Criminal Law Transcription Finals

University of San Carlos
Criminal Law Transcription

Fourth Installment
Judge M. Paredes
SY 2010-2011
Crim 25
Quiz
1.
Whenever a penal law is to be construed and

applied, and the law admits of two interpretations
one lenient to the offender and one strict to the
offender that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
Which of the following is an example of special

penal law which is considered mala in se?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
robbery
estafa
murder
corruption of public officers
It is an act which still requires another act so that a

felony will result.
a.
b.
c.
d.
9.
weak physical condition of the victim

nervousness or temperament of the victim
erroneous or unskillful medical treatment
none of the above
all of the above
Which of the following crimes do not admit of

frustrated stage?
a.
b.
c.
d.
8.
intent
motive
men rea
none of the above
What circumstances are considered as inefficient

intervening causes?
a.
b.
c.
d.
f.
7.
precise criminal intent

general criminal intent
specific criminal intent
none of the above
It is the moving power or force which impels a

person to a desired result.
a.
b.
c.
d.
6.
malversation
malicious mischief
homicide
none of the above
This is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong

act. This does not require proof. Example: A stabs
B. B died. There is a presumption there of
intentional (not clear).
a.
b.
c.
d.
5.
piracy in Philippine waters (PD 532)

brigandage under PD 532
plunder
cattle rustling under PD 533
all of the above
none of the above
Which of the following crimes cannot be committed

by culpa?
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
balancing of interest test

principle of equiponderance
doctrine of pro reo
none of the above
overt act
desistance
preparatory acts
none of the above
Which of the following is an afflictive penalty?
a.
b.
c.
d.
10.
prision mayor
prision correccional
arresto mayor
destierro
It has an effect of an exempting circumstance.

a.
b.
c.
d.
proximate cause
entrapment
justifying circumstance
absolutory cause
Survey of 2009 Cases

UMALE V. CA.
This is falsification under Art. 171 (2), RPC. You of course
know that it is not necessary that there be genuine
document. There are 2 exceptions intercalation is one.
So it is enough that the document fabricated or simulated
has the appearance of a true and genuine document or of
apparent legal efficacy. Verily, resolutions and ordinances of
sanggunians, be they of the sanggunian panlalawigan,
panlungsod, bayan, or barangay, come within the pale of
Sec. 19-A, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Evidence. What kind
of document? Public document. Falsification of a public
document is consummated upon the execution of the false
document. Erring public officers failure to attain their
objectives, if that really be the case, is not determinative of
their guilt or innocence. Remember, intent to gain in
falsification of public document is immaterial. So the
element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or
prejudice to a third party as a result of the falsification or
tarnishing of a documents integrity is not essential to
maintain a charge for falsification of public documents.
Criminal intent is presumed upon the execution of criminal
act. That is general criminal intent. What is punished in
falsification of public document is the destruction or
undermining of the public faith and destruction of
truth as solemnly proclaimed therein.
The next case is precedent setting. You should take note of
this case. LAUREL V. ABRUGAR. Theft. Hisgot gani kag
theft, kanang element of taking away, wala na. Ang correct
nga element, taking only; wala ng away. Again, its taking,
not taking away. Its appropriation. Kanang taking away,
larceny in American law and jurisprudence. The only
requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft
under the Penal Code is that it is capable of appropriation.
So is asportation (taking away) an element of the crime?
Answer is no. It need not be capable of asportation.
Puyding dli madala. Jurisprudence is settled that to take
under the theft provision of the Penal Code does not require
asportation or taking away. To appropriate means to deprive
the lawful owner of the thing. Any act to transfer possession
may be committed through the use of the offenders own
hands as well as any mechanical device such as an access
device card as in the instant case. Kanang mugamit kag
access device like credit card or ATM, imo nang isuksok
didto unya makakuha kag kwarta, that is theft. Theft, kung
gikawat nmo ang access device, gigamit nmo to gain, to
take money or services, violation of the Access Device Law.
Kung gipalit nmos tindahan, gi-swipe nmo, third crime is
committed. The third crime is estafa, making it believe that
you are the owner of the access device.
In the following cases, the court ruled the crime is theft.
This includes controlling the destination of the property
stolen to deprive the owner of the property. Example:
(1) use of meter tampering. Dba tamper nmo. Naa ba diay
kay nabira nga butang? Wala; (2) Device to fraudulently
obtain gas; (3) Use of a jumper to divert electricity. Theft
gihapon na sya, although there is another crime under the
Electric Pilferage Law. Kani ang ni-complain ang PLDT.
Gikawat kuno ang ilang (not clear). Di mn ko IT expert,
probably mas makasabot mo aning International Simple
Resale (ISR). The act of conducting ISR operations by
illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to
private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which
petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long
distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes
all three acts of subtraction. So theft.
Nasabtan to ninyo technical mn to kaayo? Kini kunong
pagconnect sa equipment sa PLDT para iresell nmo. The
Criminal Law Finals 1
business of providing telecommunication or telephone

service is likewise personal property which can be the
object of theft under Article 308 of the RPC. [Ug sa
dihang ni-brown out.] Interest in business was
declared to be personal property since it is capable of
appropriation and not included in the enumeration of
real properties. Electricity, is this personal property?
Electricity is personal property under Article 416 (3) of the
Civil Code, which enumerates "forces of nature which are
brought under control by science. It is the use of these
communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that
constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking
of the telephone services and business. The business of
providing telecommunication and the telephone service are
personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of
"subtraction" penalized under said article.
gyud they must be duly authenticated and the best

evidence is certification from the Postal Office nga
napadala ug nadawat . Very strict sila sa BP 22.
Procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of
dishonor be actually sent to and received by the accused.
Not only sent but received. But acquittal based on
reasonable doubt does not preclude award of civil damages.
Separate Opinion by Corona: While telephone calls take the

form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such
[telephone] calls were personal properties belonging to
PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership
over such calls. Since physically a telephone call is in the
form of an electric signal, our jurisprudence, acknowledging
that electricity is personal property, which may be stolen
through theft, is applicable.
FRANCISCO V. PEOPLE. Third element of estafa under

Art. 315 (a) merely requires that the offended party must
have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means. It does not require that the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means be
intentionally directed to the offended party.
DAYAP V. SENDIONG (JANUARY 29, 2009). Kining

reckless imprudence, puydi ba ni sya nga mahimong
complex with other crimes? Puydi basta two or more grave
or less grave felonies. Where a reckless imprudent or
negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave
felonies, a complex crime is committed. Since Art. 48
speaks of felonies, it is applicable to crimes through
negligence in view of the definition of felonies in Art. 3
acts or omissions punishable by law committed either by
means of dolo or culpa so bisag negligence pa, muapply
gihapon ang complex crime.
MANILA ELECTRIC CO. V. SINGLAND TONNERY. Naay
special law RA 7832 (Electrical Pilferage Act) dunay
prima facie presumption of pilferage. For an allegation of
tampering to be the basis for the disconnection of a
customers electric supply, the discovery of such must be
personally witnessed and attested to by an office of the law
or an Energy Regulatory Board representative. Kinahanglan
masakpan gyud sa akto unya ang kanang taga-VECO
pananglitan kinahanglan kuyugan gyud na sya ug law
enforcement officer. Kung wa ka dha, naay masakpan nga
tampering, there should be no immediate disconnection.
Kung naa ang taga-VECO, way kuyog nga police, no
immediate disconnection. Thats the Electric Pilferage Act.
BP 22 GRAVAMEN: making or issuing worthless check. It
is not the non-payment of obligation which the law
punishes. The mere act of issuing a worthless check,
whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or even evidence of
pre-existing debt is malum prohibitum. The prosecution
must prove not only that the accused issued a check that
was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that
the accused was actually notified that the check was
dishonored and that he/she failed within 5 banking
days from receipt of the notice to pay the holder of the
check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement. So
ingon ani ang trend sa Supreme Court decisions from 2007
to 2009, kung mu-untol ang cheke, 2 things: (1.) there
must be written notice of dishonor [but that is not
enough because in one case, the private complainant
presented three letters of demand prepared by the lawyer.
Convicted sa lower court up to Court of Appeals, acquitted
sa Supreme Court. Ngano mn? Niingon ang Supreme Court,
ang inyong gipresent nga evidence, notice of dishonor. Wa
gyud mo mupresentar ug ebidensya nga na-receive sa
accused. So there must be (2.) evidence of receipt of
the notice of dishonor. Not only that, kinahanglan tagaan
ni syag (3.) 5 days to pay, to make good the check or
to arrange with the bank. Di pa na mulapas ang 5 days
di ka kakiha, he is not liable. Because the only defense, one
of the best defenses in BP 22, is to pay within 5 banking
days. Bayran gyud na nmo. I repeat, mere notice is not
enough. There must be evidence of receipt. Another
warning, kung ang imong i-attach sa imong
dokumento kana lang registry receipt, registry return
card, Supreme Court said no proof. Di na sya proof of
receipt. I repeat that is not proof of receipt. Kinahanglan
In COMPLEX CRIME OF FALSIFICATION, like estafa

through falsification or malversation through falsification,
the document falsified must either be public document,
official document or commercial document. There is no
such thing such as estafa through falsification through
private document.
There are 3 important cases on theft. Aristotle Valenzuela
and that one involving electricity and there is another one.
PEOPLE V. RUIZ (FEBRUARY 25, 2009). The material

inconsistencies with regard to when and where the marking
on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory created
reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.
Kinahanglan hinumduman ninyo ang chain of custody in
dangerous drugs cases.
PEOPLE V. DE LEON. This is arson. When it is shown that
one has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is
not bound to produce further evidence of this wrongful
intent. So what is this? General criminal intent. Sunogon
gani imong bay, wa gyuy laing presumption. There is a
presumption that one intends the natural consequences of
his act.
This is quite complicated. This is CHILD ABUSE IN
RELATION TO THE REVISED PENAL CODE. 7610 and
RPC. Under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III, RA 7610, in relation to RA
8353 (New Rape Law), if the victim of the sexual abuse is
BELOW 12 YEARS of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape
under Art. 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC and penalized with
reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12
OR OLDER, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Sec. 59 (b), RA 7610 or
rape under 266-A.
There is an administrative order. This is EDUARDO
KAPUNAN V. CA. Nahinumdum mo dunay labor lawyer
gipatay si Olalia duna syay kauban nga si Alai-ai nya ang
nagpatay mga military sila si Galicia, usa ni si Kapunan?
Unya ni-invoke si Kapunan, granted mn ang amnesty sa
ako unya murder mn to. Unsa mn diay tong pagkapatay ni
Olalia ug kadtong kauban, in furtherance of rebellion diay
to? Duna ba diay rebellion gi-commit ang military? Thats
the issue in this case. Under this administrative order, the
following persons may apply for amnesty. There is a very
long enumeration. But nothing in the text of the
proclamation excludes military personnel by reason of
their association and indeed, as we pointed out Sec.
2-A makes evident that they are included. Apil ang
military sa amnesty law. The problem is, unsa mn tong
pagkapatay lagi, in furtherance ba of rebellion? The
Supreme Court said no, on their face, the murders of Olalia
and Alai-ai, do not indicate they are components of
rebellion. So common crime to. Kung common crime dli na
mu-fall sa amnesty. It is not self-explanatory how the
murders of two private citizens could have been oriented to
the aims of rebellion explained in the RPC.
KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH HOMICIDE. Kung
pananglitan napu kabuok gipatay in the course of that
kidnapping, is that kidnapping with multiple homicide? No,
the Supreme Court said only kidnapping for ransom with
homicide.
PEOPLE V. ESTRADA (APRIL 2, 2009). Nagamit sya ug
ngalan (Jose Velarde). Supreme Court said he cannot be
convicted with illegal use of alias. Ang first case ani,
URSUA V. CA, which we have discussed in the past. Kining
illegal use of alias, there is one important element the

element of (1) habituality . Kausa ra gani nmo gamita laing
ngan, dli ka makiha ug using alias. In the case of Estrada,
Supreme Court added another reason, di mn na publicly
used nya nga ako si Jose Velarde. (2) Wa kuno sya
magpaila sa publiko. Sekreto tong iya sa bangko nga ako
si Jose Velarde. Dli kuno to public, private kuno to.
In Ursua, alias is defined. It is name or names used by a
person or intended to be used by him PUBLICLY AND
habitually. Usually in business transactions, in addition to
his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized
the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent
authority. There must be, in the words of Ursua, a sign or
indication that the user intends to be known by his name in
addition to his real name from that day forth. Kay sa Ursua
ningadto ra mn sya sa Office of the Ombudsman. Nya pagabot didto sa guard house, ingon sya ako si kuan, lain ngan
ang gamit nya. Ingon ang Supreme Court, kausa ra gani na
gamita. So there is no violation of the Anti-Alias Law.
The repeated use of an alias within a single day [bisag
ka napu pa nmo balik-balika niadto kag bangko.
Kanapu sad ka mgdeposit.] cannot be deemed
habitual as it does not amount to a customary
practice or use. In order to be held liable for violation of
Commonwealth Act 142, the user of the alias must have
held himself out as a person who shall be publicly known
under that other name. Ingon ang Supreme Court, gigamit
ni Pres. Estrada hilom ra mn kaayo sud sa bangko. Wa mn
sya musangyaw dris gawas nga ako si Jose Velarde. Wa
kuno nya ipublicly proclaim. Publicity in the use of alias
is more than mere communication to a third person.
The use of the alias to be considered public must be
made oftenly and in an open manner or space to
cause him to become generally known. Kung isangyaw
nmos radyo, ingon ka ako si Jose Velarde, thats already
public use. Estrada could not be said to have intended his
signing as Jose Velarde to be for public consumption by the
fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also inside the room
at that time. Given the private nature of Estradas act of
signing the document as Jose Velarde related to the opening
of the trust account that people cannot claim that there was
already a public use of alias when Ocampo and Morato
witnessed the signing. So dli kuno to public kadtong misud
sya sa bangko ug nipirma syag Jose Velarde.
No application for PROBATION shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction. Ayaw mog kalipat ani ha.
Kung muapilar gani ang accused, dli na sya maka-file ug
probation. Pero kung muapilar sya, ang iyang giquestion ang penalty, unya ma-reduce ang penalty
nga probationable, then he can apply for probation
kay ang iyang gi-apilar precisely ang penalty.
DE VERA V. DE VERA (APRIL 2009). Kining voluntary
surrender, citing People v. Cagas, People v. Taraya, timani ninyo kay basig kanang atong books karong standard
nagtuman lang gihapon sa karaan nga jurisprudence. Ingon
ani ang facts, pananglitan naay accused. Ninggawas na ang
warrant of arrest, karon adlawa. Gisultihan sa amigo, hala
naa kay warrant of arrest. Surrender dayon. Surrender
ko. Wa pa gani ma-serve ang warrant, sya ni-surrender.
Question, ang voluntary surrender ma-appreciate ba ug dli?
Unsa may nakabutang sa ato? Suppose muingon sya, o
spontaneous akong pagsurrender. Voluntary, not because
of an external stimulus. Wa kay gihulga (not clear).
Nisurrender ko to spare the government of exerting time,
money, etc. Para ma-spare ang government sa trouble of
looking for me. Puydi ba nang katarungana? The answer is
no. Basta naa na gani warrant of arrest, bisag
niboluntaryo ka pa ug ngadto sa police station, dli
gyud na ma-appreciate ang voluntary surrender. The
Supreme Court, in this case, made a summary of the cases
involving voluntary surrender where there is a warrant of
arrest. Here and now, we reiterate the rule that review is
allowed only in apparently void judgments. Petitioner is
correct in saying that in People v. Cagas and in People v.
Taraya, the Court added a fourth requisite before
"voluntary surrender" may be appreciated in favor of
the accused that there is no pending warrant of
arrest or information filed. Since the warrant of arrest
had been issued, petitioner insists that arrest was imminent
and the "surrender" could not be considered "voluntary." In
Cagas, after the stabbing incident, the accused ran to the

upper portion of the cemetery where a police officer caught
up with him. Thereupon, he voluntarily gave himself up. Of
course, no voluntary surrender. In Taraya, notwithstanding
such surrender and confession to the police, the Court
refused to appreciate the mitigating circumstance in his
favor. Nakapatay sya sa Santander, dri sya nisurrender sa Cebu City, voluntary surrender na nga
wa mn sya mu-surrender sa dapit where the crime
was committed? Is that voluntary surrender? Yes.
Bisag asa ka pang dapita basta voluntary surrender.
Place is not important.
ANTI-GRAFT (RA 3019) SEC. 3 (G). Dba even a private
person may be charged (not clear) to the Sandiganbayan if
there is conspiracy with public officers or employees.
Ang nahitabo ni Henry Go, kiha sya together with the public
officer. The court ruled, dli mn ni sya public officer o di ba
wa mn ni makasa nga public officer. What is the
consequence ngadto ni Mr. GO? Natural, ma-absolve sd sya
kay kung conspiracy, ang imong co-conspirator maacquitted kay di public official, unya asa may conspiracy
with the public officer? None. The acquittal of Rivera means
that there was no public officer who allegedly violated Sec.
3 (g). RA 3019. There being no public officer, it follows that
the private individual such as herein petitioner Go could not
be said to have conspired with such public officer.
GUSICAO V. CHING (APRIL 16, 2009). Medyo dinhi nga
punto, nagkagubot ang Supreme Court. Nagduda na sila sa
validity sa Rules of Court, Criminal Procedure, kining BP
22 unya deemed instituted ang civil action. Timan-i ha.
ONE BOUNCED CHECK MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF 2
CASES. The complainant may file one case under BP
22. Under the Rules of Court, the civil liability arising
from BP 22 is deemed instituted and you cannot file a
separate civil action. This is the reason why under BP 22,
you have to pay docket and other lawful fees. In addition
to BP 22, the complainant using the same check may
also file a case for estafa under RPC, Art. 315 (2) (d).
Because this is estafa, the complainant may file a
separate civil action either arising from crime or from
other sources of obligation. Perte nang daghana sa kaso.
Question, is there forum shopping? None, there is no forum
shopping because one is a civil case, the other, a criminal
case. In the case of Ching, mas complicated ni kay duha
ang gikiha, ang nagpirma sa cheke ug ang corporation.
Gikiha sa cheke, corporation. Ang nagpirma, di mn na sya
corporation, employee ra mn, gikiha sd. So dinhi na
giquestion sa Supreme Court ang wisdom sa Rules of Court
on filing of civil cases. So it said, under the amended Rules
on Bouncing Checks (amended kadtong deemed instituted
and no separate civil action) the previous option to directly
pursue the civil liability against the corporation that incurred
the obligation is no longer that clear. The civil action
impliedly instituted in BP 22 action is only civil
liability of the signatory and not of the corporation.
So naay distinction. Dba pananglitan ang tag-iya gyud sa
cheke corporation, nya ikaw igo ra ka nipirma, either officer
ba kas corporation or empleyado ba ka, manager ba ka. So
there is a distinction. When we talk of civil liability
arising from BP 22, nga no separate civil action is
allowed, against na na sya sa nipirma, but not against
the corporation. If we conclude as we should that under
the current Rules of Criminal Procedure the civil action that
is impliedly instituted in the BP 22 action is only the civil
liability of the signatory and not that of the corporation
itself, the distinctness of the cause of action against the
signatory and against the corporation is rendered beyond
dispute. It follows that the actions involving those liabilities
should be adjudged according to their respective standards
and merits. In the BP 22 case, what the trial court should
determine, whether or not the signatory have signed the
signed the check with knowledge of the insufficiency of
funds, etc. While in the civil case, the trial court should
ascertain whether the obligation itself is valid and
demandable.
Courts 2 prevailing concerns regarding the amended
Rules on BP 22. There are two prevailing concerns should
civil recovery against the corporation be pursued even as
the B.P. Blg. 22 case against the signatory remains extant.
First, the possibility that the plaintiff might be awarded the
amount of the check in both the B.P. Blg. 22 case and in the
civil action against the corporation. For obvious reasons,
that should not be permitted. Considering that petitioner

herein has no chance to recover the amount of the check
through the B.P. Blg. 22 case, we need not contend with
that possibility through this case. Nonetheless, as a matter
of prudence, it is best we refer the matter to the Committee
on Rules for the formulation of proper guidelines to prevent
that possibility. The other concern is over the payment
of filing fees, etc. So expect an amendment on Rules of
Court on BP 22.
BARTOLO V. SANDIGANBAYAN (APRIL 16, 2009). The
term fraud as used in Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 3019 is
understood in its generic sense, which is, referring to an
instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when
involving misrepresentation.
VILLANUEVA V. PDI (MAY 15, 2009). The complaint
here was denominated for damages (mao na sa caption).
But the perusal of its content reveals that the factual
allegations constitute a complaint for damages based
on Malicious Prosecution. The fact that petitioner later on
changed its theory to quasi-delict does not change the
nature of petitioners complaint. The complaint remains to
be one for damages.
Under current state of our jurisprudence, to be considered
malicious, the libelous statement must be shown to have
been written or published with the knowledge that they are
false or in reckless disregard of whether they are false or
not. In libel, there is a doctrine RECKLESS DISREGARD
DOCTRINE. Reckless disregard of what is false or not,
means that the author or publisher entertains serious
doubt as to the truth of the publication or that it possesses
a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity.
Suppose it turned out to be false, sigurado ba gyud ta na
maconvicted for libel kay false ang outcome? Not
necessarily. Even assuming that the contents of the
articles turned to be false, mere error in accuracy or
even falsity does not prove actual malice. Errors or
misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly
free expression and debate. Consistent with good faith
and reasonable care, the press should not be held to
account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or
imperfections in the choice of language. Likewise, in our
view respondents failure to counter-check their report or
present their informant should not be a reason to hold them
liable.
Question, permissible ba na nga ang reporter one side
lang ang iyang paminawan. Is that permissible? One side
ra ang paminawan nya. Ok ba na sa atong jurisprudence.
Kanang
gitawag
nga
BALANCED
REPORTING.
Muinterview gani kang X, interviewhon pud nmo si Y para
mabalanse. Liable ba ka kung usa ra imong gipaminaw.
The answer is no. Bisag usa ray paminawon. Of
course, naay rason. While substantiation of the facts
supplied is an important reporting standard, still, a
reporter may rely on information given by a lone
source although it reflects only one side of the story
provided the reporter does not entertain a high
degree of awareness of [its] probable falsity. So ang
depensa gyud nya, usa ra bitaw ang akong gi-interview
pero sigurado mn ko nga kadto gisulti nya tinood. Wa mn
koy doubt. So walay libel.
TAPANON V. PEOPLE. What is the meaning of to
misappropriate? To misappropriate for ones own use
includes not only conversion to ones personal advantage,
but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without right. The profit or gain must be obtained by the
accused personally through his own acts and his mere
negligence in permitting another to take advantage or
benefit from the entrusted charter cannot constitute estafa
and is the evidence to disclose that the agent acted in
conspiracy or in connivance with the one who carried out
the actual misappropriation. So atong i-compare ang
estafa ug malversation. Gihatag nmo sa laing tawo, gientrust nmo, unya gibaligya, liable ka ba for estafa? Dli,
private funds. There must be evidence of conspiracy nga niconspire ka sa gihatagan nmo nga inyong ibaligya ang
property. Pero sa malversation, lahi, bisag wa paka
mu-gain, gi-entrust nmo ang public funds to another
person, gitulis to sya o iyang gibulsa, liable gihapon
ang public officer even if he did not gain a single
centavos because
negligence.
there
is
malversation
through
Kining buy BUST OPERATION, KINING BLOTTER

REPORT NOT NECESSARY. FLUORESCENT POWDER,
(not clear), not necessary.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE. CANEDA V. PEOPLE
(JULY 2003). Dinhi gi-apply ang 9344 (Juvenile Justice
Law) retroactively, favorable to the accused. The age of the
accused is critical for purposes of entitlement to exemption.
CHING V. SY. The rule is that upon the filing of estafa and
BP 22 cases against respondents where the petitioner has
not made any waiver, express reservation to litigate
separately or has not instituted the corresponding civil
action to collect the amount of P600,000 and damage prior
to the criminal action, the civil action is deemed instituted
with the criminal action. The possible single civil liability
arising from the act of issuing a bouncing check can be the
subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the
estafa case and the prosecution for the violation of BP 22
simultaneously available to the complaining party without
traversing the prohibition against forum shopping.
JACINTO V. PEOPLE. Mao na ni ang sinugdanan sa
Valenzuela case. The personal property subject of the
theft must have some value as the intention of the
accused is to gain from the thing stolen. Ingon ani ang
nahitabo. Nangawat sya ug cheke. Unya gi-encash ang
cheke. Untol mn. So gi-entrap sya. Gi-ingnan sya nga amo
nang replace-an ug cash. So gi-entrap sa NBI. Sugot sd.
Iya sd gidawat ang cash. Question, liable ba sya ug theft?
Ang first issue sayon ra kaayong tubagon. Pagkuha nya sa
cheke, gikawat nya, duna may grave abuse of confidence.
Gi-encash, untol, there is no theft ingon sa Supreme
Court. Why? No value man. Ang theft kinahanglan
naay value although ang opinion sa ubang authors
kung basahon ninyo nang Boado unsa pa na dha,
kung kawaton nmong cheke nga stale kay theft kuno
na ug property worth P5.00. But in this case, ingon
ang Supreme Court, no, wa toy theft because a stale
check has no value. Unya ni-argue mn sd ang state,
no kay ngano mn nga iya mn sd gidawat ang
replacement sa niuntol nga cheke. Liable gihapon
syag theft. Supreme Court said she is not liable for
theft. Supreme Court said, in this case, petitioner
unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to (not
clear) but the same was apparently without value as
it was subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question
arises on whether the crime of qualified theft was
actually produced.
Gi-cite nila ang Valenzuela v. People. Under the definition
of theft in Art. 308 of the RPC, there is only one
operative act of execution by the actor involved in
theft the taking of personal property of another.
The fact that petitioner was later entrapped preceding
the P5,000 marked money which he thought was the
cash replacement for the dishonored check is of no
moment. Since the crime of theft is not a continuing
offense. Kung continuing pa, sa pagdawat kuno nya sa
replacement, theft ang kaso. Pero ang theft is not a
continuing crime like kidnapping, continuing mn nang
kidnapping. There can be no question that as of the time
the petitioner took possession of the check meant for
Megaphone, she has performed all the acts to consummate
the crime of theft had it not been impossible of
accomplishment in this case. Murag gipasabot sa
Supreme Court impossible crime. Since the crime of
theft is not a continuing offense, petitioners act of receiving
of the cash replacement should not be considered as a
continuation of the theft.
PATRIDO V. PEOPLE. Actual gain is irrelevant as the
important consideration is the intent to gain. There
may be theft even the accused has possession of the
property. Kabawo namo ani. Kung ang natransfer material
possession lang, dli juridical, nya gidala, thats theft.
__________ V. PEOPLE. Kung pananglitan, dunay
CONSPIRACY, kinahanglan ba gyud the following words
will appear in the information, conspiracy, conspired with or
in conspiracy with? No. in other words, if Wala na nga
words either, duna bay conspiracy? Yes, provided facts
and circumstances in support of conspiracy is alleged,

like use of the following words, participate in and
facilitate. Duna na syay conspiracy although the word
conspiracy does not apply.
PEOPLE V. ESTACIO. KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER. If
the purpose of kidnapping or asporting is to kill, that is the
main purpose, the crime is murder. If the main purpose is to
kidnap and the he was later killed, complex crime of
kidnapping with murder (art. 267, last paragraph).
Ang Supreme Court ni-acknowledge gyud sa daghan kay
ang acquittal sa DANGEROUS DRUGS cases on reasonable
doubt. Nakita nla. Perting gyung daghana. Ila ra mn sang
sayop kay kanang Sec. 21 is liberally construed in favor of
the accused. The latest jurisprudence on illegal drugs cases
shows a growing trend in acquittals based on reasonable
doubt. Remember Sec. 21. What are the requirements? (1)
There must be marking at the scene of the crime. (2)
There must be photographing. Iphotograph gyud ang
dangerous drugs. (3) There must be inventory. (4)
The dangerous drug must be delivered to the
laboratory for examination within 24 hours. (5) The
photographing, the marking must be done in the
presence of the accused or his representative, in the
presence of representatives of the media, local
government unit and DOJ.
PHOTOKINA V. BENIPAYO. Di ba sa Sandiganbayan law,
naanad na gyud ta sa jurisprudence nga bisan pag unsa nga
crime, dli bribery, dli corruption, dli Anti-Graft, basta
committed in relation to office, Sandiganbayan gyud
na. Murder? Di mn na sya crime against public office,
against person mn na. Pananglitan, aning kasuha. LIBEL
COMMITTED IN RELATION TO OFFICE, kinsa may mutrial? Sandiganbayan or RTC? Supreme Court said, this
time, RTC because the law says RPC gyud ni sya. Muprevail ang RPC over Sandiganbayan law. The grant to
the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses committed
in relation to office similar to the expansion of the
jurisdiction of the MTC did not divest the RPC of its exclusive
and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases
regardless of whether the offense is committed in relation to
office. The broad and general phraseology of Section 4,
Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act
No. 8249, cannot be construed to have impliedly repealed,
or even simply modified, such exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Kini sd ang mga human rights advocates ni-argue gyud sila.
Usa gani sa ni-argue si Chiz Escudero nga kining balaod sa
RPC nga VAGRANCY unconstitutional na sya kay murag
gisilutan ang pobre nga naglakaw-lakaw sa karsada
nagkagidlay ang sinina. So unconstitutional kuno ang
vagrancy. Supreme Court ruled its constitutional. It
said vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be
considered constitutionally offensive. Article 202 (2) does
not violate the equal protection clause; neither does it
discriminate
against
the
poor
and
the
unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are
punished not for their status, as for being poor or
unemployed, but for conducting themselves under
such circumstances as to endanger the public peace
or
cause
alarm
and
apprehension
in
the
community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a
justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral
conduct. It is a public order crime which punishes persons
for conducting themselves, at a certain place and time
which orderly society finds unusual, under such conditions
that are repugnant and outrageous to the common
standards and norms of decency and morality. So Art. 202
(2) is presumed constitutional as an obvious police power
measure. Article 202 (2) must therefore be viewed in a
constitutional light.
SOMBILON V. PEOPLE (SEPTEMBER 20, 2009). ACTS
OF LASCIVIOUSNESS. Unsa may kinahanglan ani? Force,
intimidation. Ang intimidation, kinahanglan ba nga
irresistible? Supreme Court, citing People v. Victor,
answered in the negative, it being sufficient that some
compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or
subdues the free exercise the will of the offended party. So
acts of lasciviousness, not necessary that the intimidation
be irresistible.
REMANDO V. COMELEC. Kung pananglitan security guard,

naa sya sa premises. Nigawas ra sya gamay sa pultahan,
dakpon ba sya ug illegal possession ? Not liable.
DUARTE V. PEOPLE. (ISL) In determining the minimum
penalty, the law confers upon the courts in fixing the
penalties the widest discretion that the courts have ever
had. The determination of the minimum term is left entirely
with the discretion of the court to fix it anywhere within the
range of the penalty next lower without reference to the
periods into which it may be subdivided.
YUCHENGCO V. MANILA CHRONICLE. Distinction
between MALICE IN FACT AND MALICE IN LAW. There
is actual malice when there is either knowledge of the
publications falsity or reckless disregard of whether the
contents of the publication were false or not.
IN
DANGEROUS
DRUGS
CASES,
THE
NONPRESENTATION OF THE FORENSIC CHEMIST IS AN
INSUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR ACQUITTAL.
CRIM 26
In one bar examination, there was a question WHO IS
RAFAEL DELFAN? His work was adopted by the Code
Commission. He drafted a correctional code which was after
the Spanish Codigo Penal, it was extended to the
Philippines.
What is Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory? The
primary purpose of the punishment under the Revised Penal
Code is the protection of society from actual and potential
wrongdoers.
Then
CHARACTERISTICS
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW,
generality, it has no reference to territory but to persons
that may be covered by the law. It means that the criminal
law of the country covers all persons within the country.
This is subject to certain exceptions brought about by treaty
stipulations and international agreements. Example R.A 75
exempting diplomats from local law and legislation as well
as international law on ambassadors and public ministers.
Territoriality, penal laws have force and effect only within
its territory. This deals with situs of the act or place where
penal law is applicable. Question: do we have over crimes
committed in economic zones which is 200 miles from the
low watermark. Since it is considered part of Philippine
territory, the answer must be in the affirmative, subject of
course to right of innocent passage. Territoriality is also
subject to certain exceptions brought about by treaties or
international
agreements,
example,
Visiting
Forces
Agreement which is also ratified by the US Congress.
Then prospectivity, acts or omissions will only be subject
to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had
already taken effect. Exception, whenever a new statute
dealing with crimes establishes conditions more lenient or
favorable to the accused. So apply the new law. Exception
to the exception, where the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions.
Going back to territoriality, you also read Human Security
Act or the Anti-terrorism Law. Terrorism may be
committed against a person of Filipino descent, meaning
former Filipino who is already an American citizen or British
national, and then he is a victim of terrorism even if the
crime is committed outside Philippine territorial jurisdiction,
Philippine courts may take cognizance of the case if the
culprit is arrested in the Philippines.
Take note also of the Latin (Leytin) Maxims: actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit reas - the act cannot be criminal
where the mind is not criminal. Then Doctrine of Pro Reo
applied in at least three cases by the Supreme Court
sometime in 2001, 2006 and 2008, whenever a penal law is
to be construed or applied and the law is susceptible of two
interpretations, one lenient and the other strict, of course
you apply leniency in favor of the accused.
Then classification of crimes as to commission, as to
stage of execution, as to gravity, as to count.
Then they may also be classified into formal felonies,

those which are always consummated; there is no
attempted.
Material felonies those which have various stages of
execution: attempted, frustrated and consummated.
Then those which do not admit of frustrated stage like
rape, there is no frustrated rape, there is no frustrated
theft.
Then mala in se and mala prohibita. In se, acts or
omissions which are inherently evil. Generally, crimes mala
in se are found under the RPC. Mala prohibita, made evil
because there is a law prohibiting it. Crimes mala prohibita
generally refers to violations of special laws. But not all
violations of special laws are mala prohibita, even if the
crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is
one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se,
therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent is a good
defense unless it is a product of criminal negligence or
culpa. Examples of special laws which are considered mala
in se like P.D. 532, Piracy in Philippine Waters, Brigandage
under 532. Plunder is mala in se, according to the SC
because the predicate crime constituting plunder are mala
in se, taken from the RPC.
When special laws require that the punished act be
committed that the knowingly, willfully, criminal intent is
required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.
Common mistake of prosecutors if they prepare information
for violation of R.A 9165, knowingly, willfully, feloniously,
wrong because 9165 is not a felony. If a special law uses
the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, that alone will
not make the act or omission a crime mala in se. There are
special laws which adopt terms under the RPC, they use
also attempted, frustrated, consummated like for example
R.A.8424: Access Devise Law. There are also special penal
laws which use the words reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal but does not necessarily follow that they are mala
in se. Special law may only intend therefore to apply
suppletorily.
You should distinguish crime under the RPC and crimes
under special aw. RPC-mala in se, special laws-mala
prohibita. As to moral trait of offender, RPC-moral trait is
considered, special laws-moral trait not considered, it is
enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. Then
as to use of good faith, RPC-good faith is a defense, not a
defense in mala prohibita. As to degree of accomplishment
of the crime, RPC-attempted, frustrated, consummated,
special laws-always consummated, no attempted, no
frustrated. As to aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
RPC-considered, special laws-not considered. As to degree
of participation, RPC-principal, accessories and accomplice,
special laws-degreee of participation is not considered.
Art. 2. Application of its provisions.
General law: enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone. In one bar exam, gikan sa outer space,
ang object nahulog, liable ba ang tag-iya didto sa satellite? I
forgot the correct answer! (hahaha)
The exceptions: Crimes committed outside the Philippine
territory may be crime here:
1. Committing an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship. Do not consider the nationality of the owner,
consider the registration. Philippine ship is registered in
accordance with Philippine law. Where do you register?
MARINA. If Philippine ship is on high seas, it is
considered as an extension of the Philippine territory,
hence, we should exercise of jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein
2. Forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine. Example:
sweepstake tickets, lotto
3. Acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the presiding number. Here the accused need not be
the counterfeiter but is responsible for the introduction

of the obligations and the securities
4. Public officers or employees should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions. Like a consul
or ambassador committing malversation public funds or
properties abroad.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code. If a rebel is operating outside
Philippine territory, may he be prosecuted here in the
Philippines assuming that hes now inside Philippine
territorial jurisdiction but the overt act was committed
outside? If we follow strictly Article 2, the answer is no
because rebellion is not a crime against national
security, it is a crime against public order.
2 recognized rules on jurisdiction over merchant vessels:
French Rule and English Rule, we adopt English Rule.
Title One
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions punishable by law
are felonies (delitos). Meaning, the RPC. It may be
committed by means of deceit or by means of fault.
What is an act? It refers to any kind of body movement that
produces change in the outside world. The act must be an
external act which has a direct connection to the felony
intended to be committed. There must be a law requiring a
certain act to be performed because if there is no law then
there is no crime. There is no crime where there is no law
punishing it.
Requisites of culpa: 1) criminal negligence on the part of
the offender; 2) freedom of action on the part of the
offender; 3)intelligence on the part of the offender. If a
person is forced to shoot somebody, there is no criminal
liability for lack of freedom of action. If an insane kills
another, there is no liability for lack of intelligence. What
crimes cannot be committed through culpa? Murder,
treason,
robbery,
malicious
mischief.
Meaning
of
voluntariness, it is the concurrence of freedom of action,
negligence and the fact that the act was intentional. Without
voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa. Hence, there is
no felony. Culpable felonies require voluntariness.
Crimes which may be committed even without intent: 1)
Product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, etc. 2)
when the crime is prohibited act under a special law, alum
prohibitum.
Please take note of the meaning of mens rea. It is referred
to as the gravamen of the offense. It depends upon the
elements of the crime. It can only be determined by
knowing the particular crime committed. Like in thefttaking, falsification-effecting of forgery, robbery-taking of
property; there is intimidation or violence, in B.P. 22issuanceof bouncing check.
What is intent? Refers to use of a particular means to effect
the desired result; intent is the mental state the existence
of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of the person. So
if a person raises a bolo, and is ready to strike it, what else
is his intent? It is not to tickle you! (hahaha!)
Characteristics: general grand (not sure) intent: presumed
from the mere doing of the wrong act which does not
require proof. If A stabs B, there is a presumption of intent
to kill. The defense should justify the act. Then specific
criminal intent: not presumed because it is an ingredient or
element of a crime, for example, attempted or frustrated
homicide. There must be intention to kill because if there is
no intention to kill, the crime may only be serious physical
injuries. The prosecution has the burden of establishing
specific criminal intent.
You should distinguish intent from discernment. Intent is
the determination to do a certain thing and aim or purpose
of the mind while discernment is the mental capacity to
determine right from wrong. Under R.A. 9344, a 17-year old
minor may be exempt from criminal liability if he did not act
with discernment.
Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person

to a desired result. You should distinguish motive from
intent. Motive moving power, intent-use of a particular
means. Motive-crime may be committed without motive, in
fact it is not the task of the prosecution to prove motive.
Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an
element of deliberate felony. There are instances where
motive is material, for example, there is doubt whether the
accused committed the crime. If X and Y quarrel before Y
was shot to death the following day and the suspects are Z
and X, who among the 2 has the motive to kill.
Factors that affect intent: mistake of fact, abberatio ictus,
error in personae, praeter intentioni, proximate cause.
Mistake of fact is that which that had the facts been true to
the belief of the offender, his act can be justified; it is such
mistake that will negate criminal liability because of the
absence of intent. Mistake refers to the situation itself, not
the identity of the person. Mistake of fact is only a defense
in intentional felony, not in culpable felony.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. You just read Article 4. What are
the situations contemplated under the first paragraph?
There are three situations: 1) abberatio ictus or mistake in
the blow, 2) error in personae or mistake in identity, 3)
praeter intentionim or where the consequence exceeded the
intention.
Abberatio ictus offender intends the injury on one person
but the harm fell on another. It generally gives rise to a
complex crime so the penalty for the more serious crime is
imposed in the maximum period. The only time when a
complex crime may not result in abberatio ictus is when one
of the resulting felonies is a light felony. Error in personae
involves only one offended party but the offender
committed a mistake in ascertaining the identity of the
victim. The intended victim was not at the scene of the
crime, it was the actual victim upon whom the blow was
directed. There are only two persons present in error in
personae, the actual but unintended victim and the
offender.
You should distinguish abberatio ictus from error in
personae. Abberatio ictus a person directed the blow at an
intended victim but because of poor (not clear) that blow
landed on somebody else while error in personae victim
actually received the blow but he was mistaken for another
who was not at the scene of the crime. Abberatio ictus the
intended victim as well as the actual victim are all at the
scene of the crime. Error in personae there are only two
persons present, the actual but the unintended victim and
the offender. Abberatio ictus generally gives rise to a
complex crime, error in personae, the provision of Article 49
applies.
Praeter intentionim, the injury is on the intended victim but
the resulting consequence was so grave a wrong than what
was intended. Please take note that praeter intentionim
does not apply in one special penal law: hazing; lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong is not applicable.
There must be a notable disparity between the means
employed and the resulting felony, mitigating, particularly
covered by paragraph 3, Article 13. Intention of the
offender is not what is in his mind in which he committed
the crime.
Article 4, paragraph 1, the act that is the proximate cause
of the resulting felony. That cause which into motion other
causes and which unbroken by any efficient supervening
cause produces the felony from which such felony could not
have resulted, he who is the cause of the cause is the evil of
the cause. (sounds familiar erns!haha). Offender is
criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act
although not intended. Proximate cause is not necessarily
the immediate cause; it may be the cause which is far and
remote from the consequence which sets into motion other
causes which resulted in the felony, as long as the act of the
accused contributed to the death of the victim even if the
victim is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious
act of putting to death that victim. Proximate cause does
not require that the offender needs to actually touch the
body of the offended party, it is enough that the offender
generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that
him rest himself. Asked in the bar this week, two accused
boarded jeepney, gitiunan ug pistol, ang niambak lain na
pasahero, patay, liable for homicide? Yes, because it was
deemed instilled in the mind of the passenger although he

was not the one who was robbed.
Impossible crime, any person performing an act which could
an offense against persons or property, were if not for the
inherent possibility of each accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Requisites: 1) acts performed would be an offense against
persons or property, 2) with evil intent; this is the reason
why impossible crime is punished, 3) accomplishment
inherently impossible, means employed inadequate or
ineffectual, 4) act performed should not constitute another
violation of the RPC.
Inherent impossibility means that under any and all
circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. (By
the way, isubmit kuno ang attendance, kay murag mukiling
ang barko, dire dapita{?} gamay ra kayo, kung barko pa
ni, wana lunod na ta!)
2 kinds of inherent impossibility: 1) legal impossibility
where the intended acts even if completed would not
amount to a crime, e.g. killing a dead person, 2) physical
impossibility where extraneous circumstances unknown to
the accused prevent the consummation of the intended
crime, e.g. pick-pocketing an empty wallet. The reason for
penalizing impossible crime committed by the offender is to
teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity.
Puwede ra sad insertan duol kayo na answer: criminal
tendency.
CRIM 27:
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. MASING. Jurisdiction of
the Ombudsman over all administrative disciplinary
authority in accord with the Constitution. There is a special
law known as the Magna Carta for School Teachers. One
of the teachers here was charged for violation of 6713
(Code of Conduct). The issue is which has jurisdiction over
the administrative case, the DECS or the Office of the
Ombudsman.
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
notwithstanding the Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers, Ombudsman has jurisdiction.
REPUBLIC, REPRESENTED BY THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING
COUNCIL
V.
GLASGOW
CREDIT
(JANUARY 18, 2008). The court cannot motu proprio
dismiss an anti-money laundering case on ground of
improper venue. Venue of civil forfeiture cases in money
laundering is any of the RTC of the judicial region. There are
2 conditions in applying for civil forfeiture. (1) When there is
a suspicious transaction (naa nay ceiling. P500,000 per
banking day) or a covered transaction report. (2) A
petition must be filed related to said report.
Under the Anti-Money Laundering Law, there are predicate
crimes or unlawful activities. If you commit one of the
unlawful activities or predicate crimes and you launder your
money, youll be charged of two crimes the predicate
crime (like jueteng, masiao or anti-graft) plus the moneylaundering crime. But you may be charged for moneylaundering even before conviction of the predicate crime or
unlawful activity. Pareha lang sa terrorism. Dba naa may
predicate crime? Ang hatagan ug preference sa terrorism
ang predicate crime. In anti-money laundering law, a
criminal conviction for unlawful activity is not a
prerequisite for the institution of a civil forfeiture
proceeding. A finding of guilt for an unlawful activity is not
an essential element of civil forfeiture.
How do you
characterize forfeiture proceedings under the Anti-Money
Laundering Law? Rememeber, if you launder money, there
are THREE STEPS IN LAUNDERING. THE FIRST IS
INTEGRATION, ABSORPTION THEN THE LAST STAGE
IS INTEGRATION (???). How do you characterize
forfeiture proceedings? In rem. So it may be made by
publication.
SERANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN. 19-year-old student, UP
Lahug. Hannah Eunice Serana. She was appointed member
of the board of regents of UP then she committed estafa as
member of the board in relation to office in conspiracy with
her younger brother. She was charged before the
Sandiganbayan. She questioned the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan She said, I am a tuition-fee-paying
student. I am not receiving a salary from UP. I am not even
given honorarium. Snacks ra gyuy ako every meeting. So I
am not a public officer. Supreme Court said, you are a

public officer because salary is not an element of a
public office. You may be a public officer without
receiving anything from the government. Thats the
same case of Salvador Laurel when he was appointed
in that Centennial Commission. Ingon sya, honorary
ra mn ni ako. Supreme Court said, Laurel is a public
officer.
Plainly, ESTAFA is one of those felonies within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin
requirements that the offense is committed by public
officials and employees mentioned in Sec. 4 (a) and
the offense is committed in relation to office.
Did I discuss that case libel committed in relation to office.
Gikiha syag libel in relation to office. Issue, public officer
sya. Which court has jurisdiction? Sandiganbayan or RTC?
RTC because RPC is specific. Sandiganbayan law is general.
So Supreme Court said in this case, a UP student regent is
a public officer. Public office is the right, authority and
duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the
creating power, an individual is invested with some portion
of the sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public. So UP is
exercising or is invested with some portion of the sovereign
functions of the government.
It is not only the salary grade that determines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It is well established that
compensation is not an essential element of public office. At
most, it is merely incidental to the public office. The
administration of the UP is a sovereign function in line with
Article XIV of the Constitution.
TIONG V. BALBOA. There is identity of parties and causes
of action between a civil case for the recovery of sum of
money as a result of the issuance of bouncing checks, and a
criminal case for the prosecution of a B.P. No. 22 violation.
ARSON. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON. There are 2 kinds of
arson under PD 1613 siimple arson and destructive
arson. The qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
information. So if it is residential and commercial
building located in an urban and populated area , the
same must be alleged in the information. It is clear that the
place of the commission of the crime was a residential and
commercial building located in an urban and populated
area. This qualifying circumstance places the offense
squarely within the ambit of Section 2(7) of P.D. 1613, and
converts it to destructive arson.
PEOPLE V. MONTINOLA. SEC. 5 (B), REPUBLIC ACT
7610. This is lascivious conduct and sexual abuse. Sec. 5
(b) is different from Sec. 10 (other acts of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to
childs development). There are cases distinguishing
Sec. 5 (b) which is sexual abuse and Sec. 10, other
acts. Ang keywords ani, neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to childs
development (NACEO). Elements under Sec. 5 (b): (1) the
accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3)
the child is below 18 years old.
VALERA V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Under RA
6713, there is a definition of family. Question, apil ba ang
brother-in-law sa family? Answer is yes. We need not look
beyond the provisions of R.A. No. 3019 to hold that a
brother-in-law falls within the definition of family under
Section 3(d).
VALEROSO V. PEOPLE. Kining illegal possession of
fiream, pwde ba maconvicted without presenting the
firearm in court? The answer is in the affirmative. The
existence of an unlicensed firearm may be established
by testimony, even without its presentation at trial.
There may also be conviction where an unlicensed firearm is
presented during trial but through inadvertence, negligence,
or fortuitous event (for example, if it is lost), it is not
offered in evidence, as long as there is competent
testimony as to its existence.
MOSTER V. PEOPLE. Ni-bounce ang check, dishonored. So

in one case, ni-present sya ug evidence. Gipangutana sya
sa lawyer, direct examination, did you send letters of
demand? Yes, three times. Ang lawyer pa gyud ang
nagpadala sa letter or notice of dishonor. Gi-convict sa
MTC, RTC, CA. Gi-acquit sa Supreme Court. Why? There
was no evidence of receipt. The registry receipt and the
return card must be authenticated. Kining pirma dinhi,
kang kinsa mn ni? Sa accused ni o dli? Wa kaprubar,
acquitted. So unsa may ebidensya gipangita? Certification
from the Post Master that the notice of dishonor was
received by the accused. Nganong strikto mn ang notice of
dishonor? Because the best defense of the accused is
payment within 5 banking days from receipt of dishonor. Di
pa na mulapas ang 5 days, di pa na sya makiha kay naa pa
mn syay chance to make good the check or arrange to the
bank.
PEOPLE V. ABON. If the penalty would have been
death, downgraded ngadto sa reclusion perpetua
kung RPC, life imprisonment kung Special Penal Law .
Automatic review by the Court of Appeals per People
v. Mateo. What is that case? Intermediate review. If the
penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, there is
no automatic review; you must file a notice of appeal. Since
death penalty is prohibited, life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.
ANOTHER POINT, IF THE PENALTY WOULD HAVE
BEEN DEATH, WHAT IS THE CIVIL LIABILITY ? It is
civil liability for death, not civil liability for reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment. Wa mu-affect sa civil
liability, sa penalty lang.
Kining POSSESSION BY THE TELLER OF DEPOSIT FROM
THE PUBLIC, kung iyang ibulsa, the case is qualified
theft, not estafa because possession by the teller is
possession by the bank. Unsa may gi-transfer? Material
possession only, not juridical possession.
PEOPLE V. ISAAC. Unsa may diprensya kung naay
jeepney giaabangan unya gibaligya sa nag-abang ug ang
jeepney nga gidrayban sa regular nga driver iyang
gibaligya? Whats the difference? Kung ang driver
mubaligya, qualified theft kay material possession lang ang
gi-transfer. Kung hirer sya jeepney ug iyang gibaligya,
estafa because what was transferred was juridical
possession. The court convicted a jeepney driver of theft
and not estafa when he did not receive juridical possession
from its owner although physically held by the driver. Court
reasoned that the court was not a lessee or hirer of the
jeepney.
NICOLAS
V.
SANDIGANBAYAN.
ARRIOLA
V.
SANDIGANBAYAN. SEC. 3 (E), RA 3019. Kung hisgutan
gani bad faith or partiality, the bad faith or partiality must
be evident or manifest. Kung negligence ganing gihisgutan,
it must be gross and inexcusable. Kani murag stray decision
ni sya. Na-absolve ang respondent sa administrative case.
Supreme Court said he was not guilty of bad faith and
neglect of duty. Ingon ang Supreme Court stare decisis
kuno ni. Sa ato pa, ang civil aspect, ma-dismiss because of
the decision in the administrative case. Although usually,
muingon mn gyud nga lahi ng administrative case, lahi sd
ng criminal.
PEOPLE V. ANSON-ONG AND SEVERAL OTHER CASES.
OBJECTIVE TEST IN BUY-BUST OPERATION. The
prosecution must present a complete picture detailing the
buy-bust operation starting from initial contact to offer to
purchase then payment and consummation of transaction of
sale. If its sale, is presentation of buy-bust money
indispensable? The answer is no. You can convict a person
of selling even without presenting the money. Whats
important is evidence of exchange of money for dangerous
drug.
RAPE OF A PERSON SUFFERING FROM MENTAL
DISABILITY. Maoy gi-allege sa information. So pareha ra
na sya ug statutory rape. Consensual rape, for example,
with a girl less than 12 years old. Dba statutory mn na?
Kung suffering from mental disability, statutory lang
gihapon. Ang diperensya lang kay wa sya maconvicted for
statutory rape because the information failed to allege that
he knew that the girl was suffering from mental disability.

Kay qualifying circumstance mn na, it must be alleged in
the information.
PEOPLE V. ABON. (GIBALIK!) In case where the Court of
Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a
lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing
such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by notice of appeal.
Kining ELECTRIC PILFERAGE ACT, naay provision nga
dunay automatic disconnection kung nasakpan mong nagtamper sa meter unya ang representative sa electric
company accompanied by a police officer. In one case the
accused was not present although the police officer and the
representative were there. Supreme Court said no
automatic disconnection. There is no prima facie
presumption of electric pilferage.
BP 22. Receipts for registered letter and return receipts do
not themselves prove receipt, as they must be properly
authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letters
claimed to be a notice of dishonor. Prosecution merely
presented a copy of the demand letter allegedly sent to the
petitioner through registered mail and the registry return
card. There was no attempt to authenticate or identify the
signature on the registry return card.
PEOPLE V. SORIANO. One information, several counts
of rape. Different dates. Counsel for accused failed to file
a motion to quash on ground of duplicity or multiplicity.
Kung i-convict unta, seven decisions, seven counts of rape.
Ang gibuhat ni judge, ang iyang decision, multiple rape.
Tama, mali? Mali. Kay individual rapes gyud na sya. We
note, however, that both the trial court and the appellate
court merely found the appellant guilty of multiple rape
without specifying the number of rapes that the appellant is
guilty of. Pero niingon ang Supreme Court, hinuon, bisan
pag pito ka reclusion perpetua, usa ra mn say kinabuhi sa
tawo, mao ra ang epekto. Pero ang diperensya mao ni, kay
kung seven ka rapes, seven civil liabilities.
In MALVERSATION, the public officer charged must be
an accountable officer, not just officer. What is the
meaning of accountable officer under the Government
Auditing Code. He is one who has custody or control of
public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.
He need not be a bonded official. The name or relative
importance of the office or employment is not controlling. In
this case, ang iyang gi-malverse nga property confiscated
logs. Kung ang DENR mu-confiscate ug logs, considered to
sila nga properties in custodia legis.
Another case involving ARSON. The confusion surrounding
arson has been confounded by the dearth (scarcity) of
annotation on this part of our penal law. Certainly, the law
on arson is one of the least commented in this jurisdiction.
Simple arson lang dri because the Supreme Court said the
failure of the information to allege that what was
intentionally burned was an inhabited house or dwelling.
FERMIN V. PEOPLE. Kini si Cristy Fermin, she is not only
the president but chairperson of publication. Ang iyang
reporters nag-report ug very libelous articles. So giapil syag
kiha. Ingon sya wa mn koy labot because the articles
were printed and published without by her knowledge
and consent. Supreme Court said, not good reason
because (1) you provided the facility or the means to
establish the article, (2) you had full control over the
publication. Unya, ang gi-invoke ni Cristy Fermin kadtong
People v. Beltran and Soliven nga decision sa Court of
Appeals. Ingon ang Supreme Court, do not invoke a
decision of Court of Appeals in that Soliven case.
Unfortunately, the Beltran decision attained finality at the
level of the CA.
Ngari sa BP 22, dunay PREFERENCE OF FINE OVER
IMPRISONMENT. The same policy sa libel. There is a
Supreme Court Circular 08-2008 (Guidelines in the
Observance of the Rule of Preference in the Imposition of
Fines in Libel Cases). But there is an EXCEPTION na
kinahanglan imprisonment gyud. (1) Whenever the
imposition of fine alone would depreciate the
seriousness of the offense. (2) It would work violence
on the social order. (3) It would be contrary to the
imperatives of justice. Pananglitan ang accused in BP 22

and libel dli kabayad sa fine, unsa may mahitabo?
Subsidiary imprisonment. So in one case BP 22, you can
suppletorily apply RPC provision bahin aning subsidiary
imprisonment. Ang kadtong giingon nko nga ang civil
liability, civil liability gyud sa death. So in one case, People
v. Antonio, the law only prohibited the imposition of death
penalty but did no affect the pecuniary or civil liabilities.
THE EQUIPOISE RULE. Where the evidence of the parties
in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of
the accused.
What happened in this case of MALANA ET AL V. PEOPLE?
Itsa sya ug granada directed sa 3 ka babaye. Gituyo gyud.
Patay ang usa, ang usa nabuhi kay fatal ang wound pero
nadoctoran ra mn. Ang usa way tatsa. What crime is
committed? Complex crime of murder, frustrated murder
and attempted murder. Murder kay by means of explosives.
Frustrated kadtong wa mamatay. Attempted bisan katong
way tatsa kay duna may intention to kill.
By the way, pananglitan nagtalikod ang tawo, gilabayan
ug granada, meaning, he had no means to defend
himself.
Naay
treachery?
Unsay
may
qualifying
circumstance ana kung imong himuon nga murder? By
means of explosive or treachery? Treachery maoy
gauna.
Kining
MUKIHA
KA,
CORPORATION,
pananglitan
bouncing checks law. Kinahanglang ang mupirma sa kiha
must be authorized by the board of directors.
Sa
ANTI-GRAFT
LAW
suspension is mandatory.
3019,
ang
preventive
SVENDSEN V. PEOPLE. The presentation of the

promissory note may be dispensed with in a prosecution for
violation of BP 22 as the purpose for the issuance of such
check is irrelevant in the determination of the accuseds civil
liability. ????
Overview on the Law On Arson. BUEBOS ET. AL. V.
PEOPLE. Ang gibutang sa information, the accused set on
fire the nipa roof of the house of Adelina Borbe. What is the
distinction between destructive arson and simple arson? The
nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple
Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the
criminal offender. Kining destructive arson, heinous crime.
How about simple arson? Simple Arson contemplates crimes
with less significant social, economic, political and national
security implications than Destructive Arson. Kung naay
mamatay, homicide ba ug murder, is it necessary to
present the certificate of identification of the dead body?
Supreme Court said no.
FERMIN CASE. A publisher is responsible for the
publication whether or not she had actual knowledge
thereof.
JAL V. SIMANGAN. Nisakay sya ug Japan Airlines, gibump off sya. Ah iyang gisaway ug maayo ang PAL
(supposed to be JAL) sa newspaper. Gikiha sya ug LIBEL.
Of course, di sya ma-liable kay kining air
transportation is imbued with public interest. Even
though an airlines is not a public official, the rule on
privileged communication on matters of public
interest applies to it.
GALVANTE V. HON. CASIMIRO. Ang accused public
officer searched a house without search warrant. So gikiha
sya, criminal case search without search warrant.
Tama? There is no such crime in the RPC or Special
Penal Law. Why? Tan-awa ninyo ang RPC, duha lang.
In connection with search warrant, search warrant
maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained AND searching domicile without
witnesses. Mao ra nay crime under search warrant. So
the court said, The conduct of warrantless search is not a
criminal act for it is not penalized under the Revised Penal
Code or any other special law. What the RPC punishes are
only two forms searches. Unsa may REMEDY sa offended
party? Administrative case, gross misconduct for
example against the respondent and damages under
Art. 32 of the Civil Code in relation to Art. 2219 (6)

and (10), Civil Code.
INFANTICIDE(?; dapat ABORTION). The husband
stabbed his wife. Mabdos 7 months. Patay ang wife, patay
sd ang fetus. What crime was committed? Complex crime
of parricide and unintentional abortion. Remember,
there is only one way of committing an intentional abortion
that is by means violence but ang violence, intentionally
inflicted. Kay pananglitan maglakaw ka Mr. De Los Santos
unya naay tupad nmo dha nga mabdos, gitud ka,
nabanggaan ang mabdos nya nakuhaan, ikaw diay sad-an
nga gibanggaan mn ka? There is violence but di mn to
intentional. Because by a single act, that of stabbing his
wife, appellant committed the grave felony of parricide as
well as less grave felony of unintentional fabortion.
THE RANGE OF EMOTION SHOWN BY RAPE VICTIMS
IS YET TO BE CAPTURED EVEN BY CALCULUS. IT is,
thus, realistic to expect uniform reaction from rape victims.
Certainly, the court has not laid down any rule on how a
rape victim should behave immediately after she has been
violated.
TRILLANES V. JUDGE PIMENTEL. Like Jalosjos, gusto
syang mu-attend sa Congress session. Supreme Court said,
All prisoners, whether under preventive suspension or
serving final sentence cannot practice profession, engage in
business or hold office, elective or appointive, while in
detention.
OTHER ACTS in Child Abuse Law. Ang gibuhat ni Manoy
gisunod nya ang bata, high school. Gikan sa eskwelahan
padung sa bay. Pagsud sa bay gigakos ni Manoy ang bata in
front sa duha nya ka-siblings. What crime did Manoy
commit? Supreme Court said, CHILD ABUSE UNDER
SEC. 10. Kadtong paggakos nya, according to the Supreme
Court, unwanted embrace on minor would furthermore
constitute child abuse kay kung basahon nmo ang Sec. 10
(other acts), naay giingon dinhi for being responsible for
condition prejudicial to the childs development. Kadtong
gihimo ni Manoy threatened the normal development of the
innocent girl.
LOPEZ V. PEOPLE. Since petitoners bank account was
already closed before issuance of the subject check,
he had no right to expect or require the drawee bank
to honor his check. By virtue of the aforequoted
provision of law, petitioner is NOT ENTITLED TO BE
GIVEN A NOTICE OF DISHONOR.
Kadtong giingon nko a while ago nga kinahanglan prubahon
gyud nga na-receive. Ingon ani ang nahitabo sa trial. Q:
The return card evidencing actual receipt by the defendant,
it is also included in Branch 2 City Court. A: Yes, Sir. Q: I
show you a return receipt, is this the return receipt you are
referring to? A: Yes, Sir. Acquitted gihapon kay wa mn giauthenticate.
CELINO, SR. V. CA. modified PEOPLE V. LADJAALAM.
WHAT happened in Ladjaalam? Suspected si Ladjaalam ug
selling dangerous drugs. So dunay search warrant.
Pagngadtos pulis (Zamboanga ni nahitabo), girakrakan ni
Ladjaalam ang mga pulis. So, direct assault plus illegal
possession. Niingon ang Supreme Court, Di na nmo
makiha ug illegal possession because under the law, if
another crime is committed, ayaw lang ikiha ug illegal
possession. Bisan pa kung unjust vexation with the use of
firearm, dli nmo makiha ug illegal possession. Mao na sa
Ladjaalam pero gi-modify sa Celino. Under Celino, YOU
HAVE TO PROVE THE COMMISSION OF THAT OTHER
CRIME
BEFORE
MA-DISMISS
ANG
ILLEGAL
POSSESSION. Thats the distinction. So an accused can be
convicted of this offense, meaning, illegal possession,
provided no other crime was committed by the person
arrested. This implies a prior determination of guilt by final
conviction for said other crime.
VALENZUELA V. PEOPLE (ug sa dihang gibalik napud for
the nth time). Kini silang duha, nisud ug department store.
Ang cart gibutangan nilag detergent. Gida nila ngadto sa
gawas. Nag-uniporme sila ug kanang empleyado kunohay
sila. Pag-abot sa carpark, padung na silas gawas, nakit-an
sila, dagan sila, gibiyaan ang cart. So gi-convict sila ug
theft. Unya ang ila nga frustrated theft ra gyud to because
of their inability to dispose of the thing taken. Kung theft

gani, sayop na kung muingon ka taking away. That is
wrong. What is correct is taking, not taking away. Kay
kanang taking away, meaning, asportation, larceny na in
American law. The Supreme Court recently held that
asportation is not an element of the crime of theft. What are
the elements of the crime of theft? (1) Personal property
belonging to another. (2) Taking. (3) Intent to gain. Naa
bay element that the thief was able to dispose of the
property? Ingon ang Supreme Court, wala gyud. So wala na
nga element. So kung si Valenzuela was not able to dispose
of the property, dli to frustrated theft. By the way, sa theft
sd, actual gain is not necessary. Unsay may gikinahanglan?
Intent to gain, not actual gain. Going back to Valenzuela,
ang gi-emphasize sa Valenzuela, subjective phase ug
objective phase. Subjective phase, that portion of the acts
constituting the crime included between the act which
begins the commission of the crime and that last act
performed by the offender which without prior acts should
result in the consummated crime. On the other hand,
subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated
crimes. Intent to permanently deprive the owner of the
property is not required. Actual taking of the property of
another without the latters consent is determinative factor
in theft. Theft is consummated no matter how momentary
the possession is. Ability to dispose of stolen item is not an
element of theft. Inability to dispose of stolen item results
in attempted theft. Theft may either be attempted or
consummated.
KUNG MACONVICTED UG ADULTERY, DUNA BAY CIVIL
INTERDICTION? Will you be deprived rights to manage
property or to dispose of property inter vivos? None.
Supreme Court, in PEOPLE V. MAKILAN, Conviction for
adultery does not carry the accessory penalty of civil
interdiction which deprives the person of the rights to
manage her property and to dispose of such property inter
vivos.
PADUA V. PEOPLE (JULY 2008). Drug trafficking dli
maka-avail of sa Probation Law. Exception under the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
RAET VS. PEOPLE (definition of overt or external act)
PEOPLE V. CA. Distinction between Sec. 5, RA 7610
and Sec. 10, RA 7610. The Court of Appeals did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that sexual
abuse as defined under Sec. 5 is completely distinct and
separate offense from child abuse under Sec. 10 as Sec. 10
refers to acts of child abuse prejudicial to the childs
development other than child prostitution and other sexual
abuse under Sec. 5 (attempt to commit child prostitution,
child trafficking, attempt to commit child trafficking,
obscene publication and indecent shows. For consensual
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a minor
who is not exploited in prostitution to fall within the
purview of Sec. 5 (b), persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion of the child must be present.
TULFO V. PEOPLE. It cannot be said that a false article
accusing a public figure would always be covered by the
mantle of qualified privileged communication.
ABS-CBN v. Office of the Ombudsman. (Re-examination or
revisitation of People v. Bayotas - 1986). Actually, the first
case was Diego v. Sandiganbayan reversed by Bayotas. In
Bayotas, the Supreme Court said, The death of the accused
pending appeal extinguishes the criminal aspect as well as
the civil aspect arising from delict or crime. But the death of
the accused does not extinguish civil liability arising from
other sources of obligation like law, contracts, quasicontracts and quasi-delicts.
People v. Talag (November 2008). Forcible abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the
accused is to rape the victim. Whats the main purpose? To
rape, a woman was forcibly abducted. Rape only. But if the
main purpose is forcible abduction and the woman is rape,
complex crime forcible abduction with rape.
People v. Jose, People v. Ablaza. If after the forcible
abduction with rape, the woman is raped again, that is
already a separate crime.
Intellectual Property Code. Unfair competition. Under the IP

Code, daghang classification sa unfair competition. Sec.
168.1 speaks of a person, who has earned goodwill with
respect to his goods and services, who is entitled to
protection under the code, with or without registered mark.
Sec. 168.2 refers to general definition of unfair competition.
Sec. 168.3 refers to specific instances of unfair competition.
The issue in this case is whether or not hoarding is punished
under the IP Code. Criminal case ba ang hoarding? Supreme
Court said, No. All the above approaches, 161.8 to 161.3,
we conclude that the hoarding as defined and charged by
the petitioner does not fall within the coverage of the IP
Code and in Sec. 168 in particular. Reason? It does not
relate to patent, trademark, service mark that respondents
have invaded, intruded into or used without proper
authority from petitioner.
When a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is
equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct
construction may be made clear and specific by considering
the company of words in which it is found or with which it is
recorded.
Illusorio v. Buildner. No perjury in this case kay ang giallege is not a material matter.
People v. Mendoza. The touching of a females sexual organ
standing alone is not equivalent to rape, not even an
attempted rape. Absent any showing of the actual insertion
of the finger in the private part of the child, there can be no
consummated rape. Lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Theft. Employee. Gikawat nya ang cheke sa iyang amo.
Dunay grave abuse of confidence. Iyang gida ang cheke.
Gi-encash. Presented for payment, untol. No funds in the
bank. Makiha ba sya ug theft? That is the issue. Ug basahon
nmong mga commentaries gikan ka ni Boado, ngadto ni
Ortega, ngadto ni Reyes, ug ari ni Apostol, that is theft of
property worth P5.00. Supreme Court said, No theft.
Reason? Wa may value ang kadtong cheke. Wa mahumang
istorya. Wa na mutapos dha. Gi-entrap sya kay may pondo.
Gipasaligan sya. We will make good the check. We will
replace it with cash. Tawag nang NBI. So gidawat nya ang
cash as replacement of the bounced check. Theft ba to?
Supreme Court said, No. What is the reason? Because
theft is not a continuing crime.
Tabanlag v. People. Estafa by misappropriating or
converting. Agent. Butang nato pieces of jewelry, ipabaligya
ngadto sa agent. So klaro kaayo, juridical possession is
transferred. Baligya ni, ug mahalin, remit the proceeds.
Kung di mahalin, return. Ang gibuhat sa agent, iyang
gipabaligya sa sub-agent. Unya, maong conditiona gihapon
ug mahalin, remit, ug di mahalin, uli. Gi-misappropriate
sa sub-agent. Question, is the agent liable for the
commission of estafa by conversion or misappropriation?
Supreme Court said it depends upon. If there was a
prohibition to allow the agent to employ a sub-agent,
estafa. Kung gi-allow ang pagbaligya ngadto sa sub-agent,
no estafa kay purely personal man ning estafa. Di mn ikaw
moy ni-misappropriate. Kung nag-conspire ka sa sub-agent,
liable sya conspiracy. It cannot be said that petitioners act
of entrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized by
abuse of confidence because such an act was not proscribed
and is in fact legally sanctioned. By reason of the fact that
the rings were delivered also for sale on commission to subagents who failed to account for the rings or the proceeds of
its sale, accused-appellant likewise filled to make good his
obligation to the complainant thereby giving rise to the
charge of estafa. If there was prohibition. Mere negligence
in permitting another to take advantage or benefit from the
entrusted chattel can not constitute estafa. Kung imong
gisalig sa ubang tawo, nagdanghag ka pagsalig, di ka liable
for estafa. Opposite sa malversation. Kung malversation,
gain or intent to gain is immaterial. Kung you are in custody
of public funds or property, you entrust it to somebody,
unya gitulis tong somebody, malversation through
negligence.
Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstock.
Sison v. PNCC (December 4, 2009). This case is an anatomy
of a P6.185 billion pillage of the public coffers that ranks
among one of the most brazen and hideous in the history of
this country. Ang PNCC board, nientra sila ug compromise
agreement nga liable ang PNCC to Marubeni IDA of billions
of pesos. Ang basis nila, opinion lang sa ilang consultant si

Atty. Ferian. Niingon si Feria, Liable ang PNCC ngato sa
Marubeni ug billions of pesos. Ug gipangutana sila, naa
moy written kuan dha? Way klarong tubag. Nganong niarrive at mn sa opinion si Feria? Wa say klarong tubag kay
pulos.. Mao ning mga GOCC. Kay billions of pesos,
nagbahinay mn sila. So the court said, The acts of PNCC
Board in issuing Board Resolution No. XXX expressly
admitting liability for the Marubeni loans and entering into
the compromise agreement constitutes evident bad faith
and gross inexcusable negligence amounting to fraud in the
management of the PNCCs affairs. Being public officers, the
government nominees in the PNCC Board must answer not
only to PNCC and its stockholders but also to the Filipino
people for grossly mishandling PNCCs affairs.
Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. Unsa mn ni sya, special penal law?
No, its not a special penal law. From the nature of the
penalty imposed which is in terms of classification and
duration of penalties under the RPC, the intent seems clear
that PD 533 shall be deemed an amendment of the RPC. PD
533 is not a special law, entirely distinct and unrelated to
the RPC.
People v. Hermosilla. The insertion of the appellants finger
into the victims vagina constituted the crime of rape
through sexual assault.
Is enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing a crime? In
Razon v. CA, it is not a special penal law.
People v. Kabag, Jr. Ang nahitabo, robbery. Some persons
were killed. Dunay wa mamatay, meaning, frustrated
homicide. Duna say attempted homicide. So naay homicide,
attempted homicide, naay frustrated homicide. What is the
crime? Robbery with homicide only. Ayaw na tong i-consider
ang frustrated ug attempted kay magpangibabaw ang
homicide committed on the same occasion. Attempted
homicide or attempted murder, committed during or on the
occasion of robbery is absorbed in the crime of robbery with
homicide, which is a special complex crime. Ma-complex
lang na syang robbery with homicide, robbery with physical
injuries kung ang physical injuries, serious. Pero mu-fall ra
na sya sa robbery with serious physical injuries. Kung ang
physical injuries gani committed on the occasion of robbery,
less serious o di ba slight, robbery ra gyud na sya. Simple
robbery. Ma-absorb ang less serious physical injuries or ang
slight.
Balbastro v. Junio. It is settled that the Office of the
Ombudsman has power to impose the penalty of removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution of a
public officer or employee found to be at fault in the
exercise of its administrative disciplinary action.
You should know residence in libel for purposes of fixing
venue. Its residence not domicile.
Kadtong gi-cite nko nga simple robbery lang kung dunay
slight or less serious (Ocampo v. People).
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Where the trial court erred in
imposing straight penalty, thereby depriving the convict of
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
judgment is void insofar as it failed to impose the
indeterminate sentence.
People v. Estrada. Use of alias. Na-acquitted si Estrada
citing Ursua v. CA. Sa Ursua, kausa lang sya mugamit sa
ngan sa laing tawo. Ang messenger sa law office, ang ngan
didto maoy iyang gigamit pagsuwat sa log book. Gikiha sya
ug use of alias. Supreme Court said, No violation because
Alias Law requires habituality. Kinahanglan naay element of
habituality. Gipun-an pa gyud sa Estrada. Supreme Court
said, The use by Estrada of Jose Velarde 7 times in one
day is not habitual kay dli kuno customary use. So gipun-an
ug usa ka element publicity. He must use that other name
publicly, meaning, i-proclaim nya nga si Jose Velarde na ko
ha. Di na ko si Joseph Estrada. Niingon ang Supreme Court
nga kadto kunong didto sa sud sa Bangko nga dha si
Laquian, dha si Ocampo, di kuno to public use sa ngalan
nga si Jose Velarde. So duha nay elements sa Alias Law
one is habitual use then public use.
ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN. TWO KINDS OF

CONSPIRACIES WHEEL OR CIRCLE CONSPIRACY
AND CHAIN CONSPIRACY. Wheel or circle conspiracy,
in which there is a single person or group (the hub)
dealing individually with two or more other persons or
groups (the spokes); and (2) the chain conspiracy,
usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other
contraband, in which there is successive communication and
cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate
business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler,
then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer. We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases
resembles the wheel conspiracy. The 36 desperate persons
who constituted the massive conspiracy to defraud the
government were controlled by a single hub, namely,
Rolando Manggubat, chief accountant, Delia (not clear),
Accountant III, Jose Sayson, Budget Examiner, and Edgardo
Cruz, Clerk II, who controlled the separate spokes of the
conspiracy.
Ang municipal mayor is an accountable officer. Why?
Because of the nature of his function and on account of his
participation in the use and application of public funds.
Criminal negligence. Nabilin ang foreign body sa patients
body. Gauze. Unya nireklamo ang pasyente, Sakit mn
akong tiyan doc. Giingnan nya, Ah, natural lang na tungod
sa operasyon.Captain of the ship doctrine. Is the hospital
liable kung ang usa sa doctor dunay medical malpractice?
Doctrine of corporate negligence.
Questions related to the Mock Bar Examination in Criminal
Law
Probation Law. Ang probation ug appeal, mutually
exclusive. Muapilar gani ka, di na gyud ka ka-avail of sa
probation. Mu-file kag probation, di ka kaapilar. Exception,
pananglitan naay penalty nya dli ka maka-probation tungod
sa penalty and you appealed. Ang imong tuyo, pag-lower
ras penalty. Kung ma-lower, probationable, then you can
file an application for probation. Nya naka-affect na sa 9344
kay bisag heinous crime pa, basta minor, probationable.
Chiong Sisters Case. The crime is kidnapping. Nganong
kidnapping mn? If in the course of the kidnapping, the
victim is killed or raped or dehumanized, kidnapping ra
gyud ni sya pero aggravated kidnapping.
Sa complex crime, way gipangutana nga duha ka
information? One is for robbery and the other one for
homicide? Unya pag-decide na gi-lumpong ang duha,
gihimong complex.
Tanang reckless imprudence, poydi na ma-complex. Basta
two or more grave or less grave, bisan pa ug negligence,
complex gihapon na.
Kanang reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
Kung light penalty, dli poydi kay two or more grave or less
grave, meaning, either two or more grave, one grave and
one less grave.
Rape of cat? No crime. Not malicious mischief? Ang
malicious mischief, you destroy a property for the sake of
destroying unya naa kay hatred or revenge, not for
pleasure.
Remember kung RPC, ayaw ninyo kalimti ang mens rea.
Intention. Kung ang iyang main intention pagperwisyo lang
gyud sa butang, out of hatred or revenge, mao na sya
malicious mischief, naay element ana.
CRIM 28: Special Penal Law
(Anti-Money Laundering Law)
CRIM 29:
So balik ta sa 2007 cases. Filipinas broadcasting vs. Agro
Medical and Educational Centre, what is this doctrine of
neutral reportage in libel? This is taken from US decisions,
privilege of neutral reportage in libel cases involving matters
of public interest or public figures, under this privilege a
republisher who accurately and disinterestedly report
certain defamatory statements made against public figures

is shielded from liability regardless of the republishers
subjective awareness of the truth or falsity of the
accusation. Newspaper A reported Public Official X is
corrupt, etc. etc, libelous, lets just assume its libelous, it is
reprinted by Newspaper B, even if the writer in Newspaper
B doubts the veracity of the report, he nevertheless
reprinted the item, is the writer of Newspaper B liable? No,
because of the doctrine of neutral reportage but the
privilege of neutral reportage will apply if the defamed
person is a public figure who is involved in an existing
controversy and a party to that controversy makes the
defamatory statement. Manny Pacquiao is sugarol, babaero
etc, libelous? No, because Manny Pacquiao is a public figure,
he is a celebrity.
DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT means that while in
general every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false because every man is presumed to be
innocent until his guilt is judicially proved and every false
imputation is deemed malicious nevertheless when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a public person
in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable, in
order that such discreditable imputation to a public official
may be actionable it must be either a false allegation or fact
or a comment based on a false supposition.
Kaning kasoha dunay 2 ka broadcaster, ilang gisaway ang
educational institution nga turning out kono na useless
graduates, they were held liable for libel, remember AMEC is
a juridical person that held liable, question? May the court
award moral damages to a juridical person like a
corporation? Yes, general rule, corporation has no feeling,
no sleepless nights but It has a reputation. AMECs claim for
moral damages falls under Item 7 Art. 2219 of the civil
code. This provision authorizes the recovery of moral
damages in civil cases of libel, slander or other forms of
defamation. Art. 2219 does not qualify whether the plaintiff
is juridical or natural person. Where the broadcast is
libelous per se the law implies moral damages. Had the
comments been an expression of opinion based on
established facts, it is material that the opinion happened to
be mistaken, ok ra unta to.
Pangan vs. Honorable Gat Baliti niikyas siya then actually
when the case was called for promulgation he failed to
appear, ikyas siya, he surfaced 10 years later, gidakop cya,
then he interposed the defense of prescription of penalty, ni
prescribe ba in accordance with rules? No, because in
prescription kinahanglan the accused mapriso una bisan 30
seconds lang, unya moikyas una modagan ang prescription
of penalty citing Infante vs. Warden, A perusal of the facts
in Infante reveals that it is not in all force with the present
case, in infante the convict is on conditional pardon when he
was rearrested, hence, he had started serving sentence but
the state released him, in the present case, the convict
evaded the service of sentence from the start and was
arrested 8 years later.
The case of Tanega vs Masakayan falls squarely within the
issues in the present case, in that case, petitioner adelaida
tanega failed to appear on the day of the execution of her
sentence, what are the elements of service of sentence . 1.
Offender is a convict by final judgment. 2. He is serving his
sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty, na detain
jud cya, kung niikyas cya diha ipha ang prescriptive period,
kung wa jud mapriso dli gyud magsugod ug ihap sa
prescriptive period. 3. He evade service of sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence, this must be so,
by the express terms of the statute a convict evade service
of sentence by escaping during the term of his
imprisonment by reason of final judgment, that escape
should take place while serving his sentence. Escape of the
accused is the condition for the commencement of
prescriptive period.
Sarigumba vs. Sandiganbayan kaning malversation,
misappropriation or conversion of public funds or property
pwede ni cya for personal use convicted gihapon if
knowingly allowing others to make use of the
misappropriation, an accountable public officer may be
convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence
of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a
shortage in the officers account which he has not able to
explain satisfactorily. Is payment, indemnification or
reimbursement, will it extinguish criminal liabbility? No, but

it may be considered as mitigating circumstance analogous
to voluntary surrender, but it must be studied in relation to
other cases, it is mit. Only if there is prompt
reimbursement, because if he is convicted today and he will
reimburse the govt 5 years later that is no longer
mitigating.
Meaning of conversion and misappropriation. Remember lahi
ang malversation and estafa. In estafa the conversion or
misappropriation must be personal. In malversation,
allowing others to take public funds or property that is in
your custody is malversation. To convert and misappropriate
connote an act of using or disposing of anothers property
as if it were once owned or devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon, it may be proved by direct
evidence or circumstantial evidence. Is demand an element
of the crime of malversation? No, however, demand gives
rise to the presumption of malversation. Demand in
malversation may be oral or written.
Carunong vs. People subsidiary civil liability of employer
arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal
action. There are requisites before an employer may be held
subsidiarily liable. Not yet ask in the bar exams. Usahay
mababa-an nako last minute instruction nako sa mga
estudyante, class kining pro reo gipangutana ni sa
2008,2009 bantayi, ah gawas jud, what is the doctrine of
pro-reo, bantayi ninyo ang battered woman syndrome,
nigawas sad, bantayi ang anti-money laundering, nigawas
jud. 1. He is indeed the employer of the convicted employee
2. The employer is engaged in some kind of industry, kung
driver lang ka sa pamilya dli tawn na industry. 3. Employee
committed the offense in the discharge of his duties, kung
alas 5 ipaparking na ang sakyanan iyang gdala sa layo,
nabangga ang sakyanan, the employer is not liable because
he is not in the discharge of the duties when the incident
happened 4. Execution against the employee was returned
unsatisfied.
City of Manila vs. Laguio this is about acts of
lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to section 5b sexual
abuse, sec. 5 elements of acts of lasciviousness. 1. The
accused commits the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct. 2. The said act is performed with the child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
3. The child whether male or female is below 18 years old.
Sec. 5 does not merely convert a situation of a child being
abused for profit but also wherein a child engaged in any
lascivious conduct thru coercion or intimidation. Intimidation
is not necessarily be irresistible.
Phil. Rabit bus vs. heirs of mangawag ang driver gikiha of
criminal negligence, convicted cya, the problem is when the
case is called for promulgation of judgment, the driver failed
to appear. Hadlok man ang phil rabbit, uy, subsidiary liable
man ta ani, Phil. Rabbit filed notice of appeal, pwede ba na?
No, its anticipatory besides the accused was the driver not
the phil. Rabbit, ang maka appeal lang ang driver. Indeed,
to allow an employer to dispute its civil liability in the
criminial cases via an appeal from the decision of the RTC
will be to annul, nullify or defeat the judgment rendered by
a competent court.
Marigumen vs. People notice of dishonor basta BP 22
must be in writing, in estafa pwede oral, in bp 22 present
evidence that notice of dishonor was sent was not enough
present evidence also that notice of dishonor was received,
because the only defense of the accused is within 5 days
from receipt of notice of dishonor he should make good of
the check or arrange credit with the bank. Another point,
even if the prosecution will present the registry receipt,
Supreme Court said, thats not enough, you must
authenticate the two documents, better still, you must
present a certification from the postmaster that indeed
the notice of dishonor was received by the accused.
Copyright. The gravamen of copyright infringement is not
merely the unauthorized manufacturing of intellectual work
but rather the unauthorized performance of the acts
covered by sec. 5.
BP 22 ambak ambak mani oi pagsure judge oi preference of penalty, fine over imprisonment, what is the
basis for preference of fine? Supreme Court AC no. 12-200
as clarified, when circumstances of the case clearly indicate

good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of
negligence, the imposition of fine alone may be considered
as the preferred penalty.
Adaza vs. Sandiganbayan mayor is grade 27, in another
case, mayor is an accountable public officer, therefore may
be held liable for malversation.
Falsification Art. 171 by a public officer/employee of republic
or ecclesiastical minister,if committed by a public officer,
there is one very important element, he must take
advantage of his official position. Art. 172 is malversation
committed by private individual. What is the meaning
obtaining advantage of official position? The offender
takes advantage of his official position in falsifying the
document 1. When he has the duty to make or to prepare
or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document.
2. He has the official custody of the document which he
falsifies. It is just apparent that for purposes of acquisition
of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan that the requirement
imposed that the offense be committed in relation to the
office is entirely distinct from the concept of taking
advantage of ones position.
Tad-I vs. People Direct Bribery last element the act
which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes
is connected with the performance of his duties, otherwise,
he is not liable for direct bribery. What is the meaning of
official duties? Include any action authorized, it is sufficient
if the officer has the official power, the ability or apparent
ability to bring about or contribute to the desired end.
Ponteveda vs Sandiganbayan- a public officer may be liable
for malversation even if he does not use public
funds/property under his custody for his personal benefit
but consents to the taking thereof by another person or thru
abandonment or negligence permitted such taking. So
malversation thru negligence the penalty is the same. Mere
absence of funds is not sufficient proof of conversion,
neither is the mere failure of public officer to turn over the
funds at any given time sufficient to make a prima facie
case, in fine, conversion must be proved, however, an
accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even if
there is no direct evidence of misappropriation as long as
there is evidence of shortage in his account which he is
unable to explain. Demand to produce public funds under
the public officers custody is not an essential element of
malversation but the law creates a prima facie presumption
of connivance if the public officer fails to produce public
funds under custody upon demand therefore.
Dingging vs. CA bohol ni ha, hontanosas, kaso ni ni choi
torralba, elements of libel,u know the elements, we
considered the following proposition as settled in this
jurisdiction, in order to justify a conviction for criminal libel
against a public figure, it must be established beyond
reasonable doubt that the libelous statement were made or
published with actual malice, meaning, knowledge that the
statement was false or with reckless disregard as to
whether or not it is true, in latter cases, it is known as
doctrine of reckless disregard.
Self-Defense in Libel - The appellate court ascertain that the
purpose of self-defense in libel is to repair, minimize or
remove the effect of the damage caused to him but it does
not license the defendant to utter blow for blow scurrilous
libel in return to what he received, once the defendant hits
back with equal or more scurrilous remark unnecessary for
his defense the retaliation becomes an independent act for
which he may be liable. Niadto wla pa mo mataw, naay 2 ka
mga ngilgig kaayo nga komentarista, in 100 years wla nay
makatupong ni natalio bacalso, niingon si Fuentes atbang
man sila ug political camps, over the radio ni ha, kana si
talyox pisot, simple ra ang tubag ni do talyox, oy, do
Fuentes pangutan-a kono imo asawa ug unsay tubag? Self
defense in libel.
New York times quoted in Vasquez vs. CA, even if the
defamatory statement is false no liability can attach if it
relates to official conduct unless the public official concerned
proves that the statement was made actual malice this is
the doctrine of actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it
was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false
or not. Actual malice rule applies not only to public officials
but also to public figure. Who is a public figure? It has been

defined as a person who by his accomplishments, fame or
mode of living or by adopting a profession or calling which
gives a public a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs or
character has become a public personage, he is in other
words a celebrity. So kana chismis chismis sa tv, SNN or the
buzz, kana mga public figure diha hisgutan kinsay mga
kabit, kinsay mga ka date diha, dli na na libelous kay public
figures mana sila. It includes in short, anyone who has
arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon
him as a person. We consider the following proposition as
settled in this jurisdiction, in order to justify a conviction for
criminal libel against a public figure, it must be established
beyond reasonable doubt that the libelous statement were
made or published with actual malice, meaning, knowledge
that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to
whether or not it is true. Balik balik! As applied to public
figures, complaining of criminal libel must be construed in
light of constitutional guarantee of free expression, so even
assuming that the contents of the articles are false, mere
error in accuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual
malice, errors or misstatements are inevitable in any
scheme of truly free expression and debate.
Dominggo vs. Sandiganbayan directly or indirectly having
financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes
part in his official capacity or in which he is prohibited by
the constitution or by any law from having an interest.
Illegal recruitment, wla pa sad ni gipangutana sa bar exam,
except lang there was one examination that kung ma
convicted of illegal recruitment pwede pa bang ikiha of
estafa?, the answer is yes. It is well settled that to prove
illegal recruitment it must be shown that the appellant give
complainant the impression that he had the power or ability
to send complainant abroad for work such that the latter is
convinced so part with his money in order to be employed.
Illegal recruitment in large scale 3 or more victims
individually or successively or as a group.
BP 22 Perjury- Villanueva vs. Secretary of Justice perjury
is obstruction of justice, its perpetration may affect the
earnest concerns of the parties before a tribunal, the
seminal treatment/modern treatment of the history of
perjury concludes that one consideration of policy
overshadows all others, the measure taken against the
offense must not be so severe as to discourage adverse
parties from lodging complaints or testify. Perjury is the
willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or
affirmation administered by authority of law on a material
matter. Kini ang pinakaimportante nga element sa perjury.
Nahinumdom cguro mo sa inyo political law nga naay
nilansad, gibutang nya sa COC nga CPA when in fact dli
diay, so dunay petition for disqualification, ang ground
material misrepresentation in his COC, Supreme Court said,
NO, bisan dili pa CPA, dli ma disqualified, reason, wlay
educational qualification ang candidate, niingon lang able to
read and write, question, under oath man to, PERJURY? SC
said NO, why, because kadto nga falsehood nga di cya CPA
dli man to material matter, immaterial man kay dli man
required sa election law, able to read and write ra man. A
mere assertion of a false objective fact is not enough, the
assertion must be deliberate and willful, perjury by dolo
there must be malice on the part of the accused, willfully
means intentionally with evil intent and legal malice with
consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is false,
etc. it is equivalent to knowingly, deliberately meditated as
distinguished from inadvertent facts. Perjury cannot be
willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as
to its truth. A false statement of a belief is not perjury. Bona
fide belief in the truth of statement is an adequate defense.
A false statement which is obviously the result from an
honest mistake is not perjury. A conviction for perjury
cannot be sustained merely from a contradictory statement
of the accused. If the accused stated 2 contradictory
statements it does not necessarily follow that he will be
convicted of perjury because it is still the task of the
prosecution which of the 2 statements is false and
deliberately made.
Bigamy. Felony which is consummated on the celebration of
the second marriage or subsequent marriage. Before the
spouse present may contract a second marriage, he must
institute summary proceeding for the declaration of

presumptive death of the absentee spouse without prejudice
to the reappearance of the absentee spouse.
Moreno vs. COMELEC Moreno na convicted ni cya unya
after conviction, nifile cya ug petition for probation, and was
granted, he filed COC unya dunay petition to disqualify him
because under sec. 40a LGC the following persons are
disqualified from running for any elective local position,
those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving
moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year or
more of imprisonment within 2 years after serving sentence,
mao nay basis sa disqualification, question, ma disqualify ba
si Moreno? No, kay wla man cya mo serve sa sentence kay
under probation man, in this sense, __ vs comelec is not
applicable. Our pronouncement therein that the grant of
probation does not affect disqualification under sec. 40a of
the LGC was based merely on the finding that the crime of
fencing of which petitioner was convicted involves moral
turpitude. The phrase service of sentence understood in
its general and common sense means that the confinement
of a convicted person in a prison facility for the period
adjudged by the court. In relation to probation, the court
cited Baclayon vs. Mutya teacher ni cya convicted cya for
libel, oral defamation, file cya petition for probation, niingon
ang probation officer nga teacher tabian man ka, dli nka
maka maestra ka kay bad influence ka sa estudyante mao
nay condition, so gi deny, SC said probation should be
granted, under the probation law, it is provided that you
must work, nya her only means of living is teaching,so dli
pwede, an order of placing the defendant on probation is
not a sentence but rather in effect a suspension of the
imposition of sentence. Applying this doctrine to the instant
case, the accessory of penalty of suspension from public
office etc, it appears then that during the period of
probation the probationer is not even disqualified from
running the public office because the accessory penalty of
suspension from public office is put on hold for the duration
of probation. Petitioner not disqualified from running for a
local elective office by reason of the grant of probation or
over the order of final discharge restored all his civil rights
lost or suspended by reason of conviction. Probation law is
an exception of LGC following the canon to statutory
construction. By the way, probation and appeal are mutually
exclusive. Kung mo appeal ka disqualified ka sa probation.
If you file for probation, you are disqualified from appealing.
There is an exception: pananglitan gisentensyahan ka you
cannot file petition for probation because the sentence is
more than 6 year and 1 day you believe that penalty is
wrong, so you appeal, na reverse, ang penalty diay
probationable so you can file petition for probation.
Figueroa vs People this is libel nahitabo ni sa davao city,
bangkerohan
public
market,
iyang
giingnan
ang
complainant, you are a liche, paper tiger, non-visayan, with
an arrogance of a tribal chieftain____ and who had no
business in davao and bangkeruhan, so libel to cya, but the
problem is how do you distinguish grave and simple libel.
Defamation which includes slander and libel means injuring
a persons character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statement. Complainant is not a public employee
but a private person, hence, the published article cannot be
considered as falling under the ambit of privilege
communication.
Guzman vs. Perez law students manag-uyab naa silay
child, wla nagkadayon, naminyo ang lalaki, unfortunately
ang babae wla naminyo, unya gipangayoan nya iyang
uyab,paeskwela tawn atong anak wla mihatag , proven
nga ang lalaki dunay means, kaya kaayo niya
makapaeskwela, so ang gibuhat sa babae gifilan nya ug
kaso ug CHILD NEGLECT, ang defense sa lalaki, kaning
neglect of child kinahanglan 2 jud, ikaw gi neglect man sad
nimo so dli ka kakiha nko, SC said NO, the criminal liability
for the neglect of child under art. 59 no. 4 Pd 603 attaches
only both parents are guilty of neglecting the childs
education does not hold water, the law is clear, the crime
may be committed by a parent, liability for the crime does
not depend on whether the other parent is also guilty of
neglect, the law intents to punish the neglect of any parent
which neglect corresponds to the failure to give the child the
education which the family station in life and financial
condition permits. The responsible parent cannot exculpate
himself from the consequence of his neglect by invoking the
other parents faithful compliance with his or her own
parental duties. Neglect of child punished under art. 59 no.

4 of PD 603 is also crime penalized under 2 nd par. Art. 277
of RPC hence it is excluded from the coverage of RA 7610.
Ug magsige mog pangatawa di mo maminaw mas maayo
pag mogawas mo, gawas mo way problema. Slander, how is
slander committed? Slander is libel committed by oral or
spoken means instead of in writing. The term oral
defamation or slander is defined as the speaking of
defamatory words which tends to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade or means of livelihood. When is
there grave slander? There is grave slander when it is a
serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral
defamation depends not only upon the expression used but
also on the personal relations of the accused and the
offended party and the circumstances surrounding the case.
It is a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory
words will fall under one or the other depending not only
upon their sense, grammatical significance and accepted
ordinary meaning judging them separately but also upon
special circumstances. Factors to be considered, in our
previous rulings, we held that the social standing and
position of the offended party are also taken into account
and thus, it was held that the slander was grave because
the offended party had held previously the office of
congressman, governor, senator and was then the candidate
for vice president. However, we have likewise ruled, in the
past, that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger
which some provocation on the part of the party constitute
only light felony (simple slander). Ang istorya ani nag-away
ang councilor and vice mayor, the latter maoy tighimo sa
allowance ug bunos, wa man kahatagi ang councilor, so one
time nagkita sila, giingnan nya ang v-mayor ug FUCK YOU!.
So, It is triggered by the fact as found by CA, that
complainant refused without valid justification to approve
the monetization of accrued leave credits of petitioner,
murag na provoke ang councilor, now, uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, slander committed by petitioner
can be characterized as slight slander following the doctrine
that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger with
some provocation on the part of the offended party
constitutes only a light felony. How about slander by deed?
Kadtong poking of the finger. It is a crime against honor
which is committed by performing an act which cast
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person; it
depends on the social standing of the offended party, the
circumstances under which the act was committed, the
occasion, etc. it is libel committed by action rather than
words, the most examples are slapping someone or spitting
on the face in front of the public market in full view of the
crowd. Poking of the finger is not libelous, it is simple
slander by deed. The poking of the finger in the case at bar,
was palpably of less serious magnitude compared in the
banging of chair, the choking in Marie, and slapping of the
face in Theodore. Thus, we find that poking of dirty finger in
the case at bar while it smack of slander of deed is of lesser
magnitude than the acts committed in the foregoing cases.
Previous case in Reyes vs. PP kana moingon kag Putang
Ina Mo is not libelous; this is common enough expression
in the dialect that is often employed not only in slander but
also to express anger or displeasure.
Fernando vs. CA take note of this kung nagamit ug
boado, reyes, ortiga unya ang test of obscenity is still
cotinger test, obsolete na na. Karon lahi na ang test of
obscenity, HARD CORE na. So immoral doctrines, obscene
publication, exhibition and indecent shows, there are
elements. 1. The offender sold exhibited, published or give
away such materials, there is no perfect definition of
obscenity. But the latest is that of Miller vs. California, so
ang test karon Miller test not the Cottinger test. No one will
be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of
obscene materials unless these materials effect or describe
patently offensive hardcore sexual conduct, mao na nay
test. Examples included patently offensive representation or
description of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted,
actual or simulated. What remains here is that obscenity is
an issue proper for judicial determination and shall be
treated on a case to case basis and on the judge sound
discretion. Timan-I ninyo mere possession of obscene
material is not punishable by law. Bisan pa triple x pa
quadruple x basta ikaw lang nagunit, that is not punishable
by law. Naghimo kag komiks quintuple x grabe jud pero ug
ikaw2 lang unya naa kay kauban sa imung boarding house
nya imu giingnan, oh, tan-awa nah, haskang nindota ani
bai. That is not npunishable by law. Punishable lang na siya

kung imung i-sell or distribute para ma disseminate sa
publiko. We emphasized that mere possession of materials
without intention to sell exhibits or give them away is not
punishable under art. 201 considering the purpose of the
law is to prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials to
the public. The offense in any of the forms under art.201 is
committed only when there is publicity. The law does not
require that the person be caught in the act of selling,
giving or exhibiting obscene materials to be liable for as
long as said materials are offered for sale, displayed or
exhibited to the public. Why? Because the RPC does not
concern itself of the morality of a single individual. Ang
gipanalipdan sa RPC, public morals dili ang morality sa usa
ka tao. Just to prove na kining Kottinger Test is already
obsolete, SC said almost a century has passed since the
court 1st attempted to define obscenity in Pp vs. Kottinger,
sayon rani panghimumdum. Kuhaa lang ang K ug GER
mao nana (Ottin? Gamay or daku?bwahaha), wala sila ka
g! There the court defined obscenity as something which is
offensive to chastity, decency or morality. After Kottinger,
nay lain nga Kaso. Pp vs. Gopin, Pp vs. Padan abandoning
Kottinger. Gonzales vs. katigbak. SC said, kottinger failed
to afford a conclusive definition of obscenity. Oriarte
(Uriarte) vs. Pp, Sec 3(e), RA 3019, maybe committed
either by dolo or culpa. As when the accused acted with
evident bad faith or manifest partiality or with culpa as
when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence.
Gross inexcusable negligence refers to negligence
characterize by the want of even the slightest care acting or
committing to act in a situation where there is a duty to act.
Unjust Vexation, Valeros vs. Pp. Unjust vexation exists even
without the element of restrain or compulsion. For the
reason that the term is broad enough to include any human
conduct which although not productive of any physical or
material harm would unjustly annoy or irritate a person.
Duwero vs Pp, citing Roweda vs. Sandiganbayan, kining
practice of disbursing public funds under the valley system.
Kana tawn mga laborer valley sila, mo-allow sad ang
treasurer. That is malversation, that is not allowed under
the Government auditing code. The grant of loans through
the valley system is a clear ground of an accountable officer
consenting to the improper or unauthorized use of public
funds by other persons which is punishable by law. To
tolerate such a practice is to give a license to every
disbursing officer to conduct a lending operation with a use
of public funds.
ARSON, Gonzales vs. Pp. The arson committed in the
instant case involving an inhabited house or dwelling is
covered by sec 3(2), PD 1613. Kung inhabited house gani or
dwelling, Destructive arson. If the information does not
describe the property burned, it is simple arson. Elements:
Corpus delecti , that there is a fire because of criminal
agency. 2nd element, identity of the defendant as the one
responsible for the crime.
Sexual Harassment. Sexual Harassment is not about sex.
According to the Sc it is about abuse of power or authority.
Case is Sharon Alegria vs. Judge Manuel Duques; sexual
harassment in the work place is not about a man taking
advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire. It is
about power being exercised by a superior over his women
subordinates. That power emanates from the fact that he
can remove them if they refuse his amorous advances.
One may be charge of an offense under RA 3019 in addition
to a felony under the RPC. No double jeopardy because Sec
3 of the Anti-Graft Law states in addition to the
acts/omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law. So kung ikaha ka ug anti-graft pwede kag
ikaha under the RPC for the said same act, you may also be
punished for violation of RA 6713 for the same act. Kay sa
6713 naay parallel provision in addition to the
acts/omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law. The rule against jeopardy prohibits twice
placing a person in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.
Kidnapping. If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention is a minor, the duration of his detention is
immaterial. Here Karwind was only 5 years old, there was
no force, intimidation, gidala lang gyud siya sa iyang yaya.
There is deprivation of liberty even if the victim went
voluntarily with the accused where the voluntary action was
induced by the accused false inducement without which the

victim would not have gone woth him. Kining kidnapping for
ransom, no specific form is required to consummate the
kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom was intended
as the bargaining chip in exchange for the victims freedom.
Timan-e kidnapping for ransom ang importante that the
kidnapping was for ransom. Demand for ransom is not an
element. Delivery of ransom money is not an element. Gikidnap kay ang tuyo is for ransom.
Intent is immaterial in Negligence. Res ipsa loquitor in
medical negligence cases. Is the hospital liable for the
negligence of the doctor? No problem kung nay nabilin na
gauze or whatever, liable gyud ang doctor bisan wala pay
expert because of the Captain of the Ship doctrine. Didto sa
suds a hospital operahe nya nay nabilin na gauze sa suds a
tiyan sa babaye. Recent decision of the SC, YES it is liable.
The principle is the principle of Corporate Liabiity. Mosud
kuno ka sa hospital nay mga ngalan sa doctor. What is the
message? Mao ni mga doctor namu, expert ni unya salig
ani nila nya suds a among hospital kay ngilngig ni nga mga
doctor.
Remember in libel ang offended party must be identified.
Kining conviction for adultery. Does it carry with it the
accessory penalty of civil interdiction depriving the person
of the rights to mange property and to dispose of his
property inter vivos? SC in Maquilan vs. Maquilan said NO.
Conviction for adultery does not carry the accessory penalty
of civil interdiction.
Rape by sexual assault is the insertion of ones finger into
ones genital or anal orifice of another person. Each and
every charged of rape is a separate and distinct crime. In
one case, there was 7 counts of rape, gibutang didto unsa
orasa ug unsang adlawa in 1 information, counsel for
accused ambot wa ba kahay kalibutan siya sa RPC or
tapulan ba kaha siya, he did file a motion for duplicity or
multiplicity. Utro sad ang judge gi-convict niya, multiple
rape. SC said that is not correct. Kung makaprobar ug 7
counts of rape, there should be 7 decisions or 7 crimes. Ang
iyang gibutang kay multiple rape man.
You of course know the case of Aristotle Valenzuela. Misud
sila ug dept. store nagpanggap sila nga employee sila nya
gipanudlan nila ang cart ug detergent. Pag-abot sa parking
lot nasakpan man sila sa guard so nanagan sila nya
gibiyaan ang 2 pushcarts. Convictes sila ug consummated
theft. They aregued that they are guilty but not for
consummated but frustrated theft. CA decide, Pp vs Dino,
Pp. Espiritu, Empenin vs. CA, nga nay frustartaed theft. SC
said sayop ang tanan ninyong decision. It further said ang
inyong gung gisaligan si Viada, ang opinion ni Viada nay
frustrated theft nya ngilnig gyud na siya labaw pa na ug SC
of Spain. Ang SC of Spain niingon nga walay frustrated
theft. Ang argument lang gyud ni Valenzuela that there was
no consummated theft because they were not able to
dispose of the property taken. SC said tan-awa ninyo ang
elements sa theft, personal property belonging to another
taken by the accused with intent to gain. No violence
against or intimidation of person. SC asks naa bay giingon
diha nga they were not able to dispose of the property?
NONE. So do no put an element there. Sa theft gani,
moingon kag taking away, that is wrong. Taking away gani
larceny na siya in American law. Unsa may sakto? Taking ra
gyud, meaning appropriation. Kay bisag kuryente pa nah
nga di mana nimu magunitan, mangawat kag kuryente that
is theft. So the court said, what is emphasized is the
subjective and objective phase. It would not be intellectually
disingenuous for the court to look at the question from a
fresh perspective as the court in not bound by the opinions
of respected Spanish commentators like Viada. Conflicting
as they are to accept that theft is capable of commission in
its frustrated stage. The ability of the offender to freely
dispose of the property stolen is not a constituted element
of the crime of theft. It finds no support or extension in
Art.308 whether as a descriptive or operative element of
theft or as the mens res or actus reos of the felony. Theft is
produce when there is deprivation of property etc. It is
immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender
once having committed all the acts of theft is able or unable
to dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from
the owner alone has already ensued for such acts of
execution. What is the meaning of apdrameinto(?)? Means
unlawful taking. Deemed completed from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing even if he has no

opportunity to dispose of the same. The cases of pp vs.
Dino, Pp vs. Flores, do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis
and even if they did, it is an erroneous appreciation on the
law of theft leaves them susceptible to reversible and the
same hold true of Empelis vs. IAC. Again there is no
language in Art.308 that expressly/impriedly that the free
disposition of the item stolen is material. It will take a
considerable amendments to the RPC in order for a
frustrated theft to be recognized. Ang opening statement sa
case is this This case aims for crimes pace in our
permanent criminal law jurisprudence (wako kasabot uy!)..
Leonidas vs. Pp, attempted or frustrated felony. Kung
molabay ug Granada acvtual case, gilabay niya ang tulo ka
girlg ug Granada, patay ang usa ang 1 nabuhi but she
would have fied were it not for a timely intervention of a
doctor ang ika 3 way tatsa. What is the crime committed?
Complex crime crime of murder, frustrated murder and
attempted murder. Murder kay by means of explosives
namatay ang 1. Kadtong wa namatay kay natabang pa sa
Doctor, frustrated murder ang ikatulo, attempted murder
kay there was intention to kill.
Celeno vs. CA, if a firearm is used in the commission of a
crime provided it is not murder or homicide coz if is
murder/homicide it is aggravating, special aggravating
circumstance. Kung gamiton ang unlicensed firearm sa
rebellion, attempted coup d etat, sedition, it is absorbed
as an element of a crime. If another crime is committed dili
naka ma-prosecute sa illegal possession, thats the old
ruling pp vs. LaaJalam. Laajam was prosecuted for violation
of dangerous drugs act. Miadto ang mga police armed with
a search warrant, gisugat sila ni LaaJalam girakrakan sila.
Gikiha siya ug illegal possession of drugs, direct assault ug
illegal possession of firearms. Wla na siya makiha ug illegal
possession of firearms kay another crime was committed
man with the means of such unlicensed firearm.
This lead to another STUPID decisions. Pananglitabn .45
caliber pistol, gikuhit-kuhit nimu ang dunggan sa imu migo,
gikiha nimu ug unjust vexation. Wala na ang illegal
possession because it is used in a commission of another
crime. Much lower penalty pa gyud sa illegal possession. So
kung ikiha nimu ug illegal possession of firearms pluc
comelec gun ban, provahon gyud na nimu. The latest is is
Celeno. Ok ra gihapon nga another crime is committed, the
only difference is you have to prove the other crime, in
other words i-convict una ka sa the other crime before you
can be exempt from the prosecution of illegal possession
(RA 8294). That is the case of Celeno
CRIM 30:
Okay, summary of cases. Crimes committed by public
officers:
Perjury Art 183: It is deliberate making of untruthful
statements upon any material matter before a competent
person authorized to administer oath in cases in which the
law requires. Kining Civil Service Form 212, personal file,
this is an official document, so deliberate omission will make
one liable for perjury.
Machinations in public auction, causing another bidder to
stay away from bidding In order to cause reduction of the
price of property auctioned.
Falsification of commercial document. A statement
expressing an erroneous conclusion of law cannot be
considered as falsification, nagtuo siya na ang iyang cheke
was funded; equally clear is the error of the trial court to
consider an act of the accused in drawing checks which
have no corresponding deposit to cover it in the drawee
bank as falsification. The amount written on the check is not
a narration of facts made by the drawer representing that
he has money in the bank but rather a check is an order in
writing addressed to the drawee bank to pay the holder of
the check the amount written thereon. Then truthful
statement must refer to a narration of facts and by
narration of facts is meant a recital of things accomplished,
of deeds, occurrence or happenings.
Forgery: the presumption is that the possessor and user of
falsified document is the forger.
Smuggling is committed by any person who fraudulently

imports or brings into the Philippines any article contrary to
law or receives, conceals, buys, sells or in any manner
facilitates the transportation, concealment or sale of such
article after importation.
Anti-Graft: Section 3(e) causing undue injury to any party
including the government; could only mean actual injury or
damage which must be established by evidence. Undue
means more than necessary, not proper, illegal. Injury
means any wrong or damage done to another. Proof of
actual injury or damage is required.
R.A. 1379: Forfeiture Law. Clear from these provisions is
that the law creates a presumption against the public officer
or employee who acquires property grossly disproportionate
to his income. In determining whether or not there is
unexplained wealth under R.A. 1379, the courts are not
bound by the statement of assets and liabilities filed by the
respondent. This is different from the recently decided case
where 1379 was applied because the respondent did not
state all his assets in the statement of assets and liabilities.
Public officer is defined under Sec 2(b) R.A 3019 (AntiGraft). This is the case of Engr. Claro vs Sandiganbayan. I
think I discuss this case in crimes committed by public
officers and R.A 3019. Although private engineer but since
he was commissioned to oversee the construction of a
public building, he was considered to be a public officer,
non-career.
Evidence of cash shortage in malversation. Evidence of
shortage is necessary before there could be any taking,
appropriation, conversion or loss of public funds that would
amount to malversation. The law requires that the shortage
must be clearly established as a fact; that over and above
the funds found by the auditors in the actual possession of
the accountable officers, there is an additional amount
which could not be produced or accounted for at the time of
audit. Neither can the petitioner Roeda be considered guilty
of passive malversation, he did not tolerate the practice of
making cash advances by municipal officials and employees.
Now please take note of the Arias Doctrine in malversation.
When the infraction consist in the reliance in good faith
placed by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the
primary responsibility rest absent a case of conspiracy, the
Arias Doctrine must be held to prevail. Kana bang tanang
official, kada-adlaw daghang pirmahan unya palutsan dayon
ka ug binuang. Now if there is no conspiracy then he is not
liable.
All heads of offices have to rely on a reasonable extent on
their subordinate and on their good faith of those who
prepare deeds, purchase supplies or enter into negotiations.
Any executive head or even small government agencies or
commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must
be signed. A person may be so held liable as co-principal if
he by an act of reckless imprudence has brought about the
commission of estafa through falsification or malversation
through falsification which the crime would not have
accomplished. When however, that infraction consist in
reliance in good faith placed by the head of office on a
subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests
absent conspiracy, the Arias Doctrine must be held to
prevail. The act of encashing a check intended for a
particular project and subsequently using the money for
some other purpose constitutes misappropriation. Is
demand necessary in malversation? No. Its not dispensable
to constitute malversation since demand merely raises a
prima facie presumption that the missing funds have been
put to personal use.
Falsification under Art 171 (2): The document need not be
an authentic, official paper, and the signatures need not be
necessarily forged. The principle that the return of funds
malversed is not a defense and will not be an exempting
circumstance nor a ground for exempting criminal liability
apply also when the subject matter of malversation is
public property. Mere failure of an accountable officer to
produce public funds which has come to his hands on
demand by an officer duly authorized to examine his
account is a prima facie evidence of conversion,
presumption is merely prima facie therefore rebuttable.
Accountable officer may overcome the presumption by proof

to the contrary. Requisites to prove malversation of public
funds: in malversation, all that is necessary is that the
defendant receive in his possession public funds and that he
could not account for them and he did not have them in his
possession and that he could not give reasonable excuse for
the disappearance of the same. So convicted even if there is
no direct evidence. May a public officer be held guilty of
malversation based on preliminary audit report? Answer is
in the affirmative.
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019: Gross inexcusable negligence
does not signify mere omission of duties nor plainly the
exercise of less than the standard degree of prudence,
rather it refers to negligence characterized by the one of
even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act not inadvertently but
willfully. It entails the omission of care that even inattentive
and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own
property. And in cases involving public officials, it takes
place only when the breach of duty is flagrant and devious.
Section 4 is plunder. What the prosecution needs to prove
beyond reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient
to form a combination or series which would constitute a
pattern involving an amount of 50M; there is no need to
prove each and every other act alleged in the information to
have been committed by the accused in furtherance of the
over-all unlawful scheme or conspiracy to amass or
accumulate ill-gotten wealth.
There are ten predicate acts in plunder. If the prosecution
already established 3 predicate acts, it need not prove other
predicate acts if it has already established a pattern, whats
needed is a pattern; you dont have to prove all other acts
in the information. A reading of Section 2 in conjunction
with Section 4 brings us to the logical conclusion that
pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the over-all
unlawful scheme or conspiracy. Such pattern arises where
the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the predicate acts as defined in Section 1 (d), pattern is
merely a by-product of the proof of predicate act. Plunder is
a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent.
Precisely because the constituted crimes are mala in se, the
elements of mens rea must be proven by the prosecution. It
is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the
crime of plunder was committed willfully, unlawfully,
criminally; it thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of
the petitioner. The mention of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances in the RPC to prosecutions under the Plunder
Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of
plunder since the degree of responsibility if the offender is
determined by criminal intent. Resort to the deliberation in
Congress will readily reveal that the word combination
includes at least 2 different overt or criminal acts in R.A
7080, series is used when the offender commits the same
overt or criminal acts more than once, there is no plunder if
only one act is proved.
The overt or criminal acts need not be joint or separated in
space or time since the law does not make such a
qualification. Plunder is malum in se requiring proof of
criminal intent. Words: combination, series or pattern used
in the law are understood in their common signification.
When the plunder law speaks of combination, it is referring
to at least two acts falling under different categories or
enumeration, on the other hand, to constitute a series there
must be two or more acts falling under the same category
or enumeration.
What is pattern? Pattern consists of at least a combination
or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsection
1-6, Section 1(d). Secondly pursuant to Section 2 of the
law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards
a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public
officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
Thirdly, there must be either an over-all unlawful scheme or
conspiracy to achieve said common goal. Void for vagueness
doctrine invoked only against legislation that is utterly
vague on its face, a statute is vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that man of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its
application test for determining invalidity of criminal statute
for vagueness.
In 3019, what is the meaning of to liquidate? To liquidate

means to settle, to adjust, to ascertain or to reduce to
precision its amount. Liquidation does not necessarily
signify payment and to liquidate an account can mean to
ascertain the balance whom it is due and to whom it is
payable, hence an account that has been liquidated can also
mean that the item has been made certain as to what and
how much is deemed to be owe to you.
Again applying Arias Doctrine, persons who signs or initials
document in the course of transit through standard
operating procedures does not automatically become
conspirator in a crime which transpired at a stage where he
had no participation. Rationale: reliance on subordinates
allowed to a reasonable extent.
Menesis vs Sandiganbayan. The giving of balis by public
officers is prohibited by P.D 1145 Government Auditing Code
of the Philippines.
Magsusi vs Sandiganbayan. When the infraction consists in
reliance in good faith placed by a head of office upon a
subordinate upon whom primary responsibility rests absent
a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias Doctrine must be held
to prevail.
Miriam Defensor Santiago vs Sandiganbayan. Miriam was
the commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, she was
charged of violation of the Anti-Graft Law (R.A. 3019), then
she was elected Senator, gitawag ang kaso for Anti-Graft,
suspended si Miriam, she said, di na ko masuspend,
Senator naman ko Supreme Court said no, kay kanang
office na masuspend ka need not be the office when the
charge was filed. Thus it has been held that the use of the
word office would indicate that it applies to any office
which the officer charged may be holding, not only the
particular office which he stands accused. R.A. 3019 AntiGraft covers members of Congress.
Crimes against persons.
Dismemberment of dead body which is a manner of
outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, raises the
killing to murder considering that the qualifying
circumstance was alleged in the information.
People vs Waysenhan. Waysenhan beheaded his lover Elsa,
he further cut up his body like pieces of meat then threw
the dismembered part of the body in the deserted road of
the countryside leaving them to rot on the ground. Murder.
Scoffing.
Kidnapping.
People vs Ramos. The term actual deprivation of liberty
consists not only in placing a person in an enclosure but
also detaining a person or depriving him in any manner of
his liberty. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that
the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict
his freedom of locomotion, it is enough that in the instant
case, she was in a manner deprived of her liberty and
unable to move and get out as he please.
In one other case, the Mayor told or directed the DENR
people not to get out of a particular barangay, mugawas
gani mo, dakpon mo, that is what crime? Because it is
committed by a public officer, arbitrary detention, bahala na
makasuroy-suroy mo sa barangay, di gani mo paggawson,
meaning you are deprived of your liberty, if committed by a
public officer, arbitrary detention, private person, illegal
detention.
In anti-fencing, ang iyang defense, wa man ko kahibaw na
kinawat ni, actual knowledge by the fence of the fact that
property received is stolen displace some degree of
malicious deprivation of ones rightful property as that which
animated the robbery or theft which by their very nature
are crimes of moral turpitude. Kung ang TV sa department
store costs 60, 000, nya gibaligya 3, 000, you ought to
know na gikawat na, illegal ang source.
Rape cases.
Failure to recall the exact date and time is not an indication
of false testimony. Fear of discovery or the likely
appearance of other people does not necessarily deter the

commission of rape.
Delay in reporting rape cases may be justified if there are
strong reasons like death threats. There is no defense in
rape.
How about lack of medical examination? People vs Julian.
No law requires a medical examination for the successful
prosecution of rape.
If the rapist is a married man, he cannot be compelled to
recognize the offspring of the crime (people vs Riso) but he
may be compelled to support the offspring. Qualified
seduction does not include rape. Subing-Subing. Seduction,
committed by a domestic. Qualified seduction means more
than a servant, it covers all persons living under the same
roof. The term domestic is applied to persons usually living
under the same roof pertaining to the same house and
constituting in this sense a part thereof distinguishing it
from servant whereby a person serving another on a salary
is designated. Qualifying circumstance increases the penalty
by degree while an aggravating circumstance affects only
the period of the penalty but does not increase it to a higher
degree.
Fear is a viable reason for long silence. This is about delay
in reporting rape.
Full penetration is not required. It is settled that carnal
knowledge is consummated by the mere touching of
womans labia by the male sex organ. The contact of penile
invasion is as serious as full penetration and thus rupture of
the hymen is not required.
Moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation. In
this case, ignominy was appreciated in rape. Why? Medicolegal officer testified that the pubic are of the victim bore
blisters brought about by a contact with a lighted cigarette.
Distinction between civil indemnity and moral damages.
Jurisprudence has elucidated that the award authorized by
the criminal law as civil liability ex delicto for the offended
party in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial
policy and aside from other proven actual damages is itself
equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law,
for that matter civil liability ex-delicto provided by the RPC
all corresponding to actual or compensatory damages.
Failure to allege in the information the fact of the victim
being a mental retardate prevents conviction of appellant of
the crime of statutory rape. Te information must state that
the accused knew of the mental retardation of the victim.
Death penalty cannot be imposed for lack of proof that
appellant was indeed complainants stepfather. Ang gi-allege
stepfather, ang gi-prove common law relationship.
Rape by guardian. Restrictive definition of guardian, must
be a legally-appointed guardian. How about advanced age,
rason ba ni na way rape kay tiguwang na? Advanced age is
not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest
and capability of middle age and older people.
Proof of use of force and intimidation in statutory rape is not
necessary. Moral damages are automatically awarded in
rape cases.
How about lack of scratches? Lack of hymenal laceration?
Absence of external signs of physical injuries on the victim
does not negate rape.
When the woman is under 12 years of age, the mere fact of
sexual intercourse with her constitutes the crime of rape.
Asked in the bar exam. The consent of the minor is not a
defense in this offense. Because a woman below 12 is not
capable of giving rational consent to a sexual congress.
Rape has been known to be perpetrated even in the most
unlikely places like parks, roadsides, school premises and
the likes. Rape in no respecter of time and place, basta
mutukar lang ang kabuang sa tawo, bisan unsa kalisud.
People vs Sharit. Kasagaran muingon dayon, wa man toy
rape, wa man musyagit. Jurisprudence is that behavioral
psychology moreover teaches us that people react to similar
situations dissimilarlty, there is no standard form of human

behavior when confronted by a shocking incident. Naay
uban musyagit, naay uban musukol, naay uban mugahi
nalang sa kahadlok.
General rule: rape of a woman asleep is rape. Pero kung
half-asleep but full penetration, not rape. (LYDIA IKAW
YAN!)
So, we are going back important cases starting from 2005
and then 2007, Im sure we have not discussed the
important cases.
ECHEGARAY VERSUS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE - Atty Te,
counsel for Echegaray filed a second or third motion for
reconsideration. There was already a judgment of conviction
against Echegaray which became final and executory. What
remained was execution by lethal injection. Then, Atty Te
filed another motion for reconsideration anchored on the
fact that congress might prohibit the imposition of death
penalty. This was opposed by The Office of the Solicitor
General who argued that the execution of Echegaray is no
longer a judicial function but a function of the executive
department, meaning the Bureau of Prisons.
The Supreme Court said that for as long as the judgment
is not yet been executed, the judiciary still has
jurisdiction over the case because a decision is
considered terminated only if there is satisfaction in
full. And there is a DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT
after a decision has become final and executory. It may not
be executed if facts supervene which may render the
judgment unjust or unconscionalable.
The court said, the finality of judgment does not
mean that the court has lost all its powers on the
case. By the finality of judgment, what the court
losses is its jurisdiction to amend the judgment,
cannot be done. It cannot amend, modify or alter the
judgement. But even after the judgment has become final,
the court retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it.
There is a difference between jurisdiction of the court to
execute and its jurisdiction to amend alter or modify the
same. Jurisdiction of the court to execute continuous even if
the judgment has become final for the purpose of
enforcement of judgment but the court cannot amend, alter
or modify a judgment that have become final and executory.
For after the judgment has become final, facts or
circumstances may transpire which can render the
execution unjust of impossible.
Meaning, if a supervening event happens, Now, what is that
supervening events mention by Atty Te, according to him,
the supervening event is that Congress may pass a law
prohibiting the death penalty. So, Echagaray was not
immediately executed. Suspension of the execution of death
sentence is an exercise of judicial power not usurpation of
the Presidential power of reprieve. It said that the power of
the executive, the legislature and the judiciary to save the
life of the death convict do not exclude each other for the
simple reason that there is no higher right than the right to
life. But congress failed to pass that law so Echegaray was
executed. And after his death, congress passed a law
prohibiting death penalty.
Is there ACCIDENTAL SELF DEFENSE in criminal law?
There is none according to Justice Callejo. In Toledo versus
People. Self defense implies a deliberate and positive over
act to prevent or repeal an unlawful aggression.
USE OF EPLOSIVE AND TREACHERY AS QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE, for use of eplosive qualifies the crime to
murder not treachery. What is the reason? Since, the use of
the eplosive is the principal mode of attack, reason dictates
that these attendance circumstance should qualify the
offense instead of treachery which will then renegated
_____ as generic aggregating principle or circumstance.
Pro reo was discussed in this case, this came out in the bar
exams. It is intended to favor the accused by imposing a
single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed,
favorable to the accused.
Probation, petitioners discharged on probation could not be

restored or reinstated in to his employment in government
service. Thats SAMARIO VS CA.
Then CABANDIG VS SANDIGANBAYAN - FULFILLMENT
OF
DUTY
AS
A JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE,
Sandiganbayan had very good reason in steadfast the
adhering to the policy but a law enforcer must first
issue a warning before he could use force against an
offender. The issuance of a warning before a law enforcer
for views force would prevent unnecessary bloodshed. But
the duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at
all times and at all cause. In directed crucial warning
contemplates a situation where several options are
still available to the enforcer.
SELF DEFENSE AND FULFILLMENT OF DUTY ARE
DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES. Self defense is based on the
principle of self preservation from mortal harm while
fulfillment of duty is premised on due performance of duty.
A policeman in the performance of duty is just defined in
using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and
detain the offender. Since the policemans duty require him
to overcome the offender the force exerted by the
policeman may therefore differ from that which ordinarily
maybe offered in self defense. Unlike in self defense, where
unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty
unlawful aggression from the victim is not a requisite. While
self defense and performance of duty are two distinct
justifying circumstances, self defense or defense of stranger
may still be relevant even if the proper justifying
circumstance in a given case is fulfillment of duty.
Then, another case on PROBATION. No application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected his appeal from the judgment of conviction.
And that the filling of the application shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal. As I said before, probation
and appeal are mutually exclusive. If the accused files
application for probation, you can no longer appeal. If he
files a notice of appeal he is disqualify from filling a petition
for probation.
Lately the SC said that probation or an application for
probation maybe filed even after the judgment have
become final and executory. So far as the law is concerned,
the petition must be filed within the period to appeal. Then,
probation should be availed of at the earliest opportunity by
the convict who is willing to perform and rehabilitated of
maintained spontanuity , contrition and remorse. So, if the
accused is convicted and is disqualified from filling a petition
for probation because the penalty is more than 6 yrs but the
Court of Appeals reverse the decision insofar as the penalty
is concerned, let say, its reduced to 6 or less than 6 yrs
imprisonment is disqualified from filling a petition for
probation. However, if he appeals the judgment of the
court, convicted siya way problema, convicted ko. But I am
questioning the propriety of the penalty imposed. Mao nay
appeal niya sa penalty and then the, SC ruled that the
penalty imposed is wrong, so it is 6 yrs or less. Can the
accused file a petition for probation despite this appeal? The
answer is YES. Because the only question is the propriety of
the imposing the penalty not the conviction itself.
Again on, probation, there is no doubt that drug is a crime
of conviction under dangerous drugs law. It is a crime which
involves moral torpitude. Unlike pardon, probation does not
obliterate the crime of which the person under probation. A
pardon obliterates the crime but probation does not.
Probation is not available to accused who haw appeal.
PENALTIES IN MULTIPLE PRISON TERMS NOT TO BE
TAKEN SEPARATELY TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR
PROBATION. Example, Thirty one counts of violation BP
22. 31 counts. JOINS TRIAL, JOINT DECISION,
PROMULGATION ON THE SAME DAY. So, Kung iphun
nimu 31 yrs, if the accused files an application for probation
will you grant the same? YES. thats the ruling of PABLO
FRANCISCO VERSUS CA. Penalties in multiple prison
terms not to be taken separately to determine eligibility for
probation. Primary consideration is reformation of
probationer. Purpose of probation is reformative in nature
not preventive. The filling of the application shall be
deemed a waiver of his right to appeal or automatic
review rather withdrawal of a pending appeal. An
order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.

So what then is the remedy? REMEDY is certiorari under
rule 65.
What are the basics of placing an offender on probation?
1. First, prior investigation by the probation officer.
2. Next is the determination of the court as to whether or
not probation would serve the ends justice and the best
interest of the public and the applicant.
Who are these qualified offenders? Those sentenced to
serve a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than 6
yrs.
Are penalties in multiple prison terms in one decision
to be taken separately or added up to determine
eligibility of probation? Answer: Multiple prison terms
imposed against an accused found guilty of several offenses
in one decision are not and should not be added up.
The mandatory conditions enumerated in Section 10,
Probation Law requires that:
1. probationer should present himself to the probation
officer within 72 hrs from receipt of the order.
2. Report to the probation officer at least ones a month.
Special and discretionary conditions are those additional
conditions which the court may additionally impose on the
probationer towards his correction and rehabilitation.
In the case of BACLAYON VERSUS MOTYAG. A School
teacher was convicted, she applied for probation, granted.
One of the conditions is that she should not teach. SC
said, it may not impose as a condition for the grant of
probation that probationer should not continue the
teaching profession. In this case, teaching has been
the lifetime and only calling and profession of
petitioner, the law requires that she devote herself to
a lawful calling and occupation during probation.
SORIANO VERSUS CA, probation was granted. But she
was directed to submit a program of payment, she set a
liability arising from crime. She questioned that order, the
court said, requiring petitioner to submit a program of
payment is not violative of the equal protection clause of
the constitution. An order revoking probation or modifying
probation is unappealable.
THESE ARE CASES UNDER VOLUME 1:
IMPAIRED MENTAL FACULTY IS ONLY MITIGATING.
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF DANGEROUS DRUG SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS A QUALIFYING AGGREGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.
RECLUSION PERPETUA IS AN INDIVISIBLE PENALTY.
First ruling of the SC, indivisible. Second ruling, rather the
first decision was, basta the SC reverse itself after 3
months.
Now, DEFENSE OF COMMISSION OF AN IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME CONTRADICTS DEFENSE OF ALIBI.
In order for appellants, here in this case of PEOPLE VS
DIOFANTE. The accused, basta duna syay amputation, usa
lng ka kamot, pongkolation, unya, gigukod niya tong private
complainant and stab the private complainant. Miingon sya
ang physical defect is a mitigating circumstance. SC
said, No. In order for a appelants physical defect to
be appreciated, it must be shown that such physical
defect limited his means to act, defend himself or
communicated with his fellow beings . For such an
extent that he did not have complete freedom of action
resulting in deminution of element of voluntariness. Kini c
Diofante kuha sya sa fan knife, kanang batangas bitaw,
papitik pitik pa sya abtik kaayu siyang mi kuan sa kutsilyo
bah kanang knife. Unya ggukod nya, gdunggab nya ah,
ingon SC kadtong physical defect nya waman mo hamper sa
pagdunggab, mayo syang ngpapitik pitik sa kutsilyo.
MONSANTO vs. FACTOREN - Pardon does not ipso facto
restore a convict to public office. Pilmiro, ngtrabaho sya sa
DENR, convicted pardon balik sya sa DENR kay greclaim

niya ang iyang trabaho. SC said, NO, to regain a former
post she must reapply and undergo the usual procedure
required for a new appointment.
Petitioner is deemed to have abandoned her appeal
when she accepted the pardon granted to her.
A PERSON INVOKING IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR must show that the force
exerted was such that reduced him to a mere instrument
who acted without will but against his will.
PEOPLE VERSUS MAMALIYAS - This was decided when
there was automatic review sa SC. So, convicted si
Mamaliyas, automatic review since the penalty was death
penalty. Then, he jumped bail, eluded arrest or he escaped.
Now, what is the effect of his escape to the automatic
review? SC said, its a constitutional duty of the SC
automatic review, even if the accused escaped.
Recent decision, diba duna na may automatic review sa
Court of Appeals? Kung penalty would have been death?
Mao ghapon miikyas, now, will this be reason for the Court
of Appeals not to conduct automatic review? SC said, Court
of Appeals must conduct automatic review. But if the
penalty would not have been death the effect is different.
Escape during the pendency of the appeal means,
abandonment of the appeal and the waiver of all rights
available to him, such as filling a motion for reconsideration,
filling a petition for certiorari or any other legal remedy.
PEOPLE VS. RAMOS - Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, a
penalty provided in the revised penal code w/c carries
accessory penalties is different from life imprisonment.
FOR A PERSON TO BE ADJUDGED INSANE UNDER ART
12 OF THE RPC, HE MUST BE DEPRIVED COMPLETELY
OF REASON OR DISCERNMENT AND FREEDOM OF THE
WILL AT THE TIME COMMITTING THE CRIME.
TREACHERY, killing of children is considered attended with
treachery even if the manner of attack is not shown. Even if
the attack is frontal, even if the minor has opportunity to
defend himself, its always considered treachery and the
crime is murder.
AN ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF SEXUAL
ABUSE OR SODONY IN AN ABSENCE OF AN
ALLEGATION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE INFORMATION.
(Cebu case: RALPH VELEZ DIAZ ALIAS JEMBOY)
When the sexual assault was done as an act of
revenge, an act for the purpose of putting the victim
to shame, ignominy cannot be appreciated to
aggravate the killing.
Is Pedophilia insanity which is an exempting
circumstance? Answer is No, pedophilia is dissimilar to
insanity cannot therefore exempt accused from liability.
Dwelling may be aggravating even if it does not
belong to the victim.
Mere mental depravity or moral insanity so called
which results not from any decease of mind but from
a perverted condition of the moral system where the
person is mentally sown does not exempt one from
responsibility for crimes committed under its
influence.
Application for Probation renders judgment final but not
executory.
Punishment is not cruel or unusual or disproportionate to
the nature to the offense unless it is barbarous, one
unknown to the law or so wholly disproportionate to the
nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the
community. (PP VS JUDGE OCSENCIO DAKOYKOY)
The fact that punishment authorized by the statute is
severe does not make it cruel or unusual.
A fine is as much a principal penalty as penalty as
imprisonment. It should not and cannot be reduced to a
prison term. The duration of the preventive imprisonment of

the accused maybe credited even if the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua.
JOSE GARCIA VS CA: It is settled that in BIGAMY, both
the second spouses may be the offended parties depending
the circumstances.
The prescriptive period thereof shall commence to run from
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authority or their agents. Kay ngano, unsa may
contention sa accused? Nagminyu cya, nagminyug ikaduha
layu nga dapit iyang giregister sa LCR. More than 10 years
later gikiha cyag bigamy. Ingon cya niprescribe na. nganong
niprescribe naman? Kay I registered my marriage in the
NCR more than 10 years ago, that is notice to the whole
world. Ingon ang SC- pikat. Unsay pagtoo nimos
marriage, land registration? So wa nang constructive
notice. It is entirely incorrect to state as the
petitioner thereof Art 91 RPC provides that the period
of prescription shall commence to run from the day
on which the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents.
SINCE RECLUSION PERPETUA IS AN INDIVISIBLE
PENALTY it has no minimum, medium, maximum periods.
Ang first case gidecide sa Sc, devisible ang reclusion
perpetua, ila pang gibutang didto kung unsaon pagdivide.
Later on it changed its mind and says that reclusion
perpetua is indivisible.
SANDIGANBAYAN:
Adaza vs Sandiganbayan crime committed in relation to
office.
Powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman:
-investigate on its own , or on complaint by any person,
any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or
agency when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, inefficient.
PEREZ VS OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Sec 27, RA
6770 was declared unconstitutional in so far as it provides
appeals by certiorari under rule 45 in an administrative
disciplinary action. Decision gani sa Ombudsman,
administrative cases, appeal should be to the CA.
While it is true that public office is not an element of acts of
lasciviousness, petitioner could not have committed the
crimes charged where it not for the fact that as Judge he
had the authority to recommend complainant for
appointment. (ESTEBAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN) the acts
of lasciviousness was committed in relation to office.
Where it not for his authority to accept the complainant as
employee then the crime would not have been committed.
Very clear that in so far as administrative cases is
concerned, it is OCA which has jurisdiction. Duha ka
judge nagsukmagay over a piece of furniture.
Jurisdiction is in the Office of the Court Administrator
not Sandiganbayan.
SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION TO ANNUL THE
JUDGMENT OF THE RTC IN A SEQUESTRATION
RELATED CASE. Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive
jurisdiction not only over principal causes of action involving
ill gotten wealth but also over all incidents arising from
incidental to or related to such cases. Ayaw lang gyud
ninyug kalimti, basta sequestration gani ill gotten, ang
moconduct sa preliminary investigation PCGG ra gyud na. it
cannot even be delegated and then ari gyud na ang trial sa
Sandiganbayan.
SC will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsmans
exercise of his investigatory or prosecutory powers
without good and compelling reasons to indicate
otherwise.
Municipal Mayors, grade 27.
The Crime Of Plunder, which court has Jurisdiction?
Sandiganbayan. Violation of RA 7080, Plunder is not
mentioned in Sec 4 (a) RA 5249 but it falls squarely under
Sec 4 (b). This is the Sandiganbayan law. Other offenses or

felonies WHETHER SIMPLE OR COMPLEX WITH OTHER
CRIMES committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in such section (a) of this section in relation to
their office. Plunder is clearly a crime committed by public
officials in relation to office.
Cases of Unfair Competition, RTC even if penalty is 2 years
to 5 years.
Forfeiture as penalty. Remember RA 1379, the Forfeiture
law. The forfeiture of illegally acquired property partakes of
the nature of penalty. But the proceedings are generally
considered to be civil in nature, it proceeding in rem. Why,
what is the process? Mosumbong ang tax payer, the office of
the prosecutor will conduct an inquiry, if there is probable
cause then the office of the solicitor general will file an
action for forfeiture. That is civil procedure.
CRISOSTOMO VS SANDIGANBAYAN - Municipal jail
guards conspired some inmates in committing the crime of
murder
agains
another
inmate.
Jurisdiction
is
Sandiganbayan because murder was commited in relation to
office. Meaning: committed while the accused is in the
performance of his duty as jail guard.
BAREGA VS SANDIGANBAYAN: Barega was not an
accountable public officer. He conspired with an accountable
officer. So, jurisdiction is Sandiganbayan.
Who is an accountable officer? He is one who has control of
public funds or property by reason of his office, name or
relative importance of the office or employment is not the
controlling factor. The nature of the duties of the public
officer or employee, the fact that part of his duties., the
receipt of public money for which he is bound to account
and fail to account for it is the factor that determines
whether or not malversation is commited by the accused
public officer or employee.
Sandigan has jurisdiction to annul the judgment of the RTC
in sequestration cases.
Shared responsibility between the OMB and DOJ to
conduct preliminary investigation. The only difference is
after the DOJ conducts the preliminary investigation, it shall
transmit the records and their resolution to the OMB. Also
the prosecutor cannot dismiss the complaint without the
prior written authority of the OMB or his deputy nor can the
prosecutor file the information with the Sandiganbayan
without being deputized and without prior written authority
of the OMB or his deputy. Dissenting opinion of Inares
Santiago, quo de etat is a crime commited in relation to
office.
Crime committed by salary grade 28 employee in relation to
office exclusive original jurisdiction Sandiganbayan not MTC.
Sec 27 RA 6770, suspension of not more than 1
month salary. SC said, mali. Dili nimo e suspend ang
salary, ang imong e suspend ang public officer. There
is no penalty of suspension of salary in our administrative
law, rules and regulations. Salaries are simply not
suspended rather it is the official or employee concerned
who is suspended with corresponding withholding of salary
following the principle of no work, no pay.
NO WRIT OF INJUNCTION shall be issued by any court to
delay the investigation being conducted by the OMB.
CRIM 31:
Coverage for Finals: Book I only including Probation Law.
(???)
PLEA FOR FORGIVENESS IS ANALOGOUS TO AN
ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE. So its an evidence against
the accused.
Failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is
not an indication of a fabricated charge.
Healed lacerations do not negate rape.
IN ROBBERY IN BAND, all the members of the band are

presumed to be conspirators or co-principals in the assault
committed by the band. Exception, unless he who claims to
be non-conspirator proves that he attempted to prevent
the assault.
Where the victim is feeble-minded, even if there may
have been no physical force employed on the victim, there
is authority to the effect that the force required by the
statute is the act itself.
A medical examination is not
element in a prosecution for rape.
an
indispensable
Accused appellants moral dominance and influence

over the complainant constituted intimidation. So even
if there is no force, no violence, if the accused took
advantage of his moral dominance, he may still be held
liable for rape.
RAPE COMMITTED BY GUARDIAN. Guardian here must
be a legally appointed guardian, meaning, a judicial
guardian.
PEOPLE V. ALFECHE. The crime of usurpation of real

property by means of violence or intimidation is not a
complex crime. In usurpation, if the usurpation resulted in
serious physical injuries or less serious physical injuries,
said crime shall be separately punished. Although the crime
of usurpation is committed by means of violence or
intimidation, the law says in addition to other crimes the
accused may have committed.
PEOPLE V. CABANDE. Shooting the victim while in a
kneeling position or while covering behind a vehicle is
treacherous. Crime is murder.
Two informations were filed. One is for murder, the other
one is for homicide, the judge rendered one decision
complex crime of murder with homicide. Supreme Court
said, Appellant cannot be convicted of the complex
crime of murder with homicide because separate
informations for murder and homicide were filed
against him. If two cases were filed, one for rebellion
and another one for coup detat, there can be no
complex crime of rebellion with coup detat.
PEOPLE V. DELIVERIO. There is qualified rape if the

rapist is step-parent. Is it qualified rape if the rapist is
step-grandparent? The answer is no.
FORTUNA V. PEOPLE. The victims were intimidated. They

were asked by the police officers, You either give money or
suffer the humiliation of being taken to the police station.
So the victims gave money. Supreme Court said, robbery
because there was intimidation,
RAPE WITH MUTILATION. After raping the woman, he

hacked the woman resulting in the mutilation of her face. Is
this rape with mutilation? Supreme Court said, no, two
crimes rape and frustrated murder.
In robbery with homicide, there must be a direct

relation between the robbery and the killing.
Rape by common law spouses or the parent of the

victim is punishable by death. If the information says,
the accused is common law spouse and the evidence is
step-parent, its not qualified rape. If the information says
the accused is step-parent, but the evidence says common
law spouse, not qualified. This is based on technicality. The
accused is entitled to know the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
Cases involving crimes
possession of firearm.
against
persons
and
illegal
The law does not prescribe a minimum time for

holding a firearm before its possession can be illegal.
If there is animus possidendi then he is liable.
Elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearm:
Existence of firearm; lack of license to possess or carry;
intent to possess.
Where an accused used a gun, unlicensed firearm, in
committing homicide or murder, the penalty for illegal
possession is no longer imposable.
BOTONA V. CA. PALTIK. The prosecution failed to prove
that the paltik was not licensed. It is the position of the
Solicitor General that paltik cannot be licensed. So the
prosecution need not prove lack of license or authority. The
Supreme Court abandoned its previous decision
even if the firearm is paltik, the prosecution must still
present evidence of lack of license or authority.
There are two ways of proving lack of license. One is
to present a certification from the Firearms and
Explosive Section of the PNP. And two, testimony of a
witness that at the time of the arrest, when the
accused was asked whether he had a license or not,
the answer is in the negative.
In Dorimon, the Supreme Court said, while no license or
permit may be issued for a paltik, we have already ruled
that this mere fact alone does not dispense with proof that
it is unlicensed.
In illegal possession of explosives, the prosecution
need not prove actual explosion. Niingon ang accused,
di mn na explosive kay wa mn ninyo pabutha.
PEOPLE V. ESTOISTA is already incorporated in the new
firearms law. Temporary, incidental, casual or harmless
possession of firearm is not punishable.
PEOPLE V. PUNO. For kidnapping to exist, there must be

indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactors
was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. Here, the
accused who was the driver of the private complainant,
drove the private complainant and while they were on the
road, the driver told the private complainant, if you will not
hand over the money to me, then Ill bring this vehicle to an
uncertain place and I will bump the vehicle. What crime
was committed? The contention of the prosecution was, it
was highway robbery. Supreme Court said it cannot be
highway robbery. It is simple robbery with intimidation.
While the court holds that the crime committed is robbery,
as defined by Art. 293 of the Code, the theory of the trial
court that the same constitutes highway robbery
contemplated in and punished by PD 532 is rejected. This is
not even kidnapping for ransom. Although there was
demand for money, there was no ransom because
ransom is money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person, a
payment that releases from captivity.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BRIGANDAGE AND ROBBERY.
Main object of brigandage law is to prevent the formation of
band of robbers. The heart of the offense consists in the
formation of a band by more than 3 armed persons for the
purpose indicated in Art. 306. Such formation is sufficient to
constitute a violation of Art. 306. So it would not be
necessary to show that a member or members of the band
actually committed robbery or kidnapping or any other
purpose attainable by means of violence. So brigandage
under RPC, mere formation of a band of brigands is
punishable even if the band of brigands did not yet commit
highway robbery. In fine, the purpose of brigandage is
indiscriminate highway robbery. Brigandage under PD 532.
If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only
robbery or robbery in band if there are at least 4 armed
participants. Never forget that PD 532 is known as
indiscriminate highway robbery. So how do we distinguish?
If the victim is identified, predetermined, its robbery.
Robbery in band, if there are at least 4 armed participants.
But, if it is indiscriminate, meaning, there is no particular
target, the crime is highway robbery even if there is only
one accused. So if the robber waited for the passengers to
disembark and he had no particular target, he saw one
passenger who looked like a millionaire because he had
several pieces of jewelry, then that is highway robbery
under 532, indiscriminate (to whom this may concern). PD
532 punishes a highway robbery or brigandage. Only acts of
robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any
person or persons on Philippine highways as defined therein
and not acts of robbery committed against a predetermined
or particular victim. The single act of robbery conceived and
committed by appellants in this case does not constitute
highway robbery or brigandage. Here, the armed group

waited for the owner of the store to close the store because
knew that after closing the store, they will bring the cash to
their house. So they waited for the owner to close the store
and they were on the road. They blocked the vehicle of the
victim and robbed them. Thats not highway robbery under
532 because the target is predetermined.
PEOPLE V. MENDOZA. To obtain conviction for a highway
robbery, the prosecution should prove that the accused
were organized for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. But do not be misled because highway
robbery under PD 532 may be committed by a single
person. So this is corrected in another case. The number of
perpetrators is no longer essential element of the crime of
brigandage under 532. This different from brigandage under
the RPC, where there are more than 3 persons committing
robbery in the highway.
PEOPLE V. SANDOVAL. Simple robbery only, not a
violation of 532 or highway robbery should have been
charged with respect to the incident involving Laurente. AN
ISOLATED ACT OF ROBBERY on a public highway will
not constitute highway robbery as defined by PD 532.
What is highway robbery under PD 532? The seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes or
the taking away of the property of another by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things or other unlawful means committed by any person on
any Philippine highway. Philippine is defined by PD 532.
Appellant Laurente cannot be validly convicted for highway
robbery with homicide. PD 532 is directed against acts
of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscrimately not
against a predetermined or a particular victim.
Crimes against property. ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
PEOPLE V. GANO (2001). Multiple is not considered an
aggravating circumstance. Old jurisprudence if several
persons are killed, multiple killings is considered
aggravating circumstance. Thats no longer correct
according to the Supreme Court in People v. Gano.
Robbery with homicide arises only when there is a direct

relation and intimate connection between the robbery and
the killing even if the killing is prior to, concurrent with or
subsequent to the robbery. In other words, there must be a
nexus, a connection between the robbery and the killing.
The killing may be before, that is to eliminate
opposition, during, that is to eliminate any opposition,
or after, to eliminate witnesses.
PEOPLE V. SALVATIERRA. Whenever homicide is
committed as a consequence or on occasion of robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the conspiracy are also
guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, although they did not actually take part in
the killing, unless proof is presented that they endeavored
to prevent the same.
PEOPLE V. BRACAMONTE. The court notes that appellant
together with his two co-accused were charged and
convicted of robbery with double homicide. Supreme Court
said there is no such crime. It is only robbery with
homicide.
PEOPLE V. LAGMAY. There is no crime as robbery with
frustrated homicide. Two crimes, robbery and frustrated
homicide. The trial court erred in designating the crime
committed as robbery with frustrated homicide. In applying
Sec. II, Art. 294, RPC, and in appreciating the use of an
unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance. there is
no such crime as robbery with frustrated homicide.
In robbery with homicide, do you have to prove or to
present the personal property taken? Will the accused be
convicted if you cannot produce the personal property
taken? Answer is no. The law does not require production of
things stolen or robbed as a condition sine qua non for the
conviction of a person accused of robbery. Because if the
rule were otherwise, taguan nlng ang property para di maconvicted.
PEOPLE V. SALVILLA (1990). From the moment the
offender gained possession of the thing even if the culprit
had no opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful
taking is complete.
PEOPLE V. CALABROSO (2000). Where a complex crime

is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to
one of the component offenses, the defendant can only be
convicted of the offense proved. If the crime, therefore, is
robbery with homicide, only homicide is proved, then its
simple homicide. If only robbery is proved, not homicide, its
robbery only.
PEOPLE V. SOLIS. It is the nature of the crime that the

homicides, murders, physical injuries, irrespective of their
numbers committed on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery with
homicide. The trial court therefore erred in treating the
deaths of the victims as double homicide.
PEOPLE V. LEGASPI. The physical injuries inflicted for the

purpose of ensuring success of the robbery are deemed
absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide.
While evident premeditation is inherent in crimes against

property, it may be considered in robbery with homicide if
there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing.
PEOPLE V. PULUSAN (1998). We must state that

regardless of the number of homicides committed on the
occasion of robbery, the crime is still robbery with homicide,
not robbery with multiple homicide. The number of persons
killed is immaterial and does not increase the penalty
prescribed. Thats unfair. Yes, but the Supreme Court said,
We cannot judicially legislate. The law must be amended.
PEOPLE V. BARTULAY. When conspiracy to commit

robbery was conclusively shown by the concerted acts of
the accused and homicide was committed as a consequence
thereof, all those who participated are liable as principals in
robbery with homicide although they did not actually take
part in the robbery, unless it appears that they attempted to
prevent the killing. (principle repeated for the nth time!)
Whenever the special complex crime of robbery with

homicide is proven to be committed, all those persons who
took part in the robbery are liable as principals therein
although they did not actually take part in the homicide.
PEOPLE V. OPERO (JUNE 1991). The famous killer

pandesal case, where death supervenes by reason or on the
occasion of robbery. It is immaterial that the death was
caused by a mere accident. Gi-hogtie ang victim, gipaskan
ug pandesal, natuk-an, patay. Robbery with homicide.
PEOPLE V. SALAZAR. In several cases, the court has

already ruled that a conviction of robbery with homicide
requires certitude that the main purpose and objective of
criminals and that the killing was merely incidental resulting
merely by reason or on the occasion of robbery. So main
purpose is robbery, a person is killed. Robbery with
homicide. Apply the Spanish text.
Where the original design comprehends robbery, and
homicide is perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the
consummation of the former, the crime committed is the
special complex offense even if homicide was an
afterthought or a minor incident of the homicide. The
criminal act should be viewed as constitutive of two
offenses, not of a single complex offense.
ROBBERY WITH RAPE. Crime not aggravated by multiple

rapes. Previous jurisprudence, if there is robbery and there
is multiple rape, multiple rape is aggravating. Supreme
Court said, Thats not found in Art. 14, RPC. It should
be noted that there is no law providing that the
additional rapes or homicides should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of
aggravating circumstance in Art. 14 of the RPC is
exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Art. 13
(mitigating circumstances). Sa mitigating, dunay
gitawag ug analogous. So giuli ang property in theft,
mitigating. Similar to voluntary surrender.
PEOPLE V. REGALA. There is no law providing that the

additional rapes or homicides should be considered as a
aggravating circumstance.
ROBBERY
WITH
VIOLENCE
AGAINST
AND
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS. This is carnapping.
Kidnapping was merely incidental to the forcible taking of
the vehicle. The offense committed was not kidnapping but
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
PEOPLE VS. CARROSO. There no crime of robbery in band
with multiple homicides. Its robbery in band only or
robbery with homicide.
Robbery with homicide is crime against person or
property? Court said it is primarily a crime against
property and the killing is a mere incident of robbery.
PEOPLE V. ALFECHE. What is the meaning of intimidation?
Its unlawful coercion, extortion, duress, putting fear of
bodily harm.
Crime of usurpation of real property by means of violence or
intimidation is not a complex crime.
PEOPLE V. DEL ROSARIO. Homicides, murders or physical
injuries irrespective of the numbers committed on the
occasion or by reason of robbery are merged into one
composite crime of robbery with homicide. It does not
matter whether the killing is before or after robbery. What is
important is that there is a connection between the killing
and the robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus
and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing
whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or
whether both crimes be committed at the same time. (for
the nth time napud. Nana pud ni unya. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!)
If the primary intention is to rob and the multiple homicide
was committed as means to attain such purpose, the crime
is robbery with homicide.
PEOPLE V. UMOTOY. PD 1613 (ARSON) pronounces as
guilty of arson any person who deliberately burns anothers
property wherever located. The circumstances that the
property burned is located in an urban, congested or
populated area merely qualifies the offense that converts it
into destructive arson. Elements of arson: that there is
intentional burning; that what is intentionally burned is an
inhabited house or dwelling.
CARNAPPING. What is carnapping? It is taking with intent
to gain of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latters consent by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, by using force upon things. Carnapping is
essentially the robbery or theft of a motor vehicle. So there
may be no violence, no intimidation. There may be violence
or intimidation. The concept of unlawful taking in theft,
robbery, carnapping, being the same. There are exceptions:
road rollers, trolleys, sweet sweepers, etc.
FRANCISCO V. PEOPLE. Prosecution has the burden of
proof that the accused knows that the property sold to him
is stolen.
PEOPLE V. LATAYAGA. Republic Act 7659 introduced three
amendments to the last clause of Sec. 14 (Carnapping). The
change of penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion
perpetua, the inclusion of rape in carnapping, the change of
the phrase in the commission of the carnapping to in the
course of the commission of carnapping or on the occasion
thereof.
MARCELO V. SANDIGANBAYAN. Mail matter. Qualified
theft. We cannot understand petitioners theory that as the
subject of pilferage was a mail matter, only a government
employee can be held liable of qualified theft. So wrong.
Even a private person.
TAN V. PEOPLE. PD 1612 (FENCING). Act of any person
who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy
and sell or in any matter deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows or should have been
known to him to be derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft. Like if the accused knew that the value
of the TV set is P100,000 and it is sold to him for P5,000

only, he ought to know that theres something wrong.
The law on fencing does not require the accused to have
participated in the criminal design to commit or to have
been in anywise involved in the commission of the crime of
robbery or theft. What is the quantum of evidence to prove
the predicate crime of fencing? There are two predicate
crimes in fencing proceeds of money and theft. Compare
money laundering. Money laundering has several predicate
crimes anti-graft, jueteng, masiao, plunder, etc. To prove
the predicate crime, you need not present proof beyond
reasonable doubt. You only present proof beyond
reasonable doubt to prove the elements of fencing and
money laundering.
DUNLAO V. PEOPLE. Intent to gain need not be proved in
crimes punishable by special law such as PD 1612 (fencing).
SEC. 5, PD 1612 expressly provides that mere possession
of any item which has been the subject of robbery and theft
shall be prima facie evidence of the crime of fencing.
PAMINTUAN V. PEOPLE. PEOPLE V. TAN. Two friends
became enemies. One wanted to buy the car of another so
the key was delivered. The key was not returned. Of course,
the car was not returned. He was charged of the crime of
violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law. Supreme Court said
there was no carnapping because there was no
taking. The car was delivered. Liability, if any, is only
civil.
Considering that the theft was qualified by grave abuse of
confidence, the penalty is two degrees higher than that
specified under Art. 209, that is, reclusion perpetua. This
afternoon, a clerk of court from a neighboring city
nangusulta, judge nganong wa mn ni bond ang kining
qualified theft? Ingon ko, Basin ug dako kaayo ang
amount. Reclusion perpetua, so walay bond.
MARIGOMEN V. PEOPLE. Estafa and illegal recruitment.
Notice of dishonor in BP 22 must be in writing. In estafa, it
need not be in writing.
Demand is not necessary under ART. 315 (1) (B), RPC
when there is evidence of misappropriation. Defense that
employee tasked to sign checks may not be deemed to
know insufficiency of funds applies only to corporate checks
and not to personal checks.
TAN V. MENDEZ CITING VACA V. CA AND LIM V.
PEOPLE.
Preference
of
imposition
of
fine
over
imprisonment. What is the philosophy behind this circular
preference of fine over imprisonment? Same principle
Underlying Indeterminate sentence Law, that is, of
redeeming valuable human material and preventing
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic
usefulness with regard to the protection of social order.
Decriminalization of BP 22 is not the intention of the
Supreme Court in issuing administrative issuances.
TY V. PEOPLE. Nahospital ang nanay ni Vicky unya di
pagawason kay di kabayad so napugos tawon si Vicky Ty ug
issue ug cheke. Niuntol so gikiha sya ug violation of BP 22.
Ang iyange depensa, uncontrollable fear. Napugos syag
issue sa cheke bisag way pondo kay mahadlok syag
maghikog iyang mama kung di mugawas. Supreme Court
said unacceptable reason. A mere threat of a future injury is
not enough. It should not speculative, fanciful or remote
fear. A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show
therefore that the compulsion was such that it reduced him
to a mere instrument acting not only without will but
against his will as well.
There is no estafa through bouncing checks when it is
shown that private complainant knew that the drawer did
not have sufficient funds in the bank at the time check was
issued to him. Such knowledge negates the element of
deceit and constitutes defense in estafa through bouncing
checks. Ang BP 22, kanang element of deceit is absent.
RODRIGUEZ V. PONFERADA. Civil action in BP 22 case is
not bar to civil action in estafa case.
PEOPLE V. ONG. Person convicted of illegal recruitment

may also be convicted of estafa. Recruitment and placement
include referrals.
This came out in the Bar Exams already. THE PONZI
SCHEME. Unsa mn ng Ponzi? Pyramiding. The factual
narration in this case establish the kind of Ponzi scheme.
Unsa mn ning Ponzi or pyramiding? This is an investment
swindle in which high profits are promised from fictitious
sources and early investors are paid off with funds raised
from later ones. It is sometimes called pyramid scheme
because of broader base of gullible investors must support
the structure as time passes. O cge invest mo. 20 kabuok.
Doblehon ng inyong investment. Dagko kaayog interest.
Unsaon pagbayad sa unang investors? Pananglitan 20 sila.
Mu-recruit kag 40. Unsay ibayad nmo sa ilawom, sa 20?
Ang kining 40. Ang kining 40, unsaon pagbayad?
Kinahanglan naa na say investors nga 80 kabuok para
ibayad sa 40. Kadugayan mu-collapse gyud na sya. Mao
nay pyramiding.
PEOPLE V. BALASA. The court held that a transaction
similar to the case at hand is not an investment strategy but
a gullibility scheme which works as long as there is an even
greater number of new investors joining the scheme. It is
difficult to sustain over a long period of time because the
operator needs an even larger pool of later investors to
continue paying promised profits to early investors. The
idea behind this type of swindle is that the con man collects
the money from his second or third round of investors and
then absconds before anyone else shows up to collect.
NAGRAMPA V. PEOPLE. Checks presented beyond the 90day period. Kung muuntol, liable ba for violation of BP 22?
Yes, liable gihapon. Kanus-a mn ma-stale ang check? 6
months or 180 days. The fact that the checks were
presented beyond the 90-day period provided in Sec. 2, BP
22 is of no moment. We held in Wong v. CA that the 90day period is not an element of the offense but
merely a condition for the prima facie presumption of
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. That the check
must be deposited within 90 days is simply 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. By current banking practice, a
check becomes stale after more than 6 months or 180 days.
Unlike in estafa, under BP 22, one need not prove that the
check was issued in payment of an obligation or that there
was damage, the damage done is to the banking system.
CARAS V. CA. Complainant testified that she hired lawyers
to prepare and send demand letters. So exhibit. Dunay
return card, dunay registry receipt. Di gihapon na poydi.
The return card and registry receipt must be authenticated.
Dli gani, acquitted ang accused.
Do you apply the provision of the RPC on subsidiary
imprisonment to BP 22? Yes, in Ladongga v. People. BP 22
does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of
the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary
provision in BP 22, the general provisions of the RPC which
by their nature are necessarily applicable may be applied
suppletorily. Kay duna may preference of fine over
imprisonment kung dli makabayad ug inle, natural,
imprisonment.
To hold a person liable under BP 22, it is not enough to
establish that the check issued was subsequently
dishonored; it must be shown further that the person 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 presentment.
Crimes against personal liberty
PEOPLE V. GARCIA. We do not find any quantum of merit
in the contention that kidnapping for ransom is committed
only when the victim is released as a result of the payment
of ransom. Quoting People v. Salmbago, No specific form of
ransom is required to consummate the crime of kidnapping
with ransom so long as it was intended as a bargaining chip
in exchange for the victims freedom. In municipal criminal
law, ransom refers to the money, price or consideration paid
or demanded for the redemption of a captured person, a
payment that releases from captivity. The gist of the crime
is not the forcible or secret confinement, imprisonment,

inveiglement or kidnapping without legal authority. So
kining kidnapping for ransom, ang tuyo for ransom. Its not
necessary that there is a demand for ransom. It is not
necessary that ransom is delivered. Ang importante, what is
the purpose.
PEOPLE V. MITO. Niingon si Mito nga walay kidnapping for
ransom kay wa mn mo kapakita sa kwarta nga ransom. The
court finds the argument of appellant Mito that the failure of
prosecution to identify the ransom money in court is
tantamount to the prosecutions failure to prove corpus
delicti of the crime. Its not only without factual basis but
also legally infirm .
Crimes against honor.
FLOR V. PEOPLE. Reckless disregard standard. When
confronted with libel cases involving publications which deal
with public officials under discharge of their official
functions, This court is not confined within the wordings of
the libel statute. Rather, the case should likewise be
examined under constitutional precepts of freedom of the
press. Supreme Court quoted Garrison v. State of Louisiana.
Only those false statements made with high degree of their
awareness of their falsity demanded by the New York Times
may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions and
concluded by restating the reckless disregard standard in
the following manner, the test which we laid down in New
York Times is not key to ordinary care; defeasance of the
privilege is conditioned, not on mere negligence, but on
reckless disregard for the truth. Bisag wa nmo sutaag
tinuod bag dli, pataka lag yawyaw. That is reckless
disregard. Subsequently, the US Supreme Court itself
declared reckless disregard cannot be encompassed in one
infallible definition. Inevitably, its outer limits will be marked
out through case by case adjudication. There must be
sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the
defendant, in fact, entertains serious doubts as to the truth
of his publication. Publishing with such doubt shows reckless
disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual
malice. It is not to be expected that the public journalist will
always be infallible. Poydi ba ang usa ka reporter side ra sa
usa ka tawo ang iyang i-report? Supreme Court said poydi
basta iyang lang gyud gisuta ug tinuod ba gyud ang gisulti
anang tawhana. A reporter may rely on information given
by a lone source although it reflects only one side of the
story provided the reporter does not entertain a high degree
of awareness of its probable falsity. Kanang headline Judge
bribed, dli na sya libelous. Ayaw i-isolate ang headline sa
news item. The rule in this jurisdiction is that, the headline
of a newspaper story or publication claimed to be libelous
must be read and construed in connection with the
language that follows. Finally, private respondents claim
that the banner headline ridiculed him before the public
does not merit consideration as the rule in this jurisdiction is
that the headline of a newspaper story or publication
claimed to be libelous must be read and construed in
connection with the language that follows.
Remember, there is doctrine in libel DOCTRINE OF
NEUTRAL REPORTAGE. The privilege of neutral
reportage in libel cases involving matters of public
interest or public figures. Under this privilege, a
republisher who accurately and disinterestedly
reports certain defamatory statements made against
public figures is shielded from liability, regardless of
the republishers subjective awareness of the truth or
falsity of the accusation. Kung naay newspaper A,
nipublish sila libelous. Si newspaper B gikutlo ang news
item sa Newspaper A, word for word. Bisag ang nikutlo
gibutang nya sa laing newspaper, wa syay siguro kung
tinuod bag dli, libelous bag dli, it does not matter. Basta wa
lay komentaryo, the republisher is not liable for libel. Gireprint ra mn nya. Mao nay doctrine of neutral reportage.
The privilege of neutral reportage applies where the
defamed person is a public figure who is involved in
an existing controversy, and a party to that
controversy makes the defamatory statement. So muapply lang ni kung public figure ka.
QUESTION, IS A JURIDICAL PERSON ENTITLED TO
MORAL DAMAGES? Maka-recover ang juridical person ug
moral damages bisag wan a syay feelings, way sleepless
nights. Ang ilang i-recover ang reputation of course. A
juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages

because unlike a natural person, it cannot experience
physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings,
serious anxiety, mental anguish, moral shock. Nevertheless,
AMECs claim for moral damages falls under item 7, Art.
2219, Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes
the recovery of moral damages in cases of libel,
slander or any other form of defamation. Art. 2219
(7) does not qualify whether the plaintiff is natural or
juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as
a corporation can validly complain for libel or any
other form of defamation and claim for moral
damages.
One aspect in libel also. The victim must be identified or
identifiable.
Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are
privileged communication and a valid defense in a
suit for libel.
When the discreditable imputation is directed against a
person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.
In order that such discreditable imputation to a public may
be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a
comment based on a false supposition.
(b) Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or

punishment refers to a deliberate and aggravated
treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4
of this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or agent of
a person in authority against a person under his/her
custody, which attains a level of severity causing
suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter. (Do
not forget the phrase person in authority or agent of a
person in authority, not a private person. Kining torture is
not only physical.)
(d) Order of Battle refers to a document made by the
military, police or any law enforcement agency of the
government, listing the names of persons and organizations
that it perceives to be enemies of the State and that it
considers as legitimate targets as combatants that it could
deal with, through the use of means allowed by domestic
and international law.
SEC. 4. Acts of Torture. For purposes of this Act, torture
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes
severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one
or more parts of the body, such as:
Statements made in a pleading in a civil action are

absolutely privileged and no action for libel may be
founded thereon if such statements are pertinent and
relevant to the subject matter.
(b) Mental/Psychological torture refers to acts committed by

a person in authority or agent of a person in authority which
are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a persons dignity and morale, such as:
Criminal negligence.
SEC. 5. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

or Punishment. Other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment refers to a deliberate and
aggravated treatment or punishment not enumerated under
Section 4 of this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority against another person
in custody, which attains a level of severity sufficient to
cause suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to
the latter. The assessment of the level of severity shall
depend on all the circumstances of the case, including the
duration of the treatment or punishment, its physical and
mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, religion, age
and state of health of the victim.
REODICA V. CA. The proper penalty for reckless

imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries is public
censure. Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries being light felony prescribes in 2 months.
There is no such crime as reckless imprudence complexed
with the violation of Motor Vehicles Law. Special penal
law, di na macomplex sa RPC. Rafael Reyes Trucking.
Unsay gibuhat ni judge? Gi-convict nya double homicide
through reckless imprudence with violation of Motor
Vehicles Law. Supreme Court said crime nomenclature
inexistent.
Direct assault, crime against public order. Kung
atakehon ang chief sa barangay tanod. Kining barangay
tanod, agent of a person in authority.
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON. Kinahanglan
ma-convicted una sa alleged crime committed before one
may be charged or violation of conditional pardon
Republic Act No. 9745 (Anti-Torture Act of 2009)
SEC. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this Act, the following
terms shall mean:
(a) Torture refers to an act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from
him/her or a third person information or a confession
(Please take note intentionally inflicted. Kay kung nabali
ang kahoy, naigo iyang ulo, hapit mabuak, din a sya
torture. Not intentionally inflicted); punishing him/her for an
act he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected
of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or
a third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a
person in authority or agent of a person in authority. It does
not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions. (Kining torture, ayaw mo
pagtuo nga kung mu-extract ug information, ang gikuhaan
ug information kining gi-torture. Not necessarily. Ang style
sa military, amahan torture-on, way labot sa crime. Kini
rang anak. Papaminawon unsaon pag-torture. Sigeg singgit
ang amahan sa kasakit. Di ba mu-confess ang anak? Wa
hilabti ang anak pero ang tuyo to extort confession from a
relative or a friend.)
SEC. 6. Freedom from Torture as a Nonderogable Right

(meaning, universally recognized as a crime). Torture
is hereby declared a criminal act. No exceptional
circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture. An
Order of Battle or any order from a superior officer or
public authority shall not be invoked as a justification for
the commission of torture.
SEC. 7. Exclusionary Rule. Any confession, admission or
statement obtained as a result of torture shall not be
invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a
person accused of torture as evidence that said confession,
admission or statement was made. (Evidence of torture is
admissible against the torturer.)
SEC. 8. Protection of Persons Involved in the Investigation
and Prosecution of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
SEC. 9. Disposition of Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and
Habeas Data Proceedings and Compliance with a Judicial
Order. A writ of habeas corpus or writ of amparo or writ of
habeas data proceeding, if any, filed on behalf of the victim
of torture or other cruel, degrading and inhuman
treatment or
punishment
shall
be
disposed
of
expeditiously.
SEC. 11. Right to Physical and Psychological Examination.
Before and after interrogation, every person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation shall have the
right to be informed of his/her right to demand a physical
examination by an independent and competent doctor of
his/her own choice. If such person cannot afford the
services of his/her own doctor, he/she shall be provided by
the State with a competent and independent doctor
to conduct physical examination. The State shall endeavour
to provide the victim with psychological evaluation if

available under the circumstances. If the person arrested is
a female, she shall be attended to preferably by a
female doctor. Furthermore, any person arrested, detained
or under custodial investigation shall have the right to
immediate access to quality medical treatment.
Any person who does not wish to avail of the rights under
this provision may knowingly and voluntarily waive such
rights in writing, executed in the presence and assistance
of his/her counsel.
SEC. 12. Criminal Liability. Any person who actually
participated or induced another in the commission of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act
of torture by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as
principal. Any superior military, police or law enforcement
officer or senior government official who issued an order to
a lower ranking personnel to subject a victim to torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment for whatever purpose shall be held equally
liable as principal. Any public officer or employee shall be
liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that torture
or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment is being committed and without having
participated therein, either as principal or accomplice, takes
part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manner:
SEC. 13. Liability of Commanding Officer or Superior.
The immediate superior of the unit concerned of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the equivalent senior official of
the offender shall be held accountable for neglect of
duty under the doctrine of command responsibility if
he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at
the time, should have known that acts of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
shall be committed, is being committed or has been
committed by his/her subordinates or by others within
his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge,
did not take preventive or corrective action either before,
during or immediately after its commission, when he/she
has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations
of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence, shall,
without
prejudice
to
criminal
liability,
be
held administratively liable under the principle of command
responsibility.
SEC. 15. Exclusion from the Coverage of Special Amnesty
Law. In order not to depreciate the crime of torture,
persons who have committed any act of torture shall not
benefit from any special amnesty law or similar measures
that will have the effect of exempting them from any
criminal proceedings and sanctions.
SEC. 16. Nonexclusivity or Double Jeopardy Under
International Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of the
foregoing section, any investigation, trial and decision in
any Philippine court or other agency for any violation of this
Act shall be without prejudice to any investigation, trial,
decision or any other legal or administrative process before
the appropriate international court or agency under
applicable international human rights and humanitarian
laws.
SEC. 17. On Refouler. No person shall be expelled,
returned or extradited to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that such person would be
in danger of being subjected to torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)
SEC. 3. Coverage. - This Act shall apply to all government
offices and agencies including local government units and
government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide
frontline services as defined in this Act. Those performing
judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions are
excluded from the coverage of this Act.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the
following terms are defined as follows:
(a) "Simple Transactions" refer to requests or

applications submitted by clients of a government office or
agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of
the public officer or employee, or that which present only
inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or
employee of said government office.
(b) "Complex Transactions" refer to requests or
applications submitted by clients of a government office
which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of
complicated issues by an officer or employee of said
government office, such transaction to be determined by
the office concerned.
(c) "Frontline Service" refers to the process or transaction
between clients and government offices or agencies
involving applications for any privilege, right, permit,
reward, license, concession, or for any modification, renewal
or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests
which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of
the agency or office concerned.
(g) "Fixer" refers to any individual whether or not officially
involved in the operation of a government office or agency
who has access to people working therein, and whether or
not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of
transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or
consideration.
CRIM 32
People vs. Castillo
Estafa thru conversion or misappropriation
By delivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale on
commission basis. Suppose the sub-agent converted
and misappropriated the jewelry, is the agent liable
for estafa?
IT DEPENDS. If there is a prohibition imposed on the
agent not to sell pieces of jewelry to a sub-agent and the
sub-agent misappropriated the pieces of jewelry, the
agent is LIABLE.
If there is no prohibition on the agent, conversion or
misappropriation of the jewelry there is NO ESTAFA,
except if there is collusion between the agent and subagent.
Reason: The law on agency allows the appointment by an
agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of
express agreement to the contrary between the agent
and the principal. It cannot be said that the agents act in
entrusting the jewelry to a sub-agent is characterized as
abuse of confidence because such an act is not proscribed
and in fact legally sanctioned.
The rule is different in MALVERSATION, because if the
agent
by
his
act
allowed
a
sub-agent
to
misappropriate or convert public funds or property,
the agent or the accused is liable for malversation.
Malversation may be deliberate or may be committed by
negligence.
First agent cannot be held guilty of estafa by either
misappropriation or conversation.
In cases of estafa, citing Lim vs. CA, mere negligence in
permitting another to take advantage or benefit from the
entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa under Art. 315
no. 1(B) of the RPC unless the evidence should disclose
that the agent acted in conspiracy or connivance with
the one who carried out the actual misappropriation. So if
the proof is clear that the accused herself is innocent, victim
of her sub-agents faithlessness, her acquittal is in order.
Ilusorio vs. Beldner. Venue of the perjury charges was
improperly laid in Pasig, as the purported informations
indicate that venue is in Makati and Tagaytay. Venue in
criminal cases is jurisdictional.
Requirements of Sec. 21 Art 2 of RA 9165
The law requires that the seized prohibited drugs is

inventoried and photographed in the presence of the
accused, representative from the media, DOJ and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
There is an exception to Sec. 21, but the exception is
rarely applied in actual cases.
People vs. Rengas.The non-compliance with Sec. 21
are not fatal as long as the integrity of the seized
prohibited drugs is preserved by the apprehending
officer.
In ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT Art 13 (b) of the Labor Code,
an employee who actively participated in illegal recruitment
is liable together with his employer. A person convicted for
illegal recruitment in under Art 13 (b) of the Labor Code,
separately convicted for estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (a).
What is the meaning of (1) prescribed penalty, (2)
imposable penalty, and (3) penalty actually imposed?
People vs. Beth Tempurada.The RPC provides for an
initial penalty as a general prescription for the felonies
described therein which consist of a range of period of time.
This is what is referred to as PRESCRIBED PENALTY.
For instance, under Art. 249 of the RPC, the prescribed
penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal which ranges
from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. The
code provides for attending or modifying circumstances
which when present in the commission of a felony affects
the computation of the penalty to be imposed on a convict.
This penalty as thus modified is referred to as IMPOSABLE
PENALTY. So aggravating, mitigating circumstance is
considered.
In the case of homicide which is committed with one
ordinary aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, the imposable penalty under the RPC shall be
the prescribed penalty in its maximum period. From this
imposable penalty, the court chooses a single fixed penalty,
also called as straight penalty, which is the PENALTY
ACTUALLY IMPOSED on a convict, that is the prison term
that he has to served.
The incremental penalty is analogous to a modifying
circumstance and hence falling within the letter and spirit of
the attending circumstances.
The application of modifying circumstances, the majority
being generic mitigating and ordinary aggravating
circumstances does not result to a maximum term fixed
beyond the prescribed period, utmost the maximum is
taken from the prescribed penalty in its maximum period.
Case: Strategic Alliance Development Corporation vs.
Radstock Securities Limited; Luis Sison vs. Philippine
National Construction Corporation. GR no 178158
Dec. 4, 2009 (Facts, briefly) PNCC signed a compromise
agreement wherein the PNCC is liable, wherein the liability
is more than the entire assets of the PNCC. In entering into
the compromise agreement constitute evident bad faith and
gross inexcusable negligence amounting to fraud in the
management in the PNCCs affairs. Being public officers, the
government nominees in the PNCC board must answer
not only to the PNCC and its stockholders but also to
the Filipino people for grossly mishandling the PNCCs
finances.
which were affected with the construction of toll way project

C-5 linked expressway.
Luisa Dazon vs. Kenneth Yap & People of the
Philippines Jan 15, 2010. DOJ resolution dated June 14,
2002 which order the withdrawal of the information was
based on the finding that the HLURB, not the regular court,
has jurisdiction over the case.
Jurisdiction over criminal actions arising from
violations of PD 957 Condominium decree is vested in
the REGULAR COURTS, not the HLURB.
Administrative agencies, like HLURB, being tribunals of
limited jurisdiction can only willed such powers as are
specifically granted to them by their enabling
statutes. Having limited, under Sec. 38 of PD 957, the
grant of power to the former NHA, now HLURB, over the
imposition of fines to those which do not exceed 10
thousand pesos, it is clear that the power in relation to
criminal liability mentioned in the immediately succeeding
provision to impose upon conviction fines above 10
thousand pesos and/or imprisonment was not conferred on
it. Sec. 39, unlike Sec. 38, conspicuously, does not state
that it is the NHA that may impose the punishment specified
therein. So the HLURB has no jurisdiction over criminal
action arising from violations of PD 957.
Few points in Probation Law
May an application for probation be filed even if the
judgment has become final and executory?
Del Rosario vs. Hon. Rosero. Incidentally the application
for probation may be made even after the judgment of
conviction has become final and executory so long as
the court has jurisdiction or control over the
execution of the sentence, in as much as probation
corresponds to the suspension of the execution of
sentence; and therefore may be granted by the court as
long as the execution of the sentence has not been
accomplished, and hence, remains subject to the control
and jurisdiction of the court and therefore to the suspension
of sentence by the court.
Paredes opinion: It seems that this is judicial legislation
because the law is very clear, you have to file the
petition for probation within the period to appeal,
meaning within the 15 day period.
No grant of probation without prior investigation.
Udlong vs. Apalisoc; Gonzales vs. Redubia. The court
granted the application for probation. But one of the
conditions of the probation is that the probationer should
submit a program of payment. The probationer questioned
said order. According to him, he is being punished for nonpayment of debt. Supreme Court brushed aside his
argument and stated that the condition is valid; not
violative of the equal protection court under the
constitution.
*No new significant decisions of the SC on probation
Coverage for Finals: Book 1 & Cases = 25 pts. MCQ
Ernesto Fransisco vs. Aniano Desierto, Joseph Ejercito

Estrada, Mariano Velarde, Franklin Velarde et al.
Holding that it ordinarily does not interfere with the
discretion of the OMB to determine whether there exist a
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof,
the Court affirm the Ombudsmans dismissal for lack of
merit the plunder case against the former president Joesph
Ejercito Estrada, el shaddai founder and leader Mariano
Velarde, et al., in connection with the then Estrada
administrations 1.22B acquisition in 1999 of the 9 parcels
of land owned by the Velardes AMVEL Land Corporation

Criminal Law Transcription Finals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Transcription Finals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Transcription Finals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of San Carlos

Criminal Law Transcription

Whenever a penal law is to be construed and

Which of the following is an example of special

It is an act which still requires another act so that a

weak physical condition of the victim

Which of the following crimes do not admit of

What circumstances are considered as inefficient

precise criminal intent

It is the moving power or force which impels a

This is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong

piracy in Philippine waters (PD 532)

Which of the following crimes cannot be committed

balancing of interest test

Which of the following is an afflictive penalty?

It has an effect of an exempting circumstance.

Survey of 2009 Cases

business of providing telecommunication or telephone

gyud they must be duly authenticated and the best

Separate Opinion by Corona: While telephone calls take the

FRANCISCO V. PEOPLE. Third element of estafa under

DAYAP V. SENDIONG (JANUARY 29, 2009). Kining

In COMPLEX CRIME OF FALSIFICATION, like estafa

PEOPLE V. RUIZ (FEBRUARY 25, 2009). The material

illegal use of alias, there is one important element the

Cagas, after the stabbing incident, the accused ran to the

that should not be permitted. Considering that petitioner

Kining buy BUST OPERATION, KINING BLOTTER

and circumstances in support of conspiracy is alleged,

REMANDO V. COMELEC. Kung pananglitan security guard,

Criminal Law Finals 5

Then they may also be classified into formal felonies,

the counterfeiter but is responsible for the introduction

Criminal Law Finals 6

Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person

deemed instilled in the mind of the passenger although he

am not a public officer. Supreme Court said, you are a

MOSTER V. PEOPLE. Ni-bounce ang check, dishonored. So

he knew that the girl was suffering from mental disability.

imperatives of justice. Pananglitan ang accused in BP 22

SVENDSEN V. PEOPLE. The presentation of the

Art. 32 of the Civil Code in relation to Art. 2219 (6)

of their inability to dispose of the thing taken. Kung theft

Criminal Law Finals 10

Intellectual Property Code. Unfair competition. Under the IP

of pesos. Ang basis nila, opinion lang sa ilang consultant si

Criminal Law Finals 11

ESTRADA V. SANDIGANBAYAN. TWO KINDS OF

certain defamatory statements made against public figures

reimbursement, will it extinguish criminal liabbility? No, but

as clarified, when circumstances of the case clearly indicate

but also to public figure. Who is a public figure? It has been

institute summary proceeding for the declaration of

parental duties. Neglect of child punished under art. 59 no.

bai. That is not npunishable by law. Punishable lang na siya

induced by the accused false inducement without which the

offender gains possession of the thing even if he has no

Smuggling is committed by any person who fraudulently

Accountable officer may overcome the presumption by proof