4 — Civil Interdiction TITLET Derren Arner Are ‘CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL ile 39 — Subsidiary Pes oe Article 45... Article 48 Complex Crimes a ein 162 r frustrated felonies on the accomplices i L and accessories. 17 ie Article 61 — Rules for graduating penalties 7 * ow -oe en ae 5 1 TITLE CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE Article 124 — Arbitrary Detention... so Article 125 — Delay in the delivery of detained persons. RA. No. 7438 — Ri Detained or under Custodial Invest Article 126 — Delaying Rel Article 127 — Expulsion... Article 128 — Violation of Domicil Articles 129-130 — Search warrants m ‘obtained; Abuse in Service; Searching without witnesses : Atticles 131, 146, 147, Articles 132-128. TITLE WI CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Articles 134-134-A. Articles 138, 142, 148, 1 Article 153 — Tumult Article 155 — Alarms and Scandals... Articles 156-158 — Delivery of prisoner of service of sentence. Article 159. Article 160 TITLE IV CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Atticle 169 — Forge: Articles 171-172... Article 177 — Usurpation. Articles 180-184 — False Testimony and Perjury .. Articles 185-189. vis Anti-Alias Law ... TITLEV OPIUM Instigation, entrapment, buy bust operation and frame-up. TITLE VI AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS R.A. No. 9287 — Gambling and Illegal Lottery.. TITLE Vi CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Articles 210-211-A — Bribery. Article 212 — Corruption of Public Officer Article 213... Articles 214-217, Articles 218-220. Articles 221-222 R.A. No. 3019 —Anti-Graft Law. R.A. No. 7080 — Plunder Law Articles 236-245... TITLE Vu CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Article 246 — Parricide... 209 mai BRR BRERER 239 243, 244 5 RRRBR B 8eee ecco reed ae ce pe sae as aot Article 247., Article 248. Article 249, PD. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 R.A. No. 7877 — Sexual Harassment Law ... TITLE IX ‘CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY TITLEX CRIMES AGAINST 2ROPERTY Articles 294-296, 329 Articles 308-311, eee 343 PD, No. 1612 — Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. 346 PD, No. 533 — The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974... 349 R.A. No, 6599 — Anti-Carnapping. 350 PD. No. 704, as amended — Illegal Fishing 354 PD. No. 705, as amended — Forestry Code. 355 356 359 BP. Blg. 22 — An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit 365 376 378 382 384 385 : 386 Article 392... : 387 TITLE XI ‘CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Articles 333-334, 388 Articles 336 and 339... 390 Articles 337 and 338 391 Articles 340-341, 392 Articles 342-343. 392 Articles 347-348, Articles 349.351,Bde ord eee eat ‘TITLE XU CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Articles 353-36: Articles 363-364, ‘TITLE XIV ‘CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE Article 366..... APPENDIX Appendix A— Republic Act No, 9372 Human Security Act of 2007... 402 413 415 421 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIP) 1. Penal laws are o€& of the cts oF omissions and’ penalties for their vio- lations. Those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment, (Lacson vs, Executive Secretary, GR. No. 128096, January 20, 1999) . Criminal law is a branch of public law because it treats of acts or omissions which are primarily wrongs against the State, Hence, the criminal case is denominated “People of the Philippines vs, xxx." lature paohibting certain tional limitations on the power of Congress to en- ‘act penal laws found in the Bill of Rights: a, The law must be general in application (equal protes- tion). b. It must observe substantive and procedural due pro cess. © Itshould not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines, 4. Itshould not operate as a bill of attainder. t must not operate as an ex post facto law. 4, ‘The prohibition on ex post facto law applies solely to penal laws. It cannot prohibit the retroactivity of procedural laws such as one that prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer such as the Extradition Treaty. (Wright vs. CA, GR. 213, August 15, 1 5. Provisions in the Code complementing ex post facto rule: a. Article 21: no felony shall be punishable by any pen- alty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.Peele aaa eee ce ae eee Sede Ree) ca need eee ae eenl dee to cal b. ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. icle 2: penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in- sofar as they favor the offender who is not a habitual delinquent. Therefore, a law which increases the pen- alty for an act or omission or prejudices the right of the accused cannot be given retroactive effect (irretrospec- > ity) 6 Examples of ex post facto law: @. Makes an act or omission criminal which when com- mitted was not criminal Aggravates the seriousness of the crime than when it was committed. Imposes a penalty that is higher than when the crime ‘was commi Makes it easier for the prosecution to establish the: of the accused than when the crime was commit Requires a lesser quantum of evidence than when the crime was committed, Alters, in relation to the offense or its consequences, the situation of a person to his disadvantage. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful. Deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or 3 proclamation of amnesty. (Lacson vs. Executive Seere- ane GR. No. 128096, January 20, 1999) (Characteristics of penal law: Generality — (persons to be governed) — penal law is binding on all persans who reside or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizens or not. Basis — Art. 14, Civil Code; Art. stitution, [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 3 ition or the place where appli- applicable to all crimes committed ippine territory. Basis — Art. 2, Revised Penal Code — (when the law shall be applicable) should have only prospective application jorable to the offender. (Irretrospectiv- the retroactive application of penal laws.) Basis — Arts, 21 and 22, Revised Penal Code Art, 10(22), Constitution (ex post facto) Att. 4, Civil Code 8. Doctrinal application of the prospectivity rule: a, ‘The prospectivity rule applies to administrative rulings and circulars, and to judicial decisions which though not laws, are evidence of what the laws mean. Thus under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, judicial deci- sions applying the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system. Legis io legis wim obti This is especially tnie in the construction, and appli- cation of criminal laws, where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society. (Co vs. CA, GR. No. 100776, Octo- ber 28, 1993) Lex prospicit, non respicit, The law looks forward not fackward. The rationale against retroactivity is that a law usually derides rights which may have already become vested or impairs the obligations of contract, hence, unconstitutional. Prior to the statute's nullificar wust have been in force and had to be complied with (doctrine of operative fact). It would be to deprive its quality of fairness and justice if there be what had transpired prior to such ad- prokibita doctrine and the prospectivity rule in the adjudication of cases,Peete ee eee eee ee err ‘ ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. the latter should prevail because all doubts must be re- solved in favor of the accused. (id,) Moreover, ex post Jacto law is a constituti is is 9. Philosophies underlying the criminal law justice system: Classical or juristic 1. _ Basis of criminal liability — human free will ion, for the right fended party 2. Purpose of the penalty — ret of the State and/or the pri must be observed, 3. Imposable penalty — predetermined penalty for every crime the gravity of which is directly pro- portionate to the crime committed, 4, Emphasis of the law — on the offense. Under the classical theory on which the penal code is ‘mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free wil is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely choose between g¢ with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free appears unimpaired. (People us. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, September b. Positiv sis after considering his circumstances. 4. Emphasis — on the actor. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 5 ‘The Indeterminate Sentence Law, Probation Law, the three-fold rule, the rules on mitigation of crimes exemplify this theory. c. Eclectic (or mixed) combines the good features of both the classical and the positivist theories. Ideally, the classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is made to work on economic and social crimes. Aghsinidtis crime’ is a grievous, odious and hate- ful offense by reason of its inherent or manifest usness, atrocity and perversity, is re- garded as seriously outrageous to the common stan- dards or norms of decency and morality in a just, civi- and orderly society. (R.A. 7659) d. Utilitarian or protective theory under which the pri- ‘mary function of punishment in criminal law is to protect society from potential and actual wrongdoers. ‘The retributive aspect of penal laws should be directed against them, The law should not be applied to further materialism and opportunism. (Magno vs. CA, GR. No. 96132, June 26, 1992) 10, Penal laws are construed strictly against the State and liber- ally in favor of the accused. Whenever two interpretations ‘of law or appreciation of evidence are possible, the exculpa- tory interpretation shall prevail, consistent with the rule on presumption of innocence. Under the equipoise rule, when the evi ~prsessuton, inced;tho.scale— should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience. to the. i .presumption.of-innacence. (Ursua vs. CA, 01996 Capa t-Peple, GR. No re the State fails to meet the to overcome the constitutional resumption of innocence, the accused is entitled to acquit- fal, as a matter of right regardless of the weakness or even the absence of his defense. For any conviction must zest on. eee eee eee eee eed“Toe ~ erties teat eetaned ane ery ees asta: Saaeetcead: m ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW the strength of the prosecution’ ness of the defense, (Cosep vs. People, G.R. No, 110353, May 21, 1998) 11. Classification of crimes: a, sto commission (Article 3) 1. Dolo or felonies committed with deliberate in- tent; 2. Culpa or those committed by means of fault. B. As to stage of execution (Article 6) 1, Attempted; 2. Frustrated; 3. Consummated. Related to this isthe classification of felonies as to: 1, Formal felonies, those which are always consum- mated because the offender cannot perform the act necessary for their execution without consum- mating the offerise. For instance physical injuries are punished as to result, whether serious, less serious, or slight. Th degree of injury cannot be determined without first consummating the of- fense. 2. Material felonies, or those which have various stages of execution. 3. Crimes which have no frustrated stage, such as rape because its essence is, camal, knowledge. Hence, even the slight penetration of the female organ consumma on especially since the amount of, property has been deleted in the to the law on arson, a e 12, Crimes mala in se and mala prokibita Poe ee cr [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 7 As to gravity (Art. 9) 1. Grave felonies; 2. Less grave felonies; and 3, Light felonies. As to count — composite, compound, complex, contin: ued, continuing. ‘As to nature — mala in se and mala prohibita Anact or omission may either be inherently evil (mala i use there isa law prohibiting the same felonies under the Code are mala in se where- in special laws are mala prokibita. However, it e nature of the act or omission that makes ther malum in se or malum prokibitum. Also, ‘even if a special law uses the terms of penalties in the Code, that alone will not make the act or omission a time malum in se. The law may only intend to make the Code apply suppletorily thereto. For instance, PD. 533 is an amendment of Articles 308, 309, and 7 of the Code. Thus, cattle rustling is still malum in se. (Taer v5. CA, GR. No. 85204, June 18, 1990) ~~ le. whereas mala pro- do Rot. The doing of the act itself and not its 05° illegality lies in its positively being prohib- (Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, \ctions: In mala in se: 1. Basis — moral state of the offender hence, good. faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense.esa ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 2, Modifying circumstances — taken into account in imposing the penalty on the offender precisely because his moral trait is the basis of this crime. ipation— penalty is computed on the basis of whether the malefactor is a principal offender, or merely an accomplice or accessory. 4. Stage of accomplishment — the penalty imposed depends on whether the crime is consummated, mala in se generally in- lly 80 for its basis is the Revised Penal ariness, hence, good faith or lack is not a defense, unless intent is the crime such as in Section 3(e) of 2. Modifying circumstances — not considered be- cause the law intends to discourage the commis- sion of the act specially prohibited. 3. Degree of participation — the penalty on the of- fenders is the same as they are all deemed princi- pals. 4. Stage of accomplishment — violation of law is punished only when accomplished or consum- mated ‘betayse intent is inherent in attempted. gr frustrafGd stage and intent is not relevant in ‘qtimes mala prakibita.» 5. Moral turpitude — not involved in crimes mala prohibita because the act would not have been ‘wrong if not for the prohibition by law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. ’ 6. Law violated — generally, special penal laws. €. Amalaise leony (such as reckless imprudence result- ing in damage to property) cannot absorb mala prohi- bita crimes (such as those violating P.D. No. 1067, PD. "No. 984, and R.A. No. 7942). What makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are the special laws enact- ‘ge ® Absolute or total repeal or express repeal — the act or Smission ls decriminalized = Pending case ~ dismissed whether the accused is, habitual delinquent or not Offender has been convicted fect of depriving a court of its authority to punish a person charged with violation of the law prior to its repeal and this isbeca ified repeal of a penal law constitutes a rendering legal what had been previously legal, sucha the offense no longer exists and ‘ho committed it never did 60. There tions to the rule, as follows:ecg later aa acc eee om: fauin eel eae i} (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a, The inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing stat- ute that provides that the repeal shall have no effect on pending actions. b. Where the repealing act re-enacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law, In such instance, the act committed before the re-enactment continues to be an offense in the statute books and pending cases are not affected, regardl whether the new penalty to be imposed is m able to the accused. (Benedicto vs. Court of Apps No. 125359, September 4, 2001) 14. TheSpanish version should prevail over the English version for the Code was originally approved and-enacted ia Snap- shSection 15, Revised Administrative Code). For instance, Article 267 of the Code uses the rather than “kidnap” (secuestar or raptar), thus, the Spanish version should prevail in the interpretation of that Article. (People ws. Astorga, GR. No. 110097, December 22, 1997) 15. Finality of acquittal rule: The fundamental philosophy highlighting this rule cuts dee into the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfuiness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State. The State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a con. i as well as enhancing ty that even though innocent, he may be found guilty. (People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000) ARTICLE 2 — Scope of application of the Code 1. Two applications of the Code »pplication — within the Philippine \cluding its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, n b, _Extra-territorial — the Code may be given application even to those crimes committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. when the question asks for the exceptions to the application of the Code, do not include in the an- swer the intra-territorial application in paragraph one for that is the general rule.) 2. Treaties and laws of preferential application such as R.A. 75 on iri of diplomatic representatives of foreign coun- tries prevail over the provisions of the Code. Under inter- national laws, sovereigns, heads of states and their official representatives enjoy immunity from suits. Pursuant to the Vienna Convention an DiplomaticRes, jons the heads of diplomatic missions are of three levels: (@) Ambassadors or muncios accredited to the heads of State; (6) Envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of States; and (©) Charges a” affairs accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the stalt of the (diplomatic) mission are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the tech- nical and service staff. Only the heads of missions, as well taff, excluding the members technical and service staff of the mis- tank. (Minucher vs. CA, G.R. respective states in concerns of commerce and navigation and perform certain ative and notarial duties, do not ordinarily enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunitiesa os iene ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW and privileges accorded that they are not charged. ymats, mainly for the reason he duty of representing their en re main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity, is the determination of whether or not he performs di fiplomatic nature. (id) The basis Of toga of diplomatic agents and immunity is suit which requires the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the re- ceiving State except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplo- if the foreign country Philippines will have b. The countruntcagistry determines.the nationality of the ship or airship, not its ownership. Thus a Filipino- ‘owned ship registered in a foreign country isa foreign ship. French/English Rules refer to the jurisdiction ouse Bnexchant-vessele-ef-ene-countiy located in another FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES w jurisdiction over the crime under in a merchant vessel is about the same because the general rule of one is the exception in the other. Thus: 1. French rule recognizes flag or nationality of was- The country. af ogistcy ilove jurisdiction but When the crime violated. eaceandorder The hostsGianiny Gich as drug-trafficking), the. yuntry will i jon. (Memory aid : Jelates.fo.intemal managenicnt.of.thewessel. In other cases (such as druj i Decause the crime shall be subject to Philippine courtswas the high seas is not within the jurisdiction of any country. War vessels. and olficial vessel of heads.otSiatos such as Ang Pangulo i iuzisi 5, Second and third exceptions: Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true genuine document or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. (Art. 169) If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer only to Philippine coin, currency note or obligations and secu- ities. The special mention of -in.the Code should be deemed as.not-waitten fac the Philippines is no longer. a. commonwealthofthe JS, eee6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Fourth exception: A public officer /employee who commits a crime related to ce. Without this re- lation, they are acting in their private capacity and hence bound by the law of the host country. Example of this ex- ception is the act of a Philippine official sent to a war-torn country who absconds with public funds intended for repa- triation of OFWs thereat. Fifth exception: Title I of Book Il on crimes against national security and the law of nations which covers Treason, Espi- onage, Provoking War and ty in Case of War, Piracy and Mutiny, but not rebellion. ellion i abroad, the Phili ARIICLE 3 1 Felony refers exclusively to acts or omissi der the Code, Felonies in general‘have the elements comprising ei- ther dola or culpa whereas specific felonies under Book il of the Code have their own specific elements which are alleged in the Information. The elements under Article 3 appertain to the actor. The elements of specific felonies relate to the act or acts constituting the felony. ‘ase ofa lethal weapon would sh Kill although death did not result te thus the need to determine it by the tis demonstrated by the overtacisak AseCferezaT Rte ceimina intent pesymed from the vol untary commission of an unlataful ach. (Abdulla vs. People” No-150129, April 6, 2005) Thus, when the victim dies, ied from, the. act of kill- R.No. 142773, January 28, 2003) juries vis-a-vis at- sciviousness vs. at- tempted rape; ler by deed, etc. In these cases, specific criminal intent cannot be presumed but must be established. tances when the offender can be criminally liable, e is no criminal “These two species of crimes can only be consummated i c ime by other oan oer dent of hi nny front; (3) where the defendant, to stop a fired his 45 cal. twice in the air, and, as the bout id, he inal. (Llamoso vs. Sandigan- 163408 & 64026, August 7, 1985) A felony tequites ctiminal intent, Hence, when intent isabsontesthe— wind isnobcciminal, no crime. is committed. This doctrine applies only to dolo,6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW c 7. Motive is the moving power or force (such as vengeance) which impels a Generally, motive ‘Simmaterial in determining criminal lability, except ae 2% Macoy, GR. Nos, 9664950, July 1, 1997) In Article 3, culpa is a mode of committing a crime hence killing, for instance, s denominat Intelligence isthe capacity to understand what is rightand ‘whabiswssang. Discernment is relevant to intelligence, not q}levertheless, a conviction + ormatis i FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, 7 gence is an element of both dolo and culpa, thus, whether the ting felony is intentional or culpable, discemmentisan. clement. Absent discemmmment, there is no.olfense whether dalo.or gulma... ‘12. When insanity is intesposed as.a defense or a ground of a motion to quash the burden rests upon the accused ta ese {ablish that fact, for the law presu absence of sulficient evidence to prove insan- ity, the legal presumption of one's sanity stands. (Zosa vs. CA, G.R. No, 105641, March 10, 1994) passlon and obfncaton merely mitigating. fo commit a felony, whether by dolo or culpa, ‘commit an impossible crime. 2. There are two clauses in no. 1 ofthis article: a. “By any person committing a felon ” referring to dolo because of te the word “intended”). The elements in the second clause are: 1. Anintentional felony is committed. 2. ‘The wrong done is the direct, natural, and logis cal consequence of the felony committed even though different from that intended.w ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 3. Factors affecting intent and correspondingly the criminal li- ability: 3. Mistake affect, . -Brosimate-causo(the cause ofthe cause isthe cause of the ef ERR flees 4. Mistikeoffactisan shel tory ca relevant only in dota, hen ining the true state of facts, he may be free from dolo but not from culpa 9. Invaberratio ictus or error in the victim of the blow the of- fender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on. another, There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim, Consequently, of fact where there is no crimi The effect of error in personae wepends upon whether the in- tended crime and actual crime committed are: x FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES the actual felony ‘Somumitisd.shall_be jmapased. Example: if the intend- ed crime is homicide but parricide was committed or vice-versa. In effect error in personae is extenuating cir- ccumstance, b. Of the same gravity or severity, the penalty is not miti- gated. Example: ifthe intended crime is homicide and the actual crime committed is also homicide but on a ‘wrong victim. The mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in ‘on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is that eee nee errr 39519, November 21, ol 8 In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is much more grave than in- tends SKeptit, s0 grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated where the accused had no intent to kil but only to inflict in- juries when he attacked the victim. (People vs. Flores, infra.) 9. Proximate cause is that cause which, in its natural and con- ‘tinuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening ‘cause, produces the injury and without which the result ‘would not have occurred. Proximate cause is to be consid- ered generally in determining whether the consequence of the act should also be borne by the offender. (Art. 4, no. 1)tl es ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW der i ‘5. Acuramt, GR. No. 117954, 4 pril 27, 2000) |. Anyone who inflicts injury voluntarily and with intent is liable for all the consequences of his criminal act, such as death, that supervenes as a consequence of the injuries. Here, accused is liable for the demise of the victim for such ‘was caused by the violent kicks which he inflicted on the vital parts of the victim’s body. (People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA) . The significance of evidence on the precise nature of the inju- ries sustained by the deceased is that it often leads the care- ful examiner to uncover the real cause of death. the examination of a wound, from the legal point should lead to the determination as to when the wound ‘was inflicted, what the degree of danger of the wound is, with its dangers to life or function, whether the wound was given by the injured man himself, or by some one else, and with what manner of instrument (People vs. Matyaong, G.R. Ni In fine, ines to he another, the evidence mus beyond reasonable doubt proximate cause of such ial when there are several possible causes of deat ing thatthe victim was af- ficted with food poisoning, accused may still be held liable for 1 prosecution had presented proof that accused's act of beating his wife was the efficient or proximate cause of death, or had accelerated her death, (id,) a. The acts performed would have been acrime against. Persons or property; $2 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, a ‘b. There is criminal intent; ¢ _ Ik is not accomplished because of theinherentimpos- sibility-9s Because the means employed is inadequate ot ineffectual — ‘The act performed by the offender cannot fense against persons or property because: sion of the offense is inherently impossi me ) th teach a lesson to the offender, Subjectively, the offender is a criminal although objectively no crime has been comunitted. ‘There is no attempted or frustrated stage. ‘There is now the impossible crime of rape because of the amendment brought about by the Anti-Rape Law which re- classified rape under Crimes against Persons as anew chap- ter and renumbered Article 266-A to D. ‘There is legal impossibility where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime, le-steale ing propes -cuwned. by-the stealer. It would apply to those circumstances where: a. The motive, desire, and expectation are to perform an act in violation of law: b, There is an intention to perform the physical act; There is a performance of the intended physical act; d. The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount toa crime, ity is present when extraneous circum- ‘stances unknown to the actor or beyon¢ his control prevent the consummation. be completed. Bremp)t: gtealing froma, vault. that fumed, out to be empty.teen 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 7. The offender must not know the circumstance which made the crime an impossible crime. For instance, in killing a per- son who has just died; homicide/murder requires intent to kill. Had the offender known that the victim is already dead, intent to kill will be absent. At most, to desecration of the dead. The malefactors will not go to all the trouble and risks attending the commission of bank robbery if they knew that the vaults are empty. ARTICLE 5 |. Nulluma crimen nulla poena sine lege — there is no crime when there is no law that defines and punishes it. As a civil law country, in the Philippines penal laws are enacted. Crime is ‘the product of the law: no matter how evil an act ig its not a crime unless there is a law punishing it. Moreover, Article 21 prohibits the imposition of a penalty not prescribed by aw prior to the commission of a felony; and, the Constitu- tion prohibits the retroactive application of a penal law (ex post facto). 2. On the other hand a common law crime is one that is mani- festly contrary to good customs and public though not expressly punished by law. As from statutory law created by enactment common law comprises the body of those p: iples and rules of action relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their auth eras on aioe does not rest for ‘“Aitfiority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. (Black's Law Dictionary) ARTICLE 6 1. Inthe consummated stage all acts hence the offender jp in the o as he no longer has control over the outcome of his acts, having performed all that is necessary to accomplish his purpose. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES a 2. Im the frustrated stage, the offender has also reached the_ ee for he has peconmed-al-the 3 For the atempted felony, the stage because he has not is accomplishment. he may or may not continue his overt acts. The important phrases here are: Preparatory act refers to a prior act. Sxiple: buying poison to kill the intended victim. ple: ropont and conspragy to commit a cri punished except in those cases provided for by law, racy to commit rebellion. son intending to rob ast the store but before he could enter he was apprehend- ‘open the window is no He may be charged with at that act is directly related to . “Desistance” — Is an apsolutory circumstancecSnly 15> he suempted-sace The’ stage exists at time when the offender stillfas contro}(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. ‘The moment he has lost control of the outcome of his acts the subjective phase is passed; the stage is now either frustrated or consummated (objective phase) where desistance is merly factual. and, produces no legal effect, hence, will not exempt the offender from criminal liability. felony is attempted. (People vs. Pareja, CR. No, 88043, cember 1958) ~ Seep. 3ej (3)(b) ~Abeali 4. Criteria to determine whether the crime is formal: {1 QAM: a The offender cannot possibly perform all the acts of ‘execution to bring the desired result without consum- mating the offense, such as slander. cannot be frustrated. For instance, since the gra~ of rape is carnal knowledge, the slighte f the female organ consummates the Since the burning of even a portion of the g is considered arson, the mere scorching thereof consum- mates the crime. When the crime requires the concurrence of the will of two parties, there is no frustrated stage, as in corrup- tion of public officers — the momentthe public officer. the gift, promise or consideration in bribery, eae of corruption ig consummated 6aPuhen the ‘ublic officer refuses to be corrupted, the crime is at tempted only. When the crime is treated by the Code in accordance th the results, ie, the result should be there before can be determined, eg., physical injuries, the in the consummated stage. In physi it cannot be determined whether the injury be slight less serious, or serious unless consummated. PS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, 3 5. Between attempted and frustrated felonies: a. A8 to acts of execution — in attempted, not all acts of execution had been done whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had been performed. b, As to causes of non-accomplishment — in attemy it is a cause gr accident other. ” c. _Inattempted stage, the offender shase as he still has control of hi i strated stage, he is already in the objective phase. d. Example: in attempted homick mortal, hence the offender shoul other blow on the victim, which not able to do becau: He is therefore still in subjective stage. In frustrated homicide, the wound is mortal, sufficient to bring about death hence, there is no need of another blow but death nevertheless did zot supervene because of timely medical attendance. He has passed on to the objective phase because he has preformed all acts necessary to bring about the death of the victim. 6. Amere attempt to commit a felony is subsumed in the full execution thereof. To attempt is to commence the commis- ime by overt acts. If one has been proved to have ct required in an attempt. Thus, the accused could have suffered no prejudice, had they been tried under either one or the other section. (People vs. Boco, G.R, No. 129676, June 23, 1999) ARTICLE 7 1. When light felonies are punishable: Persons or property.rm “Io es = — 4 % ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW b, Inall stages if the crime is. againsS.persons or property. 2 Who are punishable — principals and accomplices. te Accessories are CEtpriminaly liable for light felonies. (Article 16) 3. Why is attempted and frustrated light felony not punish- able? And why is an accessory in consummated light felony not punishable? Because the deduction in penalty is 1 de- agree for frustrated, 2 degrees for the attempted stage and nother 2 degrees fr accessory offendensbifoe the penalty for light felony is arresto menor, there is no way of further reducing the penalty. De minimis non curat lex. ARTICLE 8 1. When the proposal is accepted, it becor essence of conspiracy is community of ple vs, Tilos, G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 20 2. Itis essential for one to be liable for the acts of the others that there be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common desi heis the mastermind or principal by 3. The overt act of a co-conspirator may be in the form of: ‘Active participation in the actual commission of lf assistance to his, Epona ses by being pres- ent at the commis A. Exerting moral ascendancy over fe ‘other co-conspira- tors. (Pecko vs. People, G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996) An overt actin furtherance of the conspiracy may consist ly participating in the actual commis- sion of the crime, in lending moral assistance to his co- FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 2 conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or in exerting moral ascendancy. (People vs. Pablo, GR. Nos. 120394-97, January 16, 2001) 4, Two concepts of conspiracy: a. Asa crime by itself, the subject of conspiracy is not yet “COMMIET DUE the mere act of conspiring is defined and punished as a crime, for instance, proposal and b. As.a basis of incursing liability, the execution of the plan is commenced. Conspiracy by itself ceases to be the crime but is absorbed. Hence, the crime above is no longer conspiracy to commit rebellion but rebellion under Article 135. 5. Asa basis of incurring liability it is necessary to determine: there was prior agreement on how to commit the crime, in which case, a conspirator is Jia ashebppearedin he scene ech ule, Zisthe x nar naictyeonspiracy by rg agreement the la lity of the ie only for the crime agreed \ipon except 1. When the other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its commission 2. When the other crime is the natural consequence planned, eg, homicide resulting from 3. When the resulting crime is a composite crime or special complex crime considered single indivis- ible felony composed of 2 distinct crimes. (infra) b. Whether it is an implied conspiracy, that is, the of- fenders acted in concert during the commission of theme i 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or approval of * the act without coo} is not enough to co cy absent the intentional particip: a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. (People vs. Bragaes, G.R. No, 62359, November 14, 1991) oe, Necessarily, conspiracy as a crime cannot be im- lied conspiracy. It can only be by pre-agreement or planned because itis the act of conspiring that is penal- ized, 6. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary for conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or in- ferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such rest. acy is one that is deduced from the mode which the offense was committed. The con- and mannet ‘certed acts ofthe parties to achieve the same objective signify conspiracy. People vs, Gu 13, 1989 first described 8. Conspiracy is not presumed Like the physical acts consti- tuting the crime itself, the elements absanspiracy saust.be roved beyond reasonable-doubt. While |. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperat FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES » tion is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert. ‘The act of ons and cachof the, accused will thereby be deere rpsinci- pale.of the crime committed, ippellant never fired a gun, he would still be a8 a co-conspirator in the killing of the might have inflicted the fatal blows or wounds, neve: blender Theptecniotn the act of a conspirator isthe act of all co-conspixators The degree ofactual participation in, E75, July . Although conspiracy is a joint ac, there is nothing irregular if a supposed co-conspirator is acquitted and others con- vvicted. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed: the mere act of conspiring is not self punishable, Hence, it does not follow that one consp: tor alone cannot be convicted when there is a conspiracy. Aslong as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, other conspirators may bbe found guilty of the offense. (People vs. Tiguman, G.R. Nos, 130502-03, May 24, 2001) ‘ot enough to constitute one as a conspirator absent any. tive participation in the commission of the crime pursuant to the common design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends7me aa cual feaahane eel (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW companionship. (People vs. Compo, G.R. No. 112990, May 28, 2001) Mere presence at the scens that the accused had prio: of the principal perpetra make him as co-conspir act is essential for he may yet be an accomplice. (People vs. Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001) to exist there intentionality on the part of cohorts (“decides to (Magsuci vs. Sardiganbayan, G.R. No. L-101545, When may the head of a government office be held liable as co-principal for the acts of his subordinates? Either by reck- ‘Tess imprudence or by conspiracy: if he by an act of reckless imprudence brought about the commission of estafa thru falsification, or malversation through falsification, without which the crime could not have been accomplished. When, however, that infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplaced by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held to pre- vail. (Arias vs. Sandigantayan, G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989) i . Under the Arias doctrine all heads of offices have to rely to sonable extent on their subordinates and on the good those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or en- ter into negotiations. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small goverment agencies or com- ‘missions can attest to the volume of papers that must be [FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES a signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memo- anda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or depart- ‘ments is even more appall 16. Jefthe absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal pur- pose and intention immediately before the commission of the cri unity of crimi the participants is, by him. (People vs. Desoy, 127754, August 16, 1999) ARTICLE 9 — Grave, less grave, light felonies ‘Stion, reese a 2. Less grave felonies are punished with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, thus the maximum riod of the penalty must be dest a shod with fe menar or ‘Article 26,2200 fine is correc: Whether the accessory is liable; (Article 16). c. Whether a complex crime was comiitted; (Article 48) d. The duration of the subsidiary penalty; (Article 39, no.2) . The duration of the detention in case7 oo @ al) 2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW f. Whether the crime has prescribed; (Article 90)-and g. The proper penalty for quasi-offenses, (Article 365) ARTICLE 10 — Special Laws 1. Special penal laws define and penalize crimes not'included in the Code; they are different from those defined and pun- ished therein, ‘The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in them fstinefon is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful actis done. In acts mala prahhita the , a? When.an acts laws. ‘The second sentence is the soul of th shall have supplementary applic: ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY = laws use the nomenclature of the penalties in ‘the Revised Penal Code, the effets ae: 's which are mere amendments of the provisions Penal Code, such as the Anti-Cattle Rustling jer vs. CA; Canta vs. Peo Camnapping Law, through amendment of Artide 310, 15 alum prohibutur) 9. The benign provis b. fenders . (People vs. Ondo, 227 SCRA 5E2) UMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL my the Philippines, penal laws subscribe to the classical the- ory hence there is a predetermined penalty for each crime.Poon taeee cn celts) tee eee Gd fee cree) (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW Itis the office of modifying circumstances to increase or de- crease the penalty in accordance with the presence or ab- sence of circumstances showing the moral status of the of- er. ee circumstances which affect or are: ify criminal liabilit Justifying — Article 11 Exempting — Article 12 Mitigating — Articles 13 and 15 Aggravating — Articles 14 and 15 ‘Absolutory — exempting circumstances outside Ar- ticle 12 Extenuating — mitigating circumstances not found in Article 13, such as cong @@bandonment of wife by the hu fe tseorycecunstances Instigation due to public policy; Article 63) — pone desiatanse ia theatiema 3 ‘overt act committed constitutes an- Article 16 — accessories in light felonies; “Article 20 — accessories-relatives other than profiting. in the crime; oe Article 332 — certain relatives in theft, es cious mischief; ‘Somnambulism due to lack of intelligence; Mistake of fact due to lack of intent; ‘otal repeal of inalizes the act. (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY s 4. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means f ment or instigation the mind of the instigator and mission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. (People vs, Ramos, Jr, G.R. No. 88301, October 28, 1991) the delivery ofthe goods, fon ‘vs, Utoh Lakibul, G.R. No. 94337, January 27, 193) 6. Instigation and frame-up cannot be both present in a case for they are incompatible. In instigation, the crime is actu- ally performed by the accused except that the intent origi- nates from the mind of the inducers. In frame-up, however, the offense is not committed by the accused. Precisely, the accused is only framed or set up in a situation leading to a false accusation against him. allegation of frameup and.extactias, by police of- is a common and standard defense in most dangerous cases, It is viewed by the court with disfavor, for it can -rformance of their official duties, (id.)6 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 7. Distinctions: ENTRAPMENT a. The mens rea originated from the accused who was merely trapped by the peace officer in fla- grante delicto is not absolutory as 4. Trap for the unwary iminal (People vs. Mar- »s, GR. No. 83325, May 8, 1990) e. The peace officer is with- ‘out criminal liability for hisacts rein accordance with law a b. INSTIGATION ‘The evil idea originat- ed from the peace of- ficer who induced the accused to commit the act Absolutory by reason of public policy Contrary to public poli- y |. Trap for unwary inno- Gent yar ~ Coutts The peace officer ig a rincipal_by induce: EE aoe as Ramos ARTICLE 11 —~ Justifying Circumstances 1. Justifying circumstances are thosewheratheactsobthaac- -haxececeivad* The civil i tot on the actor but on those who benefited from the act. 3. The j ing circumstances are: a. Defense of self, of relatives, and of strangers; * 5. x 3. Unlawful aggressic ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” b. State of necessity; Fulfillment of duty; and d. Obedience to superior order. Self-defense includes-défensé of ite, chastity pfoperty and Honor.of the accused who must prove with clear and con- ‘Vineing evidence the following elements: A. Unlawful aggression; ssity of the means employed to pre- nd vocation on the part of the person The effect of invoki ‘to place the burden in the a sccssl ip oroya inthe salifactonat tig ak tue tat ‘Of legiiimate defense hecayse thereby he admits the com: mission of the act, complains. y must at all times be present, When unlawful ageression is absent. there js no self-defense whether complete (Article 11) or incomplete (Articles 69 and 13[1}). Tt must be actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidat- ing attitude. The accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. Unlawful ag such as to, aggression means ‘weapon such as to cause inj safety. Aggression is imminent at the point of happenin; tively strong,= (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 9. That petitioner sustained injuries does not signify that he ‘was a victim of unlawful aggression. (Roca us. CA, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001) ‘When the aggression no longer exists, such as when the ag ee need for self-defense Defender Musi stop for when agges- sion ceases and he still contin..ed to attack, he becomes the aggressor. 1. The presence of large number of wouinds inflicted on the victim and the severity thereof disprove self-defense, so do they belie the aim of incomplete defense of one's relative and indicate not the desire to defend one's relative but a de- termined effort to kill. (People vs. Santos, G.R. Nos. 99259-60, March 29, 1996) 12, Reasonable necessity of the means employed depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal. 13, There is no reasonable necessity of the means of defense when the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim has ceased because there is no more need for the offender to defend himself. 14, Ik does not imply commensurability between the means of the attack and defense — the law requites a rational equiva- lence which is determined by the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense. The proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (People vs. Gutual, G.R, No, 115233, February 22, 1996) 15. The presence of a lary victim clearly indica the accused to kill his prey and belies the reasonableness of (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2 the means adopted to prevent or repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. (People vs. Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999) is the rule which applies a weapon and is espe- cially more liberal ifthe person attacked is a peace officer in the performance of his duty. Ths rule has superseded he APT. In defense of one's chastity, there must be mediate, just 18. Slandez may be a necessary.means.ta-repel-slander. But it Ar inust not be more than needed to defend oneself from the defamatory remarks, a “a i t pe ‘in addition, be the necessity to save another igh hese even if there eg nos onthe fense, there must be lack of sul- of the defender; as a mitigat- ing circumstance, there must be presence thereof on the part of the offended.“a #@ ae o (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 22, For defense of strangers, the third requisite is that the per- son defending is not induced by revery ae 24. The presence or lack of all or some of the requisites for the defense have the following effects: a. All requisites are present — justifying circumstance; (Article 11) Sb. Tho requisites are present unlawful aggresion pls another — 69) One requisite present which must be unlawful aggre sion — ordinary miti (Article 13, nol) (> Can 25. The elements of state of necessity are: a. Theevil sought to be avoided actually exists; b The injury feared be greater than that dogg te axoid.it; c. There is ng other practical and less preventing it The state of necessity must not be caused by the neg- ligence or violation of the law of the actor otherwise this benefit cannot be invoked Under Article 101, the civil liability shall be borne not by the actor but the ones benefited by the avoidance of the evil 26. The elements of fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or office are: nder acted in the performance of 2 dutySpthe a. The lawful exercise of a right or office; feed by aegtouating citcumdta ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY a b. The injury caused or the offense committed jg the nec- sa. “When posession has aleagy been Tesort ajming his, ‘Management and Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 495) otherwise be could belliahle for sossciode. 27. Appellant was not in the performance of his duties at the time of the shooting for the reason that the girls he was at- re not committing any act of prostitu- all, the only person he was autho- the time was “R,” who offered him a jpellant caused the victim were not uence of performance of his duty as a 28. The elements of obedience to: superior order are: 7a. Anorder has been issued by.a.superior; >. The orders i 0 A. Themeans used 5 I, the suk czality, ead bayan, GR. NOCTSSD- 03, February 17, 1997) ARTICLE 12 — Exempting Circumstances: 1. The exempting circumstances are: a. Imbecility/insanityr te 1 . Distinctions between j COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW b. Minority © Accident d e £ _ Insuperable or lawful ng and exempting circum- stances: JUSTIFYING 'EXEMPTING’ a. The actis legal a. The acts criminal b. Thereisnocrime hence b. There is a crime, hence ‘ng criminal actiminal law exempts the actor from criminal liabiliges The emphasis of the ‘son the asi, €8., self- law is'enithe actor.eg., defense insane, imbecile Insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code is “a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain or a more oriess permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mental iscernment because there is rn, or there is a total de- "eaple vs. Dungo, G.R. No. iy.ofsbe mental facul (People vs, Danao, GR. No. ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY «6 5. When insanity is interposed as a defense or a ground of a juash, the burden rests upon the accused to es- ‘at fact, for the law presumes every man to be sane. in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove insan- legal presumption of one’s sanity stands, (Article ‘ode) (Zosa vs. CA, G.R. No. 105641, March 10, Jaw presumes all acts to Le voluntary. Not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency i ) 6. When insanity is alleged, the evidence on this point must Preceding the actSpto the very moment of acquitted. He is presumed to be sane when he committed it. (id) 7. Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoid- arcs, and as such must be proved beyond reasonable wdloubs. c (ee 5 a vio insanity in Article 12 e-ccimeis being committed. fence shall.be suspended only. with regard to the personal ‘Renalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circum= stance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the core, sponding cases, If ime the convi i teason—his sentence shall be executed, shall have prescribed in accordance with this Code.” provisions of 9. Where the imbecile or insane person has committed a felony, der his confinement in one of the hospitals lished for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same eople vs. Rafanan, Jr, GR. No. 54135, November 21, 1991)73s e il 10. n, 1B. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Care must be taken to distinguish between lack of reason (insanity) and failure to use reasgn or good judgment due toextremeanger (passion). Mere mental depravity or moral insanity which results not from any disease of mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from the re- ‘sponsibility for crimes committed under its influence. Thus, before the defense of insanity may be accepted, there must bea complete deprivation of intel wvity of that assault and that igence. In Dungo, that the ac- at he had done negated his claim that he was insane when he fatally stabbed the vic- tim. In Aquino, appellant who consumed cough syrup and ing his victim and killing her 6, 1998) complete deprivation ed (b) Vo ‘accompanied by the cognition sufficient to exempt from liability (id.) Where the accused failed to show complete impairment or der characterized by and reality and often accom: ‘ormerly called dementia praecor, itis said to be R.A. 9344 — Juvenile Just 7 ind Welfare Act of 2006 1. The youthful offender is a conflict with the lau" who : Achild ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY “6 the most common form of psychosis and usually develops between the ages of 13 and 30. (id.) In cases where schizophrenia was interposed, it has mostly been rejected mental faculties, such to deprive that accused of of his acts. Schizophrenic reaction. although not exempting hhecause it does not completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a mitigating -CircumstanceunderAtticle 30} is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having commit- ted an offense under Philippine laws. (Section 4, item e). Be- fore becoming such, he may have been a “child at risk” who is vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal of- fenses because of personal, family and social circumstances, such as sexual, physical and other kinds of abuses, aban- donment, dysfunctional or broken family, ete. at the time of the commission of 1¢ offense shall be exemnpt from criminalliabitity. However, he shall ke subjecfec.io an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of RA. 9344, Acchild over 15 but below all likewise be exempt from. S&S fed to diversion program under Sec‘ion 23 of the law. : the provision of Asticle.68 of the vised Penal Code for the youth 15 or under is no longer entitled to 2 degrees reduction of penalty but has become ly exempt from criminal liafa to or “ COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 5. Aside from exemption from criminal responsibility due to minority, children under 1 av offenses ‘a. Sfatus offenses or any conduct not considered an of- fense and-not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child, Example: drinking liquor, vio- lation of curfew hours, et. b. _ Vagrancy and prostitution under Article 202 of the Re- vised Penal Code c. Mendicancy under PD. 1563 4. Snuffing of rugby under PD. 1619 ‘The child however shall undergo appropriate counsel 7. Discernment is not relevant to intent but to intelligence. While there may be discernment, it does not necessarily ‘mean that the minor intended the crime. (People vs. Cordova, , 8373-74, July 5, 1993) If intent is not proved, the acquitted from the offense charged. legation in the information that the iscerament. (People us. Cordova, et al, GR. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993) ~» For accident to be appreciated, the following must concur: a. The accused_was performing alawiuleanb with due ae b, Thenjury is caused by n.ere accident; and (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY @ ¢ There was no fault or intent of causing the injury{Peo- ple vs. Mat-an, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992) This is because when the with fault, it;will fall under culpa; when with intent it will become an intentional felony. The accident must not be foreseeable or there will be fault or criminal negligence. 10. The basis of exemption from criminal liability for accident is the lack of criminal intent. For an accident to become an ‘exempting Grcamstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act. (People vs. Agliday, G.R, No. 140794, October 16, 2001) 11. Having claimed that the shooting was.agcidental, petition- ‘er must, ye the same by clear and convincing evidence. erg ara ag ae a crime remained with the prosecution. (People vs. CA, G.R. No. 1036613, February 23, 2001) 12 his shotgun and retumed to the kitchen had intervened in his quarrel with his wife. Ashotgun would not have fired off without first being cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fie it at someone. (People vs. Agliday) Drivers of vehicle who bump the rear of another ve- hicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence. The rationale behind this presumption is that the driver of the rear vehicle has full‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW control of the situation as he is in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. Consequent avoid the collision with the front of accident, the im op glse he will bei TU). ._ Irresistible force has the following elements: a, The fosce must be physical, must come from an outside source, and the accused must act not only without a will but also against hi 3. The elements of impulse of uncontrollable fear are: a. Thizatwhich caused the fear of an evil greater than oF at least equal to that which the accused was required to it; thas been reduced toa mere ‘nstrument of the offender. be delivered to the judic enforcers to do so on ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ° arrestee for preliminary investigation will result to waiver of the provision of Article 125. R.A. 9262 — Anti-Violence against Women and their Chil- dren’ 1. “Violence against women and their children” covers any act or series of acts against a person's wife, former wife, or 2. "Battery" is ipicting physical hammaipon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological or emo- ” is the intentional act by one who knowingly and ‘without lawful justification follows a womap-or her. child GF places themuundar-surveillance.directly or indirectly or a ‘combination thereof. |. “Dating relationship” is a situation wherein unmarried par- ties live as husband and wife re romantically involved uentine aifPon a continuing Basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socializa- tion between two individuals in a business or social context is GEA dating relationship. 5. The law prescribes protection orders to prevent further acts of violence against a woman or her child and granting other necessary relief to be enforced by law enforcement agencies, ‘These are the Barangay Protection Order, Temporary Protec- tion Order and Permanent Protection Order. Theseliefshall begranted.even in absencootdecres.of legal senaration/an-_ bulmentox.declasation,of absolute nullity of marriage. The protection is granted ex parle. ‘The orders are enforceable anywhere in tion thereof shall be puns and /or imprisonment of 6 months.8 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Sronen Deleeaghas Battered women it ‘St women in any form of intimate relationship bbe classified as such, the couple must go through the batter- ing cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an. abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second, time, and she remains in the situa is defined as a battered woman. (People vs. Genosa, GR. No, 195981, Janu- ary 15, 2004) The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the “cy cle of violence,” which has 3 phases: (a) tension-building; (b) acute battering incident; and (c) tranquil, loving or non- violent. id.) 1. At the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs — verbal, physical abuse or other form of hostile behavior. “The woman tries to pacify the batteres but this behavior oy fing incident is said to be characterized by tiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the battered woman has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, Acute battering incidents intervengrs are likely to get hurt. ‘The final phase of cycle of violence begins when the il batterer ma) ay show ae tender, ‘qd nurturing behaviartowards. | ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY a 10. Because of the: ‘of stimulating the development of coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the victim's ability to muster an active response to try to escape further trauma, Justas the battered woman believes that she is somehow respon: sible for violent behavior of Is unsafe, suffers from pervasive anxiety, and usually fails to leave the relationship. (id.) 1h res the brutalized person is already suffering fromthe 5 ? frome, further evidence of actual ssault at the ing of batierer must have produced in the battered person's mind. use force in order to save her life. batterer must have posed probal by the former against the latter. (id.) tion 26 of R.A. 9262 provides that the victim any criminal liability despite the absence of justifying circumstances under the Revised Penal igence or intent analogous to illness that diminishes exercise of will-(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW hout depriving her of consciousness of her acts, jon and obfuscation, of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. This state of mind is present when a crime ion provoked 80 powerful as to overcom do not arise from the same set of cyclical nature and severity of violent aggression inflicted ARTICLE 13 — Mitigating Circumstances 1. Mitigating circumstances shows lesser perversity of the of- fender and are considered to lower the penalty imposable generally to the minimum period of the penalty prescribed in the law. They are matters of defense which donot have '9 be alleged in the information. 2. The rationale behind the whole concept of mitigating cir- ccumstance is to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of accused who has nevertheless shown lesser perver- sity in the commission of an offense. Thus, where the evi- dence on record bespeaks of vileness and depravity, no mer- og of leniency should be accorded an accused who should be made to suffer in ful for acts perpetrated with complete voluntariness and intent for their tragic consequences. (Peo- ple vs, Santos, supra.) . Article 13 enumerates ont! ary mitigating circumstances ‘with the effect of reducing the penalty to the minimum pe- Hod. Howeves inset WMleged mil! cb a Misa ‘ah ging, Dut is always privileged mitigating thot altogether exempting: and 1b, _Incompleteness of the requisites to.exempt from crimj- ity or justify the act which becomes privileged 6. sites are present rragraph 1 for Article 69 which allows reduc tion of penalty by degree. ~ceduction of penally b 7 ee ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY % 4, + Outside of Article 13 are extenuating circumstances (such as concealment of dishonof‘on tke part of the mother in infan- ticide) which have the effect of reduc 7 b. « (privileged mitigating) va the minimum potted (ont estes epee aggravating circumstance, there are analogous ig circumstances, cs of mitigating circumstances: inary — lowers the penal iod. The penalty must Be ra penalty has no peri Privileged — lowers the penalty prescribed by one or mote degrees whether it be a divisible or indivisible penalty. Specific — applies to a specific felony like concealment of dishonor case of abortion by the pregnant woman and could either be ordinary ot privileged de- the minimum pe- 3t be divisible for an indivisible ding upon the extent of reduction of penalty. 7, inctions between ordinary and ‘privileged’ mitigating! circumstances: Ordinary can-be offset by generic aggravating circum- stance; Privileged cannot heoffset by any kind of ag- gravating circumstance. Ordinary mitigating lowers the penalty prescribed to the minimum period except where there are 2 or- inary mitigating wat wbsolitely no aggravating ci cumstance in which case the penalty is lowered. bya degree only. Pr i sd mitigating lowers the penalty ision of the Revised Penal penalty for a particular felony is lowered by one or two degrees in view of the presence of a particular circumstance, such is a privileged miti- gating circumstance which cannot be offset by any ge- neric aggravating, Example: Article 6®.0n incomplete justification /exemption.8, One and the same fa ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Ordinary mitigating isnot considered in the determina- tion of the proper penalty when the penalty prescribed is a single indivisible penalty (paragraph 1, Article 63). Privileged is considered whatever penalty is impos- able. should not give credit to more than. ce in favor of the accused. For in- of a grave offense and provo- are based upon the same fact, 1ce should mitigate the criminal ‘one mitigating circums stance, passion, cation cannot co-e» hence only. one lability of the offender. 9. The mitigating circumstances are: [A Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances; (2. Minority /senility: A. Pracler intentionem (supra.); LA. Sufficient provocation or threat; “e Immediate vindication of a grave offense; ‘A. Passion or obfuscation; (As Voluntarily surrender; Je Voluntarily plea of guilt; 3: Deaf and dumb, blind or other physical defect; 4 Az K Analogous cisumstnses. 10. The first mitigating circumstance is the incompleteness of the requirements to justify the act or exempt from criminal ii ‘under Articles 11 and 12. This should he related. to shich prescribes a privileged mitigating circum- ty of the requisites to exempt or justify are , Adticle i4nodshallapply, and the winimum period onl} year law student knows that unlawful not a mitigating circumstance. (Estoya vs. -91-758, September 26, 1994) It is not aggression Singson, ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 5 unlawful aggression but the incompleteness of the requisite for defense that is mitigating. 1), Minority is always a privileged mitigating circumstance for pursuant to Acti the offender is over 15 but less than 18, the penalty shall be 1 degree lower but in the proper period. If he is 15 or under he i le 68(1) by icreconcilable sepuenancy 12. R.A. 9344 merely amended Article 192 of PD. No. 603, as “amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is al- ready 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronounce- ment of his/her guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of PD. No, 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Secticit 38 of Rep. ‘Act No. 934. Evidenty, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided in Article 192 of PD. No, 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-41-18.SC. Her Files who have been convicted of a © crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are_disqualified from having theit_se (Dedlarador vs. Gubaton, GR. No. 155208, August 18, 2006} {Note: with due respect, how could an SC A.M. amend PD. 6037) If the child reached 18 years of age while under sus- pended sentence, the court shall determine whether: a) to re in accordance with the applicable 9344; b) to order execution of sentence; nce for a specified period iI he reaches the maximum age of 1. (Section 40, id) 13, The offender must be a minor under 18 at the timé of the com- ‘mission ofthe crime. If he were then 18 or over, he is no longer in the eyes of the law. Neither can his “minority” at the time of commission of the crime be ap- {19 year preciated as a mitigating factor. (People vs. delos'Reyes, GR. No. 44112, October 22, 1992)creme eee 4. 18. 19, (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the of- ring the gravity of the offense and in the in- , the presentation of and admission of the ‘ofthe accused to prove minority should be allowed although said certificate was not presented or of- fered in the trial court, An official document prepared by the DSWD in the exercise of its functions and incorporated in the case records can be taken judicial notice ex mero motu, (People vs, Regalario, 220 SCRA 368) (over 70) is an ordinary mit sain circumstance. it of the death peat, when the penalty impossble le death it shall be re duced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 83, thus par- taking of the nature ofa privileged mitigating circumstance. disqualifieshim ‘The clements of surfioat Provocation are: a, The provocation must be sufficient; tween the provocation and the commission ‘crime. (People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570) Accused cannot claim that he was provoked when the of- and attack him, (People. P 1994) GR. No. 75508, June 10, Sulficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-de- ‘ql f incomplete self. _fenseis from sufficient provocation as a mitigating Bee rot allow an iokvval of (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY a circumstance. As an element of self-defense, it requires its “absence onthe part.of the person. defendingabimsalf; as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the partof the offended pasty. (People vs. CA, fo. 103613, February tolervel of fme ition of grave offense, “offense” not xy be any act or event which offends eeeed ca \g mental agony to him and moves him to vindicate himself of such offense. For instance, insulting, anold. aman (US. vs. Aisa 37 Phil. 301) or sloping with the ig stl siiffering from the mental agony t ‘he “offense” to him. (Pope. Para, 64 Pl cation of a grave oifense cannot be considered the accused when he had sufficient time to recover his se- renity. (People vs. Santos, supra.) siderable lengt have recovered ‘passion or obfuscation can arise. = ee 8. CA, GR. No, 103613, February 23, 2001)a oe 25. & (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Voluntary surrender and voluntary plea are independent of each other and can be simultaneously and separately con- sidered in favor of the offender being based on different grounds. ‘The elements of voluntary surrender are: a. The offender surrendered to a persor ral cigar hie is guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture; d. There is no pending warrant of arrest or informati iva, to. For instance, when Ampie learned that the po- lice were looking for him for the death of Salvador, he immediately went to the police station where he con- fessed to killing Salvador in self-defense. However, the said surrender does not constitute as a mitigating, ircumstance fo ime of his surrender, he had a pending warrant of arrest issued five days before his surrender. His arrest by that time was imminent. (id.) Voluntary surrender can be appreciated even ifthe accused. turned themselves one week after the crime, The factis they voluntarily surrendered to the police before arrest could be effected. (People vs, Amaguin, G.R. Nos. 54344-45, January 10, 1994) Since it was the police officer who went looking for the ac- ‘cused immediately after obtaining information from eye- witnesses as to who had perpetrated the crime even if he did not resist arrest or deny his criminal act, this cannot be ‘equated with voluntary surrender. (People vs. Rebamontan, GR. No. 125318, April 13, 1999) 30. 31, (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2 surrender by his employer do not sideration of his voluntary surrer that he was not arrested and that he presented himself to the Provincial Com: der to surrender. (People vs. Morato, GR. Nos. 95358. 993) ‘The offender render. Ifthe offerider did not submit him: \rities and it was his superior who surrendered custody of the court, such is not the voluntary surrender contemplated by law. (People 2s. Acuram, supra.) ‘That accused surrendered because of fear of reprisal does not detract from the spontaneity of his surrender and the fact that he had saved the State the time and trouble of search- ing for him. (People vs. Amazan, G.R. No. 136251, 16, 2001) The fact that accused yielded his weapon at the ident albeit with some persuasion should be is favor. (People vs. Amon, GR. No. 140511, ‘The elements of voluntary plea of guilty are: a. The plea was made in open court (judicial confession) 'b. It was spontaneous and unconditional Made before puesentation ofthe evidence by the pans not made in open ‘tunity and befor dence. If the court where the plea’ of guilty was made was diction and later on accused pleaded guilty be- sper court, the proceedings before the former is void while the plea of guilty on the latter is mitigating.37. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 1. Ina case it was stated that a confession of guilt made be- fore the media is not within the benefit ofthis provision but should be viewed with caution for there is the possibility of the law enforcer making use of the media to extract confes- sion from the sus use it is an act of icates a moral dis- form. Plea of guilty in capital offenses must not be accepted with alacrity but the accused must be made to understang-fully sa and its consequences. Dréaccused fe only evidence of his fe to the prodding of his PAO lawyer. GR.No. L-80845, March 14, 1994) essence of a plea tionally his guilt and responsi to him. Hence, he may not ‘on the court by admitting his penalty will be meted unto him. (People vs. Magat, G.R. No. 1130026, May 31, 2000) ‘The offender's being deaf and dumb or blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect must be related to the offense committed because theJaw requires that the defect lness must only diminish and not deprive the offender of s acts. Otherwise he will be exempt For instance, schizophrenia is miti- 1es but not deprive the accused of the consciousness of his act. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINALLIABILITY “ 40. Analogous circumstances mnust be similar to those enumer- ated in Article 13, Examples of these are: ‘a, Restitution of the questioned funds by petitioner may be considered mitigating circumstance in malversation of public funds (Ni 107383, December 7, 1994) as analogous to volunt. plea of guilty. ae voluntarily took the cow to the munici- it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus save them the trouble of recover- ing the cow, can be analogous to voluntary surrender. (Camas. Pope, GR. No, M0597, February 28,2001) 7 7 2. SiguR nature gr analogous.to.those ener (Gallardo vs. Tzbamo, Jr, Adm. Mat. RTJ- ‘that defendants belong to the non-Christian minorities cannot reduce from the subjective ‘view their awareness of the gravity of the of- fense for robbery and kil ARTICLE 14 — Aggravating Circumstances 1. Ageravating circumstances are those which show greater perversity of the offender, hence, they have the effect of in- creasing the penalty. ._ Aggravating and mitigating dreumstances may be distin.fee eee -y ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW the judge to determine what other circumstances may increase the penalty. If there are analogous aggravating circumstances, the accused would not know beforehand what specific circumstances. would be appreciated as analogous aggravating, hence, it would violate his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. vating circumstances, no matter how many qan.only increase the penalty to the, dipum, iod within thal Taw. The increase can never ST be by degree. c. Mitigating circumstance is a matter of defense which ‘does not have to be alleged in the information; aggra- vating circumstances must be alleged in the informa- tion before they can be proved and appreciated. 3. Examples of the distinction in 2a: a. Where the accused killed 3 persons by reason or on the ‘occasion of the robbery, the issue of multiplicity of ho- micide was the of conflicting views. In some ‘cases it was held that the additional rapes /homicides ‘committed on the occasion of robbery would not in- crease ‘while in other cases, the ruling wes, icides should be appreciated as aggt snces. People vs. Regala settled the issue thaf‘no Yaw provides that the excess rape or ‘homicide should be considered as aggravating cizcum- stance. (People us. Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001) b. Immogal mative, while itmay find supp inevidence Boy Gop cenidere das an fal ane a (People vs. Villaver, GR. No. L-32104, March 25, * ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY e © Four kinds of aggravating circumstances: a. Generic aggravating circumstances: A. Have the effect of the penalty being imposed in the maxim od. Note that the penalty pre- scribed in Book Il is thecfaxir able, thus the increase in the penalty cannot be to the next higher degree but only to the maximum pe- riod; Apply to all felonies generally; and Can be oi itigati Stance. Prior to the amendment of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information but proved may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance for not being an ele- nent ofthe crime, its appreciation does not violate the tight of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. However, such rule has been debunked.with the Revised Rules on Criminal Proce- dure-The information must now specify th and aggravating circumstances. (Section 8 A cursory examination of the informa show that the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling are not specified therein. Now, at the time the trial court rendered its decision, the nor-al- legation of generic aggravating circumstances in the information was immaterial, since the rule then pre- vailing was that generic aggravating circumstances duly proven in the course of the trial could be taken into account by the trial court in determining the prop- er imposable penalty even if such circumstances were aXe ould not alleged in the information. (People vs. Deberto, 205 SCRA 291; People vs. Legaspi, 357 SCRA 240) \ JAE circumstances enumerated in Article 14 are ge- ‘ner. If some of them are qualifying in particular crimes such as treachery, evident premeditation, etc. in murder it is because the specific provision makes them so.Sel ee ee coat eal ey ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW >. Qualifying circumstances: A 2 oie in the penalty. is penalized with reol penalty but the change in the sgravating circumstances which {stony. they do nat change the generic aggravating applies to special agg as both do not change the character of the ‘maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person belonging to an organized/ ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 6 syndicated crime group which is defined as a group of ‘more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutu- Iping one another for purposes of gain in the com- erent aggravating circumstance which is an_ele—_ ating circumstances duly proven in'the course of the trial could be taken into account by the trial court in determining the imposable penalty. (People vs. Legaspi, supra) + -9s_a_qualifying circumstance. the others will be generic. Since treachery has qualified the crime as murder, evident premeditation should be considered as generic. (People vs. Fabros, G.R. No. 90603, October 19, 1992)“ ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY @ In contempt of o with insult to public authorities 1. Requisites: one becomes the act of all, The presence of conspiracy can- A. The public authority is engaged in the discharge of bis not per se qualify a killing to murder. (People vs. Feran, Octo- duties: bber 1992) a. 10. “Aggravating circumstances” has fwo constructions: z a. Broad or generic sense when the penalty to be imposed pe is teetering between reclusion perpetua and death and in 2. The term “public authori thority but also agents of persons in ai r public officers. Rodriguez, (19 Phil. 150), Siojo (61 Phil. 307) 1403) were reconsidered in Rodi, be~ fied by the employment of the term public ‘A instead of the term person in authority in and 152. There is no reason why the phrase public authority should comprehend only persons in author- ity. The lawmaker could have easily utilized the term “per- in authority” in Article 14 in much the same way that employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 152. R.Nos. ee c February 13,2004) ne, applazhon of indivisilde] rae eat Sen b. For purposes of Article 65 the term must be under- stood in the striciest sense to include only those Article 14 when the aggravating cireut spell the difference between life and been mooted by R.A. 9346) ‘Taking advantage of official position im 3. A municipal mayor, haraneay captain, or barars is Qe paisa in author ona publicauthosiy Even publis pubs ‘School is now considere 1. The test is: “Did the accused abuse his office in order to qf circumstance is present. Hq the duties of his ‘ - health officer, og uni preparing of otherwise intervening in the p health offices or a nu, or an a ‘a document. (Layno vs. People, September 1992) (See notes of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. ‘under Article 62) Y 2. That should i |_Dositian. For such to be considered aggravating, the pub- lic official must use juence, prestige and ascendancy which his office purpose. (People vs, Aion, G.R. No. 14051“| 1 oT ow ~~ November 28, 1999) However. de las Reyes. October 1992, ae took dwell “ (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW circumstance cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation 3, The aggravating circumstance of sex is not sustained solely by the fact that the victim was a woman. It must further ap- the unlawful taking of her life, there was some # disrespect shown to her womanhood. (Peo- crimes against property such as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. (People vs. Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, g into account xfGsoning tag robbery with ho- be committed without necessarily tranggressiny de can’ due the victim on account of his rank. That the accused was cognizant of the rank of the deceased police officer or that he articulated hatred against all policemen in general does ab per se suffice to prove this aggravating circumstance. Or ‘when the raiding police officers were not even (People vs, Verchez, G.R. Nos. 82729-32, June 7. Age refers to both the elderly and the youth. For instance, Jayvee was barely six years old when ruthlessly stabbed 14, times before his body was submerged in the pail. It was er- ror not to have considered his age as an aggravating circum- stance. (People vs. Lapan, G.R. No. 88300, July 6, 1992) 8. “Dwelli a i enclosures under the Wotse. It is not necessary.that.the house be owned by the offended, It incudes.asoom.in.a oe AE exent as in parricide, rape, abduction, or seduction CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINALLIABILITY ® boarding house. Homeis that which the Jaw seeks to protect : oo z 52%. boards orabad spaces. 9. Adwelling must be a building or structure &clusivg for rest and comfort. Where the crime was” mitted in a store which is about fifteen meters away from the com plainant’s house, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling ‘cannot be considered. Obviously, the store cannot be con- ling or even a dependency of complainant's Joya, GR. No. 79090, October 1, 1993) 10. Dwelling ighoDaggravating whet: A. Offended has given provocation %. Both the offended and offender live therein /e. Dwelling is inherent in the crime such as trespass to dwelling or robbery in an inhabited place. 11. Rationale for this circumstance — the offender's greater per- domicile. (Penple vs. Lapan) 12.” In the crimes of abduction and illegal detention where the offended i ., dwelling may be taken as, circumstance. However, this circumstance jeans 1o-perpetrate.the.as- ‘Examples: attack from below the floor of the house, as in fact the target victim was hit inside his own house (People vs. Dacibar, G.R. No. 111286, February 2000) or when the victim was abducted while she ‘was in the staircase. (People vs. Magat, G.R. No, 130026, May 31, 2000)n ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. ‘Abuse of confidencelobvious ungratefulness* 1. Requisites of abuse of confidence obvious ungratefulness: A envied had Gi? the offender. (6. Offender abii5yd such trust & Suchabuse ‘Sf confidence adilitated commissigh of the~ gn See 2, The confidence between the parties must be immediate@ang> 2esonal ‘Committed in the palace of the Chief Executlve, etc. sary in the circumstanc- 1. Performance of function is n« es of the offense being conv in the palace of the Chief Executive, in a place devot gious worship ot in the presence of the Chief Executive. 2. Offender must have sought any of the 4 places for the com- mission of the crime. Nighttime, uninhabited place, bend, ald of armed men 1. “Nighttime” is the period of darkness beginning at dusk and ending at dawn 6p from sunset to sunrise. The crime ‘must be committed exalusively at nighttime and not started at daytime. Itis not considered in crimes where nighttime is merely accidental or coincidental or has no influence in the perpetration thereof. Nighttime (nocturnity) is x simple fact that the feiberately sought in crime, (People vs. Ferrer, 255 SCRA) 1. The cri t If the light was Tight enough to see what was going on and to recognize ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIASILITY n the assailants, noctumity does not qualify as an aggravating 8, Band consists of more than 3 (at least 4 < rganized with the intention of carrying out any unlawful design. They should have acted i of the crime. (People vs. Robiego, November 1993) 9. “Band is inherent in brigandage. It is similar to abuse of su- perior strength whose essence is the utilization of the com- bined strength of the assailants to overpower the victim to consummate the offense. 10.) The elements of aid of armen are: a. Armed men or persons took the crime directly or indirectly, and b. The accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. 1. Band vs. aid of armed men: a. In band there must be at least 4 armed men; in aid of armed men, there is no required number of malefac- in the commission of tors. b. The band members are all principals for they take part in the commission of the felony under the same plan74 4m | n (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW and for the same purpose. The armed men who aided the pri offender are mere-accomnalies for ey give and moral aid and encouragement in the c. Band absorbs aid of armed men. 12. Band vs. organized crime: a. Band requires atleast 4 membersuho are Ged argae sssedienmorequires only 2 members who may oF may notbe armed. b. There is no particular crime, for which the band is or- ganized ci ie group is for de pumas i ain such as Kidnapping for 13. a generic aggravating and as qualifying.ciroums. stance: a. Band asa generic circumstance applies to any. grime; as a qualifying circumstance under Articles 299,and.296, it applies only to mbbezy-with-physicalinjurjes under Article 294 paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. b. Whether generic or qualifying, the definition of band is the same. ‘On the occasion and by means of calamity or misfortune ‘The “other calamity or misfortune” in paragraph 7 refers to the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake or ep- demic when the offense was committed. In paragraph 12, the calamity is the means in the commission of the crime, Aggravat- ing becay fender instead of lending aid te she vichis, to their sufferings. a Recidivism, reiteracion, habitual delinquency and quasi-ecidivism 1. There ared forms of habituality: recidivism, reiteracion (both, in Article 14), habitual delinquency (Article 62, NaS) and quasi-recidivism (Article 160) ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” Arecidivist is ne who, at the time of his shall. ‘ther crime embraced in.the.same.titlooot.the.Cade, There must be 2 convictions. . “Final judgment” means executory, ies a. 15 days have elapsed from its promulgation without the convict appealing the conviction; b. Offender started serving sentence; ly waived his right to appeal; or Recidivism compared with reiferacion: a. Recidivism requires a previous conviction by final judgment; reteracion requires service of sentence. b. In recidivism the offenses are under the same title of the Code; in reiteracion, itis not so required. c. In the former, there is no requirement as to penalty; in the latter the prior crime must have been imposed with. A person is a habitual delinguer [COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a penalty equal to or greater than the second crime or he must have served 2 or more crimes carrying lighter penalty. Habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance g circumstances within a period of 10 ‘last conviction of the te of his release are ggainst property and the last gainst peCtender may be a recidivist and a habitual de- lings same time if he was convicted for the third time of the crimes within the same title of the Code. released when again convicted. third conviction that ‘must be within 10 years from sase or second convic- tion, Note that the law says “if within a period of 10 years he is found guilty of any of said crimes a 3rd time or oftener.” Recidivism and habitual delinquency: a. Inrecidivism, a 2nd conviction is enough; in habitual delinquency, a 3rd conviction is necessary. b. Recidivism requires that the crimes involved be both ‘under the same Title of the Code; in habitual delin- quency, the crimes are specific which may or may not be within the same Titl ‘GLRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 6 c. Recidivism does not prescribe because there is no time limit between the 1st and 2nd convictions; habitual de- linquency prescribes if the 10-year period is exceeded. d. Recidivism is a generic aggravating. circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circum- Gitcumstance which must be considered by the court in. the imposition of penalty. It cannot be offset. 11. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance * which may not be offset by an ordinary mitigating circum- stance. The offender has been previously convicted py final . judgment and before beginning to serve such sentence Or) enle serving the same he committed a felony. 12. Quasi-recidivism is penalized in addition to habitual delin- quency because of the opening phrase in Arties "Be sides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62.” #fe effect is to penalize the convict with the maximum period far the new Aslony committed plus the onic: penalty fo plete the service of the original conviction he shall be pardoned, qipless he.is a habitual. other circumstances shovw.thathe Price, promise or reward Price, promise or reward affects equally the offeror and the acceptor. The offeror is a principal by inducement, and the ac- ceptor, the pring the primary consideration in the commission of the crime for this circumstance to be aggravating. Evident premeditation 1. The elements of evident premeditation are: FX a. The TIME when the offender determined to commit the crime;7] 4 oom i sae cecal xX micide. In such an offense, the evid \editation must 7% ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW b, An ACT manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and . Sufficient LAPSE of time between such determination allow him to reflect upon the conse- 2. It must be shown when the plan to commit the crime was ‘that elapsed before it was car- is stub- born adherence t lony. Otherwise stated, the gueGtion of the-plan-must be preceded.by cool thought and reflection of the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive ata calm judgment. 3, Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify 1 killing to murder in the absence of evidence, not only of sufficient lapse of time, but also of the planning and fas conceived. (People vs. Nel that Edgardo heard Arturo was “hunting” him because of competition over @ git] is not sufficient to prove evident premeditation (People 1. Wenceslao, G.R, No. 95583, August 2, 1992) or of alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive pr premeditation. (People vs. Padama, G.R. No. 1 41,1999) 5. Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with ho- ‘Craft, fraud, ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” 6. If the attack upon the village is planned, the killing of any individual during the attack is attended also by evident pre~ m 7. Under normal conditions, where tablished. with proof of thé attendant ‘selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the exist is litatic ‘hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out for “Whe accused to have “sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment dis nately to consider and accept "adlan, GR. No. 111263, May 21, 1998) 1. Craft is cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resort ed to hy the accused to carry out his evil design. Ex. the offender assumed position of authority to gain entry in a house: feigning friendship to lure victim to an uninhabited place. 2. Fraud constitutes deceit manifested by insidious words or machinatiorss. Disguise is resorted to conceal the identity in spite of the disguise, the offender was recognized, such cannot be aggravating, s 3. Not aggravating ifit did not facilitate the commission of the crime(opit is not taken advantage of by the offender in the course of the assault. 4. Ifresorted to in insuring the commission of the crimeagainst _personsuithout risk to offender, absétbed by treachery” ‘Abuse of superior strength 1. Abuse of supesir stuength i gletionaiy employing ex: cessive force. out-of propartion.io.the means of defense‘Treachery (alevosia)’ ‘COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW available to the offended party. There must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor . Superiority in number does not necessarily mean that the offenders abused their superior s that means are ‘employed to weaken the defense dMust be proved that the fattackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from superiority of strength. This ig taken into account if ized SF Sohascationos made during a quarrel. woeen i elle or ly, the husband is physi- cally SORGET ‘wife; and in rape itis absorbed "nto account in fixing the penalty. ‘An attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an un ‘armed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superi- or strength which his sex and weapon afforded him. (People bs. Espina, G.R, No. 123102, February 29, 2000) or where the aggressors, who were all armed, first hit the legs.of their unarmed victim, causing the latte kneeling; then, stabbed him above the knee; and, having deprived him of hhis means to stand or run, took tums in inflicting mortal wounds on him. (People vs. Apelado, G.R, No, 132137, Octo ber 1, 1999) (BBE This is manufest where the victim was unarmed anc “wae trying to flee while the 2 felons were armed and used their weapons in perpetrating the crime. (People vs. Alacar, GR. Nos. 64725-26, July 20, 1992) ‘Where 3 persons assaulted the victim inside his house and the appellant stabbed the deceased while the latter was firmly held by the 2 other ‘companions, treachery.cannpt bea js included in abuse of superior strength. = q (CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ” 3, ‘Treachery must: (a) insure that the offended was not able to put up any defense, not even token defense; and (b) the means, manner, and form was consciously and deliberate- ly chosen. (People vs. Magallanes, August 1997) The means, ‘methods or forms of the execution of the crime must be con- sciously adopted because fhe'law requires that the same in- sure its execution. must be intended to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to the offender from a defense the victim might offer. wamed of the, that the gxetGition of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. (People vs. Landicho, by ‘reachery may be appreciated even when the victim was ger to his person, for what is us physical injui stance which increases the penalty. 6., There is no treachery if the attack is an impulse of the ac- cused or when the killing is due to passion or when the ac- ‘cused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased 60 as to insure the commission of the crime. 7. When the attack is frontal, generally, there is no treachery. “a But there is treachery when the attack althous sudden aid fhade, pene trocar its execution free from dangexand.withs “oulisk in.the offends ; 8, Whereas the essence of evident premeditation ig_cool ae ion, the essence of treachery is the gwift- nei e ss tack upon pecting and unarmed victim, who does not give the slightest “Bebeson le Rebamontan GR. No, 125318, April 15, 1999) 9, Generally, it must be present at the inception of the attack. If the attack was without treachery at its inception, there. ‘must be a break.or interruption in the attack forit-to-be-0 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW considered jf the attack was consummated with treachery. “Riker the commencement of such an attack, and before its termination, an accused person may have employed means cor methods which were of a treacherous character, and yet such means or methods wovld not constitute the circum: stance of alevosia. One continuous attack cannot be broken ‘up into 2 or more parts. Where the lone witness was not commencement of the assault, he cou it ali began and developed. Abse to observe the testify on how 10, “Treachery must be proved as convinch i Ttg&ninot be inferred just The attack is not shown. There is a trength between the pifender and the vi superior strength appreciated as it is necessarily absorbed in treachery. 12, The allegation in the information that the victims are both i considered compliance with the above-men- ‘commonly understood in practice that when not be equated with rot so much as to Abuyen) 13, Treachery absorbs bath nighttime and taking advantage of superior strength in the light of the circumstances of the case at bar. Considering that treachery qualifies the killing ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY 5 of the 4 victims, the accused is guilty of 4 counts of murder. (People vs. Bechayda, G.R. No. 72001, August 7, 1992) 14, ‘Treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus. When the Ac of fired at his adversary but missed, thevictims werr helpless to defend th ‘Their deaths were murders ‘not simply homicide since the acts were qualified by treach- (People ws. Flora, G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000) aliation” relevant in the appreciation of treachery sme frotn the victim, not from anyone else. That the site of the crime was heavily populated where others could thus intervene is not significant at all. (People vs. Costelo, GR. No, 134311, October 13, 1999) Ignominy and cruelty produces more suffering on account of its humiliating ef- fects. It was not appreciated in a case where the sexual as- ‘as not shown as having been done by the accused to, ‘victim to shame before killing him. (People vs. Diaz, GR. No. 154311, October 13, 1999) 2. “Tgnominy selates to moral suffering whereas cruelty tophys- ical suffering. There is cruelty when the culprit delights in to show that these were inflicted unnecessarily while the victim was still alive to prolong his physical suffering. 3, The mere fact that there were numerous stab wounds does not imply cruelty because the offender may be overwhelmed by passion or obfuscation or it may be that the victim was already dead when the stab wounds were inflicted and can 1.0 longer suffer pain in excess of that necessary to commit the crime.1m faa] 2 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 4. Assuming that the victim was still alive during the entire period of the ordeal he was subjected to, there could possibly be cruelty since appellants deliberately augmented the ‘wrong they committed. On the other hand, ifthe victim died immediately after he was stabbed, then appellants could be held to have outraged his corpse when they fiendishly slashed his intestines to pieces. Further, the intervening time between the initial attack and subsequent acts must be sufficiently established to enable determination as to whether they were one continuous series of acts or were So deliberately spaced as to constitute either cruelty or outrage. (People vs. Balisteros, G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994) 5, The killing was done with cruelty, by deliberately or inhu- manly augmenting the suffering of th or scoffing at his person or corpse. No greater outrage, in- sult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than to sever its head. The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence directed towards it cannot be interpreted in any other manner than an outrage to his corpse. (People 1s, Binondo, GR, No. 97227, October 20, 1992) rolled unconscious after she was ravished, hacked her, almost splitting her face in two. isa formof perversity which ag- gravated the crime, it being unnecessary to the commission thereof, and manifestly an outrage on the victim’s person. (People vs. Nescio, G.R. No. 102008, December 28, 1994) Unlawful entry, breaking of door, ete. ‘There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a ‘way not intended for that purpose. It must be entry not exit. But breaking a door to enter is not unlawful entry since this is cov- ered by paragraph ich states that “as a means to the commission of the crime a wall, rouf, floor, door, oF win- dow be broken” showing that unlawful entry excludes ingress bby means of such breaking. ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ® Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle 1. These are distinct circumstances: with the aid of minor show- ing greater perversity of the offender in educating a minor on how to commit a crime and the use by modem criminals not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act. (People vs. Amion, supra.) to the authorities in apprehen ARTICLE 15 —Alternative Circumstances 1. Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according the crimg aed other conditions ission. They apeGonsidered only when, they influenced the commission of the imstances are not aggravating per se forshey ing. As aggravating circumstances, Of ETAT a 4. Relationship is considered when the llended >a Spouse, Ascendant, Descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopteda SADBroSA} of the offender. Ste + in ao (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Brother or Sister or relative by Affinity [memory aid — ildren because the law specified only legitimate, natural, or ad- opted. physical injuries committed against Eto the par- excessive chastisement, relationship ist pggravat- (Art. 263) &p punithmect 6. Incrimes against chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, rela- tionship is aggravating, (People us. Marifio, G.R. No. 141183, January 18, 2001) 7. BeBe aggravating SPmtigating Jationship is an ele- ent of the crime such as in parrici qualified rape, If ‘what was charged was murder or homicide instead of parti- cide, relationship becomes generic only because the accused cannot be convicted of what was not charged against him. 8. The father-daughter relationship in rape cases is a special circumstance hence, relationship as an alternative circum- in view of the amend- stance should.no longer be appli ly produce a state of intoxication. Apperson pleading intgyication as a mitigating circum- stance ust sow thet he ‘as ben quantity of = beverage prior to the commission of the a ae ind did not take the alcoholic .inseinlarorhio-reselve lg commit 13,y Put differently, high education could be aggravating but CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY s (People vs. Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, or not degree of education and instruction would idered as aggravating or mitigating depends the gravity of the crime committed. For instance, is as much reprehensible to the educated as to the illiterate. literacy alone(Bupthe lack of intelligence or instruction that W considered. Even if one is not schooled but comes from a family of professionals, he must have had some degree of instructions hence he could easily realize the significance of his act. His lack of schooling then ting; low education could be mitigating but © “will never be aggravating. The fact that a person is a pro- f ce, cannot mitigate a crime he commits. that a person is not schooled cannot ag- 14. CAVEAT: The deg i Pe ready have been considered in the pen. ra Se considered anymara., ARTICLE 16 — Who are crimin: 1. For gra als, accomplices and accessanies. 2. For light felonies: prin Accessories 3 are not liable for lig) ished with arresta cwogoy x Why are accessories notliablatondi Becatigethe. law does not deal with, (de minimis non cuatTex) Also 0 menor is not possible,% (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY o 2 Tp natural persons(Snlp) j= 4, The inducer is generally ki idical persons cannot commit a crime which requires a Jaw favors a lesser pe willful purpose, voluntariness or malicious intent. : 5 ARTICLE 17 — Principals: ax ve been committed without the inducsivient and because 1. Principals by direct pastcipation are Ju who material they Induce others to commit the crime so they do not have “4 = ‘i “A to appear or do the “dirty work.” ‘The fact that Manalili and not petitioner who dealt di- cexculpate the latter from the 2 is a principal by inducement in of said crime. (id.) { te 6. Article 17 considers as principals those who “directly force a a. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is fa- is induce "was done for the we was GR Nos. 133527-28, December ‘concurrence of the criminal act to be executed, Consequent- ly, he is a co-conspirator by indispensable cooperation, al- ‘though the common design or purpose was never bottled up by previous undertaking. (Subayco vs. Sandiganbayan, GAR. Nos. 117267-117310, August 22, 1996) Tihedie somaitt make.the utterer an inducer 125812, November 28, 1996) Mere by one who does not possess dominance or dancy over the offender will make him neithes by inducement nor an accomplice.rs COMPACT REVIEWER I CRIMINAL LAW 9. A principal by indispensable cooperation participates by means of an act without which the crime would not have ‘been committed. The cooperatorneed.not be-e partyin the Janning stage of & for he may become a prin=, pice Thus, in the pump boat owner who helped the offenders by pretend- ing that his pump boat needed towing by the passing boat was held to be m the offenders transferred to the boa inders could have asked the rence, the accused's coop- proval ol The eye defect of accused aka. “bulag” raises doubt as to his abi the role of a supposed lookout. (People vs, Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, October 26, 1999) Sang without ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY » "3 material or moral aid to the principal in an ef- is way. Accomplices participate in the the offense by simulfaneous acts, which boxe a.zelation 1n— 00, Sr, Supra.) : ‘operates knowingly or intentionall ‘sole in the perpetration of the crime is of a 1. (People vs, Frond, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May ers to commit an act in such a way that without the inducement the crime would not be committed. His inducement must be obeyed by exerting influence or ‘moral ascendancy over the other malefactors. An acx_ ‘omplice’s inducement or utterance is immaterial forr ” (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. with or without such utterance, the crime would be committed. pensable without which the crime would not be com- mitted whereas the cgoperation of the accomplice isin aminor way. € Both the principal and the accomplice act before or during the commission of the crime. But the principal while crime and he cooperates after the decision to com- e same had already been made. (People vs. Suarez, 267 9; People us. De Vera, G.R. No, 128966, August 18, 1999) Conversely, a “lookout” is a principal if he were a co- conspirator and participated in deciding the course of ac- tion to be taken in the criminal design or he is a co-author of the crime and provides his companions effective means and, encouragement to carry out the same. His being a lookout is necessary part of the concerted action to achieve the desired result. (People vs. Loreno, 136 SCRA 311) ARTICLE 19 — Accessories 1. Accessories: a ’. 1. By profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime; “CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LABILITY a 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus deliti or effects or the instruments thereof to prevent its discovery; and i 3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape. - see a. Incase of agnfblic offices For any crime ithe b, Teme: # se Chiet Exe ae 5 t is actor omission i also pet Seine rine ‘under special law of ciinies ala prohi- fa, the offenders generally are penalized as principals un- less otherwise provided. lice and an accessory’ axtcipate bfar.or during the com _imission ofthe lense accessory, eubsequent there b.Anaccomplice knows ofthe criminal design ofthe prin- ‘an accessory knows of the commission of the. of: or, moral aid. in.an manner indispensable to in the 3 ways specifies 4. Accomplices have ng,exemption from liability; gy accessories are exempted under Articl 4, Accessories by profiting a. If the crime is robbery or theft and one bought, sold, possessed, or in any other manner dealt with the ar ticles which he knew or should have known are pro-Per eparte information then he (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ceeds of robbery or theft, he is {Gis be cine Ihe were not with, fencing ces- ble only as a sory ih the crime of robbe: ‘Ton pthervwisehe, would received any property from another, and, 1owing that the same property had been sto- len is guilty as an accessory because he is profiting by. the effects of the crime. By employing the two carabaos in his farm, Taer was profiting by the objects of the cat- tle rustling. (Taer vs. CA) Accessories by concealing or destroying the body of the crime . 2. The existence of a criminal aggney as the cause of this actor result. © Otherwise stated, is clamentanare: the proof of the occurrence of a certain c¥ent; and lf some person's criminal responsibility. (People vs. Boco, G.R. No. 129676, ‘must be established ted drug took place; thors thereof. and the accused were the Assisting the principal to escape a, The offender to be.assisted-must be incipab assist. ing ar Bccomplice is not included...» ‘CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY o b. A police officer who was present when the crime was committed abused his official function when he failed to immediately arrest the offender and conduct a speedy investigation of the crime, but instead left the scene of the crime together with the offender, thus as- sisting the offender to escape. Being a public officer, he is an accessory to the crime. (People vs. Antonio, July 14, 2000) > Those who assist the principal to escape may he pros. penalty under PD. 1829 or any ol including the Revised Penal Code, whichever is higher. (Sec. 1, last paragraph) d. Obstruction of justice is committed by any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates, 'sthe apprehension of suspects and the inves- wuish between a public.officerandaa- ho assists the principal. ARTICLE 20 — Accessories exempt from crimin: The offender's spouse, ascendant, descendant, legit ind adopted brothers. ssories to, the offender sherated ih Arti ives assist the principal by con iy of the crime or by assisting i the law recognizes that they are motivated by natural affes ition for the ofender. However, when they profit or assist* ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW the offender in profiting by the effects of the crime, they are_ doing so because of greed, hence, they are liable. PENALTIES 1. Penalties are the péhishment imposed by lawful authority ‘upon a person who commits a deliberate or negligent act. (Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 34 ed., of, People vs. ‘Moran, 44 Phil. 431) 2. Penalties are prescribed by statutes and are essentially and exclusiv ter. Judges cant Oily inter- Pret and apply them and have no authority to modify or revise their range as determined by the legislature. (People 1s. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992) |. Under the Code, penalties are: a Graduated; b. Divided isindi sible: & Classified into principal or accessory; d. Understood to be a degree for purposes of lowering the penalty under Article 61 in applying the Indetermi- nate Sentence Law or owing to privileged mitigating circumstances; Even if the provision provides for 1 or more pe- riod of a le penalty, that is considered 1 degree for purposes of lowering the penalty. For instance, if the penalty prescribed is arresto mayor, medium period, that is 1 degree and the penalty next lower in degree is, arresto mayor, minimum period. €. Imposed on the principal offender in the consummated stage: {The maximum imposable, ie, the court cannot in- «crease the penalty prescribed by any degree no matter how many aggravating circumstances are present. For instance, in homicide, even if there are 10 aggravating PENACTIES * (not qualifying) circumstances without any mitigat- ing, the penalty can only be increased to the maximum. period of reclusion temporal and cannot be increased to reclusion perpetua. . Courts must emplay. the proper nomenclature epecified.in the Code, such as reclusion perpetua not life imprisonment; or ten days of arresto menor not ten days of imprisonment. (People vs, Lat: pan, G.R, Nos. 112453-56, June 28, 2001) ARTICLES 21-22 L Article 2] enunciates the principle: nullum crimen nulla poena rig felony shall be punishable by any penalty not preseil by law prior to its commission. Unless there is a ing an act or omission, the offender cannot be atter bow teprebensible.the act may.be.This. the ex post facto edict under the Constitution. that Ne application. Article 22 provides the excep- that is, when the law shall be given retroactive . The favorable provisions of R.A. 7659 ran be given retroac- tive effect to entitle the drug offender to a lesser penalty. By force of Article 10, the beneficent provisions.of Article 22 applies to. il be given effect to crimes-punished those convicted oF drug offenses since it refers to convic- ions Tor thE 3rd titer or OTe Of the crimes of falsificatis robbery, estafa, theft, serious and less serious physical in ties. (People os. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29, July 29, 1994) |. The court can sua spouteapply-Acticle 22 even when nat ine voked by the accused otherwise, the plain precept thereof ‘Would’ De Useless aid nugatory if courts were not under obligation to fulfill such duty, whether or not accused has applied for it, just as would also all provisions relating to prescription of crime and penalty. (id,) (Contra: People vs. Bon, infra.)96 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. ARTICLE 23 — Pardon by the offended ARTICLE 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executive (See notes under Article 89 on ARTICLE 24 1. The Smeasures in this articleare not penalties for otherwise? it will violate the constitutional provis i SUIMOGEECE ARM Becatise these measures ie charges against 763 The Tatter from intimidating iy prisoners) jg for the m going into hiding, 2. The accused is bailable he cannot nizance, PENALTIES ” sion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. (Sec. 3, Rule 114, Rules of Court) There can be no pretense that such un- vocal and explicit provisions in the Constitution and the Rules of Court would admit of any exception, qualifica- tion or distinction, (Reyes vs. CA) Full credit for the detention shall be granted [fvhe detention Prisoner agf6ein writing to abide by the sitne disciplinary. ‘Eales imposed on convicts. gnlesw a. They are recidivists G) convicted previously tyice-om more of anyctimer b. When upon being summonesforshe execution oftheir sentence they have fai 5. Credit shall be 4/5 of the stay in detention when he does nat “agiee to be treated similarly as convicted prisongss,. 6 When the maxi 2, the,ace used shall be released after 30 days.of pieventive.impsis- Sament beans sree ner more severe penalty han. destierro under Acie 70. 7. The_ deduction of the period of proventive-imprisonment applies where the accused is sentenced to destiergy becaust ARTICLE 25 — Classification of penalties 1. Principal penalties are those specified in Book Il of the Code ‘on specific feronies. They must be imposed by the court ex. i ive partion.ob the decision. . he principal ‘They are deemed impased to-.—o ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW gether with the principal penalty. As such, they need not he. expressly stated in the decision. (Article 73) @ Atticle 25-elassifies the penalties into principal and ac- cessory, b. Article 20-provides for the scale when there are 2 or more sentences to be served, and prescribes the 3-fold rule. © Alticle Z1-graduates the penalties in the order of se- verity for purposes of applying the rules under Article 61 in relation to Articles 50-57 on lowering of penalties considering the stage of accomplishment of the offense and the level of participation of the offender. R.A. 7659 which defined heinous crimes took effect on De- cember 31, 1993, That is 18 days after December 16, 1993 issues of the Manila Malaya and Phil. Times Journal, and not on January 1, 1994, 22's sometimes misinterpreted. (Peopte vs. Simon; People vs em ‘The Code has its own legal designation of the penalty for offenses defined therein, thu: 6, June 23, 1999) Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua a. Under special laws a. Forviolationof the, Revised Penal Code b. Haspo fixed duration —_b, With fixed duration ‘of 20 years and 1 day 040 years » PENALTIES 9 Without accessory Has accessory penalties ‘was made clear that reclusion perpetua is 6-A-92 (June 21, 1993) amending Circular 6-92 (October 12, 1992) enjoins strict observance of their distinction to curb ice of using them interchangeably in the imposition of penalty for serious offenses like murder. (Peo- ple vs. Narca, G.R. No. 108488, July 21, 1997) . Although reclusion perpetua has.now. a definite term it rex le penalty fr there is no clear legislative in. nsidered divisible penalties and what should. ion of the periods. thereof. Other provisions in- volving reclusion perpetua such as Article 41 on accessory penalties and paragraphs and 3.o/ Article. 6Liverenatalso amended. (People vs. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 168172-73, January 9, 1995 in telation to People vs. Reyes) of inne shall Fears. It would be ical absurd and violative of the scales of penalties to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at 30 years since there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum 20 years of reclusion temporal but is less than 30 years. (People vs. Reyes, 212 SCRA; People vs. dela Petia, GRR. No. 116060, July 31, 1997) ration of pena perpetua shall be computed at 30 years. The imputation of the 30-year duration is only to serve ag abasis for determining the-convict’s eligibility for pardon unless? ‘eis deemed unworthy of such or for the application of theie ad 100 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 14 pthe pear? is a principal penalty fet vhere is 6B gfime in Book I-for.which it can be imposed cctuss,.Be- ing a principal penalty, it. must be specifically prescribed-in “Book fora particular felony Thereheing none, the penalty is virtue: which states that felony-shall be punishable by any penalty not pas. Jaw prior to its commission. 16. Compared with bond for good behavior: a. Bond for good behavior (BGB) is a principal penalty which is not prescribed. 7: bond to keep P) is a penalty specifically applicable to ve and light threat only. failure to post BKP will supposedly make him PENALTIES 01 ion is both a pelcipl an an aoessonepen- alty when ser offense of rebellion then punished with pri- mayor, absorbs the grav ished with reclusion perpetua furtherance of rebellion; b. The lesser offense of forcible abduction, which is pun- ished by re sporal, absorbs the graver offense of iltegal det man, which is punished by reclusion perpetua {to death]; ties 5. Fine whether imposed singly Ghalternatively ist a Afflictive/ grave if more than P6,000.00 b. Correctional/less grave if P200.00 — P6,000.00, © Light ifless than P200.00 ARTICLE 39 — Subsidiary penalty 1. Subsidiary penalty takes the place of the fine for insolvent canvicts. It is neither a princiy ‘The subsidiary penalty went Or Heprivation at sight ing ures ne ea emen Sepa aton ot ihe wick. 2. Subsidiary penalty is computed at 1 day for each PROQof- eG in no case to exceed Lyear. Ifthe penalty is: 1 Parely fine and subsidiary imprisonment ee felony committed is: shall Grave or less grave not exceed 6. Light felony not be more than 15 days,(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW b. Fine and imprisonment which should not be higher than prision correccional ot 6 years, the subsidiary im- Fisonment is the least among the following: iss 1/3 of the principal penalty(6r) the quotient of fine divided by P8.00/6)) year. ©. Fine and destierro which musthe.ot fixed duration: destierro also in accordance-with. the abowe-rales. The subsidiary penalty shall lvency petaluse this is not an acces- ws the priripal penalty as a matter be served in case 5. Subsi is also imposable in violations of special BP. i Benal laws such as, a ARTICLE 45 1 2Effiscation/ forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of - the crime is automatically imposed gATE35>> a. They were the property of 3rd person who has no com- plicity in the cri PENALTIES. 1 regoingyconfiscation shall 3) ticles are by. themselves contraband’ornot subject. of lawful commerce like dangerous drugs. standing ARTICLE 48 — Complex Crimes 5. |. Article 48 speaks of 2 kinds of plurality of: a. “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies” otherwise called compound crime or delito compuesto, b. "When an offense is a necessary means for commit: ting the other” also known as complex crime proper or delito complejo Compound crimes are those committed when a single act results to 2 or more grave or less grave ‘The felonies committed may less grave felonies: grave felonies. The resultant ight felony shall be treated as a separate offense. ‘The basis of compound crimes is the singularity of the act such as the single acf oF irowing Hand grenade, Telling some and seriously wounding a number of persons. (People vs, Guillen, 47 O.G. No. 7, 3433)-However, the act of pull: ‘ ei u nal impulge, such as throwing hand grenade, it constitutes a single offense. Since the 3 murders and attempted murders were produced by a single act (the explosion caused by the hurling of a grenade into the bedroom of the victim), the case comes under Article 48. Only 1 information should be filed. (People vs. Carpo, G.R. No. 132676, April 4, 2001) fense is necessary to commit.another This means that the‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW first offense is committed imission ofthe aeakxime. It. a. Actime to conceal another because the law specifies to commit not to conceal, b. Acrime which is an element of the other for in that case, the former shall be absorbed such as trespassing which is an clement of robbery. . Acrime which has the commit, For intan lement as the other crime nd falsication ofp ere is ee oo lex crime of estafa ation of private documents But falsification of publi olfcial"or commercial documents does not have the element of damage, hence, there is a complex crime of estafa falsification of public, official, 6 commercial documents. 4. Actime which is incidental to the other such as taking. ofa woman from her house, bringing her to a concealed place o commit rape on he. The tk ‘he main purpese.te commitapeg rape only ‘The penalty for complex crimes under Article 48 is the.pen- the most serious crime in the maximum period. Such soniye reneliclal fo the accused because of the fact that he is given a single pena . People vs, Caldito, February 1992, stated the exception to the “singe act” rule citing the Laws ruling, Accused therein ‘were held, lex crime of mult i Tow Gat the elie as the result of a siogle impulse-which was induc derof Lawas to fire, and continued with the intention . ‘comply therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as the lead- cer gave the order to that effect. About 50 Maranaos died in the slaughter. There was no intent on the partof the accused, PENALTIES 109 to fire at each and every one of the victims as separately and. distinctly from each other. There is absolutely no evidence as to the number of persons killed by each and every one to ascertain the i deaths caused by each and everyone and therefore possible to hold each accused responsible for each and ev- ery death caused by hie. a _B First, determine the penalty for the most serious of- fense, Second, for purposes of determining the next lower de- gree, the full range of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense, not merely the imposable penalty because of its complex nature, should, a priori, be considered ‘maximum period following Article 48 on the penalty for complex crimes. d. The presence of mitigating circumstance would in imposing, period the court may deem a Considering, however, that the penalty has mitigating circumstance is to impose the minimum portion of that maximum period. (Ni- zurlado vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, December 7, 1994) ‘separate | Example: The accused killed 4 persons and the house was bumed to conceal the killing. In the course of the arson, a‘COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW aby in the house was burned to death. How many crimes ‘were committed? ‘One arson resulting to death of the infant and 4 counts of murder, each co avated by dwelling, For the ar- son where death resulted, they should be sentenced to a separate term of reclusion perpetua (R.A. 7659 was not yet 1 4 terms each of re- in accordance with io, January 1994) mes where a single pen- the Code. (People Aa te imposed ae: u. a. Composite crimes or special complex erimes; b. Continued crime or delito continuado; and Continuing crimes or transitory crimes. ‘Composite crimes are thi divisible offenses although comprising more than one 5 Ge crime and with specie penalyy They aie also ad rimes, Such a8 arson with he ecial complex cri those found under Article 294 on robbery wit a. _Imediposite crime, the offenses comprising the same age Bixee by lave gy rSODEEY ith Tae TORbENY WTR ‘mutilation. mplex crime, the combination of the ‘offenses is not specified but gerieral at is, grave anil [Or TESS BRAVE! OF OH OfRense being the necessary means to commit the other. ‘lum period. PENALTIES m aimmes, the other felonies are absorbed. Thus, in rob- bery with homicide, the homicide is deemed generic and includes the slight physical injuries inflicted on the saype occasion of robbery. Sounts, ¢g., kidnapping with iple homicides result to a single crime of kidnapping with rape or kidnapping with ho- micide, The excess rapes. and homicides-are absorbed. lapel crimes, the excess crimes are not absorbed. ible abduction with multiple rapes, the ymplexed with the abduction, the excess. rapes are separate crimes. 13, When one of the crimes is not proved the effect is that the accused can be convicted of the other. For instance, in rape with homicide, if the rape was not proved, the accused may there is an allegation of qualify- ing circumstance, cont for murder is also proper be- cause the term “homicide” as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries com mitted by reason or on the occasion of rape, But unless the ifying circumstances are alleged in the information, the sumed to have no independent knowledge t constitute the offense and cannot be con- snse higher than that for which he is tried. It When a complex crime is charged, such as foreible abduc- tion with rape, the prosecution must allege and prove the15. v. seny doctrine,” that is, the taking of several thing ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of rape. When appellant using. blade, rigital information charged petitioner with performing, single criminal act — approving the applica- tion for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also averred of EO. 324 dated Delito continuado, although an outcrop of the Spanish Penal Code, has been applied to crimes penalized under special TO the Codes be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles de- veloped from Penal Code may be appli capacity to crimes punished under spe ‘er belonging to the same cr different owners—atthe same i! y. Abandoned is ie “separate larceny doctrine” under which there was a distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. Also aban- doned was the doctrine that the government has the dis- PENALTIES 13, cretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims. (id.) Also, the act of taking 2 roosters belonging to 2 different persons in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to 2 crimes having an independent existence of their own, be- cause there are not 2 distinct appropriations nor 2 intentions that characterize 2 separate crimes. 18. Some examples of delito continuado: a. Theftof 13 cows belonging to different owners commit- ted at the same place and at the same period of time. (People vs. Tumos, 67 Phil. 320) 2 roosters in the same place and on the same (People vs, De Leon, 49 Phil. 437) . The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer each time he collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that the attorney's fees SCRA 156) The collections of the legal fees were im- pelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse. (People vs. Lawas, 97, Phil. 975) ‘a. 2estafa cases one of which was committed during the period from January 19 to December 1955 and the oth ex from January 1956 to July 1956. (People vs. Dickupa, 113 Phil. 306) The said acts were committed on differ- cent occasions. Several malversations committed in May, June, and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal the said offenses committed in August and October 1936. The malversa-1 = 2 Goatees ‘COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINALLAW in June 1964 involving ‘a sewing machine. (People 75 estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agent of collections from customers of the employer made on different dates. (Gamboa vs. CA, 68 SCRA 308) 20. Asontinuing crime is~ LD ég, rebellion ers and continuing up to the present. 21. Examples of continuing crime: a b. Rebellion, insumection, conspiracyand_propasal_to ‘Sommitsuch crimes, setting them apart from the com- mon offenses, aside from their essentially involving a i of nationwide magnitude. (Garcia- SCRA) Squatting, hence even if the illegal occupancy of the Property of another commenced prior to the promulga- tion of PD. 772 on Augus 1975, since it continued tion, the offender can be under the law. (People vs. City Court, General Santos City, G.R. No. L-49019, April 10, 1992) (PD. 772 had been repealed) ago by the offend-" PENALTIES, ns a. Asingle crime, with one crime absorbing the other of- fenses; b. Acomplex crime when the offenses constitute grave or less grave felonies or when one crime is the necessary to commit the other; © Asspecial complex crime, with each offense constitut- ing elements of the composite offense; 4. Two separate crimes. For instance, the taking of woman forcibly and thereaf- ter, rape was committed on her. How should the offenders to rape, the taking is merely a intended offense in which case, , the abduction being a neces- sary means to bring about the desired result, : b. If the intention is to take the woman against her will with lewd designs, there is the complex crime of forc-fee eed eee) Ga eee veer seg ee eee eee om) 1 om moo I | 6 2. ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. terthought, the offense committed is special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. 4. Ifin (b) above, there were several counts of rape, the first rape shall be complexed with the forcible abduc- tion and the subsequent rapes treated as separate crimes of rape. The. words. “besides.” “ip addition,” “without prejudice,” for instance: a. Article 128.0n the additional liability for perjury for the additional injury in the use of excessive force in en- forcing the warrant; Sana delinquency; " Article 209 on betrayal of public trust by an attorney ‘r solicitor in addition to the proper administrative ac- tion; d. Article 210 on direct bribery in addition to the penalty for the crime agreed upon; ©. Article 214.an other frauds in addition to the penalties Prescribed in the provisions of Chapter 6, Title X; & Attic 279 on additional penalties for other offenses resulting from the abandonment and exploitation of minors under Articles 275 to 278; h. Article 312 on occupation of real property which has 2 penalties, fine for the occupation and the penalty for the acts of violence executed: i. Article 315 which shall ‘prosecution for B.P. provided in such special laws; ithout prejudice to the scruitment as expressly PENALTIES w j- Article 330.0n damage and obstruction to means of communication without prejudice to the criminal liability for the consequences of the criminal act committed, PPanricue a0 1. The penaltios for the Intended and if Imicide but due to error in personae, the actual crime com- mitted is parricide, or th led crime is parricide but the crime committed is homicide, either case, the penalty shall be for the homicide. 2. GgtesPaetden fe the ushedled or aflempted ARTICLES 50-57 — Penalty for attempted and frustrated felonies on the accomplices and accessories ARTICLE 61 — Rules for graduating penalties ARTICLE 71 — Graduated scales 1, The penalties in Book Il of the enalties Imposed; (efupon the principal the consummated felony. (Article 46) Hence, there is a need to provide the rules when the crime is not ‘consummated, and when the offenders include accomplices and/or accessories. 2. Article 71 provides the scale from which the penalty pre- scribed in the rules in Article 61 shall be taken. Article 61mm im na ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW in degree is arresto mayor maximum to prision minimum, ticles 50-57, the penalty for the three stages e offenders: Consummated Frustrated Attempted as provided less 1degree less 2 degrees’ Accomplice less degree less 2 degrees less 3 degrees Accessory less 2 degrees less 3 degrees less 4 degrees > thenexblowenisthatimoes 80 for reclusion perpetua the penalty next lower is reclusion temporal. is unenforceable by virtue of R.A. 9346) of Lor more, PENALTIES us iy Tollows Free towar than ection Drgpral medmum to (row) reclusion perpetua is temporal mediui ce under Apticle 306 i puis ovinarsisouengenl aca es Maximum — prision mayor, minimum, Medium — prision correccional, maximum Minimum — prision correccional, medium 6. According to Asticle ZL, the he ban arestomayor isdestiona and pot arresto menar< in Article 70, destiero, resto menor in seventy ARTICLE 62 1. The different kinds af modifying ciscumstances referred to here'are: ing a crime and prescribing the penalty (paragraph 1)CRIMINAL LAW PENALTIES. a r 19 CcoMPAcT REYIEN ing hands upon a person in authority in direct {See noteraher Avil 1 fr habitual delinquency) ARTICLE 63 — Rules for application of indivisible penalti under paragraph 1 — (reclusion femory Aid — SIP) © "perpetyg TO}death) (Memory Aid —T1P) R.A. 9346 which took effect on June 29, 2006 (People ‘altbute shall be affected, a8 Tor Instance, only the one Binge by pasion or 3 passion oF obfus ted. In rape, the re vs, Audine, G.R. No. 168649, December 6, 2006) repealed all ovisions insofar as they impose the death penalty. Thus, P ey impos anders. Hal : paragraph 1 has been modified to exclude death penalty the one te and paragraph 2 has been altogether repealed or rendered. crime of the other offenders. inoperative. As of now, the only indivisible penalty is reclu- sion perpe 2. Under the 1st paragraph, modifying cir considered. No matter h by R.A, 7659 and renumbered Ar- is the mo vis. Alberca, GR, No. 117106, new provision referring to the aggravating cise se of official postion where the gana. feel eed wnnot be lowered by a degree no matter how ig circumstances are present because modi- [ regard (0 no. Thus, “them ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ARTICLE 64 — Rules for application of divisible penalty 1. The rules when the penalty imposable is a divisible are: 2 Modifying Circumstances Proper Period a. Noaggravating andno a, Medium ee © Aggravating only Maximum d. Some of both circum- d._ Offset and apply the ae Coe aggravating aceetenats imposed, the minimum ty shall be computed without anymore considering this article. 4. The court shall impose the penalty scribed by the Code in the period that it may deem apy ble depending upon the number and nature of the mi ing circumstances pursuant to paragraph 5 of For inste the crime of homicide which PENALTIES wm maximum thereof within the range of prision mayor. (People 9s. Germina, GR, No, 120881, May 19, 1998) nnbdeModifying citcumstances substitute Tor the discretion ‘of the judge in the imposition of the penal these circumstances are not applicable, the judge is given leeway to exercise his sound discretion. Also, uodifying cir- cumstances inhere in intentional feloni te separates I degree fromthe ouher. For instance, pri= corrercional (6 months and I day to 6 years) is sepa- rated from prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) day dif x TeModuying circumstances,i mm ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE 65 — Rules when penalty not composed i of 3 periods. ARTICLE 76 — Legal duration of penalty 1. Article 76 is the law on duration of divisible per that divisible penalties shall be considered as periods: the minimum, medium and maximum. 2. The duration of the period of a divisible penalty is comput he ed as follows: Using as an example prision mayor with a period of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years: Step 1 — Deduct the beginning ofthe period from the end of the perio [abaieded sates 12 years minus 6 years = 6 years Step 2 — Divide the difference hy 3 corresponding to. the 3 pe ‘minimum, medium and maxis 6 years divided by 3~ 2 years Step3— Add the quotient i.stp.2ata the begin: of each period start .e minimum. 6 years and aday fea ar) mm Minimum — 6 years and 1 day to 8 years Medium — 8 years an¢ 1 day to 10 years Maximum — 10 years and 1 day to 12 years Cedeeteed c minus 2 years and 4 months = 3 years and 8 months or 44 months PENALTIES ro Med:um ~ 3 years 6 months TI days to 4 years 8 months 20 days Maximum - 4 years 8 months 21 days to 6 years ARTICLE 66 — Imposition of fines 1. The factors to consider in the imposition of fines to the cul- @5-Th one case, the Supreme Court reduced “F10,000.00 to only P2,000.00 in view of the presence of 3 mitigating circumstances. (Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbay- ‘an, supra.) b, More particulary, the wealth ormeans of culprit, Thus the fine to be imposed may be red standing the presence of aggravating circumstance, the culprit cannot afford the correct fine ARTICLE 68 — Penalty on minors omer Tuy those who are 15 years old and under arc@bsolutely exempy Fro CMAN NRE — 2. Facaver15 but ungGul®— Wy shal be Hable onlfshey-- *> acted with discernment. Pursuant to this article, the penalty shall be I degree lowersial a 135 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW. Thus, considering Bravity oF the offense and in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court admitted the birth certificate of the accused to prove the mitigating circumstance of minority although said birth certificates were not presented or offered in the trial court. (People vs. Regalario, G.R, No. 101451, March 23, 195 4 pew 1or was 17 years old when he committed the offense. finority under paragraph 2, Article 68 should be appreci- ated in his favor. The penalty prescribed for the crime of robbery with rape is reclusion perpetua {to death}. The ag- ‘gravating circumstance of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the rime. With 2aggra- vating circumstances present with no ordinary mitigating imstances to offset them, the penalty shall be imposed maximum period. The imposable penalty prescribed by law therefore is reclusion temporal in its maximum pe- riod. (Qne degree lower because of the priv Indeterminate rminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. (People vs. Mendoza, GR. No. 123186, July 9, 1998) [4 minor is not qualified for ARTICLE 69 — Penalty for incomplete justification and exemption 1, The penalty may be reduced by one or two degrees if ma jority of the conditions required to justify or exempt from inal lability are present. In such case, the incomplete justification or exemption is a privileged m stance. circum ly be an ordinary mitigating circumstance, which lower the penalty. to the minimum period. 3. PENALTIES ca Penalty lower by one or two degrees shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable. If majority of the require- ments for defense of property are present, the penalty may be lowered by two degrees to prision correccional. And when incomplete self-defense is coupled by two more mitigating circumstances, the penalty under Article 64(5) may further be reduced by one degree, that is, aresto mayor, because of the presence of 2 mitigating circumstances and no aggravat- ing circumstance. (People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA) Articles 11 and 12 vis-a-vis Articles 69 and 13(1): Allrequistes present — Justifying/Exempting — Article 11/12 2ormore presert — Privileged mitigating — article 69 only present Ordinary mitigating — Arde 131) et . -oimplete justification is a special or privileged mitigat- ing circumstance, which, not only cannot be offset by ag- gravating circumstances but also reduces the penalty by 1 oF 2 degrees than that prescribed by law. The instant case would have fallen under Article 11, paragraph 5 had the 2 - conditions therefor concurred which, to reiterate: first, that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or the law ful t oF office; and second, that the ited be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of ; only the first condition was 69 is applicable, although “that the ‘majority of such conditions be present,” is immaterial since there are only 2 conditions that may be taken into account. Article ly in favor of the accused as it provides. for a penalty lower than that prescribed by law when the crime committed is not wholly justifiable. The intention of[ [ [ E C [ mm fnao| 8 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ture is to mitigate the penalty by reason of the n of either freedom of action, intelligence or intent we lesser perversity of the offender. R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000) Article 249 prescribes for homicide the penalty of reclu- poral, the range of which is 12 years and 1 day to 20 g circumstance of full id be 1 degree low iayor, pursuant to ion to Article 61(2} and Article 71, to be impost in its minimum since accused — voluntarily surren- dered to the authorities and there was no aggravating cir- cumstance to offset this mitigating circumstance. (id,) ARTICLE 70 — Successive service of sentences 1. When the culprit is given multiple sentences, the same must be served simultaneously if the nature of the penalties per mits it. Otherwise, the penalties shall be served successively. ‘Simultaneous service isthe rule, whereas successive service wen. ‘Thepenalty is to be served in the order herein prescribed Be observing the following limitations: penalty to may be flicted after the total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such_maximum 2. get the most severe penalty (from Article 70) b. muy ©. add the durationel the diliesontsantences. PENALTIES, ne d. compare the results of b and c e acoso to serve the lesser pesioc-auhich shall not ox ceed 0years— 4. This article deals with service of sentence, not with impo- sition, hence, for the prison director to ot for the ae courts. The courts should impose the cot severity, 5. Consequently, all the sentences on the prisoner imposed by any court for whatever crimes whenever filed should be covered by this rule. 6. If the penalties imposed are all equal, the period thereof shall be considered as the most severe when applying the 3-fold rule. 7. When the death sentence is executed, all the death sentences when more than one is meted are deemed simultaneously served. be 30 year fhius)30 multiplied by ‘Shall serve WES Bub 40 yeareBecau off ARTICLE 75 — Increasing or reducing fine Fines are reduced by one or two degrees when the felony is attempted or frustrated or when imposed upon the accessory or the accomplice. For each degree, 1/4 of the maxizsumremorntis taken, The penalty as computed shall in no case belower than the munimum prescribed by law. For instance, if the fine prescribed y Taw Ws P50 to P200, 1/4 of the maximum amount of P200 is taken, that is, P50. If the penalty is to be reduced by 2 degrees, the penalty is computed as follows:=) Pee ce 0 (COMPACT REVIEWERIN CRIMINAL LAW. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW a > Step 1— P200 divided by 4 = P50 INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 2— P50 multiplied by 2 degrees = P100 1. Modifies the imposition of penalties under both the Revised 3 P200 minus P 100 = P 100 Penal Code and special laws. The sentence must fix a mini- mum and a maximum period éfpenaly The penalty as lowered by 2 degrees therefore is P50 to Pio. ARTICLE 77 — Complex penalty one which js composed of 3 distinct the lightest of which shall — is the next shall be the medium and themost-— . The-phitosophys Sever Wot to be confused with complex Lawis tat of pect _ a ng unne lex penalty is ) Thus, after serving the ‘minimum and upon showing that he has reformed, the pris- oner is given parole. ction 20 a complex penalty composed doting. mal to reclusion perpetua — by 1 be prision correcional to reclusion tem- 4. Thelaw igot)pplicable: 3 al in its maximum period to a. Indivisible penalties of death and life imprisonment the penalty for murder prior to R.A. 7659) and reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63, para- i divisible penalty consisting of 3 periods. 7 raph 1 that when the penalty imposed is single and 255 SCRA) ‘gaivisible, the same shall be imposed withoutseogid IN} difying ci paragraph of Article 77 which deals with com- {2.any modify ie cxcumstance provides that “whenever the penalty pre- b. Prison terms of f@Pmore than I year (1 year of less ate ee © Grimes? eason Propasslar Canspisacyto-Comsit be distributed, applying S90, Misprision of Tueason, i thats, those Teason, Rebellion. Espionage, provided by Section 1 of temporal in its maximum. Habitual delinquents, escapees minimum period thereof is ent, evade; 20 years and the maximum i, GR. No. 128547, February 22, 1974) Offender is ified to avail of ‘benefits of the law even if the crime is committed while Re cca ifthe crime is committed while3 we See 12 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW he is on parole. (People vs. Calreon, CA 78 O.G. 6701, November 19, 1982) e, Non-prison sentences of destierro, disqualification, ete. (Seetion eseer neers we The sentence must the offense, considering any modifying eupetance 7 lisse crams a ‘only in the imposition of the. ‘Lax The one degree lower p ‘with the penalty for complex ¢ imum period. The presence of the third mitigating circum- 2 INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW 1 e an not indeter, imposed an indeterminate ‘minimum penalty and an indeterminate maximum penalty. ‘The Supreme Court said that it was gross ignorance on the part of the judge. ‘The fact that the lesser offense, and its necessarily lower sulted from a plea bargaining agreement is of no ‘moment as far as the penalty to be imposed is concerned. Plea-bargaining is authorized by the present Rules and is in fact required to be considered by the trial court at the pre- trial conference. In determining whether an indeterminate 20 those enumerated in Section 2 thereof. (Ladino vs. Garcia, 265 SCRA) ‘Tn parole. the minimum sentence must be served;.in. paidan, service is not required. v. benefit granted by law, specific ‘determinate Sentence Law; Pardonis power of the President under the Notwithstanding the absence of any hhabers corpus or any similar judici release from im- risonment is in order after the maximurn of the recomput-(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ed penalty under the amended Dangerous Drugs Law has been served. (People vs. Simon) PROBATION 1 It is a special privil fenders. T essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible and save him the time, effort expenses to jettison an appeal. Tancisco vs. CA, GR. No. 108747, April 6, 1995) ._ The grant of probation rests primarily upon the discretion of the court which is to be exercised mainly for the benefit of the society as a whole and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused . Probation isa mere privilege noba right, Its benefits cannot Extend to those expressly excluded. Itis an act of grace and, clemency or immunity conferred by the State which may be granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant ‘who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty im- posed by law for the offense. (id.) Objectives: a. To promote correction and rehabilitation of offender by giving him individualized treatment (positivist the- ory); b. To provide a better opportunity for the offender to re- form; ¢ Toprevent further commission of crimes as he is placed ‘under the supervision of probation officer, 4. To decongest our jails; and @. To save the government much needed funds which would be spent on maintaining him inside the jail. PROBATION 1, 6. ‘7g am appeal as prescribed by Section 4. Prevailing ji ma prudence treats appeal and probation as mutual remedies, Consequently, probation the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be re- ted, who manifest spontaneity, contri- ) from applying for probation if the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty to “qualify” for probation is contrary to the mandate of the law. es ‘appeaTand probation are inutually exclusive remedies because they oppose one an- other. Cemstanr Pony rin pst aon seul Cities d. Who have been on:10. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW society as well as the fact that the seriousness of the offense shall not be depreciated must likewise be taken into consid- eration “Maximum” i the term used by the law, ence jf the come . Accused issued 3 bad checks to complainant, 3 separate informations were filed, 1 case was assigned to a Branch which ied the accused and imposed a fine of P4,648 while the 2 other cases we e assigned to another Branch of the same court, which also held him guilty of the same violation and imposed 30 days’ imprisonment in each case. ‘The accused should be disqualified for probation. The eat- lier conviction imposed a fine of more than P200 and under Section 9(c), the accused should be disqualified as the word " refers to the conviction, not to the commission fense, notwithstanding that the crime arose out of a single act or transaction. The probation law is not a GR. No. 125108, August 3, 2000) An order granting probation is tainted with grave abuse of discretion and should be set aside where the accused who ‘was convicted for 54 counts of violations of BP. 22, resorted to devious chicanery and artifice to evade the implementa- tion of a writ of execution against het by executing a simu- lated “Deed of Sale” over her Benguet property and thereby render unenforceable the judgment. Verily, she is not the penitent offender who is eligible for probation within legal contemplation. Her demeanor manifested that she is inca- pable to be reformed and will only be a menace to society should she be permitted to co-mingle with the public. To, allow her to be placed on probation would depreciate the PRORATION 7 seriousness of her wrongdoings. (Santos 1s. CA, GR. No. 127899, December 2, 1999) a1 Toreport to the designated probation officer with inZDhayesafter receipt ofthe order Boye 22. To report periodically to the officer-at least once ‘month or sooner as the latter may deem. 1s which depend upon the court id not unduly ‘and not offensive to, bation is not appealable. The proper remedy is to petition for certiorari if the decision is made without the benefit of a hearing, 5. The legal effect of probation is only tory pending sesalution at his application. (Dela Torre vs COMELEC, GR. No. 121582, July 5, 1996) Probation ask must not be more must be more than Sentence than 6 years Lyear Penalty imprisonment or imprisonment only fineeee =m COMPACT REVIEWEX IN CRIMINAL LAW Peotantio nn, tee Disposition ‘sentence is sus- minimum is served pended Violation entire sentence unexpired portion shall be served is to be served Appeal forecloses right no effect on opera thereto tion of the law Available only once everytime as long as the offender is not disqualified Character Privilege; must be mandatory; appli- applied for cation not neessary Article 80 — Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth 1 Welfare Code) R.A. 9344 did not expressly and entirely repeal PD. 603 for it makes reference to the latter. There are however provi- sions of both laws which are repugnant to each other hence, ‘modified or impliedly repealed. One of these is the right to suspension of sentence which under R.A. 9344 shall be enjoyed by the youthful offe der even if he is already 18, oF over at the promulgation of judgment. But the minor re- mains disquali i ‘The fact that the youth has not shown himself to be incor- rigible is not a ground for reducing his penalty for for reducing the penalty. (David vs. CA, July 1998) But the minor remains disqualified for suspension if his penalty is life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, . If the accused alleges minority and the prosecution does not disprove his claim by contrary evidence, such allegation can be accepted as a fact. Wi idence to this point may not be entirely satisfactor sufficient to raise a rea- sonable doubt upon this question to the benefit of which the defendant is entitled. The baptismal certificate or other evidence of this character if obtainable, should be in- troduced. EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY we ARTICLE 81 — Execution of death penalty (Rendered inoperative by R.A. 9346) ARTICLE 89 — Total extinction of cr} ARTICLE 94 — Partial extinction ARTICLE 36 — Pardon by the Chief Executive ARTICLE 23 — Pardon by the Offended Causes of total extingtion: Death of convict; Service of the sentence; Amnesty; Absolute pardon; ao Prescription of crime; £. Prescription of penalty; & Marriage of the offended woman under Art. 266-C; hh. _ Express repeal of penal law (act decriminalized). ee Paxtial extinction: 1. Conditional pardon; a b. 1 of sentence; lowance; Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law; Probation under PD. 968; Implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the penalty. 3. ty at any stage if death occurs before final the penalty requires personal death occurs there will be nobody toaoe 10 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW serve the penalty for the crime, “Final” judgment refers to executory judgment. (People us, Baygias, GR, No_ 102002, September 2, 1994) 4 cused pending appeal thereof, said civil action cannot sur- vive: The defor dul f obligation ¢g., quasi-delict, law, contract, quasi-contract. (ay 5. The period of time during which the evader of sentence was at large during his 4 escapes should be excluded from the service of his sentence in fixing the date of his release. Dur- ing that period he cannot be regarded as in service of sen- of deprivation of his liberty. He can- bbeen deprived of his liberty during the tution, (Martin vs. absolute pardon. AMNESTY crimes and, fenders relieves the offender XECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY Ps Aranesh Pardon Congess —cvcurenee_—_cncueneggS> quired———_ needed When given ‘even before con- after final convic- vietion tion To whom usually toaclass toa specific indi- given of persons vidual Nature GiaBasta ine resident Evidentiary nojudicialnatice, value mandatoryon ‘mustbe pleaded courts and proved Pardon is given by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the courts take no notice thereof; amnesty is by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Ton the offense tacit ‘80 overlooks and obliterates the of- fenses with which he is charged that the person released by amunesty stands before the law precise SOMMERS Pape ts. Casido, GR No. 116512, Maich 7, 1997)a Peure rs COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW because where the President is not so prevented by the Constitution, not even Congress can impose any restriction to prevent a presidential folly; and ‘That such power does not extend.to cases of impeach. smcal-(Poople vs. Salle, GR. No. 103567, December 4, 1995) Consequently, before ap} {t may be validly granted pardon, he must first withdraw his appeal, ic,, the appealed conviction must first be brought to finality. judgment of conviction becomes final: a. When no appeal is seasonably perfected; b. When the accused commences to serve the sentence; When the right to appeal is expressly waived in writ- ag ee d. When the accused applies for probation, thereby waiv- ing his right to appeal. 9. Rardonof the offended. compared with pardon by the Chief Executive: extinguishes criminal liability; pan. does not extinguish criminal Ii- tin Articles 266.0-(rape) and 24d, is granted after final conviction; par- must be granted before institu- ion of the action because when the case is finally filed in court, the State is regarded as the primary offended the complainant is relegated to the role of ing witness. Hence, the prosecution of the 8 the prerogative of the State. (Under she neueanlsapadas however appears eS aE fon ; Beading” action shall. be dis 10. Ah . 2 [EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY 16 cannot extinguish the civil liability ‘foffender; the offended may expressly waive the civil liability Anaffidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accused’s defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circum- stances which, when coupled with the retraction or desis- create doubts.as to the truth of the testimony given by sses atthe trial and accepted by the judge. (People labare, G.R. No. 108871, November 19, 1996) Denial and alibi cannot outweigh the positive identifica- tion and convincing testimonies given by the prosecution. Hence the affidavit of desistance which the victim herself intended to disregard must have no bearing on the crimi- ral prosecution against the accused particularly on the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. (People vs. Echegaray, C.R. ‘No. 117472, February 7, 1997) by the express pardon of the girl herself. Here, even ifit be assumed that the initial desistance of the mother from tak- against the accused constitutes pardon, such eff ithout the express concurrence of the minor herself. (People vs. Tadulan, G.R, No, 117407, April 15, 1997) Prescription of crime refers to the loss of the right of the, Sta secute offenders. It cannot be waived or extend- efit of the accused. Once prescrip- in, the courts automatically lose jurisdiction, In_ ion of crime:f c [ Ree eee ee fede ata) ra Ce See eS eee eee eee eS ee eee eee ee ee ee ee ee aaa aaa COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a. The basis is the higher penalty if there were several iscovery of the crime could effectively commence the rur.ning of the period of prescription. Azticle-Siof the Code provides that the period of prescr day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. This rule makes no disting Tr_bot tion between a public crime and orc authoritigs. of ett agents. (Garcia ts. CA, GR. No. 119063, January 27, 1 Prescriptionofpenaliy occurs when the_convict escapes z evades the service of bis sentance. Eva- ‘sion of service of seritence is condition precedent to the run- * ning of the period. is manner} b, The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement au- thor officer for any violation of law. Sar i, GR. Nos. 11171-77, November 9, 1993) is mandatory for any officer to inform the arrested of his. services of an independent and compe- provision of confession without coun- mn of actual force, manual touching of the body, restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not re-eee tere eae eee vate eee ered een eed ee mae ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 4 §. Persons under custody of the law are classified as follows: a. Subjects — those covered by a general inquiry into an unsolved crime; b. Suspects — inquiry ceases to be general inguiry and focuses on the person as the probable criminal agent. ‘The rights on custodial investigation bes ¢. Detainee or detention prisoner — one who is in prison who has yet to be. e whose case has.not been terminated or desided: 4. Accused — preliminary investigation may have been completed and an jpformation filed in cay. The right against self incrimination, the right to be informed of against him, and ins for the release of a detained person, eg. haheas corpus proceeding, The same penalties under Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer who delays for the period specified therein: 1. The performance of any ju release of a prisoner or de jal or executive order for the ion prisoner, or (CRIMES AGAINSTTHE FUNDAMENTALLAWS OF THESTATE 171 2. Unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner, or 3, Delays the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation ‘of such person. ARTICLE 127 — Expulsion 1. This crime is against the constitu change his residence 2. QalvsheLresident of the Philippines in the exercise of his power of deportation agd. the, caustsafter final judgment sentencing the accused to destierro or as a condition in his probation are autharized-bylaw-iaeupelat.compel parsons tochangeabode.. ARTICLE 128 — Violation of Domicile |. This crime is committed by a put a. The public officer enters any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; b. He was allowed entry but thereafter be searches pas ‘ers op otherettacts found therein without the previ- us consent of such owner; ©. Having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and be- ing required to leave the premises, he refuses to do so.C r Sa ey ‘COMPACT REVIEWER lenotes that the offender ig- of the owner which may be express oF door is closed even though not locked. fn the member of the household who ad ARTICLES 129-130 — Search warrants maliciously obtained; # use in service; searching without witnesses fen if the search warrant is valid violation of domicile is. still committed when: a, The officer exceeded his authority under the search warrant; b. The sear destruction employed excessive severity ot use; and The search was made when the occupants were absent and the search is conducted without at least 2 witness- lity where the search ‘es who must come within the was made. 3. Comparing Articles 128,129 and 130in rant; in 129 and 130 (CRIMES AGAINST-THE FUNDAMENTALLAWS OF THESTATE 173 DAVID VS, ARROYO, G.R. No. 171396, May 2006 1. The plain import of the language of the Constitution is that searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued warrant. Thus, the fundamental protection given by this provision is that be- tween person and police must stand the protective author- ity of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants of arrest. a. A search warrant is issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offgnce to be determined ~ SF alfirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. (Section 4) b. The search of a house, room, or any other premise is made in the presence ofthe lawful occupant thereat 9 I9pAn the absence of the Ta ©. The warrant must direct that it be served in the day- time, unless the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night, (Section 9) GauantNote The Haman ‘Security Act of 2007 attempts to define the term. See Appendix A] 4. The word “terrorism” appears only once in our criminal tioned in the following provision: “That one who conspires with any other person for the purpose of overthrowing thea7 TTI TI TI TI ee oJ ( C vm 3. David was arrested without warré (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW iscriminate arrests without wart aking into offices and residences, taking over the media enterprises, pr tion and dispersal of assemblies and gatherings. All these canbe effected in the name of GO, No.5. Thgigaltsstodat beyond b t, brought at Camp Karingal, where he was fingerprinted, photographed and booked like a criminal suspect for violation of B.P. 880 and inciting to sedition. The arresting officers observed that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the invective “Oust Glotia Now” and assumed that David was the leader of the is insufficient to charge him with inciting to 1s, Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 2006) that they are under imminent dan- ger of being arrested without warrant do not justify their the extraordinary remedies of mandamus and pro- remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in court. Further, he must be delivered to the proper judicial the periods provided in Article 125, oth- ficer could be held liable for delay in ied persons, Should the detention be ‘CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTALLAWS OFTHESTATE 175 without legal ground, the arrestee can charge the arresting officer with arbitrary detention. Alhisis withoutprajadion. to his fli Persie Article 32 of the Civil Cade Lacson vs, Reyes, CR No. 14780, May 20, 2001) ARTICLES 131, 146, 147 1. I Article 13} the asser Tegal purpose, solvedLis: of’ peatetal ‘officer or employee is not a member thereof, and @fhe disturbs the same. 2. Ifthe assembly is not for legal purpose, that is, the meeting. for the purpose of committing any crime under the Re- ised Penal Code, itis illegal assembly under Article 146, ly peaceful and thereafter the speaker started to the commission of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in author- ity or is agent, the meeting may be dissolved because ithas ‘when and where the assembly is tobe held to safeguard the I assembly is mere gathering for the purpose of committing a crime under the Revised Pe- al Code. If the crime subject of the, a. Gathering of persons any or someotwham are armed, ime under the Revi for pun ai Penal Gade, (except for treason, ofc unde? WemB Be low).ease needa es ee eo 2 % COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Treason, Aen or Jnsurrect Baty c Tethe ticle 142 — 7. The gravamen of LUDis the fogattng ation for the pu the Code @special laws 1 2-133 ARTICLES 1259 oti of 1. Article 132 refers to the. ud se Sel aters “lle ators feline wnchie = tne death commemoration are not inchuded. Intermuption-o& such activity is unjust vexation- TITLE CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Crimes covered: b. « 4. Rebellion, insurrection, coup, sedition (RICS); legal assemblies and associations; Direct/Indirect assault, resistance and disobedience; Public disorders — Tumults, alarms and scandals, de- livery of prisoners; Evasion of service of sentence; ARTICLES 134-134.4 1. Distinctions between rebellion and coup: Criminal objective is (g overthrow the government and the ffendersta eaablsh hc owns3 # fee eee pee eee Gad ta y Ir = Rebellion can now Ye complegeoh wf Gommon Chimes ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRMNAL Law ‘CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER wy 14. The view i The essence of the crime is a s is advanced that R.A. 6965 wilt atiack acal 4" allovied the complexin or Objective iste destabilize Jmumabilizeor paralyze the. thin the power ofthe leg- cinissions other than thaty. jous acts. It was not was indeed a mem- ae Gdns ctrceaes he Seana, sedtionor attempted case NO. 0685 Jase Salle absorbed as an clement of eer . 7 Coup deta 5 committed a5 follows B The following ate the acts deleted by 4. 6968 trom article * flow = by a swift atack accompanied by violence, in- we 135: loup deter tay timidation, threat, strategy or stealth % The offender engages in war the forces of gover ®, uly constituted aut ment; i b. Public officers, they destruction of property, © Being public officers, support of rebellion; 'Y Commit serious violence or they exact contribution for the © Number of offenders ~ sings ried out anywhere in the funds ee ‘ese Were appropriated, 4. By lenders divest publ ich th or simultaneously car- ines.m4 1. RA. 7636 dgcriminalized subversi COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 3. Theoretically, a utility worker in the government can com- mit coup because under Article 134-A the crime may be committed singly by any government employee with or without civilian support. by repealing expressly RA. 1700, In People ts. Litoanag (73 SCRA), subversion was distinguished from rebellion thusly: upon the subversive reason is a crime against national secu ies constitute a clear, present inal security. oe and violence; subversive i force and violence but may -eople vs. Asuncion, GR. Nos. Merely because membersof the: at private responder paged governmer th of a government (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER a IL at hand, That a criminal act may have elements common to ‘more than one offense does not rob him of that option and mandatorily require him to charge the lesser offense though the evidence before him may warrant prosecution of the serious one. fe burden of provi i ‘motive being astate of mn any individual knows. al motivation is an element of rebellion, it in the information with all due respect, ged in the information must be proved by the prosecution.) ARTICLES 138, 142, 148, 149, 38) orsedition (142) can only be com: ‘Rebels nat-1 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW states that direct assault is committed “wi 1. Preventing the promulgation or execution of any law; P the holding of any popular election; jie function; Preventing the execution of administrative order; Inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the per son or property of any public officer or employ- Ae 4 Bese rebellion and sedition: i Purpose is political to overthrow theduly.cau- stituted government. (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER aD 8. a e x a a. The purpose may be politica Osocial for carrying out protest against a social class or disobedience from a governmental action and not for the throwing the government. b. The use of firear 1977) sedition absorbs the us use of unlicensed firearm as an element thereof, hence, not aggravating and the sal fenders can no I Svat Poe - Attic U2 (ncing to sedition) ssiglax-288,tumuts) in that GLcrsaiawtistushance.n a public place although the outcry {ends to inciteto sedition whereas in 142 there is also publi Aisturbance: but the fie). Ifthe purpose is nougrising th is convaitted a. Without a publi uprising, b. Shall employ fore ori of those enumerated in 13 jidation, © Fopshe attainmentgf any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimeg’ of rebellion and sedition. races {atentados con- ‘autoridad 0 sus agenesa COMPACT REVIEW! Awe ‘The first is not a true gtentado as IN CRIMINALLAW ‘employed in the attack, or 2) the offender is a public officer, or (3) the offender lays hands upon a public authority. (People vs. Abalos, ‘The elements of the 2adinsmobateniadonaue There must be an attack, use of force or serious in- the accused must have ire or assault the of- authority or an agent ‘when the assault results in the kill- ‘ persor in authority, there arises the ‘got for the purpose. He is accountable for the complex crime of direct assault with murder as Labine was a member of the INP and thus was an agent of a person in authority. He was in the actual per- formance of his d attacking him, and his defiant conduct clearly demonstrates (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 15, that he really had the criminal intent to assault and injure an agent of the law. (id) 9. A person in authori iy ts any public 10, An agent of a person in a hos is defined as any psragn who. law, by elect jintment, Hetunton other words, Fssault the136 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 13, Ithas been held that as an exception to the general rule, ifn the exercise of authority, the person in authority or his agent acted in an illegal manner or beyond his authority, he ceases to be a public officer but is acting in his private capacity. ic officer onl ing within the ‘assault, thus, Ris bein ic officer i aggtavating circumstance pursuanttathorulain Article 62, wd 15. Article 152 clothes any person who comes to the aid of a person in authority or his agent with the fiction of an agent ‘of a person in authority. Any assault on hi assault, Thus, for indirect assault to be committed, it is neces- feary that, a. The victimis a ci authority or his ag He is attacked while and due to the direct assault be- coming to the aid of a person in and ARTICLE 153 — Tumults 1. Crimes covered: a. Serious disturbance in any public place, office or estab- lishment, b. Interruption or disturbance of public performance, function, or gathering if the actis not covered by: Article 131 — interruption of peaceful meeting, or (CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER w in 131 and 132, the offender is a public officer and Theat prohibling, “preventing, and disslving peaceful meeting or religious worship. In 153, the of fender is “any person.” Making any outery tending t . 1 body of a person legally ex- cuted (eath penal), (Unenforceable per RA, 9346) ‘Creating disturbance in public can result tox a. ‘Serious disturbance of public order under Article 153 b. faterruption, prohibition and disturbance of peacefulyy nepublic officer whose jOus worship under Asticle 13X7) ublic of mayi- 4. ‘Alarms and scandal under Article 155/fthe distur. bance is not serious; @. Inciting to rebellion or inciting to seditigjy under Ar ticle 138 or 14 the original the person who made statements that tend ta incite the. listeners to rebellion or sedition. ARTICLE 155 — Alarms and Scandals 1. Thascrimes penalized as dlarms and scandal are: ischarge of firearms, firecrackers and other explo sives in public place causing alarm and danger;‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW b. Charivari or other disorderly meeting: ©. Engaging in nocturnal amusement disturbing the pub- | lic place; and d. Any disturbance of scandal in-public placee Fa amounting fabamblisunder Article 153 he-use of firearms may bring about any of the following ‘crimes: a, ‘Alarms and scandals when the offender di firearm in a public place but the firearm is not toa particular person when discharged. (Article 155) b. ge of firearm if the firearm was directed 4. Physical injuries if the person was hit and injured but there was no intent to kill, Grave threat if the weapor ly pointed to another threat wrong and imposing a condi {Other light threat if drawn in a quarrel but not in self- defense. ot discharged but mere- ing the commission of a mn. g Grave coercion if the threat was direct, immediate and serious and the person is compelled or prevented to do something against his will. Charivari is a mock serenade where the offender actually eaitive- ‘CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 1 lent to breach of the peace in municipal ordinances. Ifthe act is directed to annoy particular person or family, the crime is ‘unlust_vexation which is a form of light coercion under Ar- ticle 287, par. 2 ARTICLES 156-158 — Delivery of prisoners; evasion of ser- vice of sentence Delivery of prisoner from jail is committed byfemoving any person confined therein or helping in his eseape by one who is not a custodian of such person who is helped to escape of removed from confinement. IL4H€ removal or escape is by means of viol L establishment by Taking the guards by surprise, this crime is also committed and the respective penalties (Or simple and for qualified the Revised Penal-Cade shall natapply.thereta.77S oe — —7 a] (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW 5. Use of dangerous drugs under Section 15 now has gradu- Dickoso, GR Nos. 101216- in a government centg shall be imposed & ‘There are 4 categories of penalties under Section 11 de- pending upon the quantity of dangerous drugs regardless of the degree of purity thereof: ‘A. Life imprisonment [to death] and fine of P500,000 to 10,000: Morphine 10 grams or more Marijuana resin or 10 grams or more ‘marijuana oil Opium 10 grams or more Cocaine or cocaine 10 grams or more hydrochloride Heroin 10 grams or more All others 10 grams or more Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Ghabu) 50 grams or more ‘ontum ES Marijuana 500 grams or more (memory aid - MoMOCHA $M) B. imprisonment and fine of P400,000 to P500,000: Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) 10 to less than 50 grams CC. Imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day to life imprison- ‘ment and fine of P400,000 to 500,000! {HED 5 totes han 10 grams Marijuana 300 to less than 500 grams D. Imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine of P300,000 to P400,000: wabove exept — less than 5 grams ‘marijuana Marijuana tess than 300 grams Since 1 gram is less than 5 grams /300 grams and as the provision of Section 15 says that Section 11 shall apply if the person who tested positive possesses “such quantity of any dangerous drugs provided for under Section 11,” it follows. that possession of any quantity of dangerous drugs should Pessecsiom make the drug possessor who tested positive liable under 6. Deinggrivs Section 11. There is no cutoff quantity between Sections 11 Dhecgt and 15 and because of the use of the phrase “less than” in §° Section 11 which is any quantity less than 5 grams and 300 dispose of property by any act or conveyance inter vivos, the right to vote and be voted for. Such rights are also sus- pended during the pendency of appeal from conviction un- der the Act. (Section 35)ery ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ion of dangerous sirugs.into regulated and prohibited under the olé'law was changed into “Dangerous Drugs” and “Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemi- ‘ude those listed in the United Nations Con- fenders under the law are: fined as “any person who pays for, money for, or underwrites any of the rescribed under the Act” and penal- iggd ith the-masimura-penalty. foc the. provision-he violated. 4b. The “protector /coddler” who can be “any person who BPE” knowingly and willfully consents to the unlawful acts provided for in the Act and uses his influence, power shielding, harboring, screenings facili- the escape of any person he knows, of has rea- sonable grounds ‘on or suspects, has violated the provisions of the order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction ofthe vilaon” He spe and-Ldayto20 fol Gin anging fom P0000 to) 000. fied The new offenses are: a. legal chemical*diversion of controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Section 9). The crime of il cpprtlitied destruction of documents, fraudulent use of permits, misdeelaraton, use of front companies or mall fraud. precursors and essential chemicals. (Section 17) « contuns 2s Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlaw- ful act: 1. Importation of any dangerous drugs and /or con- trolled precursor and essential chemical; 2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, deliv- ery, distribution and transportation of any dan- ‘gerous drug and/or controlled precursor and es- sential chemical; fy Maltenance of aden, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form; 4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or con- trolled precursor and essential chemical; and ALS. Gultivationorculture of plants which are sources 2 of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and es- sential chemicals. Misappropriation, misapplication or failure by a pub= lic officer or employee to account for the seized drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, instruments /para- phemalia and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful act committed. Any elective official,who benefited from the proceeds of illegal drug trafficking shall be re>, maved from,s disqualified from holding any ‘appointive public positions. (Section 37) “Planting” as evidence any dangerous drug’and/or con- trolled precarsor and essential chemical. (Section 29) Violation of any regulation issued by the Dangerous Drugs Board. (Section 32) Issuance of false or fraudulent drug test results. (Sec- tion 37) Violation of confidentiality of records: (Section 72) Refusal of members of law enforcement agencies or any government official or employee to. testify. (ection 51)*” j. Delay and bungling in the prosecution of drug cases byeany government officer or employee tasked with their prosecution through patent negligence, unreasonable delay or the unsuccessful pros ied under the influence of hereof shall be a qualifying and the rules under the Re- vised Penal Code shal WBE RUSHING te posed By the Court. yim The possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia or dangerous drugs fit or intended for the possessor has smoke himself, injected, inges b. onus w Presumed to have violated Section 15 (use of danger- ous drugs). ae under the Compulsory Sub- sion Program either through the petition by the ard with the Regional Trial Court, or by the prosecu- here the drug dependent is witha ess 14. Minor drug violators may be given: b. Suspended sentence for the first offense; ime offend ‘other convicted person ifthe the conditions Suspended sentence offender who is over 1 of Dangerous Drugs but sore than 18 at the time of promulgation of judg- ‘subject to the following conditions: 1, Hehasnotbeen previously convicted of violations ‘of any provision of R.A. 9165 or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended or of the Revised Penal Code or of any special penal laws; 2. He has not been previously committed to a Cen- ter of to the care of a DOH-accredited physician; andne (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 3. The Board favorably recommends his sentence be suspended, | Di€ privilege of suspended sentence shall be’ availed of by the minor only once. If he complies ‘The act of transporting prohibited drug is malum prohibi- tum because itis punished as an offense under a spet cannot be considered a wrong. As such, Tang Wai Lan presented for customs inspection the traveling bag with a tag bearing her name and found to contain shabu. She is thus pr crime of transporting shabu, being mala prohibita, the intent, motive or knowledge of the accused need not be show! ‘The crime is complete when itis shown that a person brings Dangerous drugs is per se contraband firearms, Renee’ in the latter, the prosecution bears len of proving ‘that the firearm is without license whiéreasin possession.of . duugs the accused has the burden of proving that he is au- thorized to possess. “Drug Dependence” means $f psychic or physical de- pendence, or both, on a dangerous drug, arising in a person ‘otum ne chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking, or otherwise introducing into the physiological system of the body, any of the dangerous drugs. “uiliad. The law defines the word “deliver” a5 a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another per- ind by any means, with or withous effected through other means. Therefore, assuring that it was indeed another person, not accused who delivered the chest. What is material is that the wa phaSuan tothe instiice ack even i he did not himself pecsonally. vey the.samae. (People ws, Santos, 57 SCAD 73) merely the | Reena Ae Metis ‘hich Moment the buyer receives.the-deug.dcom the seller. People vs. Simon, 53 SCAD 620) A, "p.petson charged withatlempLiaselheulased.doue with- sSuLauthorityoflaw ‘may be-consisked for consummated surely subsumed to commence the ‘one has been proven of a crime by overt actsx0 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW | Leica oa cranes of falsit he has certainly been proven to have execut- ‘Serious physical ict required in an attempt. (People vs. Boco, G.R. jon, robbe yes injuries. FROTSL. entrapment, buy-bust operation foe eee Romesgion WAS RAtedaly means, Ins ie bat ha, dal ve, (easeand frame-up of tal sate (See notes under Circumstances Affecting Criminal Jaw enforcers resort to planting evidence rmation or even to harass civilian. However, is a defense that has been invariably disfavor as it can be easily concocted hence for the sole purpose of being delivered as ‘Ea Standard Tine of defense in most pros- be said that the pos- ing from violations of the Dangerous Drugs figctthe. delivery, by.neds. ‘Act, (People us. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193) The consequences the sale agreed upon was the sole, may be disastrous on the enforcement of law and order and the well-being of society if the court ly on the basis of ig the policemen’s alleged rotten reputation, accept in every eae «a instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabri- cated. Precisely for this reason, the legal presumption is that official duty cami for the excess amount, . able separately: Only tn here the amount oF fe same as that possessed unlawful sale thereat, (People us would plant such huge quantity of Possession of instruments for adi ate street value of P200,000 to in- idual who was not shown to be of good inding and business importance. [f only to show a small quantity of shabu would be 2 00> bea habitual, delingue bests iu uency is limited to the” —7AM TA IOs A ma COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW monies of appellant. The defense of extortion and the claim that the arresting officers had falsely charged appellant of a crime as serious as selling prohibited drugs must be clearly and convincingly shown if only because of the presumption of the regularity of performance of official functions that: such defense and claim must overtum. If accused-appellant was indeed arrested a ify on his behalf. The failure ting evidence suggests that his defense of extortion was either a fabrication or an after- thoughs-¢People vs. Bolasa, 209 SCRA 476) 4 rate ‘the money to buy the marijuana so long as the police officer went through the motion yer, his offer ‘was accepted by the appellant and the marijuana delivered, the crime was consummated by the delivery of the g (People vs. Utoh Lakibul, G.R. No. 94337, January 27, 1993) ‘The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully con- action between the entrapping te ws. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87) summates the buy-t test first applied in US vs. Phelps has been followed in a se- Subiective Ket = pevsed on tu @ccu AE J Pledicpositin ty comard toy offence, 2 ee ot au er ab\ectve eet a focused ovr ebCement 4 Bhd ae! Sab pie USS Gert ries of ‘The “subjective” or “origin of intent” test to determine agents. All relevant facts such as acter traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his reputa- tion, ete, are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's ropensi i Tather than the officer's fact and reflects an aft i eon a "¢fap for the unwary tnnocent rap for the unwary criminal.” If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any favorable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an unduly persuasive inducement. swful police conduct. The test of entrapment the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense; for Purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding per- son would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawful- ly. Official conduct that merely offers such an opportunity permissible, but avesbearing,conduct, such as badgering, or importuning, or appeals to sentiments such as pity, sympathy, friendship or pleas of desperate illness, afe note id.) MselTITLE VI AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS. Crimes covered a. Gambling and b. Offenses agai ry whether thru text messages or ry to determine whether promo- ig oF otherwise. When the public is Piice in-sifect is the consideration. for. the.chance apd the SBluGe OL the prizerAlSg) r the public will not buy the product, the ‘ing the chance and his job. volved and oftentimes, the A.M No, P-2387, May 13, ‘Money is of cours gambler is in debt 1981) introduce factors which ly and society. When the ed o log" in gambling, 2a AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS 2s affairs. and may acquire unwholesome or anti-so- Re: Resma, AM, No. P-2387, May 13, 1981) ts forms, unles? allowed by law, is genet: ‘Burthe prohibition of ga ‘Government cannot regulate it in the exercise ofits police power. (Basco vs, PAGCOR, GR. No. 91649, May 14,195 It may also be pointed out that the franchise granted to the PCSO to hold and conduct lotteries allows it to hold and conduct a species of gambling. It iy Settle that “a statute. which authorizes the carrying on oft-gamabling activity or business should be strictly construed and every seasanalle doubt sa.cesaluediasto-imitshe powers and zights claimed under its authority,” (KILOSBAYAN vs. Guingona, Ir, GR. No. 113375, May 5, 1994) The Local Government Code has not repealed PD1869 insofar as PAGCOR’'S general marotain gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is con Maglayas vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, Gaal. Itis a reliable sour of cash strapped Governme, | provided funds fax-sacial hd subjected gambling to “cl : the_Gavernment” ‘D 1869). With "he creation of PAG- ‘COR and the direct intervention of the Government, the cuil- practices and comuptions that-go.with gambling will be 2 totally eradicated. Public welfare. then, lies at the ghaciment of PD. 1896. (Basco vs. lo. 91649, May 14, 1991)The men fighting (PD. 983), sweepste by BP.42)are ers are prohit 1869 for one, + Gamblin; when the gam ness necessari of the gamble and spin some persons control, physi: sarily mean th bling. Gambli tainly not nec could have be exercise, work 91649, May 14 Making contr: for future deli ery, contracts forceable. This with legal tioner and pri of purch constr payment of t them falls une difference in p ket price abow purely gambliq 28. CA,G.RN, hence, it leava COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW mity is granted to witnesses under PD. No. 1732 (Im ARTICLE 200 morals, e.g., grave scandal. scandal is ony hi (Sand good cust e knowledge and 6 Phil.) The offense mast gs as. scattering human. "A] 38 O.G. 3715) ARTICLES 201-202 2 Oe wh ‘out any visi private who are 7 hz able to work and do 1TITLE VIL CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Crimes covered: 1. Malfeasance and misfeasance; Bribery; Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions; Malversation of Public Funds and Property; Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners; Infidelity in the Custody of Documents; Revelation of Secrets; Other offenses or irregularities by public officers. ARTICLE 203 1. Tobea public officer under Article 203, one must be — a. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or performing in said Government or any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class; and. b. That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must Bees 1. _ by direct provision of the law, or 2. by popular election, or 3. _ by appointment by competent authority (Azarcon vs, Sandiganbayan, supra.) a CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS a [Memory aid — EA-RC — Law, Elec oyee, Agent — Rank, Class] Thedefi is comprehensive embracing ever ARTICLES 204-208 1. Definitions )2 _Dereliction of duty is misconduct in office or prevari- Rie cacion, such as rendering an unjust judgment know- ingly I b ing which in the first is wrong: feasance — ertor or mistake in the performance of duty; 4. Nonfeasance —.omisgjgp to perform a duty required \ public officerCIN CRIMINAL LAW re to discharge i, 108 SCRA 157) The elements of the crime of knowingly rendering a mani- festly unjust judgment under Article 204 are: a. Offender isa judge; b. He renders a judgment decision; & Thejudgment is unjust; 4. He knew that s a case submitted to him for judgment is unjust. ipported by evidence. (! n S.A. vs, Judge 1, supra) Inonder hat a ge ny be aly yee for knowingly 3d ugh he has acted. en Sere wuis.entitled to exact Negligence and ig- which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpr . even though there is a misunderstanding or error of the law applied, yet in the contrary it results, logically and reason- ably, and in a very clear and indisputable manner, in the notorious violation of the legal precept. (In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107) 4 coma? joj eda ioneoan . Knowingly rendering an unjust judgm ‘cuinats ConMarTeD ICOFRICERS a -Aludgeshen required to exercise his judgment or discre criminal or ad- ministrative — for any of his official acts, no. mi as long as Rea I the proper administra exercsin renders assuming ld be nothing short of harassment or would niake his position unbearable. (id.) is both a criminal and an administrai fense is that an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or knows it to be ws contrary to law The source of an un) knew that the same was unjust t sense, he acted maliciow:Pay (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE 209 1. A distinction must be made between confidential commu nications relating to past crimes already committed, and future crimes intended to be committed, by the client. The toa crime that the former has theretofore committed, he is al confessional seal, which the acclient intends to commit thereafter or in the future, and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer’s advice. isnot only un- mney under certain -at once in the inter- ARTICLES 210-211-A — Bribery ARTICLE 212 — Corruption of Public Officer p 2 ‘There are 3 and Qualifi Direct bri amount to and the or lic officer. 1 a. Article which dizgct ingac band pe officer sufliss paragi 1 2 i ‘crime agree Ttis thus n formed wi the part of corruption the act, he about by th of the Land Qos a. Direct On the a. Cory b. Falsifi aH Ame Heese tes, Thece Ys nd frustrated brib. ery because these crimes involve concurrence of the the corruptor and the lic officer refuses to be corrupl tempted, The 4 essenti elements of direct bribery are: a. Accused is a public officer within the scope of Article 203; b, He received by himself or thru another, gift or present, offer or promise; Such gift, present or promise has been given in consid- eration of his commission of some crime or any act not constituting a crime; 4. The crime or act relates to the exercise of the functions ofthe public otfee. indirect bribery punish- le 211. Lack of evidence as to direct conniv- ance between Alvior and Garbanzos is of no moment since it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason A.M. No. P-1597, March of his office. (Victoriano vs. Alvi 1978) i between direct and indirect bribery are: a. Indirect bribery the publi officer must do something ip indiect, there is ro such requirement. (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS wr b. Mere agreement consummates the crime of direct bribe ety if the act agreed upon amounts to a crime. In indi- scl brihery, the public officer must accept the gift to consummate the crime of indirect bribery. 9. The elements of qualified bribery are: 2 Offender is a public officer charged with law enforce: oF prosecuting a person who. reclusion per- petua AND/OR death (that is: (1) reclusion perpetua, or t (3) reclusion perpetua to death}; ting or arresting the. offéndler because of the money or gift-nr_promise in “consideration therefor. ‘demanded for the ikewise be reclusion fender. If he were the one who aske Bift or consideration, the penalty shi perpetua because of R.A. 9346. The penalty must be reclusion perpetua or death ot reclusion perpetua to death. (Although the death penalty cannot be enforced). Otherwise, this crime is not committed, but another crime, eg., dereliction of duty under Article 208, If he refrained from prosecuting the offenders for a consideration, the crime is Direct Bribery under Article 210, penalty for direct bribery is “in addition” to the penalty for the crime committed, .749 [Immunity to Bribe-Givers] requires the bribe-giver +e in invoking immunity from prosecution to do 2 things: jving information to the government of corrupt transaction of an officer in violation of the vised Penal Code or the Ar sraft Law.2 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW at may subsequently befiled. icer involved. [Memory aid: Vol- The IT should The TT shou! 4, The IT.can be corroborated in its material points. 5. The informant.or.witness has not been convicted for t yet be.in possession of the govern- “anyother i [Abeer resorted te alsehoods inf testimony, he isnot immune from the crime such as perjury. ARTICLE 213, 1. Mlegal exastion Hie'o the government 2, There are 3 ways of committing illegal exaction: ee (ary failure to issue receipt. c. Collectionatshenntereof payment different from that prescribed by law, is committed by mere de- ss than the amount due ve. If the excess amaunbie (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFHCERS, a Feceipted, there is an additional offense, Iv The w] unt becomes = publ xen the ficial receipt makes the whole amount public. customs men coats ase allowed to collect an amount ‘since interests and surcharges are imposed. Moreover, they are authorized to compromise pemalties. The BIR law and the Tariff Code are respectively applicable. ARTICLES 214-217 1, The elements of malversation are: a. The offender is a public officer; b. He has cist which he.isaccountable; and a Tie has aporoplat , taken or misappiapriated, or has onse: is tao through abandonment or negligence, the taki personas, such funds ition om Saniora, GR Now arms belonging of his office entailed the ure, or on demand. The duty is to account for the firearms. His act of misappropriating and converting the fitearms to his own personal use and benefit, with abuse of trust and confidence completed the basic description of the crime of malversation attributed to him. 2. Malversation may be committed:cithe? 1 “Ret of misappropriation of public funds or property oRpas:.20 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW nce by allowing another to commit [possession public funds ot property for them and did not have them in his possession when au- and (c) he could not give a satisfactory or reasonable excuse for the disappearance of said funds or property. 3, Malversation is committed by anj Pilates, or takes or IDFA Consents or (6) through abandonment or negligence, permits any other person to take such public funds or property. The off oust be ap accountable offices other : iafaAn accountableatficer under Artic ‘public ‘officer who, in the discharge of his office, receives money f the government which he is bound to later, ror the relative ble officers as such ‘when they are, nonetheless, account = when they have a duty doreiuin the same.or se thereof as provided by law ‘rby lawhul regulation or orders of their superiors. (Azarcon dhoathicer, is prima fasie aust 1d alversation of pub ‘. cdisappearance.of the same. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96915, July 3, 1992) An accountable officer may thus be convicted of malversation ere is no direct evidence of misappropriation and fe oi ade me ey yas tage in his accounts (Cabello vs. Sandigan- bayan, GR. No. 93885, May 14, 1991) evidence is not neces “Sumptiog bu “liable, ee slablished. In such case, direct evidence of misapprop! is necessary. (Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 77120, April 6, 1987) Demand raises a prima facie presumption have been put to personal use. The deman element of, and not indispensable to constitute malversa- ithout a demand, malversation can still be com- when enough facts are extant to prove When demand is made to the accountable officer to account for the funds and property and the same is not forthcoming, the presumption is that he misappropriated the funds. But before the presumption arises, it must be proved that he is clearly accountable for the amount. The; aud liablerathé must be indubi- ihe is accountable| and he cannot explain the shortage. (Rizon vs. CA, GR. No. 91271, October 3, 1991; Tinga vs. People, G.R. No. 1-57650, Apr the assumption tha GR. Nos, 112761-65, February 3, 1997)22 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW i 50 specified in the particular ing that felony or by force of ae Regligence, (Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.) or reimbursement of, af 10. The defense of good faith is a valid defense in malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused, To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by 4 criminal intent or by such negligence or indifference to duty of to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime, Actus non fa mens sit rea, There con be no (People vs. Pepito, rent is not based on tech- stakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honest- ly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. The accused may thus always introduce fed in good faith and that he had no ) intention to convert. 1S COMMITTED By PUBLIC O ARTICLES 218-220 1. A, comparison of Articles 217 and 220 reveals that their ‘elements are er ly distinct and different. In malversation ‘of public funds, the offender misay for his own per ‘such public funds for the latter's personaluse, In technical malversation, the public of ic funds wy his adr tration to a pul ui the fund was.appropriated by-law.or.ordinance, Technical mal therefore, not included in nor does it nec- crime of teck mation, and funds, accused cannot resultantly be convicted of technical malversation. (Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991) Article 220 provides that for technical malversation to exist it is necessary that public funds or properties had been di- verted to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance. (Palma Gil vs. People, G.R. No. 73642, Septem- ber 1, 1989) In the absence of a law or ordinance appropriat- ing the CRB] fund for the concreting of the Barangay Jalung Road, th 3. Compare malversation, estafa and qualified theft. a. These crimes can be committed by pi against publ funds, malversation cannot b. Ingstafa and qualified theft, the offender can be a pri-Gr prOperTy ay ‘The taking of public funds or property is malversation, ifthe public olficaris accountable therefar estafa, ifthe offender who is not accountgble therefor has acquis ef 7 Wal_possessing took the property with abuse of confix ARTICLES 221.222 haracler of public property ac- the government. the burden of proving by cor lant’s act of paying (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS ciency in proving the exi ance of criminal tent nor could constitutional presumption of tus non facit reum, nisi mens sit if the mind of the person per- e act complained of be innocent. Thus, to con- he act must, except in 1 te officials wees. from committing 3 yess. from, fy and ive the tome of morality 058 ipt per se, but even those that may result in graft and corruption. mn under the Anti-Graf gintention of.the.Acte(Marcos vs. Sanchganbayan, G.R. No. "126995, October 6, 1998) R.A. 3019 makes no time of policy in Sect the sacredness is implicit of congressional respect for @ public office which must be kept clearCOMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW are the bane of public ad- is immaterial when a rep- @ Offense cannot exist without the. alfice. nstitucnt element of the offens ee theotficer. cpus may bel ding. and got only. the. particular office aich he stands accused. (Segovia 03. Sandiganbayan, BBB SCRA SH) Public otficers, whether in the Career Ser- 10 receive compensation even @ local govern- we government-owred or -controlled corporations, agencies of the govern- mnalized under the anti-graft (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS Py ilt-Tt does not in any manner wipe out the criminal liabilities incurred by him in a previous term. There are 2 ways of violating Section 3(a) a. A public officer persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform: 1. anact 1g. violation of rules and regula- tions duly promulgated by competent authority or 2. an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter. b. A public officer allowing himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit such violation or offense. Under both ways the corruptor and the carmupted officers shall be liable. y le the increase of the rating of the latter and consequently his passing the bar examinations. Section 3(b) penalizes 3 distinet acts: a. Demanding or requesting: b. Receiving: or Demanding, requesting and receiving. present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself y other person, in connection with any contract or government and any other party, a public officer in an official capacity hast vene under the law. These modes of com!‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW. are distinct and different from each other, Proof of the exis- tence of any of them suffices to warrant conviction. The lack of demand is immaterial, After all, Section 3(b) of R.A, No. 3019 uses the word “or” between requesting and receiving, (Peligrino us. People, G.R. No. 136266, August 13, 2001) The elements of 3(b) are: a. The offender is a public officer; b. He requested and/or received a gift, present, or con-* sideration; © Thegift, present or consideration was for the benefit of the said public officer; Present or consideration was requested and/ or received in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; and le2a vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. L-75160, March 18, 1988), overruled the finding of acceptance, because i} was \gprobuble forthe accused io acgept babe ng n Her OHicemates and in a public place, even if the money had Been anded to her aude BeBe Furthermore, the accused therein shouted at the complainant, “What are you trying to do to me?” That is not the normal reaction of one with a guilty conscience. There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider it as his property from then on. Mere physical ze- ceipt unaccompanied by any other sign. citcumatance ax act (Sshow acceptarice is jot sufficient for.the crime to be com- milied Otherwise unscrupulous individuals could frame ‘up public officers by simply putting within their physical custody some gift, money or other property. Section 3(b) refers to a public officer whose official interven= _ fion is required by law inva contract or.transaction-In his of CCKIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 26 principal, Jaravata is not required the salary differentials. See. 3(b) should be wance, fee, honorarium, or some c) was violated by giving a contractor unwar- efit, preference or advantage in awarding to him Esab welding rods thru appear that said supplier of all Esab products though such the time and by making it appear that welding rods delivered consisted of 360, } cost of P43,776 when what was actually de- ly 100 pieces causing undue ing ted benefit, thru evident bad faith to the supplier. Sansdiganbayan, 160 SCRA 682) . There are 2 ways of violating Section 3(e): a. By causing any undue injury,te.any party, including unwarranted benefit, advan~ torena, 228SCRA \ctive term “or” connotes that either ion of Section 3(e). In other words,4 15, (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW bby petitioners although there may be instances where both elements concur. (id.) Elements of the crime: a. The accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; b, Said public officers commit the prol during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; They cause undu © any party, whether the Government or a private party; d. Such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and e. The public officers have acted with manifest partial- ‘ident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Bank & Trust Co. vs. Ombudsman, GR. No. 135440, ry 31, 2000) refers to the Féal or actual damage occasioned by the acts of the offender. The injury must be more than necessary, excessive, improper or illegal (Jacinto 2s. Sand ganbay | (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 251 Injury must be.duly-established a5 an clement of the “stim 287 SCRA TBE STSCAD ‘48) Here, the refusal to grant clearance to Mr. Curio was based on an ex tothe government, basis, although Atty, Llorente granted the for clearance by other employees for early retirement purposes. There was bad faith on the part of At Dut the bad faith is not evident as an element of the 24 SCRA 494) The choice of mn and as long as the jetermining the contractor, such stan isan exer standards are dards are reasonable they are used, the cot dom of management prero; (On the other hand, the following constituted undue ine jury: 1 ld not inguire into the wis- es 1g th equest for payment of just ‘compensation and divesting the former of a large share of the amounts due them caused undue injury both to the government and the claimant. (Mejorada vs. Sandi- sganbnyan, 151 SCRA 399) 2. Using for personal gain and without authority gov- vent property by taking advantage of official posi- 187 SCAD 277, 279 SCRA ior authority 87 SCAD 402, from the DENR (Rios 279 SCRA S81)a COMTACT RP 's in so far as other persons may be affected, of that care which even inattentive and thought- less men never fail to take on their wn property, In cases there is gross negligence ashen a i ipable..(De la Victoria vs TAM No. Ps .00-1436, February 19, 2001) Bad faith does rot simply connote bad judgment or negligence; templates a state of. design or some m« 1 purposes. Evident bad ‘on the part of the lauueva vs. Sandi- accused to do wrong or cause damage. ( ‘ganbayan, 223 SCRA 543) ‘The act must be motivated by any gain or benefit for the accused or knowingly for the purpose of favoring an interes is not favor of one party, as against an advantag ‘CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 233 another, would result from such neglect or refusal. (Coro- nado vs, Sandiganbayan, 44 SCAD 21) 20. The elements of the crime are: a. The offender isa public officer; b. He has neglected or refused to act without sufficient justification; after due demand or request has been made on hin; «. Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or re- quest without the public officer having acted on the t pending before him; and actis for the purpose of obtaining directly fom any person interested in the matter ty oF material benefit or advantage in \erested party, or discriminating against another. (Coronado vs. Sandiganbayan, 44 SCAD 21) 21. the crime under Section 3(g) are: 4 public officer; b, He entered into a contract or transaction in behalf of the government; and Such contract or transaction is, action i arosly and manifestly, (dissdantageous officer must be one who had. authority.ta.con- a Se (ngeo tease contract between the LRTA and the PGHFI, peti signed the same in her capacity as Chairman of the and not as Human Settlement Minister nor as ex-officio Chairman of LRTA. It was Jose P. Dans, Jr. who signed as ex- eae eeeBe 24, ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW officio Vice-Chairman of LRTA. Although Mrs. Marcos was icio Chairman of LRTA, at the time, there is no evi- dence that she was present when the Board of Directors of LRTA authorized and approved the Lease Agreement sued upon. (Marcos vs, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126995, October 6, 1998) The contract must be exist WTETTe Vs. Sandiganbayan, 94 SCAD 161) It must be grossly and manifest 1s.to.the government. A dis. ‘vantage tothe government that is merely negligible does Rot fever We PUBIC officer liable. there must be a stan. same is weighed and measured. In Marcos, the Court found “That theres no established standard by which the contract's rental provisions could cial to LRTA ‘or the entire government. The only basis for condemning. the Lease Agreement as manifestly and grossly disadv tageous to the government was a comparison of the ren rate in the Lease Agreement [P102,760] with that in the Sub- 4,000]. Such a comparison is purely ive of due process, for there are many in the determination of what is a reason- speculative and vi factors to consid able rate of rental. Section 3(h) can be violated by any public officer who has his official capacity; or %b, _Inwhich heis prohibited by the Const dards for Public Officers and Employees [R.A. 6713}. Intervention in the law requires [a] actual and [b] in the official capacity of the public officer. In Macnriola (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 288 vs, Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77, respondent judge was acquitted of the charge of violating this section for the business of the corporation in which he participated has no relation or con- nection with his judicial office, The business of the corpora- tion is not that kind where respondent intervenes or takes part in his official capacity as Judge. As was held in a case involving Article 216 of the Penal Code which has a similar ‘on public officers against directly or indirect Gil vs. People, 117 SCRA 220, this section con- yal intervention in the transaction fa which to the trucking operator using the mayor's 2 trucks. It was another official who awarded ‘a pre-suspension hearing conducted for the purpose rom which the court can havea basis tqeither su end the. and proceed.with-thes iene mens of ‘on withhold the suspension of the Jatter.and-dis- sigs the case, of Sormect any pattof.the proceeding which. The rule on the matter is specific and abeyance the suspension of the accused officer. 27. The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 3019 has both legal(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ‘isprudential support. (Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, 128055, April 18, 2001 ‘The provision of suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicted upon vz i whether they are appointive or ‘or temporary employees, or perta career service. Segovia vs. $i ials, permanent the career or non- inbayan, 288 SCRA 328) yur. to issue.an order of It is 2 ministerial duty of suspension Halon fled betas ‘sufficient form and substance, the court is bound to is- sue an order of suspension as a matter of course, and there. seems to be no if It is not a penalty be- iS not imposed as a result if gequitted, the offici: B toxeinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which,he. Jiiled to seceive during suspension. (Bayot vs. Sandiganbay- am, 128 SCRA 383) on. of the.validity of the infor ice the information is found to be afforded the right of due preliminary investigation; that the which he stands charged do not constitute a the provisions of R.A. 3019, or the bribery provisions of the Revised Penal Code which would warrant his m: datory suspension from office under section 13 of the Act he may present a motion to quash the information on any of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.) The law does not require that the d must be established in a pre-suspensian proceeding before ‘ial on the merits. proccess. Ngither does it contemplate 3 The order of suspension jg distinct from the. . The intent of the law is to prevent the act of resignation or ‘CRIMES COMMITTED By PUBLIC OFFICERS 7 of culpability against him, be Bravity of the offense charged, or (3/Wwhether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence before the court could have a valid in decreeing preventive sus- pension pending the trial of the case. secures to the accused is adequate opportunity to challenge the validity ar ~Tegularity of the proceedings against him. gress to discipline its o x ‘ich pivides thal cach “house ny ao eo Proceedings, punt CW The concur aid’ i Suspension con- ‘the Constitution is a punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the House GF Representatives upon an erting Member. Thus, in Pare- , Jt vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R, No. 118364, August 8, 1995), ‘ourt affirmed the order of suspension of Congressman Paredes by the Sangh qubaian,despitelus protestations on e encroachment by the court on the prerogatives af Cons SES retirement from being used by a public official as a protec- tive shield to stop the inves bea violation of his constitutional right. A public of- the right not to serve if he really wants to resign or aaa aca eee eee ee ee eee eee eee eee ee eeLaw (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS, Fe tires oF resigns, he is days, The indefinite preventive suspension can, in effect, be j the penalty itself without a finding of guilt after due hear- ing. His term of office could be shortened and he could in effect be removed without @ finding of cause. The mere fact that petitioner is facing a charge under the Anti-Graft Act does not justify a different rule of law. (id a ion against pre- sonable period of ime ap- Seryige Desuee. (Deloso vs. Sangenbye, SSA) Should the purposes behind preventive suspensions {ing the abuse of the prerogatives of the of- dation of witnesses, etc. become manifest the re~ The petitioner may stil be suspended but for specifically ex: pressed reasons and not from an automatic application of Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. ( 33. Teas that uglawhul acts of public officials are not acts oF the State and the officer who act elected. (Layno vs. Sandi- socal Government Code In not to exceed 60 be bated by puescrighion laches oc-siop- Seeyrmaat ined the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court.36. 36. COMPACT REVIEY IN CRIMINAL LAW ‘where the offenses fed before Marcl ing unfavorable 1982, the longer prescri the accused cannot be gi scriptive period as to behest upon discovery of the ie. after the investiga 1s. Pecificador, G.R. No. 139405, March 13, 2001) In case the vi ion be not know at the time, it should be. from the date of discovery is impossible for the State, the aggrieved part ‘of R.A, 3019 at the time of the questioned transactions were made. Thus, t ‘Re computed from the discovery of the commission there- ind gt from. the-daywot.such commission. (Presidential Stfinc Coit on Bent Lose Onna, GR. No, 135482, August 14, 2001} ‘The powers of the Dep: 37, (CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 2s ing acquired unexplained wealth wl The law d terms that bank deposits shall ion in the enforcement of Section 8 id provision is nnd the rule against the disclosure of depos- (Banco Filipino vs. Purisima, 161 SCRA 576) to illegally acquired property extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded inthe name of imately acquired property” of a or employee shall by the responden recorded in the name of, scendants, relatives or any other persons. To restrict the inquiry ‘only to property held by or in the name of the ofticial or em- ployee, or his spouse and unmarried children is unwarranted in the light of the provisions of the statutes in question, and. would make available to persons in government who illegally soperty an easy and fool-proof means of evading in- jon and prosecution. (id the exemption of defendants thereto from the obligation to be witnesses against themselves art appli- cableAlthor aud effect itis a criminal one. BaroalC.R. No. L-18428, 5 SCRA 970), it wa: the proceeding for foufeiture isciuil in naturand.nobcrimi- _nal.since a proceeding under the Act does not terminate the impo: the proper is a petition, then ing Howex®,.this doctrine r=, fers tothe puicely.praceduxal aspect ofsaid puoceadingwand ta na.kearing.on. aaa of.the respandents* against, selt:incrimination. Kapunan 6 SCRA 1688)22 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW R.A. 1379 prescril confiscation. ot @ public treasury sets belonging to the Na~ tional Government, To constitute a “series” there must be or more overt.or criminal asts fallingcuinder the same cal- ‘gory of enumeration, say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury. A “pattern” consists of a least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enu- Becomuate or aca ‘be an overall unla ‘scheme or conspiracy to achieve said common goal. As ‘commonly understood, the term “overall unlawful scheme” sates a ‘general plan of action or method’ which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the ‘overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to at- Talled and Understood from its ition to Section 1, paragraph ‘exis conamerres the application of ig circumstances to prosecutions thereunder indi- r, sinc the de-_ ‘allender is determined intent. The legislative declaration that plu ‘command the respect and confidence of the community in the appl is critical, that the moral force of criminal law be not diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are be- ing condemned. It is also important in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs has con- annot adjudge him guilty of with utmost cer standard has acquired such e nal law as it give to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of e crime with which he is ry fact necessary to arged. have been commitied by the accuser. For instance, the pros- raids on the treasury, if such leged, it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least 2 of .e raids beyond reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at least P50 million. (id.) 5, Section 4 is a rule of evidence as shown by its epigraph. It ino more than prescribe a rule of procedure I case for plunder. Section 4ms to prove the guilt doubt. id.) 6. Plunder defined in R.A. 7080, as amended by R.A. 7659 was provisionally placed within the jurisdiction of the Sandi- ganbayan ‘until otherwise provided by law.’ RA. 8249, en- acted on February 5, 1997, special law that provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan ‘otherwise’ than that prescribed in R.A. 7080. (Organo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No, 136916, December 14, 1999) ARTICLES 223-225 1. Infidetity agit, GI No, (-58652, May 20, 1968) 2. The elements of evasion through negligence under Article 2A are: a. The offender is a public officer; b. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a net, either detention prisoner or a prisoner by fir udgment; and duty to return the pris- his duty in clear viola folerence of sangeren F companions could plan ani should have aroused the suspicion prudence. (id.) 4, Conniving or consenting to evasion therefore, nat neces: ela Soe private person; TREE is by an of ARTICLES 226-228 1. Infidelity in the custody of documer {paragraph nos. 1 and 2) damage orge closed papers, do custody.6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW (CRINtES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 7 ‘ar toobtain same information from the prisoner, the penalty is higher. 5. The practice of presenting to the media recent erste ge real Eons Bg rons case ‘Torm of, os Su eaee ‘humiliating-to.the Bee Hy speaally since these, detention prisoners.are-mere suspects~ wir ‘may not be the actual. yrongdoers, ARTICLES 231-233 ARTICLES 236-245 Refusal of assistance is committed by investigators, peace fense. under R.A. 9165. ARTICLES 234-235 1. The.crimesare for malJsgatment under Article 235,apd for . The two crimes are not to be.com- fie Se erhyat sue The jail warden makes immoral advances or 5 tion to the wife, daughte game degree Stalpnity but not the mothe susiody-of-such-warden-or off By inflicting such punishments in a cruel and humiliat- ing manner. 4. ALthe purpose of. the maltzeatment is to extort a confession,TITLE vill CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS. persons consist of acts which take human rigs and the third added by the amendment to the rape ‘igsexual crimes. : 2. The crimes covered are: _ a. Particide b. Murder Homicide 4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray e juries inflicted in a tumultuous affray {Giving assistance to suicide & Discharge of firearms h ional abortion j. Unintentional abortion practiced by the woman her- self or by her parents k, Abortion practiced by a pensing of abortives L Duel ician or midwife and dis- m. Challenging toa duel 1. Mutilation { ° P. Serious physical injuries jurious substances or beverages 8 CCRINEES AGAINST PERSONS, co 4. Less serious physical injuries Slight phys +s and maltreatment the Legit: mate.spouse-of the accused. (People vs, Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996) E a. Legitimate Gxcept in the case of parent.and child where, a selationship may ethee be legitimate’ legitimate, In the Di e oF between ascendants and descen- and sisters because the © By Blood é the f -Roweted. High*POwered firearms are pose with ores big- ger land 9 min and those considered as powerful, such a5 a .357 cal fire magnum, god-firearms with firing capal tomatic or by a burst of two or three. “Unlicensed firearm” shall firearm shall ivered-SPhigh, >. unauthorized use of licensed firearm. inthe commis- “Sion of theerime: x a ke A ‘a. prt 1 legal possession case..(People vs. Nuiiez, G.R. No. TRO aren TRI ae vo onthe eon conged firearm to be merely an accused who owned does not have the corresponding possess the same.os (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW The latter is a negative ingredient of the offen ¥ of the prosec beyond reasonable doub: 5. The opinion that a paitik cannot be licensed was rejected in People vs, Ramos. The court there did not say that pultiks can. in no case be issued a license or permit, and that a firearm is a pal Even if the accused cannot exp! such firearm or ex; why he possessed burden is with the pros- court would be speculating, rized to possess firearm. 6. Ownership is not an essent lement of illegal posse: of firearms /ammu ion, The law requires mere. constructive. pas ‘or the subjection of the thing to one’s control and les vs. CA, GR. No, 95523, August 18, wer hand, a crime was committed before July 6, 1897, when RA8294 took offect. This law is advantageous to the accused as it spares hi simply means a firearm ied by lawtul authority. The scope of the term has been expanded to include unauthorized use tthe accused is not autho- « CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS: ms t residences and their unauthorized use thereof in the killing of Uy may be appreciated as a aggravating circumstance in imposing the proper for murder. (This is moot and academic because per R.A. 9246, the proper penalty of death cannot be applied.) weapons outside t ‘9. Possible crimes that may be committed: ssi in which cole the accused can he le or murder” should include other kinds of killing like parricide for People vs. Macoy, G.R. 126253, August 16, 2000 said that Section 2 of the law covers particide when it refused to give retroactive ef- fect to the jendatory law as such would increase the accused insurrection, sedition or coup — use of un- sorbed as ai ‘for such use and abi does it serve as an agra held e unlicensed firearm as the law did her crime should involve the firearm, imstance. igi the “other crime” need280 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ‘CHIMES AGAINST PERSONS: om If the “other crime” is murder or homicide, illegal those who employed any form I the latter are not known, possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating cit- ‘cumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms, neither can it serve as an aggravating circumstance. 10. In People vs. Ladjaalam, September 19, 2000 possession and use of an M-14 rifle were obviously unauthorized because this weapon could not be licensed in favor of, or carried by, dual licensed firearm was used in commit urder, the accused can no longer be for simple illegal possession of firearm; neither may he be multuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed ay-witnesses. A tu 2 quarrel oce ‘convicted for homicide or murder with “the use of the un- ‘or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. licensed firearm as aggravating” inasmuch as said felonies ; November 16, 1995) are not charged in the Information but only mentioned as 4 ary i a . nat fe fe ae axe thats may be aparticipantin theale, was not arraigned for homicidk ane : be sentenced for such crimes without violating his cor 5. is identifiable o? organized SfoupsJopinsuch case the crime will be homicide and the. against him. Therefore, the case for qu peiuciales of.conspiracyshallapply. The affray must be tu- legal possession of firearm should be dismissed. (Peop! Avecilla, G.R. No. 117033, February 15, 2001) Accused can i later be charged with homicide or muder because the deci- multuous and aot concerted sion said he was not arraigned for homicide or muder, hence, no double jeopardy. ARTICLES 251.252 inflicted Serious physical i th. The mere fact the affray is tumul- a tuous is not sufficient. 2. Itis not correct to q tumulfuous affray Uyee COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE 253 1. [fgnaffismativeachisdane.like shutting off oxygen atthe. Requestofthe patient the provision applies. 2. If the initiative comes from the offe the crime is ho assistance, INis necessary ‘initiative come from the sick person because what is punished is assistance in the commission of suicide. ARTICLE 254 1. The elements of illegal discharge of fi a. The ace and b. There was no intent to There should be no intent to kill otherwise the crime would be frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, or Peroicte ‘committed, such crime must be charged instead. 2. The Ssosemisaimedatanaihers! fired at nobody igh there is no intent to alarms and scandal ARTICLES 255-259 1. Talanticide is the-filling of an infy which means less than 72 house ther, mother or a legitimate, ascey if that is-possible), Tninfanticide, the Toinisaleady vale mined when in the cutting of the umbilical chord, the new: ofthe umbilical chord, CCRIMES AGAINST PERSONS = ‘The crying of the infant is evidence that i when ifcries. then itis breathing onitsown. lestroyed as a fetus, and not asa person, itis abortion If. fetus had an intra-uterine life cf less than 7 m ical chord is already cut and the infant is still (Atts. 40, 41, New Civil Code) she Inbuthcases, the honor 4. Thedi srent kinds of abortion: ional abortion; and jonal abortion, \btentionalabostion cludes abortion practieed by the. puegnant woman hersolt ober paws (258]din>abortion racticed by a physician or midwif and otto be wey of emus by dolo or culpa, Thesémusthe intent to bring about tentional abortion, When a woman is > but there is no intent to briny abortion, den wnintentional abana i comm *K violence arose2 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS 25, epavaibion . The crime is against 1 is unintentional Syae so because it is a. Pwithout knowled; - pregnant woman, (with b. Without using violens ‘out violence/ without consent) If the woman shall have consented. (with consent) nL. 8, Unintentional abortion is committed: sd by the woman herself; unintentional is by another person or stranger only; « be by culpa only by dolo Hence it is always inten nal;” unintentional can be by dolo or onal abortion that the woman commits upon herself, Ear. Iya as the violence ‘may be intentional or through cxample: a pregnant igence. eee There is no unintes ARTICLES 260-261 requires physical violence committed by another person. The duel are: There is no intentional abor ie elements of a re: Two ormore seconds for cach combatant; paragraph 1 because she was not committing a felony when = she attempted suicide, as suicide is not a felony. : c. Choice sia 259 other terms of agreement ay only from physical vio- twos .286 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLES 262-266 1 ipping off of a part of.the Cutting off a part necessan circumstance for the penal homicide. 3 juries is a formal crime (consummated stage * only) because it is penalized on the basis of the gravity of ”. Hence, it cannot be committed in the attempted the felony only be speculated and in law, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. for more than 9 days result- yy requires the concurrence of the following: a (This isso even Fit woul cosmetic surgery) z of the wound intent that must con- (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS: cS fssclavantin Iesgserious in serious physica 7 satment (266, paragraph. 3) is the inflicting of p. though there is no wound and is also classified as physical inj Bi rent, cela sguasdian cura 105 teacher oF persar ink oF pexsons.in-authoxity; the ‘Penalty is the next higher degree.a COMPACT REVIEWER IN gobo wh O¥ ites « ahytical mjeees, Art.294 Art. 265 Yaiiiclion of injuries K Par.2 Par] by reason or on occasion of robbery 3 2 by reason or on occasion of robbery 2 4 3 in course of execution of robbery The significance of this classification is that Article 295 and 296 shall apply if the robbery with physical inj shall be under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 294 tum depends upon the nature of the injury which fall within paragraphs 2 and 3 fend 4) of Article 263 course of execution” denotes that the robbery is not 1 by placing-the.ceezsit, neophyte or applicant in. feoccndnnitgethingstons sucha him to do meni (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS 8 er the Revised Lenal Code wene adapted and thepenal- osed therein were two deg: RUA ine Cate Parmnee te are principals and accomplices. Finally, further contain an vpdértaking that no p steel vole employed by anybody during si 5. The | dithe person subjerted ta hazing fogs obinitiasorites aylessany physical inpury. or dies as a result the 6. The following are the persons liable i a. principals b. accomplices The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 1. The law took effect on October 22, 1997, Rape is reclassified as a crime against persons. The implications are: which was not the case in crimes against ea Thereisnowan impossible,crime of rape because im- possible crimes can only be committed agai land property] 3t persons0 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW a. Bya MAN who shall have carnal knowledge of a wom- te an under any of the following circumstances: 1, Through force, threat, or intimidation, 2. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, 3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, and 4. When the offended party is under 126) jg de- Mented even though none-of.the cigcumstances, abous.js.pracent. b. By any PERSON who, under anj stances above shall commit an act his, iu the four circum sexual assault py 3. Simple rape is penalized qualified by the presence of : xe * a. With the use of a deadly weapon or by 2 or more per sons; b. The victim becomes insane on the occasion oF by rea- son of the rape; © Thesapeis attempted ng)» homicide is committed by reason or.on the occasion thereof; or when any of the 10 qualifying circumstances attended the rape, eg, incestuous, in full view.a.the 4 ‘Cee AGAINST PERSONS, m aglatives enumerated, against a minor less than 7 years the fact that the rape is qualified the penalty is still reclusion perpetua with the advent of 9346, The crime however remains heinous. (People infra) cide is committed.”) “Full-view” refers to.sering and pote hearing distanceawhich is included in the word “presence.” Penal laws are construed strictly against the State hence the replacement of “full view” must be construed in favor Of the offenders to exclude mere hearing distance without of the accused and the victim, and the mi- ded party must be specifically pleaded in order to be properly appreciated as a circumstance. Failure to do so, the accused can- ted of qualified rape for having been informed only of the elements tory rape, (People vs. Ramilla, GR.No. 127485, July 19, Two counts of rape and frustrated murder — not rape attended by the qualifying circumstance of mutilation as she was left for dead but was saved from death by prompt nt. The accused in “the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural oF adopted brother or sists and lative by affinity inthe same degrees.” Outside this enumeration and consistent with the doctrine that criminal law's must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, no other relationshi sociation between the offender and the vi: | oo (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS = . appeliant cannot be considered as the step-grandfather of BB. (People vs. Mamnac, 382 SCRA 547, May 31, 2000) eee Minority and relationshi - fying-ciicumstances.and not merely as aggravating circum: February 10, 1998) A> staneerbécaus? they increase the imposable penalties by 7 __deguees. id.) ae 9 tans of qualified i thos-against his. 16 7 aati feat seas an cpethe sented to prove, mnable doubt.such age;.the ac: cused should or » Moreover, ‘of the accused to the victim as her stepfa- ished keyond doubt since the. prasecu- thus denying nature and cause of the acc . The relationship of stepfather presupposes a lawful rela- tionship, not common-law one. It is true that Article 266- Mb marriage to H's father was dissolved. A stepdaughter is Iegation is not proved, (People vs. Motes, GIR. No. 130187, the daughte i October 20, 1999) ora stepfather is the husband of one’s mater by vickueof a : ent fo that ‘The absence of violence or offer af resistance would not be.. significant becdtise of the oysrpossering.and .averbearing Ftheather over the-daughter which takes and offer of resistance required in rape, cases committed by an accused having no blood relation- ship with the victim, (People vs. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, November 13, 1992Y/¢’where threats and intimidation are ican aera eee reer. ‘Forcibly’ does not COMPACT tis a relative term depending on the age, size and strength of the parties and their relation to each other. GR Nos, 109396-97, july ‘Two elements must be estal not a defense since below 12 years old cannat al act. give an intelligent CCRIMES AGAINST PERSONS as ‘The gravamen of theoffense.of statutory rape. is the. caomal knowledge of a.woman.below-12_years qld. Sexual her is always rape. It is GR. No, 101088, January leprived of reason or ren- ices that there is carnal knowledge nut more. (People vs. Orga, supra.) ‘The “sweetheart defense” cannot be sustained in statu- ry rape where what is material is not she victim's consent but.the facf. that theaistim-wasbelow twelve (12) years.old when it happeaed. The child’s birth c I retardate (classified as a person “deprived ler subparagraph (b), not subparagraph icle 266-A(1). (People vs. Magabo, G.R. No. 139471, mary 23, 2001) ical_violence_ or intimidat GR. No. 131847; September 22, 1999) (People vs. Sacapaiio, GR. No. 130525, Sep- 999) © The accused’s being younger than the victim. (People ', Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, September 7, 1999) mn of the complainant's pri-26 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW entrance or at least the introduction of the male imomhelabiz (People vs. Ligotan, G.R. No. 119219, September 30, 1996) 5 do not disprove the commission of rape. Medical examination is not an indispensable cle. The. mn is merely.cors roborative inoaluse. Furthermore, the presenconobeer laceration the vagina. is uol-an.ossentialipreseqirisite steprove rape. id.) f. Pree ie of the commission of rape is not an essen- element thereof. Even a variance of nhs vets Sutin the indictment ayig that established by the evidence during tial dacs nobcom stitute an error so serious a8 t0 warrant the reversal.of, a goiwiclion sSely oa hal scare. (People vs. Serdanila, GRR. No, 137696, January 24, 2001) es, The crime usually Commences 60 we word of the offended woman herself and con- jably turns upon her credibility, as the People’s ess of the actual occurrence. "ee guiding principles in reviewing rape cases ) an accusation for rape can be made with fa © prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two ps involved, the testimony of the complai ant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to deaw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. (Peo 7 GR No 119069 July 5199 ‘CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS 7 In rape cases alleged to have been committed by force, he prosecution to establish that the ness on the part of the victim be ab- lacking. The prosecution must prove that force or employed by the offender upon id. Intimidation is very subjective 's perception eine GR 19. Where two or more offenders commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must bbe deemed as a c of the special of rape with homicide as the rape committed. In effect, the presence of homicide committed on the occasion ot by reason of the rape loses it character as an independent offense but assumes a ‘a qualifying circumstance. However, by fiction of law, it is merged with, rape to constitute an element of a special complex crime Of rape with homicide with a specific penalty. (Sanchez vs, Demetriou, supra.) 20. The crime of rape absorbs forcible abduction where the accused intended at the very outset to rape the victim when he abducted her. (People'ns. San Pedro, G.R. No. 94128, February 3,193) Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime —Be2t rape if the real objective ofthe accused is but to rape the victim. (People vs. Mend, GR. Nos. 112978-8, February 19, 2001) ‘The new rape law offers the following presumptions: a. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, b. Where the offended party is so situated as to render him /her incapable of giving valid consent. Ine naan cca eee cece eee seeaeeee ee eee eter eeePon aaa NN __——OO EE 8 2, wR When the git! 2B. 24. (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW Between rape and seduction: Rape: the under 12 years of age who maya may not be a visgin op if 12 or over, there is force or intimi- dation: Seduction: the girl must be more than 12 but less than 18; she may or may.not he a.sicgin but of good reputation; the crime is by means of cajolery; Qu virginit fied seduction: the girl must be a virgin (moral ly 12 and there is consent ion. The crime is child abuse. Between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness the dif- ference li trator deducible.from. y" Ui the vagina by the qnatzate, f= neither rape nor sedi 35667-70, March 41,2001) Inserting a finger into the genitals of a woman is rape as the announced purpose of the new law is to expand the definition of the crime. Thus, the term “object” should be ‘construed to include “finger.” To exclude from the defini- tion the insertion of a finger or fingers into the genital or anal orifice of the victim, whereas the insertion of a bottle, a en, oF even a toothpick is included would be an unin- 26. [CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS » tion or insertion was caused by another abject like accused's fingers. Valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the action or the penalty imposed. All ele- ments for essential marriage should then be present. imposed tess Code cobb. notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense counsel's admission. Generally, the age of the victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the vi People ws. Vargas (257 SCRA 603), the nies of the victim and her aunt were hearsay, and th not correct for the trial court to judge the age of the victim by her appearance. There is need for independent proof of aside from testimonial evidence even ed by the defense so as to remove an ls under the qualifying cir- jaw. The minority victim saust sextainty and-cleamness.as the.crime. Appellant being the father of the victim, the alternative circumstance of relationship should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Under Article 2230.06 the Mow ~Gixil_Caderexempiary damages may be imposed when the ‘one or more aggravating circum: in qualified rape cases, the ruleis that re- \ger appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance in view of the amendments introduced by R.A. 7659 and 8353. The father-daughter relationship has been treated by Congress in the nature of a special circumstance Howeve case, the spewo (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW b. is receiving services bath, massage 3, Any kind of employment whichaisks the physical, mental & ot spiritual dawalopment.of.the.child is child exploitation. Under the Revised Renal Code, the age must be less than 16 Jess than 18. 4. Whether the offenders liable for just one crime of child pros- jon and other sexual abuse regerdiless of the number of and the number of to the prosecution theres only oF offense of sex RA (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS, 2 whether it is able to present only one of the complainants. On the other hand, if each act of sexual intercourse with a tes a separate offense, it will matter whether the other children are presented during the tri Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321) ‘The elements of the offense of child prostitution and other sexual abuse are as follows: a. The accused.commits the act of sexual intercourse 7} lascivious conduct; FA Sections conduct b. Said act is performed with a child exploited in prosti- tution or subjected to other sexual buse; and The child, whethermale orfemele, is or is deemed un- der 18 years‘of age i Fach of sewual fiousactawith a child under the circumstances mentioned in Art. III, Section 5 of R.A. 7160 is thus a separate and distinct offense. The offense is similar to rape oF as of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code in which eachacbafsape or lascivious _ tof a separate information. A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual in- tercourse ot lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. The law covers not only a n in which a child is abused for profit, but also one id, through coercion or intimidation, engages scivious conduct, Hence, the foregoing provision penalizes not only child prostitution, the essence of which is profit, but also other forms of sexual abuse of children i, GR, No. 133922, February 12, 2001) No. 7877 — Sexual Harassment Law In a work-related or employment environment, sexual ha- rassment is committed when:sm COMIACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW a. The sexual favors mage as. re-employment of said individu: ‘Grin granting said i ble compensation, Tame conditions, promations or prvilags; or The re- fusal fo grant sexual favor results in limiting, segre- sting esi Wi Gploys. which in. anyay ise igor diminish employment id Sigers ‘opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said’ em: players: b ‘ove acts would impair the employee's right or ‘The elements of sexual harassment are as follows: a. The employer, employee manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another; b. The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment; The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy makes a demand, request ot requirement of a sexual favor. Thus, a mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877. 3, There is no showing that respondent judge demanded, re- quested or required any sexual favor from complainant in exchange for “favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges” specified under Section 3 of R.A. 7877. Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility 0s, Acosta,.AM. CTA-OL-1, April 2,2002) 1 Sea a eee eee ee eee eee eee ee TITLE IX CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY ‘The crimes covered are: Unlawful arrest Kidnapping and failure to return a minor e. Ind ‘ing a minor to abandon his home £ Slavery Exploi n of chi g r h. Services rendered in compulsion of payment of debt, i, Abandonment of persons in danger and one’s own vic- tim j. Abandoning a minor k. Exploitation of minors 1. Qualified trespass to di m, Other forms. ng trespass (trespass to property) other light threats ight coercions p. Discovery and revelation 6f secrets e are. private individuals or public officers, inher private capacity while in Titie It they are pub- lic officers._ COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE 267 L fense, must be proved. (People vs. Bernal, G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997) dnapping and serious illegat detention if any of the fol- lowing elements attended ff3 commission: The detent ted more than 3 days b. Offenders simulated public authority c._ Physical injuries were inflicted on the victim 4. e ‘Threats to kill him have been made The wctisnis a fem: . The following are qualifying circumstances: a. Ransom is demanded ». The victim is killed or dies as a consequence c. The victim is raped 4. im is subjected to torture or dehumanizing 8) even if all of the above are present, EA peta the imposition.pf-the.propes_penal . be crime, a however remains heinous for purposes of award of dam: ages. Ransom is thesiffiaant-that-releasesdromcaptivity. It can hardly be assumed that when complainant readily gave the cash demanded of her at gunpoint, what she gave under the circumstances was in the concept of ransom. These were merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the occasion of a robbery or of which she was sum- marily divested by appellants, (People vs. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993) [CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY ws 5. Even if what is demanded is compensation to the offender for expenses of board and hot the amount owed by the of kidnapping becaitge it not an elétient of thout demand for qualifying circumstance. 2 ‘The circumstance that the kidnapping is perpetrated for the purpose of ransom raises the imposable penalty. But it is esser t the element of deprivation or restraint of liberty of the victim is present. The fact alone that ransom money is demanded would not per se qualify the act of or deprived of of time or that such restraint was the basi the mere most constitute aneziiased People vs, Marajas, GR No. 102645, April 7, 1993)COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW into special complex crime for the imposition of the maxi- zum penalty. The person killed must-be the kidnap victim unlike in rob- bery with homicide where it a it matter whoever is apoliceman, the 2nd crime will be direct assault Ticide fecause thé paticeman & an agent of a person in au- +s, Ramos (297 SCRA 618), of the « 1d by his abductor: sped victim was sub- would either be a murder under Article 48 or 2 separate crimes of kidnapping and murder. Thus, where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of with murder, as the kidnapping was a necessary means to murder the victim. On the other hand, where the victim was, kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was sub- sequently slain as an afterthought, 2 separate crimes of kid- RA. 7659 amended Article 267 by adding t paragraph which provides that when the vic- led or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penal I be imposed. This amendment introduced the concept of ‘special complex crime’ of kid- napping with homicide. It effectively eliminated the dis- yn drawn by the courts between those cases where ling of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused and those where the killing was merely an afterthought. Consequently, the tile now is: Where the is killed in the course of the detention, . The crime commi mote + ms CRIMES AGAINST ERSONALLBERTY ANDSECURTY Video ay bopcrett son killed mo lévdne p ay bel eps i homicide can ng longer be complexed under Atticle 48, nor, be treated mes, but shall be punished.asasper Gal complex crime. (People GR. No, 124309, 332 SCRA 178) Where the detention of the victim is not shown to have been for the purpose of liquidating him, the crime is kidnapping, murder. Although the accused were charged forkidnap- pi murder which was a complex crime before R.A. 7659 took effect they can be convicted for any of the compo- nent offenses included in the complex crime charged, when properly established, despite the failure of evidence to hold the accused for the other offense. Accused are organic mem- bers of the NARCOM and regular members of the PNI they are liable for kidnapping (not arbitrary detent they acted neither in furtherance of official function nor {in pursuit of their authority but in purely private capacity. (People vs. Santian, G.R. No. 123979, December 3, 1998) was murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. The essential element in the crime of kidnapping that the victim must have been re- iberty, or that he was transport- ith the primary or original inte ibsent here. The malefactors evi any length of time or for any other purpose. He was neither forced nor coerced unlawfully but voluntarily boarded the car and went with the accused. ‘That from the beginning of their criminal venture ac- cused intended to kill the vict from the manner by which they swiftly and cold bloodedly snuffed out his life once they reach lated plantation in Laguna. There was no evidence that from the outset the killers intended to exchange his freedom for ransom money. ‘The ransom appears to have been made as an afterthought as it was relayed to the victim’s family very late in the after- noon after a sufficient interval for deliberation among the felons who had he victims around 5 hours earlier.TT ee ee ee ee ere ert rT TTT TTT ws COMPACT REVIEWER INCRIMINALLAW 1¢ taking was incidental to the basic purpose only murder, even if before the killing but for purpose: where the evident purpose of taking the victim was to ki Kidnapping for ransom was committed agai the essential elemen ‘ictim must have been re- erty was present wher both the gun was brandished and them, The same cannot however be said of Quillosa. Offenders could not have held him for ransom ‘as he was only a son of a jeepney driver. Thus, the crime committed by accused with respect to Quillosa should be homicide since they never intended to hold Quil treachery was n e qual -ged in the information, then the crime to murder. (People vs. Nu‘fez) inapping, what is important is to determine and prove ind the subsequent disappearance of ppers can easily avoid punish- cof disposing of their vietim's inkid- physicalinjurie ed or subjected to dehumanizing act” res ‘ted.by the parent ofthe vit (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY oo» any of the parents”]. At most it is Article 270 — kidnapping and failure to return a minan.. 17, The main difference Berweeh ane ise ite crime if that the Qiheg HecaP TE icidenjalto.arthe.sneanstocommitthe rape, bor" 18. in kidnapping wwithcape, rapes. d ie Ae ing Gircumstance. If at the outset, the taki designs and rape.isCommitted+the crime is complex af foxc- ibleabduction.with sape under Article 48. But again, ifthe nal inte means to commit the.rape,... 19. In kidnapping with xape, both should be consummated be- AG cause this is a composite crime. [gape wasmavelpattempt- edpthese sill he.2.separate.csimes. In forcible abduction, if /as merely attempted, there is no complex crime 1 separate crimes but only forcible abduction be- cause the attempt to rape sas merely.amanifestation atthe Jewd design. In other words: f the original intent is rape, even if the vic- rcible abduction with rape, if the design and rape was coms [complex d. Kidnapping and attempted rape, ifthe rape in [b] was merely attempted; ©. Forcible abdu attempted. ‘only, ifthe rape in [e] was merelya0 rape for the subseq |CRIMINALLAW whether it is forcible ab- rape and separate counts of In other words: In kidnapping with rape: ifthe woman kidnapped is also At the outset there is NO lewd design. Rape here is not a separate crime but merely a qualify- ing circumstance. f rape was merely attempted, 2 separate crimes — kid- napping ‘@)attempted rape (because in composite he“Eompor by law.) abduction with rape: The crime is complex since forcible abduction is.a.nec means to commit the rape. outset, there Rape here is also a ES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY " 1g of a person in an enclosure but also to n of liberty which does not necessarily the Code was originally ap- ish. Consequently, the Spanish ith the Enelishver- ther By material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and consequently, control over e will the offended party; and o restrains the will and liberty af anoth- other words, the restraint thority of a law or in the exercise s forcible dragging of YY to a place only he be said to be an actual confinement or restric- son. There was no lockup. Accordi of kidnapping under A\ No. 110099, December 22, me was only attempted kidnapping and serious il When the accused held WW's hand and re- nber of people present at the time, a guard wasse COMPACT REVIEWEK IN CKIMINAL LAW stationed at the gate, and a teacher nearby. (People vs, dela Cruz, GR. No. 120988, August 11, 1997) In the attempted phase the overt act must be an ex- ternal one which has a direct connection with the felon being necessary to prove that said beginning of exec if carried to its complete termination, course without being frustrated by © by the voluntary d and neces do not sufficiently establish that kidnapping had - summated. (id.) (Why not grave coercion since there was.n0 lgck up yet pi 23. ‘The offense actually committed is robbery with homicide under Article 294. The plan was not so much to capture Via ccrusis and deprive him of liberty, even less to assassinate ‘him, but to steal his Pajero by violent means. The kidnap- ping was not the principal objective; it was merely inciden- tal to the forcible taking of the vehicle. Unfortunately, by" reason of on the occasion of the seizure of the Pajero, its driver was killed, and the lone passenger seriously wound- ed. (People vs. Sinac, G.R. Nos. 113511-12, July 11, 1997)hy_ not qualified camapping?) 24 In summary, detention that does not amount.to kidnap- 5 ping: “a, When the motive for dete: * proved; there must AT Senfnement- ““"b, Element that offender ite person is lacking as accused were CAFGU. committed. (Contes: a_c rs when the crime was avhere, accused, organi members of NARCOM 3 therance of official fun rin pursuit oF authority (Gabousely private capacity" c. Where taking was inci the basic purpose to (CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY 3 sht and the demand was re- hours earlier. apping, voluntary release can in, iF I detention avid) that: mel ght, ‘The release is mad@ within 3 days from the start of the prosecution has been commenced; and Before the offender has accomplished his purpose. flat vole 2. The accomplice who furnished the place of detention ig giv- sis.saime pendtas the pancpalss ah exéinption to the ty for accomplices. 267 and 268 compared —1n.267 voluntary release and those who fusmished.the place ave.ac:. : pris they.are.cocsanspisa._, Ne ~sompllice tors. Vice versa in 268 ARTICLE 269- unlawful accectEERE eee eee ee ee eee eee a EY COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW If the offender did not turn over the arrested to the authority, the rime wil be kidnapping Feease turnover the victim to the judicial authoritlests fhe exentat element iSerme. ppehends le 269 the offender felgns to arrest a person without any legal cause for the. ¢ purpose of filing a charge against him Iachargeiefiled, the detention dsamed anineidant ut (Morales vs. Enrile, April 11983) as Tong as the purpose of the arrest is to bring the vic- ity and file a charge, 124, the public officer had no inter bring the offended to proper auth under Article 363. ARTICLES 270-279 1. The elements of kidnapping and failure to return a minor x the minor, and b. He dalibesataly fails to restore said minor to his par- ents or guardians. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention cannot be commit- ted by the parents of the minor [Article 267, no. 4]. In such case, the crime is under 271 Daepaentconniy balsas! minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians that [CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY a minor is not taken but is entrusted to the offender Said fa ze rs however, usta be deliberate but must BaRENIS or the guar eRny ener cere ‘Ours in order to obtain custody. The key word is “delib- ‘erate” conveying the idea that the perpetrator weighs the 1e act and its consequences, the nature of the cercise of such mental powers as ate eration and the cons and consequences. Essent wanton and gross negligence denotes deliberate and willful failure. |. Article 275 speaks of different Kinds of abandonment as: a. Failure to render assistance to a person found in an un- inhabited place, b. Abandonment of one’s own vietim in an accident, and c. Fajjupetorenderassistance.to.child less than 7 years.of— tee The Ist applies only ifthe placejs uninhabited, which means no people roaming around. Parks and other similar public help accident person caused injury under 12(4), he is not but if he fails to render assistance to is under-225(2), The cause here is accident whereas in Article 365 it is due to impru- lence or negligence;Me COMPACT REVIFWR IN CRIMINAL LAW b. Abandonment in Article 363 is aq stance; abandonment under Article 27! itself cling, thevplaceuuslbeadwelling mean- ing that thoro-isa.dwallenosaccupant, Even jf tbeplaceis meant for esidence, like an apartment for rent jfaluhetime Hisvasant, the crime is trespass tagpeqnecty: Wis.thus the the place that determines the crime commit- ing oF trespass to property. is used as dwell- ion to enter and the overseer or overt acts directly ‘Propecoffense '0 charge is the more serious offense. Dwell- ing becomes an aggravaling circumstance and the trespass is absorbed & against a boarder or a tenant even by the owner of ing if his entry therein is against the will of the present. Compler The homicide, stances charact robbery and not theft. Absent such circumstances, the crime is merely theft_ i Hee rime Both robbery"and homicide must be consummated. If the robbery is merely attempted or frustrated, the crime will be attempted or frustrated robbery with ‘homicide under Asticle 297. However, if there is intent to kill but not con- summated, there will be 2 separate crimes — attempted or frustrated homicide or murdergand attempted or frustrated robbery. If accidental hence, no intent to kil, attempted or frustrated robbery and dhys th complex ESI nBTBbecAt pets ings were perpe- trated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. (People vs. Fabula, G.R. No. 115401, December 16, 1996) 10. In robe: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ey 7. Regardless of the number of homicides committed on the occasion of robbery, the crime is still robbery with homicide, is special complex crime, the number of persons killed immaterial ad does not increase the penalty prescribed. ‘The same crime is committed even if rape and physical injuries are also committed on the occasion of said crime, Moreover, whenever the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven to have been committed, all those the robbery are liable as principals therein ugh they did not actually take part in’ the homicide. (People. vs. Pulusart, G.R, No. 110037, May 21, 1998) ill and the taking isanatie a Rot robbery be- ‘cause the dead cannot be 9. Article 294(1) uses the term “by reason or on the occasion of” the robbery for homicide file in the case of rape, mutila- tion, etc, Therefore, the homicide may be before or after the Redo the (People vs. Pacapac, 248 SCRA 77) homiside, a crime primarily classified as ‘one against property and not against persons, the elements a. The taking of personal property is committed with vio- lence or intimidation against persons; b. The property taken belongs to another; The taking is done with animo lucrandi; and d. By reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is committed. ‘Animus lucrandi is pre- sumed when there is proof of asportation. (People vs. Salazar, GR. No, 99355, August 11, 1997) U1. Intimidation is present in the taking when acts are per- formed which, in their own nature or by reason of the cir-Peete ee ee oe eee eee ee an COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW cumstances under which they are executed, restrict or der the free exercise of the will of the victim or inspire with fear id that there was robbery. Robbery itself the accused may be convicted It must be established with cectitude 1 killing was a mere incident to the robbery, the lat- ter being the main purpose and objective of the criminals. It contemplates a situation where the homicide resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. (People vs. Evardo, GR. No. 100724, December 1, 1992) e each element of the complex in death but also f death, assuming that death occurs by reason or on the occasion of the rob- corer errcrony rome ren the special complex GAR. No. 112262, Apr icle 294[1] reads: “1.0 — Con la ie, ewantdo con motivo o con ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 38 occasion del robo resultare hom Permits no interpretation other than that the intent of the actor must supply the connection between the homicide and the robbery in order constitute the complex offense. the robbery, itis immaterial that the homicide immediately precedes instead of follow the robbery. Where the original design comprehends robbery, and homicide is perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the consummation of the former, the crime is the special complex offense, even if homicide precedes'the robbery by an appreciable interval of time. On the other hand, if the original criminal design does not clearly comprehend rob- bery but robbery follows the homicide as an afterthought or as a minor incident of the homicide, the criminal acts should be viewed as constitutive of 2 offenses, not of a single com- plex offense. Robbery with homicide arises only when there isa direct re i bery and the killing even if the ki with or subsequent to the robbery. Homicide is more severe be iple homicide. or.rob- jurisprudence ex- icter requirement before convicting the accused of this crime. Where the homicide is not conclusively shown to nave been committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, or where the robbery was not proven, there can be no con- vvietion for robo con homicidio. (id) i of the victim’s gun was to prevent the and theft, not robbery with homi GR. No. 129071, January 31, 2000) “by reason” covers homicide committed before ‘or after the taking of personal property of another, as long a5 the motive ofthe offender in killing a person before the20, (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW ight to be accomplished by eliminating an ob- ion or to defend the possession ofthe stolen orres, G.R. No. 130661, June 27, 2001) From all indications, accused, a CAFGU member was pri- fe of the deceased whom he the Barangay captain and as merely as afterthought that arose subsequent to the killing of the victim. Such tke carried out the primary intent to kill the victim, as of violence is no Jonger necessary is theft, (People vs. Consejo, G.R, No. 118334, Feb- ruary 20, 2001) Notwithstanding the familiar principles, viz. in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all —a conspiracy being amply demonstrated by the proofs among the eight in this case — and b. That when more than 3 armed malefactors take part in the robbery, it shall be deemed to have been commit. ted by a ban ich case, any member of the band who is present at the commission of a robbery, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. (Liang us. People, GR. No. 125865, January 28, 2000) should be held responsibleBecausehe alone the crime of rape. The others coud net be held We evidence convincingly suggests that the agree- ‘ment was to commit robbery only; there is no evidence that the other members of the band were aware of his lustful intent and consummation thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent the same. (People vs. Villaruel, GR. No. 105006, September 4, 1996) (Contra: People vs. Cobre, 239 Finding appellant Gable for attempted robbery with homicide even if he was not himself the author of the kill- ing, for lack of evidence showing that he endeavored to pre- vent such slaying. The general rule applies that whenever be tL, tempted Chime fun with hom: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY x 21. ten! sinust precede the a \¢ original plan was to rapebuPthe accus after committin commilesibery when the taking of the cash and pieces appears to be an afterthought tention of the accused sas tozobbut rap. was also comm en before the asporta- Lon, the crime is robbery with rape. (People vs. Faigano, 254 SCRA} re ABE (ej, Both-tobbery and rape;inust be consummated, When the SHA. robbery is merely attempted or frustrated, there is.no'at- frustrated robbery with rape unlike in robbery where there is attempted or frustrated rob- bery with homicide (297). — Ce Sy 23. Article 294(1) covers mul le rapes. The juridical concept of the crime does not fe consummation of rape against a single victim or to a single act, making other rapes in ex- «ess of that number as separate, independent offen: rapes are merged in the comp is robbery with rape, so long as t robbery. It does not matter whether the rape.occurred. be. fowe, chutikSBEBBEL the colthery {People vs. Seguis, G.R. No. 185034, January 18, 2001) Here, no special complex crime of robbery with rape but sey a a ft ‘wemecomumitted. Rape was the primary intent of the ac cused and his taking away of the belongings of the victim was a mere afterthought. He should only be convicted of victim, theft when he took the pérsonal_ properties of26. ~Pprihe offenders will marry CT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW in pursuance of rape, not of the taking. ssportation happened, the victim was incapable ing any form of opposition. (People rs. Naag, G.R. No. 136394, February 15, 2001) Regardless of how many rapes were commi only be 1 robbery with rape because this is crime but a single indi there will complex fen though one of will not apply because the p 25. On the issue of whether the excess homicides or rapes shall be aggravating, the answer must be in the negative because homicide and rape are not among the aggravating circum- stances under Article 14 which olves force upon thin allinder Ar is, not against persons and arson un iequence of priority of vio- lence under 294, and thereafter the premises are burned. For robbery bbe serious, th serious physic: fall under nos. 2 if robbery-wasnosiet pesinflicted. If inflicted Ghiegthe robbery was consumn — for robbery under no. 5 30. 31 aw ing the robbery was surprised ‘or their protection herded the is robbery only because the detention was merely |. Were the offenders the detention of these people as security their safe passage were made. jon but an act of restraint in 1 pursuit of the criminals by peace officers. ims were detained in the course of robbery, ‘bsorbed by the robbery. The victims were against cr intimidation of persons and prescribes the cor- responding penalties. Article 295 provides that when the offenses described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 d by a band, the proper penalties must be im- posed in the maximum periods. The ciscumslance.obband— eee eee eee a eee28 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW in scope'to subdivisions 3, 4, 5 of Article 294. Consequently, apecugh the use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravat- ‘ing circumstance, it cannot be appreciated as such in rela- tion to robbery with homicide. Viewed from the contextual relation to Articles 295 and 296, the word “offense” mentioned in the latter article logically means the crime of robbery committed by a band, as the phrase “all the malefactors” indubitably refers to the members of the band and the phrase “the corresponding penalty provided by law” relates to the offenses of robbery described in the last 3 subdivisions of Article 294 which are all encompassed within the ambit of Article 295, Evidently, therefore, Article 296 in its entirety is designed to amplify and modify the provision on robbery in band which is no- where to be found but in Article 295 in relation to subdi- visions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294. Ip-sfder that the special circumstance of unlicensed firearm may be ‘appreciated, it is a condition sine qua non that the offense ‘charged be robbery committ: 4 by a band falling within Ar- ticle 295. Since Article 295 docs not apply to nos. 1 and 2 33. Although dwelling (morada) is considered as inherent in crimes which can be only be committed in the abode of the BS Victim, such as tespass fo dwelling and robbery in an ier habited house, it is aggravating in robbery with homicide because the author thereof could have accomplished the heinous deed of snuffing out the vietim’s life without hav- ing to violate his domicile. (People vs. Mesias, 199 SCRA 20) (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Py ARTICLES 297-298 1 ‘The general rule is that whenever homicide is committed on the occasion or as a consequence of robbs ple vs. Cobre, 239 SCRA) The same principle applies even if the crime committed is attempted robbery with homicide. (People vs. Dalonon, 237 SCRA) .. The failure to cart away the goods due to their weight may not be considered as voluntary desistance as to remove the element of asportation from the complex crime charged. Such failure to consummate the robbery was not caused solely by offenders’ own volition and inabilities. It was brought about by their unmasking and the arrival of neigh- bors who responded to shouts for help. These circumstanc- es forced them to flee, leaving behind the objects. (People vs. Pareja, G.R. No. 68043, December 9, 1996) . Although an Information for attempted robbery alleged that one of the robbers was killed during such attempt, this does not warrant a conviction for the special complex crime [or composite crime] of attempted robbery with Atticle 297 requires that the altempted robbery ¢ killing -by dhe sane person: son being guilty of such offenses,” that is, robbery micide. (People vs. Manalili, G.R. No. 121671, August 14, 1998) ARTICLES 299-305 * |. Taking is robbery in inhabited place. public building or ious worship if done under any of edifice devoted towne the following situations: ‘2. The offenders entered the premises to take personal property and in entering, itis enough that constructive force, is applied, eg, through an opening not intended for ingress /egress; by means of picklocks and similari so (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Is; by breaking walls, floors, doors, roof, etc.; or by ty or using false names. Basis: The means of entering. If he did not enter, it eft only even if there were such force upon things. The whole body must be inside because “entering” de- notes that the entire body must have gone inside. 1b. He entered without the use of constructive force but while inside offender broke walls, doors, receptacles to extract personal property. Inside, actual force is re~ quired, not merely constructive force. There must be. If picklock and Us isonly aj He brought out of the premises locked or sealed receptacles for the purpose of breaking them outside. ‘The mere bringing out of the receptacles gives rise to robbery since force will necessarily be employed to open it Pro we situations, itis,only theft, ings other than the foregoing, Article 302 circumstances are the same except that not necessary that the fhrough an opening not tive force only is required in this case. In the circumstance of breaking of door although the door itself is not damaged, but the lock or accessory of the door was broken, robbery is still committed because the i authori (wust be dane when theoffenderhad not yet-entered and A When used in robbery, possession (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY En such use was the necessary means that made, at tolethinwinside. Use thereof while inside will not qualify theft into robbery. 4. When the offender is a member of the household such as a n ime maid and the taking. was. things. hecime he isrobbery- ot fe upon things. obbery is commited not only by ‘outsiders, ur even by household member. This distinction between robbery and qualified theft is significant to determine the applicability of Article 332 which covers only theft and not 5. Possession of picklocks under Article 304 is a crime by itself absorbed because an element of robbery. ARTICLE 306 P.D, 532 — Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 1. When the situs of the taking is a highway, the crime may be. robbery in a highway under Article 306 in relation to Article 234 ophighway robbery under PD. 582. The distinctions be- twed these crimes are’ < | In brigandage under Articles 306 and 294: a. Mere formation of band is punishable; b. There must be at least (4 or more) malefactors; and c._There is a preconceived or targetvictim; and 4. Proof of prior robbery is not required. In brigandage under PD. 532 a. The prohibited act must be committed; mere formation ofa band is not yet punishable; b, Only 1 malefactor will suffice under the law; and se is no pre-conceived victim but the brigands may ize any person who happens to pass by;Dee eee ee ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW 4. Proof of prior robberies by offehders.is. required to show indiscriminate nature of the crime. Highway robbery or briga the seizure of any Person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another, by means of by any person . Agomo-o, GR, No. Philippine highway refers to any road, street, passage, hi way and bridges or other parts thereof, or ra road within the Philippines used by persons, or v ‘or locomotives or trains for the movernent or circulation of Persons or transportation of goods articles or property or PD, 532 introduced amendments (aby increasing the penalties, al to the offenses stated therei highways; and (b}without prejudice to the I acts if committed. least 4 armed person: the presumption in the Code «at said accused are brigands Af they use unlicensed firearms no longer obtains under the igandage was committed by a cuadrilla or by more than 3 armed persons per the definition of brigands in Article 306. Henee, in the absence ‘of proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately and of evidence to show any previous a smpts at similar robberies by the thereof, le was committed in the highway, they should be held liable for the special compiex crime of robbery with homicide, not for brigandage under PD, 532, (People us, Mendoza, G.R, No. 104461, February 23, 1996) ‘The number of perpetrators is no longer an essential element: of the crime of brigandage as defined by P-D. 532. (People vs. ‘Mendoza, 254 SCRA 61) ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY us An examinat the offenders have not carried out their purpose. (People vs. Puno) f R.A. 7659 reveals that it does not men- tion PD. 532 at all. Clearly, Congress is deemed not to have. considered highway robbery with homicide a “heinovs Eine.” (People vs. Laurente, 255 SCRA 543) One isclated hijacking of a postal van with no evidence of any previous attempts at similar robberies by the accused, to show the “indiscriminate” commission thereof will not amount to brigandage, The facts alleged and proved consti- tute the offense of robbery defined in Article 293 in relation 10295 and punished by 294(3). (Filote, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1996) ARTICLES 308.311 1 Under the first paragraph of Article 308, the essential ele- ments of theft are: a. The taking of personal property; taking away was done ing away was done without the consent of the and e. The taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things. Very recently, the Supreme Court held that theft does not admit of the frustrated stage — there is noBEE eee ee eee ee eee eee ee eee ee eee eee ee ae ‘COMPACT REVIEWEK IN CRIMINALLAW ). (Valenzuela vs. People, G.R, No. 160188, June 21, 2007) It cannot be said with moral certainty that the intention of the accused was to steal the radio and money and that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery. The offender hit ithe victim with wood and in his escape he grabbed thetran- ‘istor-tadio-as.a.souvenir and, the 100 peso-bill as his fare. ‘Thus. he cannot.be convicted of the. crime.of robbery with homicide but of 2 specific crimes, homicide and theft. (Peo- ple vs, Alay-ay, G.R, No, 94310, June 30, 1993) 1. Theft or robbery cannot be committed between co-owners when no division yet is made becaugethéy are co-owners as to each part of the property. And theft or robbery cannot be committed by the owner over his own property. Other circumstances that may constitute theft are: found has 1/2 share. If the finder keeps the whole, he is guilty of theft as to the half. ‘The “finder” may be either a finder in fact or a finder in law. A finder ‘n fact is the actual finder who misappropriates lost personal property; a finder in law is one who did not actually find last property but who received the same from the actual finder for the pur- pose of turing it over to the proper authorities. If he (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Ms. the possessor can assert his right to possession even against the property owner. © Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shalt remove or make use of the fruits of the damage caused by him; and . Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate ora field where trespass is forbiddercor which belongs ther and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or er forest or farm products. Ifhe’entered without the 1owledge or consent of the caretakey butYdid not take anything, he commits trespass to prope: The: gstate should not bea cosonut re. pond for business or industry for the crime of taking coconut from plantation or fish from fish pond is quali- fied theft. 3. What makes the.ctime qualified theft are: a. Circumstances personal to the offender — with grave 1. fish from fishpond, A.-Motorsehicle snd large cattle are now subject ofspe- cial laws; and ~~" Circumstances at the time of the taking — on oceasion earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruptiorfandoth- lar accidentor civil disturbance. the offender possessed with, for qualified theft. The oth- 2nd and 3rd situations, ated will be guilty of qualified theft. tas to the nature of the object taken per- Theft of coconut — taking from plantation whether fromthe tree or fallen on the ground because whenCe a HS COMPACT REVIEWRR IN CRIMINALLAW fallen on the ground, the owsier may stil use the same for seedling purposes. Itis qualified theft as long.as.the coconut is within the premi b. Theft of fish — qualified theft if still in the pond. If fished out and then taken by the offender from the possessor, simple theft because its use for breeding is already absent. 6. Accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by 7. _JnGl the offender is an emyl pa P.D. No. 1612 — Ant 1 forging the signature of officers authorized to sign the check and had the check deposited in the account of a fictitious payee without any legitimate transaction with the bank. ‘Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave abuse of con- fidence. As assistant cashier of the bank accused had custo dy of the checks and had access not only in the preparation in the release of cashier's checks. Faification of the check was a necessary means td commit the crime ied theft resulting in a complex crime under Article 48. (People vs. Salonga, G.R, No. 131131, June 21, 2001) or laborer of the offended does fice to create anf a y required by law for qualified theft. tthe place ‘where the taking Wat committed or to the ar. ticle stolen is essential. A truck driver who steals the load of his truck belonging to his employer commits qualified theft. And such driver's use of the truck in transporting the stolen article to the place where they were sold makes the use of a ‘motor vehicle in the commission of the crime aggravating (Cariaga vs. CA, G.R. No. 143561, June 6, 2001) ncing Law of 1979 Fencing is teeta ‘of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, Keep, acquire, conceal, sel or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, on in any other manner deal in any article, item, object, or any thing of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of rob- bery or theft. (Duntlao vs. CA) e access ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY w to proceeds of theft or robbery; it does not apply to estafa, Benefiting from the proceeds of a crime other than robbery of theft would make hi Sy Accused vould have been an accessory in theft or rob- bery had not the charge filed against him been fencing. (id.) ‘The elements of the crime of fencing are: a. Acrime of robbery or theft has been committed; b. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of robbery or theft, buys, receives, pos- sesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes or buys and seils, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been de- rived from the proceeds of the said crime; The accused knows or should have known that the le, item, object or anything of value has been the proceeds of the erime of robbery or . There is, on the part of accused, intent to gain for him- self or for another. (Capili vs. CA, G.R. No, 139250, Au- ‘gust 15, 2000) }. Fencing is nla continuing crime but a distinct.crime;hence, the offender may, be. prosecuted. at the place where he took h property and not atthe place of the commission The determination of whether or not fencing involves moral turpitude can be achieved by analyzing the: From the 3rd element which is actual knowledge by the fence of the fact that property received is stolen can be de- duced the same degree of malicious deprivation of one’s rightful property which animated the robbery of theft, which by their very nature are crimes of moral turpitude. And although the participation of each felon differs in time and in degree, both the fence and the actual perpetrator of the robbery /theft invaded one’s peaceful dominion for gain.(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW ‘The duty not to appropriate or to return anything acquired either by mistake or through malice is so basic that it finds expression in some key provisions of the Civil Code on Hu- depravity i Jowmen or 50 statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral turpitude does \clude such acts as are not of themselves immoral but ‘whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited. (id) ling of value which has been the subject. of. robbery-or i be prima facie evidence of fencing. The law proo! of purchase of the stolen articles as sumed that he is doing so {Di cay age caused plus inde damages. ‘The restitution of the thing itself must be made when- ever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or dimi- rution of value as determined by the court. (Article 105) The thing itself shall be restored, even though itis in the posses- (Dela Torre us. COMELEC, sion of a 3rd person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person who may be| le to him. This, however, is not applicable in case ig has been acquired in the manner and under the requitements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. Reparation is made by taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible and its special senti- mental valuc to the injured party. In both cases, indemni- fication for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a 3rd person by reason of the crime. P.D. No, 533 — The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 ge cattle because cattle rustling ins. cludes the killing or destruction of large catvle. wwerseer or caretaker in the ranch is killed or in- is not correct to charge the offenders separately for cattle rustling and homicide or murder since PD. $33 is a mere amendment of At 3w, The penally for its viola- the lawmaker was to amend the Code with re- spect to the offense of theft of large cattle. (Canta vs, People, GR. No. 140937, February 28, 2001)COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW o Thus, system of penalties of the Revised Penal Code ing without taking also falls un- ith or without intent to gain. ain may be inferred from the deliberate fail- t property to the proper person, the that the property does not belong to him. In such case, a fair and reasonable conclusion is that offender indeed took the calf with the intent to appropriate it. A 5. Compared with Anti-Fencing Law a. Fencing is malum prohibitum; cattle rustling is malum in se b. Intent to gain is an element in fencing but not in cattle rustling may or may not be with intent to gain Homicide committed in the course of cattle rustling carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, thus, to.aspecial complex crime; fencing is separate and distinct from homicide. R.A. No. 6539 — Anti-Camapping 1. Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, (Ey means of violence against or intimidation of persons, ‘BF by using force upon things. (Izom ws. People, G.R. No. L- 51370, August, 1981) 2. Carnapping If homicide is committed, is not a.complax-crime-beca This crime is also committed when the owner was killed to divest him of registration papers of vehicle which the of fenders pretended to buy. (i) 3A sle which is motorized using the streets which are not exclusively for private use, comes within the ith homicide is a term fo , (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY os ricycle which is not induded that kind of motor. stealing of which comes “concept of motor vs in the exception, is thus deme vehicle as defined in the law | ts penal sanction. (id.) within its penal sancti Highways are always public free for the use of every per- nothing in the law that requires ighway to make the vehicle nn given the anti-carnapping law. If a ve- eer ee eer ereae ar ae same comes within the protection ofthe law, forthe severity of the offense is not to be measured by the kind of streets or highway is used; but by the very nature of the vehicle itself and the use to which it is devoted. (id.} RA. 7659 made 3 amendments to the law on carnapping, thus: a. The change of the penalty of life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, b. The inclusion of rape, and The change of the phrase “in the com: carnappi carnappi occasion thereof.” (People vs. San- 40s, G.R. No. 127500, June 8, 2000) ot cammapping in.an aggravated form. | ig, the phraseology of the amended section, the woe eompl (People es. Me Since apeiocons lex crime. (People ws, Me- SS "R. Nos. 118940-41, July 7, 1997) Since Section 14 uses the words “is killed” w6distinction must be made between homicide and murder. Whether it is one or the other which is committed “in the course of car- napping or on the occasion thereof” makes no differenceBee eee ee ee ee eee ee eee ee Fo 9. u COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW insofar as the penalty is concerned. homicide or murder cannot be tr but should only be corisiat ‘Rapping. (id.) follows then that the ted as a separate offense, to qualify the crime of car- Under the last use of Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping not only has to prove the essenti and of the homicide or ‘must show that the origi was carnapping and that the During the commission of the crime on February 4, 1992, there was no carnapping with hoinicide. The proper de- nomination for the crime is carnapping as defined and pe- nalized under Sections 2 and 14, R.A. 6539. (People vs, Sirad, GR. No. 13054, July 5, 2000) The penalty is life imprisonment {to death] when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed {TIRE commission of camngpping- RA. 7659 amended RA. (6539 by changing the perfdlty to reclusjon perpetua {to death} when the owner, drivéror Scciipant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed oF raped tn the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. (People vs. Ellasos, GR. No. 139323, June 6, 2001) Although only a wheel of the motor tricycle was found in the possession of the accused, such possession without any satisfactory explanation, raises the presumption that the accused authored the camapping. The unlawful taking of the whole vehicle is already complete and thus consummated even if only a part thereof is ultimately the rest of it is abandoned. In the absence of an explanation of how a person has come into the possession of stolen effects belonging to another who was killed, the 2 ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 3 with the driver of the tricy seen riding the same tricycle minus the driver, who was later ised were found in possession of a whi fo the conclusior the tricycle and they are guilty of unlaw! ing its driver. (People vs. Ellasos, supra) ‘The prosecution must prove that the original criminal de- sign of the culprit was camapping and that the killing, if any, was perpetrated on the occasion thereof. The unlawful taking must be established. Although there is a presump- tion that a person found in possession of the personal effects belonging to a person robbed or killed is the author of the killing as well as the robbery committed, this presumption is limited to cases where the possession is unexplained or the proffered explanation is rendered implausible by inde- pendent evidence inconsistent thereto. Once an explanation. is offered for such possession of such personal effects, the presumption arising from unexplained possession may not anymore be invoked; the burden shifts once moze to the prosecution to present evidence that would render the de~ fense of the accused improbable. (People vs. Santos, June 8, 2000) The anti-carnapping law is a spe crimes of robbery and theft. It Comparison of this special law and theft reveals their common features. However, the anti-carnapping law particularly the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence, is said to have been carnapped when it has intent to gain, without the owner's con- sent, whether the taking was done with or without violence or intimidation of persons or with or without the use of force gs. Without the anti-carnapping law, such unlaw- ing of a motor vehicle would fall within the purview4. . No. 704, as amended — II . It is not req . The 3rd paragraph of ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW of either theft or robbery case be- fore the enactment of said statute. (People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 135904, January 21, 2000) al Fishing ‘The law creates a prima facie presumption that illegal fishing, has been committed when: a. Explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances ot ‘equipment or device for electric fishing are found ina fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman; or b. When fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious oF poisonous substances or by electric would be subj that a random to have been i impracticality would result if the law requi (Agoncillo vs. CA, G.R. No. 118806, July 10, 1998) on facts impermissible. and operator of'the boat or the fisherman were engaged in illegal fishing and this presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the substances and the contaminated fish in the possession of the fisherman in the fishing boat. The fact presumed is a natural inference from the fact proved. (Hizen vs. CA, GR, No. 119619, December 13, 1996) ‘The law on illegal fishing does not require the use of motor- ized banca or boat for the crime to be committed. Conced- edly, a motorized banca can better serve those engaged in illegal fishing for purposes of eluding law enforcers. How- ever, not everyone can financially afford to fita motor in his banca. (id.) (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 28 P.D. No. 705, as amended — Forestry Code 1 ‘There are 2 distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of PD. 705: gathering, col ‘products from any forestland, ,or. timber. ‘from alienable of Ig public land, or from pri ‘of without any authority; and b. Possession of timber or other forest products without. Tegal documents required under existing forest laws regulations. In the Ist, one can raise as.a defense the legality of the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the authorization issued by the DENR. In the 2nd, however, it isimmaterial,whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and removal of the forest oducts without the proper documents consummate the e. Whether or not the lumber co egal source aterjal hecauss E0277 considers the mere. posses fof timber or other. forest products withauit the proper. ‘egal documents as malum-prohibitum. (People vs. Que, GR. ‘No, 120365, December 17, 1996) ‘The fact of possession by appellant of lumbers, as well as his failure to produce the legal documents required under ex- isting forest rules and regulations constitutes violations of PD.705, a crime deemed malum prohibitum. (People vs. Dator, GR No. 136142, October 24, 2000) Section 68 provides that possession of timber or other forest products must be accompanied by legal documents under laws and regulations, otherwise possession the penalties under Articles 309 and 310. "Exist ws and regulations" refer to those laws and regulations which are in effect at the time of session of timber or other forest products. DENRA: ative Order No. 59 series of 1993 specifies the docu ied for the transport of timber and ather forest _6 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW products, such as Certificate of Origindssued by authorized IDENR officials, ARTICLE 312 1. This article provides for a 2-layered penalty: a alty for the coercion and,threat, and b. The penalty of fine for t usurpation, tion was committed robber homicide or robbery w imposed plus fine. Usurpation of real property is to obbery except that in robbery, personal property is in- r solved, lonce against or construed to refer to the 14. There are 5 classes of rob- jh. beryunder the latter, n “EX a robbery with homicide; i b, robbery with ray cal injuries pené - c. robbery with the physical vision 2 of Article 263; <4 with unnecessary violence or with ‘uries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263; and e. robbery in other cases or simple robbery where the vio- ence against to intimidation of persons cannot be sub- sumed by, or where itis not sufficiently specified so as to fall under, the first 4 paragraphs. subdivision 1 of Article 2 juries penalized in subdi- Paragraphs 1 to 4 involve the use of violence against (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY a7 the accused may be prosecuted for and convicted under paragraph 5. (People vs. Alfeche, GR. No. Intimidation is defined as “anlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear.” To take, or attempt to take by intimidation means “willfully to attempt to take, by putting in fear of bodily harm.” Osorio {21 Phil. 237] rial violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation; intense fear pro- , _ duced in the mind of the victim which restricts or hinders \, the exercise of the will is sufficient. “No In an appropriate case, the offender may be liable for either: x” Robbery under paragraph 5 of Article 294 if the subject ~ "matter is personal property and there is intent to gain or antimus furandi, oF b, Grave co not exis under Article 286 if such intent does In grave coercion, violence through force or such dis- play of force that would produce intimidation and control the offended party is an essential ingredient, In jon is also present. However, this fimidafign is.conditional and not necessarily personal, it may be caused by an intermediary Gite the + in Article 296(5) or Article 286 which is actual le, special and indi felonies, not complex ‘The penalties imposed do not take into account the value of the personal property taken but the gravity of the effect or consequence of the violence or lation. 312 also penalizes the single, special and indivisible crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property by means of violence against or intimi-‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW dation of persons. It is likewise not a complex crime un- der Article 48. However 294 provides a single penalty foreach ass of eime thereln defined, Anise 312 provides a single, albeit 2-tiere aoe Seal etic nae sek oa Re tae cate ‘dn fin cuted by him.” For want of a better term, the addi penalty may be designated as an incremental penalty. What Article 312 means then is that when the occur pation of real property is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the accused may be pros- ecuted under an information for the violation thereof, and not for a separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever appropriate, he may be sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence and to pay a fine based ee on the value of the gain obtained. Thus, if by reason or on the occasion of such occupation or usurpation: ’ de a. Homicide or any of the physical injuries penalized in either subdivisions 1 or 2 of Article 263 is comt b. When the same shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutil or When, in the course of its execution, the offender shall ted upon any person not responsible for its 63 of the Code, je, physie hte j ‘The accused may be convicted | violation of Ar ticle 312. Howeverphe shall be sentenced: a. To suifer the penalty for homicide, rape, intentional ‘mutilation and ph juries provided under sub- divisions 1 to 4 of Article 263, other physical injuries or 5. (CRIMES AGAINST n under Article 282 (grave threa! the case may be, b. To pay a fine based on the value of the gain by him, which shall be an amount ¢ 100% of such gain, But in no ear RoWever, Wat if such value cannot be ascertained, the fine shall be from P200 to 500. PERTY cc against whom the intimida such person is pol namedinthe. buttheawney ie woman may bedisni sec chanced, fgnse. The liability to the owner ig violence was employed. If 1¢ tenant has, at the very least, a real right over the property — that of possession — which both accused were alleged to have usurped through the threat to kill. Borreros is, therefore, the offended party who was directly threatened by the accused; while the information expressly states this fact, Borreros is not, most unfortunately, made the offended party. The information did not even suggest that the ac- cused threatened complainants or their families with the in- fliction upon their persons, honor or property of any wrong amounting to a crime so as to bring the former within the purview of Article 282. At most, the liability of the accused {o the complainants would only be civil in nature. Hence, its the offended parties to just the co-owners of the property who were not even in possession thereof, the information does not charge an offense. (id.) ARTICLE 315 L There are 2 ways of committing estata a. With abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness,and > b. Through deceit or false pretense. with damage in either case. In the 2nd form, tial that dest rae pretense pre o smliansoss~xo COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW same be the very cause of the with the prejudice an {an impostor who did not encash the same because it is payable to the company. The crime was consummated es- tafa because in so issuing the check, the offended in effect set aside the amount thereof which he was not able to-use~ for a cedain, period and to.such extenthe.was damaged in. hig propristary right. transferred, When what ansferred is material possession only, it is only theft but when juridical possession is trans- is conversion to another purpose other than that for ‘is entrusted is estafa. Juridical possession is that possession which is pro- tected by law even against the real owner of the property, such as the possession of tenant against the landlord; the borrower in commodatum; the lessee in lease, among oth- ers, While the tenant, Borrower, or lessee is in possession of the atficle he acquires juridical possession thereof and. his Baversion of the same constitutes estala. Juridical possession gives the transferee a right over the thing transferred and this he may set up even against the owner. A commission agent who receives goods has a right of retention over their proceeds ifthe principal cannot reimburse the advances he had made for the agency and in- demnify him for the damages he may have suffered thereby. His possession of the goods/ proceeds is juridical posses- sion. When a bank's cash custodian is found short of the ‘cash under her primary respor her crime is not es- tafa but qualified theft. Her possession of the cash belong- {ng to the bank is similar to that of a teller. Her possession (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Pa he possession of the bank. Hers is only physical and not ‘dical possession of the missing cash. (Burce vs, CA, GR. No. 109595, April 27, 2000) ides. everything-done contrary to jus- xd morals. in essence and in all respects, e involving moral turpitude because the act is against justice, honesty and good morals. (Resurrecion vs. Sayson, A.M. No. 1037, December 14, 1998) ‘The penalty for estafa depends upon the amount defrauded as seen in the opening paragraph of Article 315. (People vs. Benemerito, G.R, No. 120389, November 21, 1996) 6, Theglements of estafa thraugh misappropriation or conver: “Sh se ‘under I[b) are: ‘a. Money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or ‘ssion or for adminis- b. Misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part af such receipt; ¢. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial isto the prejudice of another; and d. ‘There is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. (Barrameda vs. CA, GR, No. 96428, September 2, 1999) ‘The specific word “demand” need not be used to show that demand had indeed been made upon the person 1 offense. A query-as.to the whereabouts of-the. mone) iamountio-ademand. (Peojle vs. Moreno, GR. }3C057, September 16, 1999) 7. The elements of estafasundac-pacagiaph Ya)nase: a. False pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;(COMPACT REVIEWEK IN CRIMINALLAW b. Such false pretense, fraudulentact or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultane: The offended party mus have relied on the false pre- tense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he ‘was induced to part with his money or property be- cause of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudu- lent means; and d. Asa result thereof, the offended party suffered dam-. age ‘The act of petitioner of misrepresenting that Legarda hhich he is the general manager is the owner posed units so that he could collect money as down pay- ment for 2 units from the complainants; his failure to return the amounts he had collected from them despite several de- mands; and considering that the townhouse was never con structed, constitute the crime of estafa under paragraph 2(a). {Montano vs. People, G.R. No. 141980, December 7, 2001) . Article 315, paragraph 2(a) provides that swindling or es- prior to of the fraud is com- F falsely pretending to influence, qualifications, property, credit, imaginary transactions, or by other sim- agency, busines ilar deceits.” ily reposed, resulting, .n undue and unconscientious i taken of another. It is a generic term embracing age to another, or by wl ious means which human ingenuity can device, are resorted to by an individual to secure an ad CCRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Pry vantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissem- bling and any unfair way by which another is cheated. On. the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a mat of fact whether by words or conduct, “allegations, or by concealment of that which should been disclosed which deceives oft intend: - ‘her so that he shail act upon it to. his legal injury, (Peo “is Batak CE NS. 106357, September - Fa ce Paragraph 2(d) penalizes estafa when committed, by means of the false pretense or fraudulent act executed prior to.ozs- smultangously with the commission of the fraud. by postdat- ing a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of 3 the heck, The essential eayirmeatsane, ‘a. a check is drawn or postdated in payment of an obliga- tion contracted atthe time the check was issued; b. _ there are no funds sufficient to cover the check; and c. the payee sustains damage thereby. (Castro vs, Mendoza, GR. No. 50173, September 21, 1923) 10. The law penalizes the issuance of a check onl ip were it- self the imm; anfor the reciprocal zeceiptof PA, venafits. The check must be issued concurrently with, and * * Wrerthange fc jain. In the issuance of a check to pay a pre-e the drawer derives no such contemporary gain in return since the obligation sought to be settled is already incurred and outstanding before the ist be prosecuted an s own motion even though complete reparation al wwe been made of the damage suffered by the of- fended party. A criminal offense is committed against thePy ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW people, the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal that the law imposes for the commission of the offense. (Penple vs. Moreno) the delivery to a 3rd person of the thing held in However, subsequently ithas a, the profit or gain must be the entrusted chattel cannot co: ite estafa under Article B15 unless the evidence should disclose thatthe agent acted in conspiracy or connivance with the one who carried out the actual misappropriation, If there is no such evidence, direct of circumstantial, and if the proof is clear that the accused herself was the innocent victim of her sub-agent’s faithlessness, her acquittal is in order. (Rosa Lim vs. CA. GR. No. 119178, june 20,1997) There can be po estafa through He” nesligence or culpa, 13. The essence of estafa thru misappropriation is the appro- priation or conversion of money or property received to the idice of the owner. The words “convert” and “misap- ssn roma agra For one’s own use includes, not only conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the ight. (id) issuer of the checks is not the lawful owner of the account from which the checks were drawn. At the time the checks were issued, the payee would never recover there- from since the drawee bank would not recognize the signa- drawer. Thus, the dishonor of the checks is not ck oF insufficiency of funds in the account but for having been issued (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY os “5 inability to encash the said checks. GR.No. 141183, January 18, 2001) market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, not give sise.to, Ecnvers “amarket trans: ration received from petitioner. (Sesbrerio vs. CA, G.R. No. £84096, January 26, 1995) B.P, Blg. 22 — An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit a. Making, drawing and issuing any check to apply to ac- count or for valu b. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the ime of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or the drawee bank for the payment of the :pon its presentment; ¢. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any Valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. 2, ‘There are2 ways of violating, B.P. 225 Ar a. By making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value knowing at the time of issue that the check is not sufficiently funded; and3 4 KH ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW red To the drawee bank within 90 days. (Cueme vs. People, GR. No. 133325, June 30, 2000) ‘The law does not require a maker to ms bank account for only 90 days. Rather, s to establish a prima facie presumpy MejsasaLuiade under the following con- (b) the dishonor of the check @&9 failuxe of the makerto. make arrans thin § bank: ‘tng Gays alien themnoticathaseos. ‘That the check must be deposited within 90 days is just one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. It is not an element of the offense, Under the Ne; spondent deposi t"Trence, they cannot be considered stale. strument #ge Of rade oF business with respect to such instruments and the facts of the particular case are consid ered. The testis whether the payee employed such; as a prudent man exercises in his own affairs cory behind the use of a check points to its ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY a immediate use and payability. Even a delay of 1 week or 2 days under specific circumstances constituted unreason fable time as a matter of law. (International Corporate Bank vs. Gueco, GIR. No. 141968, February 12, 2001) Failure to present for payment within a reasonable to the discharge of the situation amount sum stated in the check. The not been erased, ‘There are 3 significant periods under the law: "a, Sdays — the maker or issuer must make arrangements jomoke good the check.within 8 days 19 escape caibic iginal obligatidn to pay has “palJiability for issuing a rubber check; b. 90 days —he must maintains within 90 days todest zt resumption of know!- edze of ingullicisnss.of funds for check; c. 180 days — failure of the payee tondepositonencash the checkavithin 180 days will oF valueless; no criminal action can arise therefrom. 6. For the prima facie presumption of knowledge of the insuf- ficiency of funds to arise, it must be shown that the issuer i shonor and within 5 banking days thereafter failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment. The absence of a notice of dis- honor necessarily deprives an accused the opportunity to Procedural due_ proce : “The presumption or prima facie eviden« if? Ye such, notice of nonpayment by-the drawae, bank ig not sent to the maker or — if there is no proof as to when38 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Such notice was received by.th inégrthere would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial say period. (Yu Ok vs. Court of Appeals, GIR. No. 125297, June 6, 2003) A notice of dishonor received by the maker or drawer ispensable bfore a conviction can ensue. of ‘chech notice of dishonor may be sent by the offended party) the drawee bank. The notice must be in writing. A mere or ‘onored check will not suffice. The lack of fatal for the prosecution. (Domagsang os. RR, No. 139292, December 5, 2000) indeed, Section 2 of BP. 22 does not a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. Both the spirit and letter of the law would require for the act to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is dishonored, b ly been notified in The requirement of notice, its sending to, and its actual receipt by, the drawer or maker of the check gives the lat the option to prevent criminal prosecution if he pays hholder of the check the amount due thereon, or makes ar- rangements for paymer by the drawee of such check within 5 banking days after receiving notice that the check has not been paid. (id.) 7. Aside from dishonor it must be further shown that the per- son who issued the check “knew at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its present- ment.” (King vs. People, GR, No. 131540, December 2, 1999) (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY eI if such check was intended to replace the bad one, issuance 15 days aft. ioners had been notified of sumption that they knew of the insufficiency of funds. Sec- tion 2 requires that such replacement check be given within 5 days from the notice of dishonor to them, (Vaca us. CA, GR. No. 131714, November 16, 1998) 1. ‘The closure of petitioner’s account was not for insufficien- «y of funds. It was made upon the advice of the bank, to avoid payment of hefty bank charges each time petitioner issued a “stop payment” order to prevent encashment of Bertdated cher in private reapondents posession Sk future to close his account. What the prose- shed is the closure of petitioner's checking account but this does not suffice to prove the 2nd element requires “evidence of knowledge of insuf- by the accused at the time the checks are : CA, GR. No. 125059, violation of pea i standing absence ofsuch provision nthe law (Diongzon vs. CA, G.R. No. 114823, December 23, 1999) . The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worth- tess check. The issuance of worthless checks is punishable even though the checks havebetn issued to guarantee an other person’s obligatic bouncing check and not the purpose Tara Bouncing che ch ‘hor the terms and conditionsmalaling totistssuance: “EE. The civil action filed by the accused for recovery ofa70 (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW sum of money against the persons whose loans he guaran- teed with the checks which bounced, does not constitute @ prejudicial question as it would not be determinative of guilt in the criminal prosecution for violation of B.P. 22. (Di- ‘chaves vs, Judge Apalit, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1274, 8 June 2000) (But see Pacheco) In this case, the parties agreed at the time of the issu- ance and postdating of the checks that the same were not to be encashed or presented to the banks. The checks were mere evidence of indebtedness which cannot give rise toa liability for estafa. Besides, the lending party could not have ‘been deceived nor defrauded by petitioners who informed her that the account against which the checks were drawn ‘was already closed. Petitioners openly disclosed that they ro longer had funds in the bank then. Knowledge by the Acomplainan that the drawer doesnot hhave sufficient funds in the bank at the time the check was issued does not give sige to a case of estafa through bouncing checks. (Pacheco vs. CA, GR. No, 126670, December 2, 1999) 12, When a check is presented for payment, the bank will gen- ‘erally accept the same regardless of whether it was issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. However, in Magno vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Ne. rian theory prevailed over 96132, June 26, 1992, the util the malum prokibitum principle and acquitted the accused as it considered the purpose for the issuance of the bouncing, check in relation to the payee’s conduct which manifested her bad faith. has made the mere act of issuing a bum check a ibed by legislature for being pe to public welfare. (People 1ua, G.R, No. 130632, 315 SCRA 326) Thus, even jf there had. been paymentthraugh,compensation or some other ‘means, there-cculdsbill be-peosecutlontor B22" (Tah os Mendez, Jr, G.R. No. 138669, June 6, 2002) 14. Viol of BP. 22 PR Vere is determined by he nature of a continuing crime. e place where the elements of te ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY m making, issuing, or drawing of the check é@)delivery there- sd. Thus, People vs. Yabut, [76SCRA] said that d with a transitory offense may be validly jon where the offense was in part com- mitted. The place where the bills were written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place where they were executed, What of deve importance isshe elivery i a thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final consummation 3s ‘was in part committed. (Niewa Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 95796, May 22, 1997) by the law,even memoran- ecks although they partake of the character of prom- issory notes. By so writing “mem” or “memo,” the drawer assumes responsibility to pay the same. A memo check is also a check and when dishonored the reason for BP. 221s also there. Bis ed to guarantee the return + “zaaPPliances or the payment thereof f not returned is not cov. ‘ered by B.P. 22. Section 1 of the law provides that the check rise TS apply to account or for value. Hence, ifthe seller has no right to the check anymore and he deposits the same, who commits the wrong and not the drawer. Its he who disturbs the banking system by dep (Magno vs. CA, supra.) wued.in the Philivaines In one case, a check was drawn oy and delivered in the Philippines but the drawee bank is in a foreign country. B.P. 22 was applied since theTaw merely refers to check without distinction as to whether the check is payable in Philippine currency or foreign currency.an (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW law, like BLP. 22, are not sub- the Code is supplemen- tary to such a law. There ing in the text of B.P. 22 Revised Penal Code from supple- (5), petitioner's exercise of 23 of PD. 957 is.a valid id.) 18, BP. 22 provides that the prosecution thereunder shall be without prejudice to punishment under the Revised Penal no double jeopardy because under B.P. 22, property but a crime against tady creates public disturbance 1g system. Considering the vol- the ing sys vs. Hernando, G.R. No. 125214, October 28, 1999) Unlike in estafa, under B.P. 22, one nged.not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, of that. Semitines People, GR. 19. Distinctions between estafa and BP 22: ing system and prejudice to the economy. Ie and if the drawer was a ju- there who signed the check (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY cy £Thisis a malum prohibitum. In estafa: a, The check should be issued concurrently and recipro- aipre-existing obligation. the offended and deceit of offender are es- lements. Crime agzinst property. d. Not nly the drawer but even indorsee may incur li- {Be were aware atthe time ofthe indorsement e insufficiency of funds. Drawer is given only 3 days after notice f. Ibis matum in se. The crimes of estafa and violation of the Bouncing Checks law are different offenses having different elements, In the crime of estafa, deceit and damage are essential el- ements of the offense, For B.P. 22, on the other hand, the elements of deceit and damage are neither essential nor re~ quired. Hence itis incorrect to conclude that since the RTC. of Manila acquired jurisdiction over the estafa case, then it also acquired jurisdiction over the violations of B.P. 22. These crimes have to be treated as separate offenses, and therefore the essen (basco vs. CA, G.R. No. 117488, September 5, 1996) |. Protection must be afforded the interest of townhouse buy- ers under PD. 957. A statute must be construed in relationom 2. x 23. ‘COMPACT REVIEWEK IN CRIMINAL LAW to other laws so as to carry out the legitimate ends and pur- poses intended by the legislature. The buyer's reliance on Section 23 of PDD. 957 to suspend payment until sud as the owner of developer had fulfilled its obligations buyer is an exercise of a statutory right and is a valid de- fense against the purported violations of BP. 22. for BP. 22 violation; Defenses against convi a. The check was not to apply to an account or for value but as a guarantee deposit. (Magno vs. CA, See. ) b, The required notice of dishonor had not been given to give the drawer the opportunity to make good the value of the check within 5 banking days. The drawer had made credit arrangements with the bank but the bank overlooked the arrangement and dishonored the check, suspend paym to the bank to stop payment of the check. Issuer has creditor that he has no longer funds checks are issued only.as.evidence £ suer of the check made good the check wi banking days from notice of dishonor, ince deserves no more than passing retractions, are gen- disfavored. The aff made after peti- is 24, (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY = tioners’ conviction. is nothing but. last-minute attempt to aes “damage as a resul the damage to the integrity of the banking system cannot bbe denied. Damage to the payee is not an element of BP. 22. (id) While it may be true that it was the company’s accountant who actually prepared the rubber check, the fact remains that petitioners are the owners and officers of the company. Section 1 of B.P. 22 provides that where the check is drawn by a juridical entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shail be liable. (id) . Section 1 provides a penalty of imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than I year or by a fine of notless than, but not more than double, the amount of the check. Such fine shall in no case exceed P200,000, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court, Petition- s, They are Fi ‘who presumably contribute to the nations this appeal, believing in all good faith, judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to gvade a prison term. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in ing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed law, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate nntence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valu- le human material and preventing unnecessary depriva- rersonal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. Itis believed that 2 fine of double the amount of the check involved is an ap- to impose on each of the petitioners. (Vaca 12-2000 adopted the rulings in Vaca vs. CA and People 98 2 policy on the matter of the imposi-where the circumstances of b == Tender clearly indicate good faithy at Tait OF Hepligence, the ifposttion of a fine gion sKOUvd Ge Considered as the tfidre appropriate penall > 1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove im- prisonment as an alternative penalty (or violations of 2 :, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice; 3. Id only a.fine be imposed and the accused be un- there is no legal obstade. tothe ised Penal, Code on subsidiary P.D. No. 1689, 1, The elements of the crime are: [Chinas AGAINST PROPERTY an c. The defraudation results in the misappropriation of xy5 contributed by stockholders or members of ru~ rtves—aTaaiig Wayon” or farmers fof funds solicited By Conporalions 7a fa the general puBMC. the people coming from the lower income brackets who were victimized by the illegal scheme, (People ws. Balasa) 3, PD. 1689 penalizes offenders with Jife.imprisonment-to z , RSE that coh tbeactime Syndicate 1S defined as the intention nnsaction, en- members of a syn nevertheless be held liable for the acts pro law but they shall be penalized by reclusion emporal to reclusion per the amount of fraud is more than P100,000. “The PongLschemeis an#AVestment program that offers im- possibly high returns and pays these returns to early inves- tors out of the capital contributed by later investors. Named aftet Charles Roziucho-promoted the scheme.in the 120s» the o1 ‘scheme involved the issuance of bonds which offered 50% interest in 45 days or 100% profit if held for 90 ronzi used the money he received from later investors to pay extravagant rates of return to early inves- 's, thereby inducing more investors to place their money. the false hope of realizing the same extravagant idea behind this type of swindle is that the “cc collects his money from his 2nd or 3rd round of investors and then absconds before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, this schemes only last weeks or months. This was the same scheme by the Panata Founda- 4RA. No. 8042 — Migrant Workers Act (lle 2. A license” is that a (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW tion. As a foundation, it is not allowed to engage in securi- ties ‘The fact that the entity involved was not a rural bank, cooperative, samahang nayon, or farmers’ association does not take the case out of the coverage of the law. lis 3ed_ Scorpom + public.” The foundation fits into this category as it Gperated or nds coleted from the general publ Tocon- strue the law otherwise would sanction the proliferation of minor-league schemers who operate in the countryside and spell disaster for those in lower income bracket, the primary target of swindlers. (id.) I Recruitment) “Recruitment and placement” refer to gaf“Act of canvass- ing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract ser- vices, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; provided, that any person ‘or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee for employment toa bureau. (People ws. Ong, G.R. No. 119594, January 18, 2000) sued by the DOLE authorizing a person private employment agency, while an atthe necessary license or inal 3. Agents or representatives appointed icensed _Tecruitiient agency whose appointments are nét pieviously ‘approved by the POEA are considered “noit-licensee” or ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ” “non-holder of authority” and therefore not authorized to ‘engage in secruitment activity spyeect of canvassing, enlisting, ing, hiring, or procuring 1g for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a nor-licensee or non-holder of authority. ‘The Revised Penal Code supplements the law on ille- ent for Section 6 of R.A, 8042 holds liable the articipated i illegal recruitment. The existence of the cor- ‘porate entity does not shield from prosecution the corpora~ tion. The corporation acts, and can act, only by and through its human agents, and itis their conduct which the Jaw must ‘The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful bé yar a aaa . 129577-80, February 15, 2000) ely participated in the ice or fraud but because the act is done for the benefit ¢ corporation while the employee or agent was acting within the scope of his employment in the business of th es the requires that the latter shall be held lamages to the individual who suffered respo by such conduct. (id.)x0 COMPACT RE WER IN CRIMINAL LAW 7. The proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates paying on inant peopl arwious to obtain employment is one of the primary considerations for the Migrant Workers Act of 1995 aimed at affording greater p to overseas workers. It broadened the concept of ilegal re cruitment under the Labor Code and provided stir pen- ales th constitute economic recrultonent committed by a syndicate Parl au GC No 135982, Septemiver 29,2000) 0 be 8, The lack of criminal intent on the part of an accused — as- suming that she was indeed unaware of the illegal nature pri abarare business of her co-accused — is hardly a in the prosecution for illegal recruitment. Illegal Sruitment in large scale penalized under the Mii fot ‘es Act, a special decvsed vlad {the law warrants her conviction. (People vs. gal recruitment committed by a licensee of 9, There are at least 4 kinds af egal secraitment: Its elements arer 1. The offender has no valid license or authority lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers, and 2. He undertakes any activity wi of recruitment and placemer practices enumerated under Article 34 of bor Code. oc b. Illegal recruitment by a non-licensee 0 authori Illegal recruitment in a large scale whose elements Meg _seale the meaning d la 1. Theoffender is a non-licensee or non-holder of au- thority to engage in recruitment and placement; holder of ‘CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ey 2. He undertakes recruitment and placeme ity defined under Article 13(6), ot any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 4, and ,al recruitment is committed against 3.or more 4. Mlegal fecraitment committed by @ syndicate or group of 3 or more persons conspiring ard confederate fig with one another in carrying out the act circus scribed by the law, (People vs. Navarra, G.R. No, 119861, February 19, 2001 10, egal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving. __ Seman ohana ST the qualifying circumstances 2. Bya syndicate, that is, by a group of 3 or more persons ‘or confederating with one another, or bb. Inalargeseate, ie, against3 or more individually or 9s a group. (People ws. Valle, GR. No, 126983, February 28, 2001) ‘A-conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based oni a finding in each case of 3 or more persons Fectuited whether individually or as @ group. only 2 persons were proved to have been recr pellant, The 3rd person named in the complaint as having ment for a fee was not presented in that law does not require that at ess, itis necessary ‘evidence proving that the offense was against 3 or more persons. Here, evidence that her employment for a fee is ce that tends to prove this fact is ‘Nancy, who said that she and hei fame to the briefing and that they filled up api forms. (People vs. Del Piedra, G.R. No. 121777, January 24, 2001) 41. Nomlicensee or non-holder of authority who offers or Prom or pra fee employment abroad 102 or more persons shallae COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW bbe deemed engaged in illegal recruitnfent. (People vs. Dela Piedra) 12. Onewh iment may be convicted sep; | rangestafa, Sane set “TRTERT of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where intent is necessary for convic- tion. 13, The law on agency has no application in criminal cases and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of the crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. The culpability of the em- ployee hinges on his knowledge of the and his ac- tive participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely actingsunderthedirectionof-his superinss afd vas unaware thathis acts constituted actime, he may not Be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer. 14, By themselves, procur eign visa for another, recruitment activities. a passport zitline tickets and for- ithout more, can hardly qualify as be shown that the accused ression that she had the abroad for work that the for illegal ent cases involving. eco: wiletrstal preSeABC TH 20 ERS a some PD. No. 115— Trust Recelpts Law 1. Atrusticeipt transaction s pe transaction by and between the entruster and the entrustee, whereby the entruster who owns or holds absolute tain specified goods, the same to the posse: execution and delivery fotte (CRIMES AGAINST PROVERTY 3 Therein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments with the obligation totum over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extentoof the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust re- iments or instruments themselves if that the goods are owned by. the bank and the importer in frust subsequent to the grantof the loan, The tank acquires a “security interest” in the goods as holder of itle for the advances it had made to the entrustee. vested in the person who had advanced paren Fall i ‘POssesRign. Ina certain manner, trust recei ional sale where the importer becomes ab- imported merchandise as soon ashe has ‘of making borrowers sign trust receipts to far jon of loans and place them under the threats prosecution should they be unable to pay be unjust and inequitable, Such agreements are of adhesion which borrowers have no option bul lest their loan be disapproved. (Colinares vs. CA, GR. No. 190828, September 5, 2000) law does not seek to enforce payment of shes the dishonesty and abuse of con- ‘of money or goods to the prejudice whether the latter is the owner. Itisa (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINALLAW . i 5. The prevalent use of trust receipts, the danger of their mis- use and /or misappropriation of the goods or proceeds real- . ized from the sale of goods, documents or instruments held i truster-banks, and the need for regulation of nsactions to safeguard the rights and enforce r of the parties involved are the main thrusts Ea trust receipt, agreement to be an,actthat.s = dpe Table 16r estafa, (Metrobank vs. Tonda, G.R. No. 134436, ATHUTTE, 1000) ‘commit the offense. owner of personal property. om its lawful possessor to the (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY 2s Lenteapeismcorded~The tor must secure the consent of the creditor to the remov- alto escape liability, ARTICLE 320 Bp. When fie is used to destroy any property itis arson because the original provision under Article 323 which makes burn- {ng of property valued at less than P25 as malicious mischief was repealed. This teh oa ae seal dye Article 320 and PD. 1613,86 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW satisfied by proof of the” ‘having been intention- ally caused. Even if the whole house has not been complete- ted by the fire, the crime is still consummated arson. shown to have been ARTICLES 327-331 KY Matos mischief is*kny means of causing damage tothe property of another ‘without the use offre or pyrotechnic {otherwise arson). There must be specific intent io destaoy the property of another x ‘mischief but unjust vexation. Nalicious mischief is. against ‘property while unjust vexation or anything that annoys an- other is against personal security. 3. Malicious mischief is committed onl ‘of malicious mischief whereas theft in Article 308, no. 2 requires intent to gain. 4, Ifthe property destroyed is large cattle, whether the offend- or not, the crime or the deliberate of the owner / overseer For instance, Leo do because the latter (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY a ‘a. Malicious mischief if the neighbor did not remove or take the carcass for himself. b. Arson, ifthe neighbor used fire to kill the goat, Theft if he “removed or made use of the object of the damage caused by him” (showing intent to gain). 4, Cattle rustling if the animal were any of the species of large cattle and not a goat which is a small cattle whether the animal is taken or not. ARTICLE 332 1, The relatives benefited by this absalutory ciscumstanceare: a. Spouses including co i Taw did not specify legal spo. i ti to the Family Code, common law spouses are co-own- ers of the property.) b. Ascendant and descendants, stepparents and step- children. © Brothers/sisters: who muste ising in shesamehouse IE livin ¢ hutifferent bases, ere no exemplion. d. Widow if the property is not yet divided because she is co-owner then. {.2. The crimes covered are: FA" 4. Theft including qualified theft but not robbery. b. but if complexed with other crimes, eg., falsi- of commercial documents, there is no exemp- tion. € Malicious mischief. The destruction must not be by means of burning because burning of property of small value is now arson, not malicious mischief, the exemp- tion will not lie.EERE eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee ee TITLE Xi CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY ARTICLES 333-334 1. The complaint from the offended spouse is necessary pursu- ~ ant to the Rules on Criminal Procedures. Only-the offended spouse can initiate the action but bgth offenders in adul-» tery/concubinage mu: in nt unless : ‘ones already dead which fact must be alleged in the infor- mation, otherwise the information is defective and subject toa motion to quash. Although the paramour is not aware that the other is a married woman, for the purpose of fling, the com- he must be included in the complaint/information. It 1 of defense. vs. Somera (G.R, No. 80116, June 30, 1989), required that the complain; . pla he is estopped from fl 4. The essence of adult as many counts of adul t can only be attempted or consummated because the ‘essence is carnal knowledge. 5. Concubinage is c Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or 388 (CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY 8 Having sexual intercourse under scandalous cecum ‘stances with a woman not his wife, ¢ Cohabiting with her in any other place. ‘Thus, sexual intercourse indisy sable ele- nant olcorebinage. 6. When the husband and his paramour is denounced by his wife for concubinage and by the husband of his paramour for adultery itis submitted that the infidels can be liable “ar. both adultery and concubinage under the sai 7. The law provides that even if the marriage is subsequently declared void, adultery can still be committed. This is as it should be since the consequences of marriage are not sub- ject to stipulation or interpretation by the parties thereto, isanexten- 9. The concubine is penalized only by destietro, hence her pre- veniiv ‘shall igh exceed 30 days. Jusisdiction i 10, The contention that pari delicto is a valid defense to a prosecution for adultery and concubinage is misplaced. Guinucud cannot be relied upon for there the complaining husband, by entering into an agreement with his wife that each of them were and could marry other persons and by discovering his wife's390 COMPACT REVIEWHRIN CRIMINALLAW .ot found Revised Penal Code but only in 1411 of the Civil Code which relates only to contracts legal consideration. (Arroyo, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 96602, November 19, 1991) 11. The rule on pardon is found on Article 344 which provides that the crime of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon 2 complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot {ARTICLE 335, REPEALED BY R.A. No, 8353 — Anti-Rape Law of 1997] ARTICLES 336 and 339 1. Acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 is, imitted Act 36 ince e S ‘in Statutory xape.where "consent. js-immaterial. In Gate there ig consent dub such consent wag scoured Virginity andl a abuse thea cajoley Taps-although if th r ge ‘With her fy automaticaly.sape. In seduction, the git] must be mare than 12,byt less than J8 and the crime ig by means Tn qualified seduction: the girl must be a virgi 1ot physically for there are women whose hymen the girl is exactly 12 years old and she consented, itis, ae neither rape nor seduction but child abuse. "3, Between simple and qualified seduction: ote the woman is qualified seduction, ste Ia oe imple seduction may be committed by any person but , the offender j= 4 person in public author- domestic, guandian, feaches “entrusted wilh the education or custody c. Inthe former, the vi always over 12 but under i 18 while in the latter, the offender is the brother } gran ascendant, the, victim may_be.oxecJ8. Yer af and moral repute terial, (But ifthe fathersm COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW is 65 and the daughter is 45, can’the latter still be de- ceived?) Under the Family Code, « woman less than 18 cannot ‘PX marry, hence, cannot become a widow. 4, The element of sexual duction but not in f \ercourse is present in rape and se- abduction. Thus, when sexual intercourse occurs, the crime js complex Forcible Abduction ARTICLES 340-341 Corruption of minor is ested only if amigos is used isfy the lust of another and not the corruptor’s own lust. ARTICLES 342-343 1. The elements of forcible abduction are: x a, The person abducted is any womay FegarTEPot her age, civil status or reputation; b. The abduction is against her will; and The abduction is with lewd designs. Under Article 335 [now Article 266-A] the elements of # rape are: a. The offender had camal knowledge of a. woman, and b Su Y ‘The elements of forcible abduction with rape then are: Qute abduction is with lewd design; and Give abducted woman is raped under any of the circumstance provided in Article 335, Forcible abduction is punishable by reclu- sion temporal, while rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, (CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY = h case the penalty is s the p e of deadly weapon may be al- respect to the crime of forcible we complex crime of forcible ion referring to the crime ion of the qualified penalty, be alleged with respect to th respect to both the forcible abduction and rape. Since, in this case, this circumstance was alleged only with respect to the commission of the forcible abduction, cannot be taken to qualify the rape. (People vs. Talo, G.R. 125542, October 25, 2000) Only 1 of the several rapes is complexed with forcible ab- mn. The other rapes are charged separately as 1 count Only when the rape is consummated can the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape be committed. There is no complex crime of forcible abduction with acts of lascivis ness because the latter is an elem ‘The word “lewd” is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. It signifies F it has relation to maral impurity;.or EAT GAIA aiwanton-manner. (People vs. Gre) ovember 13, 1992) Since the victim was only 15 years old when she agreed to leave her employer's house to go with the accused and his he crime com was forcible abduction. The ginity may be presumed from the fact that she was an unmartied barrio girl when the crime was commit- ted. The element of lewd design on the part of the accused may also be inferred from the fact that while the victim was+. COMPACT REVIEWER IN CKIMINALLAW then a naive 15 year-old, the accused was 10 years her se- nior and although unmarried, was much wiser in the ways of the world than she was. The accused's alleged desire to marry the victim is not a defense considering that no mar- riage license was presented and parental consent was want- ing. (People vs, Villorente, G.R. No. 100198, July 1, 1992) (They cannot be married because the marrying age is 18.) Where the gil is unde the crime is always forthe a> is taken against her will with lewd designs (which differentiates this crime from kidnap- ping). The forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the appellant is to rape the victim. Here, the offender held the victim by the arm, pushed her inside a waiting tricycle, and brought her to his house, where she ‘was padlocked in a room to prevent her from escaping; the many counts of rape. (People vs. Shariff Al No, 130640, June 21, 1999) (Contra: People vs, Talo, supr In consented abduction, the gravamen.is thealarm and dis- said Wat there is no double jeopardy in the refling for qualified seduction gf the consented abduc- tion case was dismissed because although both crimes have some common elements, namely (a) the offended party is a virgin; and (b) she is over 12 and under 18, however, 2 elements differentiate the 2 crimes. Consented abduction in addition requires that: (a) the taking away of the offended jion or cajolery; and in addition: (a) the crime be committed with abuse of CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY 5 authority or relationship; and (b) the offender tercourse with the woman. 10. Can there be consented abduction with simple seduction? It If the original intent was to induce the woman to sex- ual intercourse, the crime is simple seduction only. There. ‘must be a considerable time interval betwee ‘abduction and the seduction. Otherwise, the seduction only. ARTICLES 344-346 1. Pardon by the offended does not extinguish criminal liabil- ity. The only exception is in '266-C of the Code (Anti- Rape Law) which requires a valid marriage between the ‘and the fect an extinguishment of criminal ity. But ci ty is extinguished by express waiver of the offended. 2. Pardon by the President extinguishes the criminal liability but ot the dvi it given afer final adamant. Pardon by the offended party must be given prior to the institut the criminal case to be effective. 3. Pardon must be granted not only by the parents but also by the minor herself to be effective as an express pardon under Article 344. People vs. Lacson, J. [CA] 55 OG 9460, held: ‘Nei- ther must we be understood as supporting the view that the parents alone can extend a valid pardon. Far from it, for we too are of the belief that the pardon by the parents, standing alone, is inefficacious.’ In another case: "The express pardon of a person guilty of attempted abduction of a minor, grant- ed by the latter's parents, is not sufficient to remove crimi- nal responsibility, but must be accompanied by the express pardon of the girl herselE.’ (US vs. Luna, 1 Phil. 360, cited in People vs, Tadulan, C.R. No. 117407, April 15, 1997) (In Article 266-C, inserted by R.A. 8353, it appears, however, that par- don can be given even if the rapist had been convicted and serving sentence)and the pardon will be ineft An affidavit of desistance ig merely an additional ground to buttress the ; ther circumstances which, ion oF desistance, create ony given by the witness- fered as defenses con: not outweigh the p prosecution. Hence t im herself intended to disregard. must have no bearing on the criminal prosecution against the accused particularly on the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. (People vs. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, February 7, 1997) ‘ The petitioner, together sentenced for rape. The another, was convicted and married the offended party and was relieved fro . The petitioner was made to serve his sentence. view of the last paragraph of Article 344 which extends the benefits of such relief to accessories befo: er the crime and in provisfons 0 the petitioner g corpus proceed- jew of fended woman; (pf acknowledge the offspring,,.unless the Jaw should prevent him from doing so; and (ffin every case tosupport the spring. Under Ar iged to recognize cases of rape, abduction, and seduction when the period of the offense coincides, more or less, with the period of conception. It has been he'd, though, that acknowledg- (CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY 7 ment is disallowed if the ler is a married man, with only support for the offspring as part of the sentence. Article 176 of the Family Code confers ity over Megitimate children “on th Article 45, the offender in a rape case who is married can only be sentenced to indemnify the victim and support the there be any. In the instant case then, the ac, so be ordered it - -Spsing but in the light of Article 201 of the Family Code, the. ‘amount and terms thereof are to be determined by the trial court only after due notice and hearing. (People vs. Bayani, GR. No. 120894, October 3, 1996) Compulsory acknowledgment, as well as the support of the indeed proper there being no legal impedi- ment in doing so, as it appears that complainant and ap- pellant are both single. The crime of rape committed by the accused carries with it the obligations to acknowledge the offspring if the character of in does not preventitand sport the same. (People vs. Namayan, G.R. No. 106539, July 18, 1995) 8, The indemnity awarded under Article 345(1) should.ue.ab- solute and is never conditianed. upon.the-financial-eapacity df accused. (People vs. Saluna, G.R. No. 94336, September ele TRO ecTITLE Xt CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS. ARTICLES 347-348, te 2 ‘Simulation of birth must be made in the record of birth; sim- ulation in any other document is falsification. Under BA. 7ete, gl atic committed by the par- ents wKo agree td of the child for a consider- ation; and the shyaian ‘makes it appear in the record of birth that the supposed parents are the natural parents. ARTICLES 349-351 ye The elements of bigamy are: a. The offender has been legally married; b. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his ofher spouses absent, vet be presumed dead according to the Ci c. He contracts a 2nd or subsequent marriage: 4, Thesubsequentmarriagehasall the essential sequisites fercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August ‘CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS Eo templates asthe void marriage which must first be declared uli bof pan.san ne which must exist_ salegal impede no prior. Seslasation of its In Mercado vs. Tan (337 SCRA 122), there was at least a first marriage which appeared to have been entered into al- though later declared void ab initio. (Morigo vs. People, G.R. No, 145226, February 6, 2004) ‘There is a necessity for a judicial declaration of absolute nul- lity of marriage before cor yg another. The requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who believing that his marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declara- tion of the nv'lity of the Ist marriage, the person who mar- ries again cannot be charged with bigamy. (Dontingo vs. CA, 44 SCAD 955) of mar- ‘marriage ‘who contracts a eve ei ance annem ate individuals to deliber- ately ensure that marital contract be flawed and thus escape consequences of contracting multiple marriages. Article 349 penalizes the mere act of contr ‘ond or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous valid marriage. As soon as the second marriage is celebrated, the crime of bigamy is consummated, (Tenebro vs. CA, GR, No. 150758, February 18, 2004) Under Article 40 of the Family Code, where the mar- riage is absolutely null and void, the person involved cannot just marry without judicial declaration to that effect. Since marriage is a legal institution, it cannot be left to the deci-0 COMPACT REVIEWER IN CKIMINALLAW the marriage is null and absentee spouse — there es other stmarage, the crime ig ap legal mocriage under Article 350 *z Dig Inbigamy: a. The subsequent marriage must be perfectly valid ex: cept that itis bigamous; b. It is limited to the offender's contracting. a 2nd mar fage before the. (ommecmastiage has been legally dis- ‘“toIvEd or before the absent spouse has an aaa “presumptively dead. Inillegal marriage: a. The subsequent marriage is null or annullable even if there is no Ist marriage; b. _ Itcovers all marriages which are otherwise voidable or null and void gxGept bigamous marriage. to conduct marriage is, Hage. Any of so be criminally liable. This is aside from dl ty oF the {soletinizing person is an element of a valid marriage. Persons who pretend to be priests wi legal marriage but for usurpa ‘est” must really bea priest or an officer duly commis- sioned by the government. 5, The principle of constructive notice should not be applied in regard to the crime of bigamy as judicial notice may be taken of the fact that a bigamous marriage is gen - {ered into by the offender in sea im the spouse of the _Previous subsisting marrage, Also, a bigamous marrage is ERAT eee io in place wheter MMENAET ISH, (CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS. wo known to be still a married person, in order to conceal his Tegal impediment to contract another marriage. In the case of real property, the registration of any transaction involving, any right or interest therein is made in the Register of Deeds of the place where the said property is located. Verification in the office of the Register of Deeds concerned of the transactions involving the said property famous marriage, verification by the authorities of the same would indeed be qui fas such a marriage may be entered into in a place where the offender is not known to be a married person. (People ws. Reyes, GR. Nos. 7426-27, July 27, 1989) ‘on the registration thereof in the Civil on the discoveribyrthe-offended.spouse. Exe i from the discovery, of the. 2nd on for Article 351 is to prevent, confusion as.te.the FAULT the woman barren or is not preg he nant when she married or if her pregnancy is then manifest, EA there will be no confusion as to the child's filiation, Absent. the reason for the law, the law does not apply,CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Crimes covered: a. Libel; b. Slander; Slander by deed; 4. Incriminating innocent persons; €. Intriguing against honor. 2. The 3 kinds of defamations are: a. Libel, or written defamation; b. Slander, or oral defamation; and c. _ Slander by deed, or defamation by physical act such as slapping or kissing another pul latter. iy to humiliate the ‘or contempt of a natu oF blacken the memory of one who is dead. allegation of a discreditable act or condition ¢an- (CRIMES AGAINST HONOR oy c. Identity of the Existence of malice. (Vazquez us. CA, G.R. No. 118971, September 15, 1995) or (if caves toa 3. An allegation is consid persoin the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or puthim in contempt, or which tends to blacken the mem- ory of one who is dead. (id.) ion ifthe material iscommounicatedtoadrd fis wot required that the person defamed has read ee maul . To satisfy the element of identi ko that at least 2 3:d-parson.or-a stranger was able to identify, himas the object of the defamatory statement Forinstance, the key element of put First, the assailed letter was part of the surrounding the non-remittance of co “The phrase “ GR. No. 120769, February 22, 1997) . Malice in law is that which the law presumes to be present Malice in factis that which the complainant must prove to exist. The offended must prove, where malice in law does.a exists and is pro if the statements are abso rs COMIACT REVI ws charged to enforce company ling the duty to undertake initial act done in good faith, an ing from a moral and legal obligation which respondent owed to the company in the performance of his duties. The rule on privileged commu ows the latitude of expression embodied in the 's memo. (id.) feat all, such as statements by lawyers in pleadings Uihich are elevant to thecase Foringanee the the mother oa feottute actionable because relevant to the very issue of the privileged. This al fry tenor and the pr , pertinent or mat wiry. Thus, the person who ma these statements such as the judge, lawyer or witness does not thereby incur the risk of being found liable thereon in a minal prosecution or an action for the recovery of dam- pungent, and h fending to detra ‘CHIMES AGAINST HONOR 05 characterize proceedings in courts of justice, are absolutely privileged, if relevant to the issue. (Navarette vs. CA, GR. No, 124245, February 15, 2000) The doctrine has a practical purpose; the privilege is not intended so much for the protection of those engaged in the public service and in the enactment and administration of law, as for the promotion of public welfare, the purpose being that members of the legislatu rors, iawyers and witnesses may. speak their minds freely. 39 cise their respective functions without. incurring of criminal_prasecution.or-an.action for damages. th privileged statement allows proof of malice in ct Statements ‘by lawyers in pleadings which are defama- not relevant to the issue may be subject to proof of lice can be presumed from defama- tory words, the privileged character of a communi destroys the presumption of malice. The onus of proving ies on plaintiff He must bring ame to the ie. existence okmalice as the true motive of his ‘lor vs. People, infra.) {s relevant or pertinent should the writer and the words are they are. Se laiiga orale “IGE or not, “Reckless disregard of what is false or not” “nears that the defendant entertains serious doubt as tthe truth of the publication, or that he-possesses a high degree of-awareness of their probable falsity. (Borjal vs. CA, G.R. No, 126466, January 14, 1999) Even assuming that the contents of the articles are ‘mere error, inaccuracy, or even falsity does not prove 1 malice. Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any«0 COMOACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW scheme of truly free expression and debate. Consistent with good faith and reasonable care, the press should not be held of suppression, for honest mistakes or choice of the language. There must be they courageously and effectively function as critical agen- censorship that would for erroncous state- jury to reputation are margin of error by protecting same reason that the New jability for defamation of ie figure may n pased in the ual malice” on the part of the person necessarily accompany str rules governing required to allow an adequ b. _ Imputation of a crime against any person. But the mere fact that the truth is proved, the accused must further show that he acted out of good motives and just end. Truth alone is not enough. In all other cases truth isnot a defense at presumed innocent un- proved, and every false Imp nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in Ris public i$ ok necessarily. actionable. In order that such ‘CRIMES AGAINST HONOR 7 sure is one who, by his accomplishments, fame, profession or calling which his doings, his affairs personage’ He is in other words a celebrity. In this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public, asin the case of an actor, a professional baseball iner. Also, public of- ry soldiers, infant prodigy, and no less a personage the Great Exalted Ruler of the lodge. In short, anyone who has arrived at a position whe licattention is eased upon Rinse a Ranson, (Ayer Productions vs. Cap Tong, G.R. No. L-82380, April 29, 1988) ‘The FNLCT was an undertaking infused with public 3. It was promoted as a joint project of the govern- ind the private sector, and organized by top govern- officials and prominent businessmen. For this reason, but to the personalities behind rector and spokesman, private ‘assumed the status of a assuming that he would not qualify as a public does not follow that he could not validly be the aT x public comment event Beas HOLS OWDTIED pubic. for he"could. as he was involv sea matter is subject public or gener annot sucldenly become less 80 merely because a private individual is involved or because in some sense the individual does not arily choose. Defamatory words wil (COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW the participant's prior anonymity or-notoriety, (Borjal vs. cap more of- In fact, GRNo. 139157, February 8, I under serious or slight depend- ing not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the case, ante- cedents or relationships between the offended party and the offender, the social standing or the advanced age of the offended pai might tend to prove the intention of the offender fering the fact that the par- petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words; and the fact that pe- titioner’s anger was instigated by what offended did when oral defamation was not of seri- When the offense has been qualified to grave oral defa- mation, it cannot be reduced to simple oral defamation by the claim that the slanderous words were sai rike deep into the character of the (Larobis vs. CA, GR. No. 104189, March 30, 1993) iher. to overcome, such presumption. the defamatory statement is made ‘gence and the dignity of the individual be exalted, Criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the indi- vidual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be ‘common good. Rising superior to any official \s, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, ry — to any or all the agencies of Government stant source of liberty _ GR Nos, 115239405.a0 ‘COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW Avrule placing on the accused the burcien of showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable ends for making such allegations would not only be contrary to Article 361. Tt would on the freedom of expression. Such a rule would deter citi- zens from performing their duties as members of a self-gov- eming community. Without free speech and assembly, dis- cussions of our most abiding concems ag a.nation wauld.be ht As ‘has said, “public dis is 1 "and the “greatest menace.to freedom is. an Inert people,” (id.) For the purpose of determining the meaning of any publica- tion alleged tobe libelous that construction must be adopted. which will give to the matter such a meaning as is natural and obvious in the plain and ordinary sense in which the public would naturally understand what was uttered. The yubli oti ust be aSawhole, In applying these rules to the language of an al- leged any subtle or ingenious explanation offered by the publisher on being called to account should be disre- garded. The whole question being the effect the publication had upon the minds of the readers" by the offered explanation in reading the anicle 360 enumerates the persans.cesponsibletoriel: a. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. b, The authox or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the edi- tor or business manager of a daily newspaper, maga- zine ot serial publ responsible for the defamations cont to the same extent as the author thereof. (CRIMES AGAINST HONOR an however, excludes therefrom cases falling within inal jurisdiction of the RTC. RECs have the ence, the expanded jon conferred by R.A. 7691 to inferior courts can- \dministrative Order No 104-96) (People vs. ity, G.R. No, 123263, December 16, 1996) discretion to impose/éithek imprison- r humanitarian reasons and commentator, delivers com- terest. He has thus made some contributions to the cause of good government and is in ef fect rendering public service in his own way. Also, he has 5 children 4 of whom are minors who would bear the grudge of the prison sentence be car- tied out. As courts are, og only of law but bf justice and prison Tein, tie petitioner is or- FLOR vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 139987 March 31, 2005 RE: Libel vis-a-vis Freedom of expression + General rule on malice and its exceptions Every defamatory imputation is presumed mali- cious (Article 354). The presumption does nat existin ‘A private communication made by any person to another in thea ‘COMPACT REVIEWER INCRIMINALLAW By virtue oft 3, Fair commentaries on matters of pul ments. + Two kinds of privileged statements 1. Absolutely privileged regardless of existence of malice in fact. Example: a, Statements made in official proceedit the Legislature by the members ther a. “Malice in law or presumed mali eda ying? Ba. + private person, truth of the statements tmimvateril c officer.can demand damages from “TetNbets of the press it must be shown that state- riueit was made with ‘edge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. (rule of actual mali ‘or New York Times test) + Reckless conduc is not measured by whether a prudent man would have published or would (CRIMES AGAINST HONOR a have investigated before publishing, There must idence that the defendant in fact ent the. truth of his, Publication. False statements alone are not action Maliciousness may be shown only through ge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth + The burden of showing truth of allegations of of- ficial misconduct and/or good motives and jus le ends-for making such allegations cannot .ced on the accused as it would be contrary le 361 and more importantly it would in- fringe on freedom of expression + The headline alone of the newspaper cannot be the ARTICLES 363-364 1. Intriguing against honor ipal purpo ish the honor or reputation and the offender utters. a document that is not under oath of facts); a person 3. Incriminating innocent person is commi in who, by any act not gonstituting perjury sl(COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL LAW

You might also like

• Criminal Law Compact Reviewer Boado

  

  No ratings yet

  Criminal Law Compact Reviewer Boado

  234 pages
• Estafa - Art. 315

  

  No ratings yet

  Estafa - Art. 315

  7 pages
• Maintenance and Peace and Order Is A Police Function

  

  No ratings yet

  Maintenance and Peace and Order Is A Police Function

  39 pages
• Ching Bee

  

  No ratings yet

  Ching Bee

  7 pages
• San Beda Commercial Law Pre Week 2018

  

  No ratings yet

  San Beda Commercial Law Pre Week 2018

  64 pages
• Civil Code Provisions Reviewer

  

  100% (1)

  Civil Code Provisions Reviewer

  17 pages
• Dean Castro Transcribe Final

  

  No ratings yet

  Dean Castro Transcribe Final

  18 pages
• Tax PWLMT

  

  No ratings yet

  Tax PWLMT

  29 pages
• MSnewrules Evidenceppt

  

  100% (1)

  MSnewrules Evidenceppt

  185 pages
• Sbu Preweek Civ

  

  No ratings yet

  Sbu Preweek Civ

  92 pages
• Law Review

  

  100% (1)

  Law Review

  390 pages
• Rem PWLMT

  

  No ratings yet

  Rem PWLMT

  170 pages
• Ho 8 - Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions

  

  No ratings yet

  Ho 8 - Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions

  12 pages
• Bar 2019 Checklist: Subject Reviewer NOTES (July) Cases Remarks Political Law

  

  No ratings yet

  Bar 2019 Checklist: Subject Reviewer NOTES (July) Cases Remarks Political Law

  2 pages
• 2022 Criminal Law Materials

  

  No ratings yet

  2022 Criminal Law Materials

  121 pages
• Pre Week Remedial Law

  

  100% (2)

  Pre Week Remedial Law

  167 pages
• SBCA CBO NUAS - Civil Law (2022)

  

  No ratings yet

  SBCA CBO NUAS - Civil Law (2022)

  36 pages
• 02a TOM Labor Law Bar Reviewer - Pages

  

  No ratings yet

  02a TOM Labor Law Bar Reviewer - Pages

  371 pages
• Ateneo Taxation

  

  No ratings yet

  Ateneo Taxation

  232 pages
• Evid Outline Reviewer

  

  No ratings yet

  Evid Outline Reviewer

  72 pages
• Resources (Athena, Balili, Hisoler)

  

  No ratings yet

  Resources (Athena, Balili, Hisoler)

  2 pages
• Central Bank Employees Association vs. Bangko Sentral NG Pilipinas

  

  No ratings yet

  Central Bank Employees Association vs. Bangko Sentral NG Pilipinas

  1 page
• 2023 Remedial Law

  

  No ratings yet

  2023 Remedial Law

  11 pages
• Ho 8 Pre Week Criminal Law PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Ho 8 Pre Week Criminal Law PDF

  32 pages
• Leonen Qa Political Law

  

  No ratings yet

  Leonen Qa Political Law

  27 pages
• Last-Minute Tips For The September 2023 Bar Exam On Civil Law by NBV (OFFICIAL)

  

  No ratings yet

  Last-Minute Tips For The September 2023 Bar Exam On Civil Law by NBV (OFFICIAL)

  44 pages
• Pil Reviewer Bernas

  

  No ratings yet

  Pil Reviewer Bernas

  18 pages
• Birds Eye View of 2024 Bar Syllabus

  

  No ratings yet

  Birds Eye View of 2024 Bar Syllabus

  8 pages
• Lecturer - S Materials No. 15 - Atty. Lyan David Juanico - SPL Part 1 Final Version PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Lecturer - S Materials No. 15 - Atty. Lyan David Juanico - SPL Part 1 Final Version PDF

  78 pages
• 2011 Bar Exams On Commercial Law

  

  No ratings yet

  2011 Bar Exams On Commercial Law

  36 pages
• Books Used by Topnotchers

  

  No ratings yet

  Books Used by Topnotchers

  2 pages
• Preweek 2022

  

  No ratings yet

  Preweek 2022

  354 pages
• CPRA Competence and Diligence

  

  No ratings yet

  CPRA Competence and Diligence

  2 pages
• The Vanguard Test

  

  No ratings yet

  The Vanguard Test

  2 pages
• Labor Law Bar Reviewer Atty Manuel

  

  100% (1)

  Labor Law Bar Reviewer Atty Manuel

  118 pages
• Poli - PW - LMT 2

  

  No ratings yet

  Poli - PW - LMT 2

  68 pages
• Bar Ops Pilipinas 2016: Legal Ethics

  

  No ratings yet

  Bar Ops Pilipinas 2016: Legal Ethics

  30 pages
• CTA Jurisdiction

  

  No ratings yet

  CTA Jurisdiction

  6 pages
• 1st Indorsement 20 January 2012: Derek R. Puertollano

  

  No ratings yet

  1st Indorsement 20 January 2012: Derek R. Puertollano

  2 pages
• Criminal Law - Pre-Week Notes

  

  No ratings yet

  Criminal Law - Pre-Week Notes

  67 pages
• UST - Mercantile Law Preweek 2018159572700 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  UST - Mercantile Law Preweek 2018159572700 PDF

  46 pages
• Ethics PWLMT

  

  No ratings yet

  Ethics PWLMT

  37 pages
• Memory Aid CIVIL

  

  No ratings yet

  Memory Aid CIVIL

  56 pages
• Civil Law: Things Necessary To Be Put in Your Head

  

  No ratings yet

  Civil Law: Things Necessary To Be Put in Your Head

  20 pages
• Civilpro Jara Notes 2

  

  No ratings yet

  Civilpro Jara Notes 2

  567 pages
• (For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW

  

  No ratings yet

  (For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW

  43 pages
• I. Legal Personality, Capacity To Act: (Art. 41, Civil Code)

  

  No ratings yet

  I. Legal Personality, Capacity To Act: (Art. 41, Civil Code)

  35 pages
• 2022outline Mlqu LTD

  

  No ratings yet

  2022outline Mlqu LTD

  9 pages
• Salaw - Digest

  

  No ratings yet

  Salaw - Digest

  2 pages
• (B.M. No. 1222. February 4, 2004) Re: 2003 Bar Examinations: Per Curiam

  

  No ratings yet

  (B.M. No. 1222. February 4, 2004) Re: 2003 Bar Examinations: Per Curiam

  9 pages
• Boado-Compact Reviewer PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Boado-Compact Reviewer PDF

  234 pages
• Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law by Boado PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law by Boado PDF

  234 pages
• RPC Compact Reviewer Boado PDF

  

  100% (2)

  RPC Compact Reviewer Boado PDF

  234 pages
• Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law by Boado

  

  No ratings yet

  Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law by Boado

  234 pages
• Boado - Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law

  

  No ratings yet

  Boado - Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law

  308 pages
• Criminal Law - SBU Memory Aid 2021

  

  100% (9)

  Criminal Law - SBU Memory Aid 2021

  514 pages
• Criminal Law 2021

  

  No ratings yet

  Criminal Law 2021

  514 pages
• CLJ Best

  

  No ratings yet

  CLJ Best

  22 pages
• Criminal Law 1

  

  No ratings yet

  Criminal Law 1

  37 pages
• A Bar Review Materials in Criminal Law Book 1

  

  100% (1)

  A Bar Review Materials in Criminal Law Book 1

  221 pages